Atheistforums.com

https://abcnews.go.com/US/baker-won-supreme-court-case-maintains-cake-couple/story?id=55660012


Surprised to not see this story here, considering it's involving theocratic legislation. Long story short; Christian man does not want to prepare a wedding cake for a gay couple because his religion disproves of their sexuality. They sue him (rightly) for discrimination, the Supreme Court rules in favour of religious bigotry over sexual discrimination.

Quote from: Shiranu on June 06, 2018, 07:38:22 PM
https://abcnews.go.com/US/baker-won-supreme-court-case-maintains-cake-couple/story?id=55660012


Surprised to not see this story here, considering it's involving theocratic legislation. Long story short; Christian man does not want to prepare a wedding cake for a gay couple because his religion disproves of their sexuality. They sue him (rightly) for discrimination, the Supreme Court rules in favour of religious bigotry over sexual discrimination.

Lawyers rule on arcane technicalities.  Same now, as with the Dred Scott SCOTUS decision in 1857.  Nobody should care much, unless you want to get some of the excess law and lawyers out of daily life.  Advocacy and opposition are political.  The question for most people is political, unless you are a law code maven.

Now I personally can fall on both sides of the issue.  General law says if you provide a public service or product, you can't discriminate against customers other than the inability to pay for the product or service.  That seems fair, and SCOTUS failed to uphold that general legal principle.  Who knows why?  On the other hand there is the "we can refuse service to any customer" often because of "no shirt, no shoes, no service" usually at beaches.  This is what mistakenly happened with the Black fellows at the Starbucks.

He refused the type of service they were asking for on the basis that he doesn't provide that sort of service. He's said multiple times that had they ordered a kind of cake that he does create, that he would service them in the making of it.

The ruling was just and protects the rights that are owed to him.

The OP is a cut-and-dry spin-job driven by an ideologically possessed SJW.

If the shop was owned by a Muslim, the case would have never got to the courts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmdiqB_8l2k

Quote from: pr126 on June 06, 2018, 11:28:31 PM
If the shop was owned by a Muslim, the case would have never got to the courts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmdiqB_8l2k

It definitely would've gotten no media attention.

Imagine creating your entire worldview out of blatantly selective reporting by the dying legacy media

Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 06, 2018, 11:17:15 PM
He refused the type of service they were asking for on the basis that he doesn't provide that sort of service. He's said multiple times that had they ordered a kind of cake that he does create, that he would service them in the making of it.

The ruling was just and protects the rights that are owed to him.

The OP is a cut-and-dry spin-job driven by an ideologically possessed SJW.

He doesn't make wedding cakes?

Interesting...

Regardless of sexuality. You have the right to refuse someone service if you see fit to, as long as it is not in such a case that is blatant racism. I have Turned people away from my store becuase I dont recognize their ids or what have you

Quote from: GrinningYMIR on June 06, 2018, 11:47:40 PM
Regardless of sexuality. You have the right to refuse someone service if you see fit to, as long as it is not in such a case that is blatant racism. I have Turned people away from my store becuase I dont recognize their ids or what have you

Right.  Because it's unlawful to discriminate on the basis of race, but not unlawful to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in some states (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_employment_discrimination_in_the_United_States#State_law).

But the times they are a-changing and people with them.  Team Pence's victory will not be a lasting one.

It is only a discrimination when a Christian does it.

The media wouldn't touch it if a Muslim had refused to make the wedding cake.
In fact, I think that the couple wouldn't have even reported it.

Why, that would have been Islamophobic, racist.

As it is, it is just double standards.

Quote from: pr126 on June 07, 2018, 12:47:31 AM
It is only a discrimination when a Christian does it.

The media wouldn't touch it if a Muslim had refused to make the wedding cake.
In fact, I think that the couple wouldn't have even reported it.

Why, that would have been Islamophobic, racist.

As it is, it is just double standards.

Sir, you are taking your identity politics to a 12. We want to ask you to at least bring it down to a 5.

Sir, (or is it Shir?) you are projecting.

Identity politics is a leftist (cultural Marxist) thing.

Quote from: pr126 on June 07, 2018, 01:14:47 AM
Sir, (or is it Shir?) you are projecting.

Identity politics is a leftist (cultural Marxist) thing.

Mm. That's why your entire argument revolves around, "Their identity makes them different! They need to be treated differently!"?

That's identity politics, mate.

OK. mate, riddle me this.

If it was a Muslim shop owner refusing the order, would it be made such a brouhaha about the case right up to the supreme court, or would it have disappeared down the MSM memory hole?
Assuming that the happy couple would have even reported it.

Identity politics? Add double standards too.

Quote from: Shiranu on June 06, 2018, 11:44:56 PM
He doesn't make wedding cakes?

Interesting...

He does. He doesn't make wedding cakes with certain messages.

If they could prove that he's made pro-gay wedding cakes for straight people before then they'd have a case. But if he's consistent in not making wedding cakes with a pro-gay message, regardless of the sex or race of the customer ordering it, then that demonstrates that it's the type of service being refused; not the customer.

But you know this and are just being intentionally obtuse.

Quote from: Shiranu on June 07, 2018, 01:17:20 AM
Mm. That's why your entire argument revolves around, "Their identity makes them different! They need to be treated differently!"?

That's identity politics, mate.

Wasn't his argument the precise opposite of that..?

Quote from: GilgameshHe does. He doesn't make wedding cakes with certain messages.

Right, certain messages; such as, "...the LGBT+ community are equal citizens and deserve to be treated with respect, even if I have a moral problem with them.". And by that, I mean, "Happy Wedding!" on a cake that will be at a gay couples wedding that only differs in who is eating it and not what is on it.

Now, if his argument was, "Look, I don't have the materials to make this cake. I don't keep male/male toppers in stock." or whatever... that would be 100% acceptable and I would be on his side. But that's not his argument; his argument is, "I don't like group x, so I refuse to serve group x!", and I'm sorry... but that's some 1960's segregation bullshit.

It's literally no different than if someone came in and said, "I want a cake that celebrates my femininity, or African American heritage, or physical disability!" and they were turned down. None of those situations are acceptable either; you can hide behind it's "the message" all you want, but at the end of the day he is turning them down because he finds them to be lesser beings.

I don't think for a second anyone would buy, "Look, you honor... I am not doing this because they are black, I am doing it because I think black culture is abominable!" or, "Look your honor, it's not that I am doing it because they are autistic... it's because I find autism morally disgusting!".


The fact that people think free speech is more important than human dignity and preventing re-implementing segregation is, frankly, pathetic. Oddly enough, it (generally) tends to be the same people who insist they are an asshole because they have the right to it... which is also, frankly, pathetic.

Quote from: pr126If it was a Muslim shop owner refusing the order, would it be made such a brouhaha about the case right up to the supreme court, or would it have disappeared down the MSM memory hole?
Assuming that the happy couple would have even reported it.

2/2 with the identity politics. Really not doing yourself any favours.

Quote from: pr126 on June 06, 2018, 11:28:31 PM
If the shop was owned by a Muslim, the case would have never got to the courts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmdiqB_8l2k

It would still be bigotry coming from a Muslim. Enough with your strawmen.

Bigotry? How can a Muslim be bigoted?

Strawmen? Seriously?

What happened to the free exercise of his religion?
Islam forbids homosexuality.

By making the writing on the cake he will be condemned by his peers. 

QuoteBigotry? How can a Muslim be bigoted?

3/3.

Quote from: Shiranu on June 07, 2018, 02:03:14 AM
Right, certain messages; such as, "...the LGBT+ community are equal citizens and deserve to be treated with respect, even if I have a moral problem with them.". And by that, I mean, "Happy Wedding!" on a cake that will be at a gay couples wedding that only differs in who is eating it and not what is on it.

There you go spinning again. What you are doing is called sarcastic paraphrasing. It's the epitome of intellectual laziness, and also a type of strawman fallacy.

QuoteNow, if his argument was, "Look, I don't have the materials to make this cake. I don't keep male/male toppers in stock." or whatever... that would be 100% acceptable and I would be on his side. But that's not his argument; his argument is, "I don't like group x, so I refuse to serve group x!", and I'm sorry... but that's some 1960's segregation bullshit.

Nope. You've already been called out on inaccurately describing these events so any further attempts are just you being disingenuous. He refused to create a cake that had a pro-gay message. Since he'd refuse to bake this cake no matter who ordered it, it is objectively NOT sexual discrimination. You have nothing.

Quote
The fact that people think free speech is more important than human dignity and preventing re-implementing segregation is, frankly, pathetic. Oddly enough, it (generally) tends to be the same people who insist they are an asshole because they have the right to it... which is also, frankly, pathetic.

You are creating a false dichotomy out of a topic that doesn't even relate here. Stop equivocating. Nobody here is arguing that human dignity and segregation are better than free speech, and further you are making a false dichotomy by pitting these (completely irrelevant) concepts against eachother at all. Being for one doesn't necessitate that you are against the other.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 07, 2018, 02:16:54 AM
He refused to create a cake that had a pro-gay message.

"pro-gay message" = wedding cake for gay couple.
I'm curious, if the cake maker belong to a religion that prohibited miscegenation, so he refused to make a wedding cake for a mixed race couple (because it would be a "pro-miscegenation message") would you support that?

Quote from: Poison Tree on June 07, 2018, 02:29:00 AM
"pro-gay message" = wedding cake for gay couple.
I'm curious, if the cake maker belong to a religion that prohibited miscegenation, so he refused to make a wedding cake for a mixed race couple (because it would be a "pro-miscegenation message") would you support that?

It's hilarious. No matter how many times you people repeat it it doesn't change the fact that what you are repeating is a false description of reality.

The cake that the couple were asking for physically and objectively would have depicted a pro-gay theme. He is, was, and forever will be so long as he lives under just rule, exercising his right in refusing to bake that cake, so long as he holds it as a universal standard for all customers.

Christian dude: has stated that if they ordered a cake with a theme that he wasn't fundamentally opposed to, he would've served them. Offered to do just that.
Also christian dude: has stated that he would've refused to create the cake that they were asking for, no matter who was ordering it.

You retards:

(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/309/016/d27.png)

"uh me think this sexual discriminashun????"

Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 07, 2018, 02:35:41 AM
The cake that the couple were asking for physically and objectively would have depicted a pro-gay theme.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 07, 2018, 02:42:41 AM
Christian dude: has stated that if they ordered a cake with a theme that he wasn't fundamentally opposed to, he would've served them.

Yes, but the theme he was opposed to was "gay wedding" as that was the only detail he knew about their cake; that it was for a gay wedding:

QuoteIn July 2012, Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, and requested that Phillips design and create a cake to celebrate their same-sex wedding.  Phillips declined, telling them that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs, but advising Craig and Mullins that he would be happy to make and sell them any other baked goods.  Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any details of their wedding cake. The following day, Craig’s mother, Deborah Munn, called Phillips, who advised her that Masterpiece did not make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs and because Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages.   
[. . .]
The parties did not dispute any material facts.  Masterpiece and Phillips admitted that the bakery is a place of public accommodation and that they refused to sell Craig and Mullins a cake because of their intent to engage in a same-sex marriage ceremony

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-111-op-bel-colo-app.pdf

Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 07, 2018, 02:42:41 AM
"uh me think this sexual discriminashun????"

Yes, I think that the ALJ and Colorado court of appeals got it right saying

Quote
We conclude that  the act of same-sex marriage is closely correlated to Craig’s and Mullins’ sexual orientation, and therefore, the ALJ did not err when he found that Masterpiece’s refusal to create a wedding cake for Craig and Mullins was “because of” their sexual orientation, in violation of CADA.

Quote from: Shiranu on June 06, 2018, 07:38:22 PM
They sue him (rightly) for discrimination, the Supreme Court rules in favour of religious bigotry over sexual discrimination.

In the US we hold in high regard the inalienable right to be a dickhead.  I'm not being silly here.  Refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple is just being a dickhead.  OK, so you disprove of gay people.  Does your Bible say don't bake them a cake?  No it tells you it's a sin to have a homosexual relationship.  Then don't have a homosexual relationship, but you don't go to Hell for baking a gay couple's cake.

Judge not less ye be judged, and according to the Bible, you will be... by God, not by some baker with a personal grudge.  And before a Christian starts judging other's sins, he  ought to stop his own sinning, because according to the Bible, everyone is a sinner.  You are born a sinner, and you die a sinner, and the only thing that matters is if you accept Jesus Christ as your savior, which a lot of gay people do anyway.

I wouldn't have filed the law suit, but I'm happy someone was willing to test the case, and legally, all that matters is what the court says.  Ethically is something else entirely, but courts don't deal in ethics.

It's a murky decision at best.  It doesn't quite open the door to unbridled religious discriminationâ€"and I'm just waiting for the first non-Christian creator to decline to create an explicitly Christian cake or whatever under the auspices of Masterpiece and the howling and yowling from the Talebangelicals will be as music unto my ears, especially if it's a non-theist who refuses to create an explicitly religious cake (or whatever) on the basis of their beliefs.

My reading of the opinionâ€"obligatory I Am Not A Lawyer hereâ€"is that it hinged more on Masterpiece's treatment by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission rather than on the act of discrimination itself, and on the difference between public business and personal craft.  It would not have been permissible to deny the couple the right to buy an off-the-shelf wedding cake, but the creator of custom work has the right to refuse individual commissions based on personal beliefs.  I'm on board with that part, at least up to a pointâ€"as a writer, there are articles I definitely would not write, regardless of the commission… but an article with my name on it is not a commodity like a wedding cake, which is a necessarily temporary object and isn't going to carry its creator's signature down through the years.

There are a LOT of holes in this approach, though.  I quite doubt the couple who brought the suit would have found an off-the-shelf cake there with two grooms on it, and it's not clear if, under those circumstances, Masterpiece would have been protected to refuse to offer to sell them a two groom topper.

It's less a bad decision than it is a not good decision; I consider it merely wrong, not actually horrible.  There's something in it for everyone to hate, and that it came down 7-2 on such a divided court means it's a much narrower decision than commentators on both sides are spinning it.  The Court seems to have gone out of their way to avoid ruling on the discrimination itself.  They definitely didn't make it permissible for religious extremists to hang up a 'We do not serve gay customers' sign on the door, even though that's what some of them will try to find a way to do.

Basically, it has the earmarks of an opinion inviting a clarifying case further down the road, something without the side issues introduced by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

And I look forward to reading Notorious RBG's dissent.

Quote from: SGOS on June 07, 2018, 05:40:33 AM
In the US we hold in high regard the inalienable right to be a dickhead.  I'm not being silly here.  Refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple is just being a dickhead.  OK, so you disprove of gay people.  Does your Bible say don't bake them a cake?  No it tells you it's a sin to have a homosexual relationship.  Then don't have a homosexual relationship, but you don't go to Hell for baking a gay couple's cake.

Judge not less ye be judged, and according to the Bible, you will be... by God, not by some baker with a personal grudge.  And before a Christian starts judging other's sins, he  ought to stop his own sinning, because according to the Bible, everyone is a sinner.  You are born a sinner, and you die a sinner, and the only thing that matters is if you accept Jesus Christ as your savior, which a lot of gay people do anyway.

I wouldn't have filed the law suit, but I'm happy someone was willing to test the case, and legally, all that matters is what the court says.  Ethically is something else entirely, but courts don't deal in ethics.

"but courts don't deal in ethics" or in morality either.

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 07, 2018, 02:05:20 AM
It would still be bigotry coming from a Muslim. Enough with your strawmen.

Britain would defend the Muslims, no matter what (oil money in BoE).  Would the US?  Certain parts would, because chadors are so liberal.

Quote from: Shiranu on June 07, 2018, 01:17:20 AM
Mm. That's why your entire argument revolves around, "Their identity makes them different! They need to be treated differently!"?

That's identity politics, mate.

Identity politics = Final Solution.

Yes, semi-Catholic, I know the Pope was in favor of that too.  And Fascism in general.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 06, 2018, 11:17:15 PM
He refused the type of service they were asking for on the basis that he doesn't provide that sort of service. He's said multiple times that had they ordered a kind of cake that he does create, that he would service them in the making of it.

The ruling was just and protects the rights that are owed to him.

The OP is a cut-and-dry spin-job driven by an ideologically possessed SJW.

He was set up as a test case ... like the Black lady at the back of the bus ... was a deliberate test case.  Of course people like that a brave or crazy to be the focus of controversy.

Quote from: Shiranu on June 07, 2018, 01:10:02 AM
Sir, you are taking your identity politics to a 12. We want to ask you to at least bring it down to a 5.

Britain isn't the US.  He really doesn't know the US.

Quote from: Baruch on June 07, 2018, 07:13:10 AM
"but courts don't deal in ethics" or in morality either.

Yeah, I wish I would have listed morality also.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 07, 2018, 02:42:41 AM
Christian dude: has stated that if they ordered a cake with a theme that he wasn't fundamentally opposed to, he would've served them. Offered to do just that.
Also christian dude: has stated that he would've refused to create the cake that they were asking for, no matter who was ordering it.

You retards:

(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/309/016/d27.png)

"uh me think this sexual discriminashun????"

Yeah, sure. He totally didn't care that the couple was gay. WE'RE the ones being retards, not you. Look, moron, personal beliefs do not belong in business. If a Christian fundamentalist baker is commissioned to make a cake with two grooms on it, he should just fucking do it.

The ruling didn't really address the issue, which is freedom of religion and speech balanced against non-discrimination and commerce. It is focused on this one specific case and can't easily be used as a precident. The majority rests its ruling in favor of Phillips on the narrow ground that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s consideration of this case was inconsistent with the state’s obligation to religious neutrality required by the Constitution. This is a win for Philips and a loss for the gay couple but certainly isn't decisive on the topic.

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy stated, “Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth. For that reason the laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect them in the exercise of their civil rights… At the same time, the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.”

My opinion is that LGBT people, or anyone else, shouldn't be discriminated against in commerce. Providers of goods and services should not deny services based on race, religion, sexual orientation, marital status, etcetera but customers can't demand a specialized service that the seller doesn't want to provide. If a customer comes into a bakery wants to buy a chocolate cake in the display case the baker can't refuse because she is gay, black or Muslim. A customer comes in and wants a personalized cake that displays a Swastika, "Jesus is Lord" or is shaped like a penis, the baker can refuse because the refusal isn't because of who the customer is but because of the service the customer is requesting. I understand personally the argument LGBT people are a minority that continues to be discriminated against but I also believe part of living in a secular society is accepting that not everyone has to agree and that artists shouldn't be forced to create things they find personally offensive. If I was a baker and a member of the Westboro Baptist Church came in and said, citing freedom of religion and freedom of speech, he wanted me to design a cake that looked like a Raid insecticide can that said "AIDS-- Kills Fags Dead" I would refuse because I find it offensive, just as some Christians find homosexuality offensive.

This is like that Jim Crow shit all over again. Christians are told to start treating a marginalized group fairly, so they try to find every loophole they can find to stick it to them. It's not racist that I'm making my black employees use an outhouse instead of the bathroom. Blacks just have different diseases that I don't want to spread! Those statues of Confederate leaders aren't racist, they're "historical landmarks." Oh, I'm not homophobic, I just don't want to serve homosexuals at my business because of my beliefs that homosexuals are going to Hell. Your beliefs can suck it. Can Catholic cashiers refuse to serve costumers buying condoms because of personal beliefs? Can a Muslim working at McDonalds refuse to sell any pork-based products because of his personal beliefs? No. Personal beliefs do not belong in business.

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 07, 2018, 10:35:29 AM
Can Catholic cashiers refuse to serve costumers buying condoms because of personal beliefs? Can a Muslim working at McDonalds refuse to sell any pork-based products because of his personal beliefs? No. Personal beliefs do not belong in business.

Like it or not, employers are supposed to provide "reasonable religious accommodation."

Muslim flight attendant suspended for refusing to serve alcohol files federal complaint

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/09/08/muslim-flight-attendant-suspended-for-refusing-to-serve-alcohol-files-federal-complaint/?utm_term=.899e5b711807

QuoteCan a Muslim working at McDonalds refuse to sell any pork-based products because of his personal beliefs? No. Personal beliefs do not belong in business.

They can and they do. At least in the UK. We are more tolerant. :)
Here are some examples:

one  (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4070144/Muslim-Tesco-cashier-refuses-sell-bottle-wine-shopper-against-religion.html)

two (https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/16/tesco-muslim-pork-wine-refuse-serve_n_5590789.html?guccounter=1)

three  (https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/747908/Muslim-worker-refused-sell-alcohol-customer-against-religion-Tesco-apologised)

Not mentioning the litigation jihad where the Muslim employee is suing the infidel employer for religious infractions and the employer is losing his/her business in the process.

here  (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1027029/Hairdresser-ordered-pay-4-000-Muslim-woman-refusing-job-wears-headscarf.html)

Quote from: GSOgymrat on June 07, 2018, 10:54:39 AM
Like it or not, employers are supposed to provide "reasonable religious accommodation."

Muslim flight attendant suspended for refusing to serve alcohol files federal complaint

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/09/08/muslim-flight-attendant-suspended-for-refusing-to-serve-alcohol-files-federal-complaint/?utm_term=.899e5b711807

Many of these cases including the wedding cake, open one of Pandora's boxes.  Religious accommodation is one thing, but when religious accommodation allows an employee to burden another employee or a customer with his/her own religious views that creates a conflict of rights.  How does one determine which guaranteed right is more sacrosanct than another?  And there are theists that would love to force their beliefs on others.  How does a court determine if someone's religious freedom is being stepped on or if that person is just abusing his right of religious freedom and taking unfair advantage.  There are legal decisions that will decide the cases, but that doesn't resolve the greater issue of fairness.

Quote from: SGOS on June 07, 2018, 07:58:21 AM
Yeah, I wish I would have listed morality also.

A fair analysis ...

https://www.freep.com/story/opinion/contributors/2018/06/04/supreme-court-gay-cake-baker/670364002/

No prejudiced advocacy.  If the Colorado Commission (in part) hadn't been on public record for being anti-religious, the result would have been opposite.  Anti-religion isn't the same as religion neutral.  Same as if a judge in a case, who was anti-Black, made imprecations about a Black defendant before the court.  And this case doesn't establish any general pattern, it is specific to the mistake by the Colorado Commission on that one occasion.

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 07, 2018, 10:35:29 AM
This is like that Jim Crow shit all over again. Christians are told to start treating a marginalized group fairly, so they try to find every loophole they can find to stick it to them. It's not racist that I'm making my black employees use an outhouse instead of the bathroom. Blacks just have different diseases that I don't want to spread! Those statues of Confederate leaders aren't racist, they're "historical landmarks." Oh, I'm not homophobic, I just don't want to serve homosexuals at my business because of my beliefs that homosexuals are going to Hell. Your beliefs can suck it. Can Catholic cashiers refuse to serve costumers buying condoms because of personal beliefs? Can a Muslim working at McDonalds refuse to sell any pork-based products because of his personal beliefs? No. Personal beliefs do not belong in business.

In other areas, even when Obama was still President, there were pushes in that direction ... which are bad.

Quote from: SGOS on June 07, 2018, 11:34:28 AM
Many of these cases including the wedding cake, open one of Pandora's boxes.  Religious accommodation is one thing, but when religious accommodation allows an employee to burden another employee or a customer with his/her own religious views that creates a conflict of rights.  How does one determine which guaranteed right is more sacrosanct than another?  And there are theists that would love to force their beliefs on others.  How does a court determine if someone's religious freedom is being stepped on or if that person is just abusing his right of religious freedom and taking unfair advantage.  There are legal decisions that will decide the cases, but that doesn't resolve the greater issue of fairness.

A SCOTUS composed only of Catholics and Jews isn't unbiased ;-)

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 07, 2018, 10:35:29 AM
Can Catholic cashiers refuse to serve costumers buying condoms because of personal beliefs?

In some places, yes.  There are jurisdictions with a "get-out-of-doing-your-job-free" card for so-called "moral objections".

Unfortunately, what these people mostly *don't* do, is quietly get a co-worker who doesn't have that objection, to handle the client.  They make a huge fuss over how it's against their beliefs and how they're "oppressed" for having to serve people who don't share them.

Now.  Here's how I handled it when I was faced with a moral objection question.  I know I've told about this before on this forum, but under the circumstances, it bears repeating.

A few years back when I was still working on the front desk at our office, I had a client ask me to sign a form opting out of vaccinations for their children, as witness to their signature.

It will come as no surprise that there was no fuckin' way I was putting any ink of mine on that page.

Here's what I did not do.  I did not give them any indication that I objected to their decision.  I didn't voice my objection to their decision, I didn't suggest that maybe they should reconsider in the face of the massive amount of research demonstrating the safety and efficacy of childhood immunizations, I didn't question either their intelligence or their wisdom.

I saidâ€"and what I said had the bonus of being absolutely true at the timeâ€""I'm a temp, I don't think I'm authorized to sign on behalf of the agency.  Do you see that woman sitting over there?  She'll be able to assist you," and directed them immediately to the caseworker on duty.

The practical upshot being: I didn't have to compromise myself, and they weren't demeaned in any way, and were provided a path to getting exactly what they asked for in a manner that maintained both their dignity and mine.  Because no matter how wrong I think they were, they were perfectly within their legal rights to ask for what they did.  I do not have the right, much less the responsibility to deny them their legal rights, no matter how stupid I think their decision is.  I had and still have a responsibility to treat them like human beings, even if I privately have questions about that.

This is not what the guy at Masterpiece did.  This is not what Kim Davis did in her little fiefdom of a county in Kentucky.  What they did was put themselves and their beliefs ahead of the law.

Masterpiece is not a church.  His doors are open to the public.  He has to take them as they come.  If he'd been thinking, he might've said, "Oooh, I'm booked solid until (some date that's too late), I'm really sorry."  Chances are, the couple would've gone to find someone else, no one would've felt put upon, and we'd have one less questionable Supreme Court decision on our hands.

I'd have more respect for a face-saving lie than for deliberately demeaning other people for the sake of an invisible friend and his big book of fables.

I'm sorry GSO, but you can't compare refusing Westboro, Nazis or explicit content that you find offensive to this...

Being a bigoted, hateful Christian is a choice. Being a bigoted, hateful Nazi is a choice. Wanting a penis on your cake is a choice.

Being gay is not a choice. If you want to allow offense towards homosexuals to be an acceptable reason to deny them service, than you have to allow people to refuse service to blacks because they find them offensive, deny service to women because they find them offensive, deny service to physically or mentally handicapped people because you find them offensive.

The only way you can compare is if you believe homosexuality is a choice.

Shiranu, I think we both want similar, perhaps not identical, outcomes. I don't believe homosexual orientation is a choice and I don't believe anyone should be refused service because they are gay, black, woman, Mormon or all of the above. I'm saying I don't believe a customer should be able to legally force an artist to create something they find offensive, and I do believe cake decorating is an art and an expression of speech. The artist could be offended for religious, political or other reasons-- for example, a baker may not want to contribute to Trump's re-election by creating a pro-Trump cake for a political rally and I believe should have the right to refuse to take the job. Can bakers refuse to serve queer people donuts? No. Can inn keepers refuse service to gay couples? No. Can restaurants refuse service to a trans person? No. Can adoption agencies refuse service to LGBT people? No. In none of those examples is someone creating a special product that could in any way be interpreted as speech or artistic expression.

I think we both agree that as a society we want LGBT couples to be treated like heterosexual couples and I think Christian opposition to anything outside a monogamous, one-man-one woman scenario is... misguided is the most polite way I can say it. While I'm passionate about acceptance, not just tolerance, I also value freedom of speech and artistic expression. I bristle at the thought of someone making me use my creative talents to express myself is a way I find objectable and while I'm not sympathetic to religion and I am sympathetic to a person of faith being placed in that position.

I may be misguided on this topic myself, I may not be considering all the variables and I admit I'm highly biased on this issue, but current that is my take on the situation.

Quote from: GSOgymrat on June 07, 2018, 03:04:40 PM
I'm saying I don't believe a customer should be able to legally force an artist to create something they find offensive, and I do believe cake decorating is an art and an expression of speech.

I can go as far as art, but I'm not all the way there on speech.  Unlike a painting, a book, a sculpture, it's not something that's going to bear the creator's signature down through the ages.  In fact, it's going to disappear in very short order.  And outside of the most exalted circles, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone outside the married couple and their very closest planning partners who could even name the business that a wedding cake came fromâ€"I don't even remember who made the cake for my own wedding reception.  Much less will they know the name of the baker, and I don't think it's realistic to expect any of them to think of the cake as an expression of anything other than the baker's skill as a baker and decorator.  What message it carries is that of the couple.

Fundamentally, a cake is generally a commodity, not a speech item.  There are exceptions, but I don't think this is one of them.

It's also worth pointing out Ginsburg's observation from her dissent: "While Jack requested cakes with particular text inscribed, Craig and Mullins were refused the sale of any wedding cake at all. They were turned away before any specific cake design could be discussed."  'Jack' here is William Jack, a christian activist who went around to bakeries in Denver requesting cakes with explicit anti-gay textual messages.  He was turned down; one offered to make the cake and would provide him with the icing and pastry bags necessary to add the text himself.

Jack's cake was denied because of the message; the baker would have refused to make that cake for anyone.  Craig and Mullins were denied because they were gay and had nothing to do with the cake; Masterpiece would have made that cake for any straight couple.

I think that's the essence of discrimination vs speech right there.

The devil is in the details.  We need a cop to watch every purchase made, to make sure the customer isn't screwed over ;-)  There are so many ways to screw over customers ;-))

Quote from: pr126 on June 07, 2018, 01:14:47 AM
Sir, (or is it Shir?) you are projecting.

Identity politics is a leftist (cultural Marxist) thing.

Is it? Because last I checked atheists couldn't testify in court. So In Texas a red state is not a red state at all?

Quote from: Draconic Aiur on June 07, 2018, 06:40:40 PM
Is it? Because last I checked atheists couldn't testify in court. So In Texas a red state is not a red state at all?

Assholes come in all political persuasions, and US States.  Identity politics means ... I am right, and all of you who are not me, are wrong.  And I can extend my rightness arbitrarily based on nonsense like gender, sex, race, political party etc.  ie I can form a faction of activists that I can lead to world conquest - See Hitler.

Sure there are assholes everywhere but they have the right to be an asshole and not sell people who they believe are unsuited for their products. Its as simple as that, and hey with all the bully radical left wing propaganda their business could actually flow with more right wing customers coming in. It's all a business advertisement i tell you!.

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 07, 2018, 10:19:49 AM
Yeah, sure. He totally didn't care that the couple was gay. WE'RE the ones being retards, not you. Look, moron, personal beliefs do not belong in business. If a Christian fundamentalist baker is commissioned to make a cake with two grooms on it, he should just fucking do it.

Literally everytime someone uses a sarcastic paraphrase on these boards I'm just going to tell them to KYS from now on. It's not an argument, and I'm tired of explaining that it's not only to have you retards use it again and again no matter what. So, KYS :)))

Anyone who is against this ruling is deliberately misrepresenting reality so their narrative looks better.

The fact is that he refused to bake (and cater) a very specific type of cake. There is absolutely 0 evidence that he did this on the basis of the customers sexuality, therefore any claim that that's what it was has failed to meet its burden of proof. You fucko's can whine all you want.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 07, 2018, 01:40:48 AM
He does. He doesn't make wedding cakes with certain messages.

If they could prove that he's made pro-gay wedding cakes for straight people before then they'd have a case. But if he's consistent in not making wedding cakes with a pro-gay message, regardless of the sex or race of the customer ordering it, then that demonstrates that it's the type of service being refused; not the customer.

But you know this and are just being intentionally obtuse.

I really hate to say this, but I think that baker has a point.  He was perfectly happy to sell any product in the store to the gay couple.  But he did not want to make a special cake for them.

Suppose you were a Jewish baker and a person asked you to make a cake with Swastikas all around it? 

Suppose they wanted names of concentration camps on it?

Suppose they wanted icing in the form of Hitler?

And suppose that Jewish baker said he wouldn't make a cake like that.  Would you blame him?

Quote from: Cavebear on June 08, 2018, 12:59:41 AM
I really hate to say this, but I think that baker has a point.  He was perfectly happy to sell any product in the store to the gay couple.  But he did not want to make a special cake for them.

Suppose you were a Jewish baker and a person asked you to make a cake with Swastikas all around it? 

Suppose they wanted names of concentration camps on it?

Suppose they wanted icing in the form of Hitler?

And suppose that Jewish baker said he wouldn't make a cake like that.  Would you blame him?

Yes, they would, as long as the complaint is made by Muslims.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFblNabV0mg

Looks like I'm not the only one who saw parallels to Jim Crow in this case. Refusing service because you disapprove of a homosexuality is little different from the "separate but equal" philosophy of the South post-Civil War. Disapproval of a minority group based on privately held beliefs should not extend to public services. Just as it was not acceptable to give blacks separate accommodations (supposedly equal in quality), it is not acceptable to tell a gay couple, "I will not make a wedding cake for you, but you can have one of these cakes I've already made."

durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ^

He doesn't make wedding cakes depicting a homosexual couple on it. He does not provide this service, regardless of who orders it; therefore it is not discrimination against the customer.

It wasn't even a genuine moment to begin with. It was an LGBT rights oranization going to multiple bakeries looking for rejection to set them up. It was never a situation of two people actually getting married. AND the bakery didn't even deny them a cake. They just didn't want to make the specific request they were asked. The bakery STILL offered to help them in other ways.

I really hope none of you who are against this ruling call yourselves anti fascists. Using the state to force a person to create an artistic expression he does not want to create is, uh, pretty fascist.

In capitalism there is not one option to get the cake made . the couple could choose from one of the producers. This is a virtue of the capitalist system. That is, there is not "only" one cake maker that you have to prefer it. Also the producer should have the right to choose their customer...

The baker wasn't part of the government which  I think you ar confusd he or she is. It's the private sector, they have the right to refuse service. If you don't like it dont go thre, don't talk about it, don't even violently enter and break the place like those crazy radical liberals that caused harm to a cat cafe because the owner was white.

Quote from: Draconic Aiur on June 08, 2018, 04:22:07 PM
The baker wasn't part of the government which  I think you ar confusd he or she is. It's the private sector, they have the right to refuse service. If you don't like it dont go thre, don't talk about it, don't even violently enter and break the place like those crazy radical liberals that caused harm to a cat cafe because the owner was white.

What does it matter if it's the government or not? If services were privatized during the time of Jim Crow, would that have justified the separate but equal policy? Discrimination is discrimination.

QuoteSuppose you were a Jewish baker and a person asked you to make a cake with Swastikas all around it? 

Suppose they wanted names of concentration camps on it?

Suppose they wanted icing in the form of Hitler?

And suppose that Jewish baker said he wouldn't make a cake like that.  Would you blame him?

No, I wouldn't... but yet again, are we really comparing being gay to being a Nazi?

You are not born a Nazi. You choose to be a Nazi. Denying someone over something they are actively choosing to be, particularly if it is extremely offensive, is perfectly acceptable; consider it the same as kicking someone out of a store for causing a scene or being hateful towards the cashiers or other customers.

You are born LGBT. You do not choose to be LGBT. Denying someone over something they were born as, is not acceptable unless we want to say that the segregation-era Americans had some justifiable reason for denying African Americans, Irish, Chinese people service.

What the baker did is refuse a service because he found a trait of someone repulsive (their homosexuality). Therefor you should be allowed to deny African Americans, women, the physically or mentally handicapped service because you find them repulsive.

The more like-for-like analogy would be an African couple coming and asking for a cake that celebrates their heritage, and the baker saying no because he finds them to be offensive. If he said no because he didn't have the materials to make such a cake, again... I am 100% on his side. But when his expressed reason is, "I don't like them because I find their culture offensive!" then I'm sorry... but that is denial of service due to bigotry, and that is unacceptable.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 08, 2018, 02:40:42 PM
durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ^

He doesn't make wedding cakes depicting a homosexual couple on it. He does not provide this service, regardless of who orders it; therefore it is not discrimination against the customer.

It wasn't even a genuine moment to begin with. It was an LGBT rights oranization going to multiple bakeries looking for rejection to set them up. It was never a situation of two people actually getting married. AND the bakery didn't even deny them a cake. They just didn't want to make the specific request they were asked. The bakery STILL offered to help them in other ways.

I really hope none of you who are against this ruling call yourselves anti fascists. Using the state to force a person to create an artistic expression he does not want to create is, uh, pretty fascist.

Durrrr!!! I type stupid sounds because it makes me sound smart! Everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot! Poopity scoop! Hurr duurrr!

Maybe it's not all doom and gloom though... if Colorado does it again, swing vote Kennedy has said he will likely vote in favour of the state. The problem with this case is, the way the state did it was worded in a way that was too disparaging of Christianity, and the fact that two of the people involved in the lawsuit were extremely hostile towards religion in the work place as well as wouldn't sanction bakers who refused to put anti-gay messages on cakes.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/06/08/supreme-courts-masterpiece-ruling-not-victory-despite-headlines-column/676566002/

QuoteBut how can this be if the baker won the case? The baker did win on the grounds that the Colorado anti-discrimination agency unconstitutionally displayed religious bias when it sanctioned him. But Kennedy’s majority opinion sent every signal that should Colorado again seek to sanction the baker for a future refusal to serve same-sex couples, the state will win so long as it refrains from statements or actions that seem to disparage religion.

So as long as it's brought up more civilly next time, there is a strong chance the SC might vote in favour of protecting the LGBT community from discrimination.

Of course, the fact that it has to be put politely for them to vote for the right thing is still really fucking pathetic.

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 08, 2018, 04:49:45 PM
What does it matter if it's the government or not? If services were privatized during the time of Jim Crow, would that have justified the separate but equal policy? Discrimination is discrimination.

And tyranny is tyranny your point?

Quote from: Shiranu on June 08, 2018, 04:52:36 PM
What the baker did is refuse a service because he found a trait of someone repulsive (their homosexuality). Therefor you should be allowed to deny African Americans, women, the physically or mentally handicapped service because you find them repulsive.

You are proselytizing at this point. Your narrative has been shown to be false and yet you're just going to ignore that and keep repeating it. Nice religion, 'progressive.'

Gray area for me. I think a store should be allowed to deny customers for whatever reason the store sees fit. Be it cakes for a gay couple or drunks in a bar with to much alcohol in their bloodstream. It's my  belief that this couple made a hassle out of it, where anyone with their sensibilities in check would've just gone to a competitor. So, I align with the store on this one.

If it was some life saving medicine, like a pharmacy denying a gay person insulin or the like, the tables would've been turned, but it's a fucking cake.

Quote from: Blackleaf on June 08, 2018, 04:49:45 PM
What does it matter if it's the government or not? If services were privatized during the time of Jim Crow, would that have justified the separate but equal policy? Discrimination is discrimination.

Jim Crow was the law, it wasn't private sector.  If we forced gay people to only go to certain businesses, and never go to straight businesses ... that would be Jim Crow.  But capitalism doesn't do that.  Authoritarian government does that.

Quote from: Shiranu on June 08, 2018, 04:52:36 PM
No, I wouldn't... but yet again, are we really comparing being gay to being a Nazi?

You are not born a Nazi. You choose to be a Nazi. Denying someone over something they are actively choosing to be, particularly if it is extremely offensive, is perfectly acceptable; consider it the same as kicking someone out of a store for causing a scene or being hateful towards the cashiers or other customers.

You are born LGBT. You do not choose to be LGBT. Denying someone over something they were born as, is not acceptable unless we want to say that the segregation-era Americans had some justifiable reason for denying African Americans, Irish, Chinese people service.

What the baker did is refuse a service because he found a trait of someone repulsive (their homosexuality). Therefor you should be allowed to deny African Americans, women, the physically or mentally handicapped service because you find them repulsive.

The more like-for-like analogy would be an African couple coming and asking for a cake that celebrates their heritage, and the baker saying no because he finds them to be offensive. If he said no because he didn't have the materials to make such a cake, again... I am 100% on his side. But when his expressed reason is, "I don't like them because I find their culture offensive!" then I'm sorry... but that is denial of service due to bigotry, and that is unacceptable.

Would it be OK to force someone to make a cake with a Jihadi theme, showing 9/11? or Malala getting acid in her face?

Quote from: Draconic Aiur on June 08, 2018, 05:05:12 PM
And tyranny is tyranny your point?

Tyranny doesn't mean ... I want something, but can't get it, or can get it but not the way I want to get it.

Tyranny means government force to prevent something from happening, that isn't merely criminal, but is political.

Quote from: Baruch on June 08, 2018, 07:33:32 PM
Tyranny doesn't mean ... I want something, but can't get it, or can get it but not the way I want to get it.

Tyranny means government force to prevent something from happening, that isn't merely criminal, but is political.

In what world you live to believe that is so?

Quote from: Draconic Aiur on June 08, 2018, 04:22:07 PM
The baker wasn't part of the government which  I think you ar confusd he or she is. It's the private sector, they have the right to refuse service. If you don't like it dont go thre, don't talk about it, don't even violently enter and break the place like those crazy radical liberals that caused harm to a cat cafe because the owner was white.

Well, no actually.  The law does forbid some forms of discrimination by private businesses.  The question in this case (which the Supreme Court side-stepped on a limited question) was whether a cake-maker could be considered an "artist".  And all they really did was remand the decision to the lower court for reconsideration of that question.  Their decision actually doesn't have any legal effect yet.

Quote from: Sal1981 on June 08, 2018, 05:51:56 PM
Gray area for me. I think a store should be allowed to deny customers for whatever reason the store sees fit. Be it cakes for a gay couple or drunks in a bar with to much alcohol in their bloodstream. It's my  belief that this couple made a hassle out of it, where anyone with their sensibilities in check would've just gone to a competitor. So, I align with the store on this one.

If it was some life saving medicine, like a pharmacy denying a gay person insulin or the like, the tables would've been turned, but it's a fucking cake.

The drunk example was a poor one.  There are specific laws about that.  And the pharmacy example was poor, too.  Supplying legal drugs is not a question of "art".  I will point out that the baker was perfectly willing to sell the gay couple any generic product in his shop, so it wasn't exactly a "refusal to serve". 

I'm not arguing against the rights of gays to all commercial services.  Far from it.  It is really a very limited legal question and one sent back to a lower court for reconsideration of competing First Amendment rights.

So I read the discrimination law that seems very Authoritarian and protects "protected classes". This will caus problems becaus it's the private sector and business owner should have the right to refuse anyone.

Quote from: Draconic Aiur on June 08, 2018, 09:18:12 PM
So I read the discrimination law that seems very Authoritarian and protects "protected classes". This will caus problems becaus it's the private sector and business owner should have the right to refuse anyone.

"Protected classes" are protected because of historical cultural reasons that left them unfairly treated.  Is there nothing in your ancestry that was once treated unfairly?  Do you hate the Statue Of Liberty?

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 08, 2018, 02:40:42 PM
He doesn't make wedding cakes depicting a homosexual couple on it. He does not provide this service, regardless of who orders it; therefore it is not discrimination against the customer.

Again quoting from the Colorado Court of Appeals ruling (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-111-op-bel-colo-app.pdf)

QuoteCraig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any details of their wedding cake.
[. . .]
[The ALJ] recognized that baking and creating a wedding cake involves skill and artistry, but nonetheless concluded that, because Phillips refused to prepare a cake for Craig and Mullins before any discussion of the cake’s design, the ALJ could not determine whether Craig’s and Mullins’ desired wedding cake would constitute symbolic speech subject to First Amendment protections.
[. . .]
Commission’s order requires that Masterpiece “cease and desist from discriminating against [Craig and Mullins] and other same-sex couples by refusing to sell them wedding cakes or any product [it] would sell to heterosexual couples.”
[. . .]
We note, again, that Phillips denied Craig’s and Mullins’ request without any discussion regarding the wedding cake’s design or any possible written inscriptions.
[. . .]
The decision to categorically deny service to Craig and Mullins was based only on their request for a wedding cake and Masterpiece’s own beliefs about same-sex marriage.  Because Craig and Mullins never conveyed any details of their desired cake to Masterpiece, evidence about their wedding cake and details of their wedding ceremony were not relevant. 

Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 08, 2018, 02:40:42 PM
It wasn't even a genuine moment to begin with. It was an LGBT rights oranization going to multiple bakeries looking for rejection to set them up. It was never a situation of two people actually getting married.

Do you have even a pretense of evidence for that?

Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 08, 2018, 02:40:42 PM
AND the bakery didn't even deny them a cake. They just didn't want to make the specific request they were asked.

"specific request"= cake for “our wedding”

If I may make an observation, - I know it will be shot down in flames but here it goes.

If the couple went to a Muslim bakery and refused custom, there would be no media circus, courts, and this thread would not exist.

No one would know or care.

QuoteThis will caus problems becaus it's the private sector and business owner should have the right to refuse anyone.

Why?

After strolling somewhat casually through this thread I must admit I slide more and more towards the baker. I have been a advocate for gay rights since the mid 70's when I first started to understand what gay was, and I have had many gay friends over the years and one short, very brief (and uncomfortable) dalliance into it during my exploration stage. (To be quite honest it was merely getting a blow job from a guy twice-and it is true that gay men give the best blow jobs). That said, as comfortable as I am, (or can be) around gays I would still be uncomfortable should they start grinding and getting busy in front of me.

If I was a famous painter and a gay couple wanted me to paint a portrait of them even looking like they were in a pre/post-sexual situation, i would not be comfortable doing it and I think I should be able to say, "looks folks, I simply can't do this" and be able to do that without fear of being labeled a homophobe after years of being a supporter, but also understands that even I, as a supporter cannot do some things if I were asked. I cannot watch gay porn. I have no interest in it. And no gay friend has ever asked suggested or invited me to watch it. They respected that I "accepted and supported" their rights or fight for rights, but at the same time, am not willing to become part of the culture.

So if I am allowed to say, "look guys, no can do." Why should a person who has or at least claims to have a severe objection to gayness completely, be forced to do something he finds honestly repulsive?

I believe there is some anti Christian bias. No surprises there.

However, If you had certain beliefs, not necessarily religious and you asked to do something against your principles, would you refuse to do it?

Quote from: Draconic Aiur on June 08, 2018, 08:55:41 PM
In what world you live to believe that is so?

Tyranny exists in many places, including the US.  The government mandates and prohibits.  To those opposed to those mandates or prohibitions, it looks like tyranny.  And the only motivation for government action, is political.  There is no humanitarian motivation.

Quote from: Cavebear on June 08, 2018, 09:37:05 PM
"Protected classes" are protected because of historical cultural reasons that left them unfairly treated.  Is there nothing in your ancestry that was once treated unfairly?  Do you hate the Statue Of Liberty?

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

My native American friends hate it.  How White are you?

aitm - "They respected that I "accepted and supported" their rights or fight for rights, but at the same time, am not willing to become part of the culture."

That is the paranoia of conservatives ... that the whole point of any political movement, is to gain not just legalization, but mandate.  To force people at the end of a bayonet to participate.  That is what Jordan Peterson was specifically complaining about 2 years ago in regard to the mandating of pronouns in Canada.

So do D-party folks want to force everyone to join their party?  Do R-party folks?  Unfortunately political action makes it plausible (not right) that gay people want to force everyone into gay sex practices.  Of course it isn't true.  But with identity politics being added ... yes the D/R party folks do want a one party state.  But in reality, that would mean the end of deviance, including gay people etc.  That is what totalitarian government means.

Quote from: pr126 on June 09, 2018, 06:07:39 AM
I believe there is some anti Christian bias. No surprises there.

However, If you had certain beliefs, not necessarily religious and you asked to do something against your principles, would you refuse to do it?

If my boss asks me to act against my principles ... we have a discussion.  If we can't reach agreement, I can always resign.  If the government as such asks me to act against my principles (say I am a pacifist being drafted) ... we can have a discussion about "conscientious objector".  If we can't reach agreement, I can always go to jail.

Quote from: pr126 on June 09, 2018, 01:07:35 AM
If I may make an observation, - I know it will be shot down in flames but here it goes.

If the couple went to a Muslim bakery and refused custom, there would be no media circus, courts, and this thread would not exist.

No one would know or care.

Not now in the USA, especially since the current resolution favors religion, and therefore has to favor Islam.  But the bigger reason that people wouldn't care is that Islam is not a political force in the US.  It's viewed as a religion only.  The current test case is more political in nature because Christianity is a political force that opposes secularism.  There's an issue there that doesn't currently exist with Islam.  It may in the future, but it is not now for most Americans.

QuoteThere's an issue there that doesn't currently exist with Islam.

Wrong.
Islam is a geopolitical ideology, with a thin veneer of religiosity to provide cohesion among believers.

See  Political Islam. (https://www.politicalislam.com/)

Always has been, always will be. Its core mandate is conquest, subjugation, by any means necessary.
Jihad, Dawa, Deception.
It can be found in the Quran, Hadiths, Sharia, the Islamic law.



You may not have noticed that Christians are helping Islam.
The Pope is advocating Muslim migration to Europe. 
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/09/22/pope-francis-strongly-criticises-catholics-who-refuse-to-accept-migrants/

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2017/11/24/pope-immigrants-not-threat-opportunity-build-peace/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-chile/shutting-out-immigrants-is-not-christian-pope-says-idUSKBN1F72EU

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/21/pope-francis-prioritise-migrants-dignity-over-national-security

https://www.ncronline.org/news/people/missouri-christian-wears-hijab-solidarity

https://voiceofeurope.com/2018/05/german-priest-wears-islamic-headscarf-in-protest-against-anti-immigration-party-afd/#.WwRsGtGBxqE.twitter

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/24/catholic-church-collects-16-billion-in-us-contract/

Quote from: pr126 on June 09, 2018, 12:17:06 PM
Wrong.
Islam is a geopolitical ideology, with a thin veneer of religiosity to provide cohesion among believers.
Always has been, always will be. Its core mandate is conquest, subjugation, by any means necessary.
You may not have noticed that Christians are helping Islam.
The Pope is advocating Muslim migration to Europe. 

I agree that Islam is a political ideology.  I was just pointing out that most people in the USA see it as a religion.  And whatever endpoint Islam ideally envisions for the US is not seen as a threat.  I think the US believes that American style Democracy is seductive enough to convert Muslims into desiring a secular society, even though that effort seems to have failed in Iraq.

We are not yet experiencing the type of social upheaval that is happening in Europe, and I think that most people believe it can't happen here.

Some Christians do want to help Islam, and then to Christianize it no doubt.

People of all the Abrahamic religions believe they're doing God's will, and that makes them all dangerous as hell.

Quote from: Unbeliever on June 09, 2018, 01:58:26 PM
People of all the Abrahamic religions believe they're doing God's will, and that makes them all dangerous as hell.

How does this same principle not apply to Christians?

Quote from: SGOS on June 09, 2018, 01:53:43 PM
I agree that Islam is a political ideology.  I was just pointing out that most people in the USA see it as a religion.  And whatever endpoint Islam ideally envisions for the US is not seen as a threat.  I think the US believes that American style Democracy is seductive enough to convert Muslims into desiring a secular society, even though that effort seems to have failed in Iraq.

We are not yet experiencing the type of social upheaval that is happening in Europe, and I think that most people believe it can't happen here.

Some Christians do want to help Islam, and then to Christianize it no doubt.

There are more Arab Muslims in Canada, most of the US Muslims are African-American.  Originally part of the cult of Nation of Islam, the majority have defected to a nominal Islam with Malcolm X as its prophet, not Louis Farrakhan.  Such Muslims are American first.  Many other Muslims who have come to the US came as part of the H1B (though many more Hindus than Muslims) and these are all upper-caste people.  Canada naturally is much closer in culture, even Islam, to Britain.  There is huge influence of Islam in London, because of the influence of former Empire subjects, and petro-Arabs.

Of course Americans, including some Christians, are naive and parochial.  We are not worldly like the Europeans.  Some American Christians are violently pro-Israel ... so only see Muslims in terms of Apocalypse, not future conversion.  As a religion, Islam is every bit as sophisticated as Christianity or Judaism ... so there is no reason to expect many Muslims will convert out, even if living in the West.  Americans have a unique religious viewpoint, that is strange even to Canadians (US has no established religion, but freedom on religious practice).

For now, the US views Islam as a tool in the struggle for world hegemony, to destroy its opponents (Russia, China, India) and as tools to disrupt its allies (Europe).

Quote from: Mermaid on June 09, 2018, 02:10:49 PM
How does this same principle not apply to Christians?

The Catholic Church controls half of the Christians, over 1 billion people.  This is not trivial.  I don't think that the United Methodists are much of a threat.

Originally in classical Chinese culture, the Emperor was seen as having a mandate over life in China, but that has never been a threat to the US or Europe, and ended over 100 years ago.  There is no comparable authority for India since the destruction of the Mughal Empire in the 18th century.  Similarly in Turkish lands since the destruction of their empire from 1798 to 1918.  The Shiites of Iran are only a threat to Israel, not the US.

It is significant the the current Pope has endorsed Globalism.  The papacy probably lost its independence when Pope John-Paul I died, suddenly back in 1978.

Quote from: Mermaid on June 09, 2018, 02:10:49 PM
How does this same principle not apply to Christians?

I think it does apply to Christians, very much so.  Americans tend to look at Christianity as civilized and not dangerous, but Christian motives always seek control over others.  I consider this dangerous, because I see no end to them ever being satisfied.  Currently, there are enough secularly minded people to fight back.  Christians don't like that.  They want more power.  Power mongers are never a good thing, and with their presence, everyone's freedoms are always at risk.

Quote from: Mermaid on June 09, 2018, 02:10:49 PM
How does this same principle not apply to Christians?

Christianity is an Abrahamic religion.

Quote from: Baruch on June 09, 2018, 06:36:07 AM

That is the paranoia of conservatives ... that the whole point of any political movement, is to gain not just legalization, but mandate. 

Unfortunately this is not just a conservative paranoia because it is a human trait, a evolutionary one perhaps to push slowly,,, little by little...the old saying "give them an inch and they will take a mile" is well rooted in human behavior of every stripe and ideology. It is that way because it is the most successful way to gain. Piece by piece...inch by inch. Everyone knows it, everyone understands it. This is why every stigma, every prejudice is rooted mostly in semi-truths. You don't get to fuck the girl next door the first time you meet her......first you have to say, "Hi"

Quote from: Unbeliever on June 09, 2018, 03:34:39 PM
Christianity is an Abrahamic religion.

Yeah. My bad. I see what you wrote. This kind of thing is just on my mind whenever I hear a conservative talk about Muslim and mosque bans and how violent Muslims all are. The hypocrisy makes me die a little more each time.

I have to disagree that christianity is just as political - or more - than islam. Islam is inseparable from politics.

Islam as a religion is fundamentally political. It mandates political action. There is a word for religions like this but I cannot recall since I'm drunk but yeah.

Disagree? Think about this: Libertarianism is hugely christian. A muslim libertarian is an oxymoron; they don't exist; you just will never find one.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 09, 2018, 05:48:00 PM
I have to disagree that christianity is just as political - or more - than islam. Islam is inseparable from politics.

Islam as a religion is fundamentally political. It mandates political action. There is a word for religions like this but I cannot recall since I'm drunk but yeah.

Disagree? Think about this: Libertarianism is hugely christian. A muslim libertarian is an oxymoron; they don't exist; you just will never find one.

You mean like a theocracy?

Quote from: Munch on June 09, 2018, 05:54:06 PM
You mean like a theocracy?

Nope.

there's a word (I swear) for when a religion is fundamentally a political force as much as it is a religion. It exists, in part, to change any society it exists in.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 09, 2018, 06:08:16 PM
Nope.

there's a word (I swear) for when a religion is fundamentally a political force as much as it is a religion. It exists, in part, to change any society it exists in.

I think this describes Christianity in the USA.

Quote from: Mermaid on June 09, 2018, 06:25:30 PM
I think this describes Christianity in the USA.

Seriously. We have congressmen, senators, presidents, governors, etc. who make their core policy position the fact they are going to be enforcing Christian morals. We have an entire political party that runs as a "Christian platform" and currently is the majority party... how many Muslims in the United States can say the same?

Like, I get it, but priorities man... priorities.

As if Christianity was never political in the past! There were many centuries in which Christianity was completely inseparable from politics, but in America the two were forcibly separated by our founding fathers. Now that separation is being eroded bit by ugly bit.

Quote from: Shiranu on June 09, 2018, 06:39:48 PM
Seriously. We have congressmen, senators, presidents, governors, etc. who make their core policy position the fact they are going to be enforcing Christian morals. We have an entire political party that runs as a "Christian platform" and currently is the majority party... how many Muslims in the United States can say the same?

Like, I get it, but priorities man... priorities.

Easy comrade Shiranu/Mermaid ... just send them to Alaska (American Siberia).  You know you want to ;-)

If the majority of people in the US were Hindu, I suppose you would piss on every Ganesh statue you see.  Not "piss Christ".

Quote from: SGOS on June 09, 2018, 03:32:28 PM
I think it does apply to Christians, very much so.  Americans tend to look at Christianity as civilized and not dangerous, but Christian motives always seek control over others.  I consider this dangerous, because I see no end to them ever being satisfied.  Currently, there are enough secularly minded people to fight back.  Christians don't like that.  They want more power.  Power mongers are never a good thing, and with their presence, everyone's freedoms are always at risk.

Christians took over in the 4th century CE ... where have you been?  Too bad you weren't alive then, to warn them of the danger ... kackles madly ...

Don't like power?  So are you anarchist?

Quote from: Unbeliever on June 09, 2018, 03:34:39 PM
Christianity is an Abrahamic religion.

Aka all the Jews fault ;-)  Without Jews, we would all be materialist atheists ... ah ... but why is Israel today, so atheist/materialist?  Doesn't compute.

Quote from: aitm on June 09, 2018, 05:10:42 PM
Unfortunately this is not just a conservative paranoia because it is a human trait, a evolutionary one perhaps to push slowly,,, little by little...the old saying "give them an inch and they will take a mile" is well rooted in human behavior of every stripe and ideology. It is that way because it is the most successful way to gain. Piece by piece...inch by inch. Everyone knows it, everyone understands it. This is why every stigma, every prejudice is rooted mostly in semi-truths. You don't get to fuck the girl next door the first time you meet her......first you have to say, "Hi"

ME version ... don't let camel get his nose under the edge of the tent, or he will end up fully in the tent.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 09, 2018, 05:48:00 PM
I have to disagree that christianity is just as political - or more - than islam. Islam is inseparable from politics.

Islam as a religion is fundamentally political. It mandates political action. There is a word for religions like this but I cannot recall since I'm drunk but yeah.

Disagree? Think about this: Libertarianism is hugely christian. A muslim libertarian is an oxymoron; they don't exist; you just will never find one.

Libertarianism is Calvinist ... so some claim (aka capitalism started in Netherlands and nearby London England).  Humanitarianism is Christian in general, when they serve the poor here and over there.  Of course not all Christians serve the poor.

Quote from: Unbeliever on June 09, 2018, 06:51:14 PM
As if Christianity was never political in the past! There were many centuries in which Christianity was completely inseparable from politics, but in America the two were forcibly separated by our founding fathers. Now that separation is being eroded bit by ugly bit.

Been eroded since about 1800 (new Great Awakening aka revival).  Thank goodness it was the Marxists in the Union who liberated the slaves ;-)  Marx at the time was the London correspondent for the NYT.

No, there has been a tiny erosion since 2016 ... so better hide under your bed, snowflakes.  There are Nazi sturmstruppen on every corner now.

Like I said. You'll never see a muslim libertarian - because their religion compels them to erode the culture of any society they exist in, and to replace it with sharia. Their religion necessitates this.

Yeah, if you're a theist an authoritarian, you're authoritarianism is going to be informed by your theism, obviously - but most religions don't have authoritarianism built-in like islam.

QuoteIf the majority of people in the US were Hindu, I suppose you would piss on every Ganesh statue you see.  Not "piss Christ".

This actually goes right to my point; if I was in India, then I wouldn't be losing my shit over Christian fundamentalists being the imminent threat to my culture when Hindu fundamentalists run the country. In Saudi Arabia, I wouldn't be complaining that feminists are ruining the country while I was ruled by a  Wahhabist supporting monarchy.

So why in the U.S., where Muslims and feminists are simply not a relevant issue, am I suppose to be more concerned about them when I have actual problems running the government?

QuoteYou'll never see a muslim libertarian - because their religion compels them to erode the culture of any society they exist in, and to replace it with sharia.

I think you will never see a Muslim libertarian because Islam's core tenants generally revolve around selflessness and service to others which is fundamentally opposed to libertarianism. That, and Muslim Americans are generally very well educated and not raging morons as is necessary to support libertarianism.


Give them a few more generations to become fully Americanized, and I'm sure you will see some.

Also... Muslim Libertarian organizations...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minaret_of_Freedom_Institute

http://www.muslims4liberty.org/

https://www.libertarianism.org/media/free-thoughts/muslim-case-liberty

http://libertyhangout.org/2017/01/a-muslim-libertarians-take-on-trumps-immigration-ban/

Quote from: Shiranu on June 09, 2018, 07:46:45 PM
I think you will never see a Muslim libertarian because Islam's core tenants generally revolve around selflessness and service to others which is fundamentally opposed to libertarianism. That, and Muslim Americans are generally very well educated and not raging morons as is necessary to support libertarianism.


Give them a few more generations to become fully Americanized, and I'm sure you will see some.

Just asking were you intentionally trying to trigger me with that post because I am triggered.

Quote from: Shiranu on June 09, 2018, 07:59:18 PM
Also... Muslim Libertarian organizations...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minaret_of_Freedom_Institute

http://www.muslims4liberty.org/

https://www.libertarianism.org/media/free-thoughts/muslim-case-liberty

http://libertyhangout.org/2017/01/a-muslim-libertarians-take-on-trumps-immigration-ban/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya

Quote from: Shiranu on June 09, 2018, 07:44:45 PM
So why in the U.S., where Muslims and feminists are simply not a relevant issue, am I suppose to be more concerned about them when I have actual problems running the government?

They are an issue. The dominant culture is lefty faggotry and leftist faggots are both shills for feminism and islam.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 09, 2018, 07:42:56 PM
Like I said. You'll never see a muslim libertarian - because their religion compels them to erode the culture of any society they exist in, and to replace it with sharia. Their religion necessitates this.

I've met exactly one person I could describe as a muslim libertarian. They're rare beasts, I admit, but they do exist. No, don't give me that taqiya argument baloney â€" it's just a No True Scottsman fallacy by a different name.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 09, 2018, 07:42:56 PM
Yeah, if you're a theist an authoritarian, you're authoritarianism is going to be informed by your theism, obviously - but most religions don't have authoritarianism built-in like islam.

No, Christianity had it built-in, too. Evangelicalism (which can be argued to go back to the beginnings of Christianity) requires you, at the peril of your soul, to do everything you can to convert the unconverted â€" and political influence is an obvious extension of that. Even the polytheistic religion that Judeism developed from had that each nation of existence formed around a patron god. So no, from their very roots all the Abrahamic religions were political ideologies as well as religions.

Quote from: Gilgamesh on June 09, 2018, 07:42:56 PM
their religion compels them to erode the culture of any society they exist in, and to replace it with sharia. Their religion necessitates this.

Again: You can say this same thing about Christians.

Quote from: Shiranu on June 09, 2018, 07:44:45 PM
So why in the U.S., where Muslims and feminists are simply not a relevant issue, am I suppose to be more concerned about them when I have actual problems running the government?

is this why you blatantly ignore or look past arguments made about the mass immigration of islam into europe, because your not in it and so can just ignore the impact it has since it doesn't effect you where you are?

Maybe if more things like this was happening in america you'd notice?

https://www.timesofisrael.com/community-shocked-aghast-after-german-jewish-teen-found-raped-murdered/

QuoteThe Jewish community of Mainz reacted with shock and grief Thursday after a 14-year-old girl was found dead, as police launched a manhunt for an Iraqi refugee suspected of killing her.

The girl, initially identified as Susanna F., was found Wednesday on the outskirts of the western German city of Wiesbaden. She had been missing since May 22. She was later named as Susanna Feldman.

Prosecutors said Thursday that two men â€" a 20-year-old Iraqi and a 35-year-old Turkish citizen, both of whom lived at homes for asylum-seekers in the city â€" are suspected of raping and killing the girl on the evening she went missing. They believe the two then buried her body.

“I am as shocked, sad and aghast about the violent death of Susanna as one can be,” Rabbi Aharon Ran Vernikovsky, who leads the Mainz Jewish community, told the Juedische Allgemeine weekly, adding that the community would do everything in its power to help and support her family, who live in Mainz.

Susanna’s case has preoccupied German media for several days. News of her body’s discovery near neighboring Wiesbaden made headlines nationwide, though most newspapers did not initially mention the fact that she was Jewish.

On Thursday afternoon, the Central Council of Jews in Germany confirmed that the victim was Jewish and expressed its condolences to her friends and family.

“A young life was ended in a gruesome fashion,” the statement read. “Our deepest sympathies are with family and friends. Susanna was a member of the Jewish Community Mainz.”

At this point, there is no information as to the suspects’ motives, and whether the murder will be investigated as a hate crime.

“Currently, the background of the deed is still unclear,” the Council said in its statement. “We expect law enforcement authorities to speedily and comprehensively solve the case, as well as harsh consequences for the perpetrator or the perpetrators. Premature conclusions or speculations, however, must not be made.”

Police say the Iraqi suspect, whom they identified as Ali Basar, appears to have left abruptly with his family last week, flying to Erbil, Iraq, via Istanbul. He was a suspect in a string of previous offenses in the area, including a robbery at knifepoint.

He is believed to have arrived in Germany in October 2015, at the height of the migrant influx to Germany, and was appealing the rejection of his asylum application.

The Turkish suspect, who wasn’t previously known to police, was arrested Wednesday evening.

Police said a 13-year-old refugee boy went to a police station in Wiesbaden on Sunday and told officers the girl had been raped and killed, and named the Iraqi as a possible perpetrator.

Previous killings by asylum-seekers in Germany have fanned tensions over the influx of more than a million migrants in 2015 and 2016, an issue that helped the far-right Alternative for Germany enter the German parliament last year.

The surge of migrants also sparked a rash of attacks on asylum-seekers’ homes, which has since tapered off.

In one case, two men were convicted Thursday in the southwestern city of Landau of setting fire to a home being built for asylum-seekers in the nearby town of Herxheim in 2015. They both received probation.

Quote from: Munch on June 09, 2018, 08:21:28 PM
is this why you blatantly ignore or look past arguments made about the mass immigration of islam into europe, because your not in it and so can just ignore the impact it has since it doesn't effect you where you are?

Maybe if more things like this was happening in america you'd notice?

I think that point is implicit in his comment.  It's not happening here.  That doesn't mean we are not aware of the toll it's taking on Europe.  Well, some might not be aware, some might not care, but some of us are sympathetic. 

This whole line of discussion, I think refers back to PR123's comment that American members of the forum have a bias against Christianity, while we treat Islam differently.  He's partly right in that we do have a bias against Christianity, but he's wrong in assuming that we give Islam a pass.  Christianity and Islam come out of the same cloth of Abrahamic doctrine.  But the threat (the current threat here) is from Christianity.  If the threat of Islam were as immediate, we would be reading about test cases going to the Supreme Court involving Muslim rights vs secular rights.

This is not to say I don't think Islam is a problem.  Any religion is a problem when it gains power.  We fight the battles that threaten us right now.  We don't want to waste our energy fighting an ideology that currently poses little threat, and that is not to say that Islam will never pose a threat here.

This is also not to say, I support what my country is doing with immigration or anything else.  There is very little that my government does that I whole heartedly support.  I'm just describing the way I think things are here, not what should be.

Thank you for the context Sgos. Tbh I find it odd in todays age where the internet has given rise to more secular thinking, its lead to the growth of atheism itself, just how someone can ignore the impact of what religion does across the world overall. It isn't like we don't have the ability to look at how religion works across the globe now, but I know theres more involved in it then just what someone believes in, usually it becomes a case of the people, their skin color, there background.

I just look at religion in all the same way, cultist mentality, so all those other factors are just fluff when it comes to the real problem.

The problem is that Americans and Europeans by enlarge are ignorant of Islam, perhaps willfully so.

The academic and media are airbrushed all Islamic history, its conquests, the brutal slaughter of the conquered people, (nearly 300 million)  their destruction of invaded lands and their total eradication of the indigenous cultures since 622 AD.

The eradication of Christian churches, Hindu temples, Buddhist worship places. all other religious edifices  and replaced them with mosques.

This practice is still going on today. ( Hagia Sophia is being converted back into a Mosque.)
The destruction of historical/archeological  places.

The indigenous conquered people were treated so brutally (dhimmis) which only referred to "people of the book" aka Christians and Jews,  and polytheist given only two choices, convert or die.

Most people converted to Islam to make their lives more bearable. That is how Islam spreads.

For example most Islamic countries have now 100% Muslim population, like Afghanistan which was before the Muslim conquest a Buddhist country.

North African countries were Christian. West Asian countries were also Christians. (Byzantine)

India, where 80 Million Hindus were slaughtered by Muslim invaders the Brits had to create Pakistan, as Muslims would not live under Indian rule.

Recommended reading:

The History of Islam  (https://historyofislam.com/contents/)

This is what is called soft jihad.

UK Cathedral Celebrates Ramadan on Anniversary of ISIS London Bridge Attack (https://pjmedia.com/faith/uk-cathedral-celebrates-ramadan-on-anniversary-of-isis-london-bridge-attack/)

QuoteIt has not yet been reported whether or not the prayers associated with Ramadan were performed inside the cathedral, which would be a serious violation of Christian holy space.

Lol, wut?

QuoteEven if the prayers did not take place in the cathedral, a Christian church should restrain from celebrating a Muslim holiday like Ramadan.

lol, wut?

Also, in before, "Ho ho ho, Shiranu! I got you now! How many mosques do you see celebrating Christian holidays or allowing Christian prayer in the mosque? Huh? HUH!!! THATS RIGHT I GOT YOU GOOD!!!"

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/12/24/dakar-mosque-decked-in-christmas-lights-as-mostly-muslim-senegal-joins-in.html

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/09/easter-at-the-mosque-sacramento-muslims-help-christian_n_1412663.html

Quote from: Shiranu on June 10, 2018, 12:34:07 AM
Lol, wut?

lol, wut?

Given that the Brits are a monarchy, and the Queen is the head of the Anglican Church ... yes, there should only be Anglican prayers in their churches.  In Ecumenical settings outside of their churches, they can share prayer with other faiths (like Catholics).  Similarly to how the US Congress handles chaplaincy.

Really ... I am pro Muslim (being pro religion) but is one tolerant Muslim make them all tolerant?  Depends on the local culture.  Similarly intolerance in SA doesn't mean that Muslims are never tolerant.

Yes, inclusiveness.
It is well known how Islam is tolerant of other religions. Especially Christianity and Judaism.

It is in the Quran.

Here is one of the many:

Quran 5:51

O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you - then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people.

For other religions:

Quran 9:5

Kill the idolaters wherever you find them.

Tolerance. Yes. "LOL wut" indeed.

Islam/Interfaith is a western construct, a wishful thinking.
Some will desperately hang on to it because it makes them feel better. Just like #NOTALLMUSLIMS*
Feelings are more important than facts.
   
* everybody knows that nor all Muslims are jihadist, but it needs to be said for virtue signalling.

In so far as Christians are supposed to be agents for the Byzantine Empire starting in 325 CE ... they have a very old political agenda too.  But they haven't been practicing it lately, and most Christians don't realize they are supposed to be the un-dead army of un-dead Emperor Constantine.

Quote from: pr126 on June 10, 2018, 01:07:26 AM
Yes, inclusiveness.
It is well known how Islam is tolerant of other religions. Especially Christianity and Judaism.

It is in the Quran.

Here is one of the many:

Quran 5:51

O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you - then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people.

For other religions:

Quran 9:5

Kill the idolaters wherever you find them.

Tolerance. Yes. "LOL wut" indeed.

Islam/Interfaith is a western construct, a wishful thinking.
Some will desperately hang on to it because it makes them feel better. Just like #NOTALLMUSLIMS*
Feelings are more important than facts.
   
* everybody knows that nor all Muslims are jihadist, but it needs to be said for virtue signalling.

From the Bible:

Deuteronomy 13:

6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in 13 that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. 16 You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt.

Deuteronomy 17

If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.


Your selective condemnation of Muslims is blatantly hypocritical.

Why do Christians keep ignoring those verses from the Bible? Are they not true believers?
When was the last time they acted on those verses?

Why [some] Muslims do not ignore those verses in the Quran?
When was the last time they acted on those verses?

Tu Quoque much? It doesn't even work.

I see that you cannot bypass your indoctrination. Pity.

Quote from: pr126 on June 10, 2018, 12:11:55 PM
Why do Christians keep ignoring those verses from the Bible? Are they not true believers?
When was the last time they acted on those verses?

Why [some] Muslims do not ignore those verses in the Quran?
When was the last time they acted on those verses?

Tu Quoque much? It doesn't even work.

I see that you cannot bypass your indoctrination. Pity.

You seriously are not making sense here.
How is it not hypocrisy to condemn one religion and not all of them when their texts say the exact same thing?

Quote from: Mermaid on June 10, 2018, 12:53:07 PM
You seriously are not making sense here.
How is it not hypocrisy to condemn one religion and not all of them when their texts say the exact same thing?

Simples. Christians stopped acting on those verses, Muslims didn't.
Too difficult to grasp?

Quote from: pr126 on June 10, 2018, 01:11:02 PM
Simples. Christians stopped acting on those verses, Muslims didn't.
Too difficult to grasp?

That's bullshit. If you read any news you can see that plainly.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/chrisicisms/2016/06/14/christians-and-guns/

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/01/why-christians-should-support-the-death-penalty/

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-18/domestic-violence-church-submit-to-husbands/8652028

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/14/if-islam-is-a-religion-of-violence-so-is-christianity/

 I raise you  33,2658  (http://https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/) deadly terrorist attacks to your recent Christian atrocities against civilians.



This is just last week:

Jihad Report
Jun 02, 2018 -
Jun 08, 2018

Attacks   39
Killed   200
Injured   280
Suicide Blasts   5
Countries   13

Any questions?

Quote from: pr126 on June 10, 2018, 01:26:46 PM
I raise you  33,2658  (http://https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/) deadly terrorist attacks to your recent Christian atrocities against civilians.



This is just last week:

Jihad Report
Jun 02, 2018 -
Jun 08, 2018

Attacks   39
Killed   200
Injured   280
Suicide Blasts   5
Countries   13

Any questions?

If one thinks that Christians are intrinsically evil ... then lack of current statistics doesn't matter.  If on thinks that Nazis are intrinsically evil ... or communists are intrinsically evil ... then lack of current statistics doesn't matter.  That is what makes ideology or paranoia, particularly in combination, such fun times.

Quote from: pr126 on June 10, 2018, 12:11:55 PM
Why do Christians keep ignoring those verses from the Bible? Are they not true believers?
When was the last time they acted on those verses?

Why [some] Muslims do not ignore those verses in the Quran?
When was the last time they acted on those verses?

Tu Quoque much? It doesn't even work.

I see that you cannot bypass your indoctrination. Pity.

Well it cuts that way for Jews too ... convenient to pretend that there isn't anti-Semitism in hatred of Arabs or Jews.  Most Christians of course are not Semites ... they are Cro-Magnons ;-)

Many here think that Christianity is the ultimate evil on the planet, while completely, even willfully ignoring demonstrable evidence of Islamic advance.
On the contrary, they are helping, facilitating, financing their rise to power.
There is an agenda behind it. Get rid of Christianity. It is in the way. It must be erased.

For example, it is not altruism that drives the EU oligarch to import millions of unassimilable hostile "refugees" to Europe. It is part of the globalization project, the replacement of European people.

The Coudenhove-Kalergi plan â€" The genocide of the Peoples of Europe  (http://www.westernspring.co.uk/the-coudenhove-kalergi-plan-the-genocide-of-the-peoples-of-europe/)

QuoteThe man of the future will be of mixed race. The races and classes of today will gradually disappear due to the elimination of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-negroid race of the future, similar in appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the current diversity of peoples and the diversity of individuals. Instead of destroying European Judaism, Europe, against her will, refined and educated this people, driving them to their future status as a leading nation through this artificial evolutionary process. It’s not surprising that the people that escaped from the Ghetto-Prison, became the spiritual nobility of Europe. Thus, the compassionate care given by Europe created a new breed of aristocrats. This happened when the European feudal aristocracy crashed because of the emancipation of the Jews [due to the actions taken by the French Revolution]

Quote from: pr126 on June 10, 2018, 02:03:32 PM
Many here think that Christianity is the ultimate evil on the planet, while completely, even willfully ignoring demonstrable evidence of Islamic advance.
On the contrary, they are helping, facilitating, financing their rise to power.
There is an agenda behind it. Get rid of Christianity. It is in the way. It must be erased.

For example, it is not altruism that drives the EU oligarch to import millions of unassimilable hostile "refugees" to Europe. It is part of the globalization project, the replacement of European people.

The Coudenhove-Kalergi plan â€" The genocide of the Peoples of Europe  (http://www.westernspring.co.uk/the-coudenhove-kalergi-plan-the-genocide-of-the-peoples-of-europe/)

Right ... anti-Semitism was a positive development ... for the children.

Quote from: SGOS on June 09, 2018, 09:54:29 PM
This is not to say I don't think Islam is a problem.  Any religion is a problem when it gains power.  We fight the battles that threaten us right now.  We don't want to waste our energy fighting an ideology that currently poses little threat, and that is not to say that Islam will never pose a threat here.

Islam is a threat in the U.S., but it's not threatening to institute a theocracy here, as is Christianity. And the threat of theocracy is much greater than the threat posed by Islamic terrorism, I think.

Quote from: pr126 on June 09, 2018, 11:43:36 PM
The problem is that Americans and Europeans by enlarge are ignorant of Islam, perhaps willfully so.

The academic and media are airbrushed all Islamic history, its conquests, the brutal slaughter of the conquered people, (nearly 300 million)  their destruction of invaded lands and their total eradication of the indigenous cultures since 622 AD.

The eradication of Christian churches, Hindu temples, Buddhist worship places. all other religious edifices  and replaced them with mosques.

There were periods in history when Christians did all of those thing, too - and haven't completely stopped, either. Abrahamic religions are all scourges and pestilences, we've just managed to somewhat constrain the excesses of Christianity, whereas the people in the Middle East have not done that yet with their form of the Abrahamic religion. Only they can really do that, and only when they stop enabling Muslim fundamentalists and join the real world can we or they ever have any peace.

Quote from: Unbeliever on June 10, 2018, 05:15:46 PM
Islam is a threat in the U.S., but it's not threatening to institute a theocracy here, as is Christianity. And the threat of theocracy is much greater than the threat posed by Islamic terrorism, I think.

I agree.  While the threat of terrorism is bloody ugly, a theocracy would change the very fabric of Western Democracy, which was one Hell of a good idea at one time.  If Christians ever do get their theocracy, they will be teaching it in public schools instead of science, and our children will be learning alternate facts.  Ignorance will become fashionable, even more than it already is.

It's not like we are sitting on our hands ignoring terrorism either.  So far, police work is being used fairly effectively to combat terrorism in the US, at least since 9-11 woke us up. And I'm not sure what more we can do.  Well there's more I suppose, but it could be pretty unthinkable.

Quote from: Unbeliever on June 10, 2018, 05:15:46 PM
Islam is a threat in the U.S., but it's not threatening to institute a theocracy here, as is Christianity. And the threat of theocracy is much greater than the threat posed by Islamic terrorism, I think.

ABSOLUTELY.

Quote from: aitm on June 09, 2018, 05:21:40 AM
If I was a famous painter and a gay couple wanted me to paint a portrait of them even looking like they were in a pre/post-sexual situation, i would not be comfortable doing it and I think I should be able to say, "looks folks, I simply can't do this" and be able to do that without fear of being labeled a homophobe after years of being a supporter, but also understands that even I, as a supporter cannot do some things if I were asked. I cannot watch gay porn. I have no interest in it. And no gay friend has ever asked suggested or invited me to watch it. They respected that I "accepted and supported" their rights or fight for rights, but at the same time, am not willing to become part of the culture.

So if I am allowed to say, "look guys, no can do." Why should a person who has or at least claims to have a severe objection to gayness completely, be forced to do something he finds honestly repulsive?

It is a fine line, yes.  But I think there's a difference between a portrait and a cake, certainly.  The portrait would remain, to continue being associated with the artist.  The cake is by definition a consumable and isn't going to outlast the reception in any form beyond scraps.  So there's not a lasting item to associate with the artist.

Also, Masterpiece turned the couple down before any discussion of what was going to be on the cake.  It wasn't a matter of objecting to any imagery or text on the cake because they were turned down long before that point.  They could have wanted a plain vanilla cake with white fondant, a few abstract decorations and no text or topper and Masterpiece still wouldn't have served them.  So this case wasn't about objecting to the message they wanted, it was objecting to them for who they are.

What muddied the waters was the way the Colorado Civil Rights Commission handled it, and that's really where the decision hinged.  They kind of side-stepped the question of whether Masterpiece violated the couple's civil rights and focused on that in their judgment, the Colorado CRC violated Masterpiece's.  The underlying question of Masterpiece's behavior was pretty much brushed aside.  I should have saved the link; I saw an article that said Kennedy was hoping there was a more clear-cut case in the pipeline, but I cannot find the link again.

Quote from: SGOS on June 10, 2018, 05:49:27 PM
I agree.  While the threat of terrorism is bloody ugly, a theocracy would change the very fabric of Western Democracy, which was one Hell of a good idea at one time.  If Christians ever do get their theocracy, they will be teaching it in public schools instead of science, and our children will be learning alternate facts.  Ignorance will become fashionable, even more than it already is.

It's not like we are sitting on our hands ignoring terrorism either.  So far, police work is being used fairly effectively to combat terrorism in the US, at least since 9-11 woke us up. And I'm not sure what more we can do.  Well there's more I suppose, but it could be pretty unthinkable.

Historically, only one theocracy in US history ... Puritan New England.  Watch out, Progressives ;-)

Quote from: trdsf on June 10, 2018, 10:45:58 PM
It is a fine line, yes.  But I think there's a difference between a portrait and a cake, certainly....

I haven't followed or studied the case, but I guessed it would NOT be cut and dried.  I didn't anticipate the technicality caused by Colorado that would change the focus of the debate, but when I hear about artistry in the debate, I do a face palm.  I wouldn't if the issue was just that any private business can turn anyone down that they want, but nooo, it's about the "sanctity of art."  Anything can be an art.  Embalming, making cigars, but come on; It's cake decorating, which is more closely related to finger painting than actual art.   In the building trades it's often joked that cake decorating is an apprenticeship for becoming a dry wall finisher.  I think I'd be less amused by the whole thing if they referred to it as a talent or skill, not that skill or art has anything to do with the legality of the dispute.  There are obviously legal issues, and like aitm, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with either outcome, but this art thing sounds like the court is using it to make up for the lack of legal precedent.

Quote from: trdsf on June 10, 2018, 10:45:58 PM
Also, Masterpiece turned the couple down before any discussion of what was going to be on the cake.  It wasn't a matter of objecting to any imagery or text on the cake because they were turned down long before that point.  They could have wanted a plain vanilla cake with white fondant, a few abstract decorations and no text or topper and Masterpiece still wouldn't have served them.  So this case wasn't about objecting to the message they wanted, it was objecting to them for who they are.

I suspected this, but didn't know for sure.  They make cakes.  Just make a wedding cake.  That's all.  Break up two sets of plastic bride/groom decorations that go on the top, so people can say, "Oh that must be a wedding cake, and put two grooms on the cake.  Save the two brides for a lesbian couple, and you got yourself two saleable cakes.  You can even avoid a special request to your cake parts warehouse.  Just go to a toy store and get two Marvel action figures of the appropriate gender, and people will say, "Now, that may not be art, but it's a dandy cake." 

Of course, it's not about art.  It's about public disapproval.  And that's why it ended up in court, and that might be all that is needed to win the case, without creating all the artsy fartsy legal dressing.

The bad thing about really difficult legal decisions is they are awkward.  But the really good thing about really difficult legal decisions is also that they are awkward. 

The only ones that SHOULD come before the Supreme Court are the ones that are awkward.  And even in this case, all that happened was that the Surpreme court remanded the question back to the lower court for further consideration about a particular and limited argument.

IOW, a decision has not actually been made yet.  The Supreme Court has declared that one part of the lower court judgement needs to be reconsidered.  I know that seems odd but that is often how the Supreme Court works.  Right now, they have only said that a part of the lower court's decision needs to be explored further.

Quote from: Cavebear on June 11, 2018, 02:19:59 AM
The bad thing about really difficult legal decisions is they are awkward.  But the really good thing about really difficult legal decisions is also that they are awkward. 

The only ones that SHOULD come before the Supreme Court are the ones that are awkward.  And even in this case, all that happened was that the Surpreme court remanded the question back to the lower court for further consideration about a particular and limited argument.

IOW, a decision has not actually been made yet.  The Supreme Court has declared that one part of the lower court judgement needs to be reconsidered.  I know that seems odd but that is often how the Supreme Court works.  Right now, they have only said that a part of the lower court's decision needs to be explored further.

Pretty much.  If there hadn't been a clear 7-2 for Kennedy's opinion, if no one could have mustered better than 5-4 (and I suspect that until they sidestepped by focusing on the Colorado CRC, they probably had three separate opinions that divided the court 4-3-2), it would probably have been DIGgedâ€"Dismissed as Improvidently Granted, an admission that the Court made a mistake in granting cert, and they're going to punt until a more clear-cut case with fewer side issues comes along.

Quote from: Cavebear on June 11, 2018, 02:19:59 AM
The bad thing about really difficult legal decisions is they are awkward.  But the really good thing about really difficult legal decisions is also that they are awkward. 

The only ones that SHOULD come before the Supreme Court are the ones that are awkward.  And even in this case, all that happened was that the Surpreme court remanded the question back to the lower court for further consideration about a particular and limited argument.

IOW, a decision has not actually been made yet.  The Supreme Court has declared that one part of the lower court judgement needs to be reconsidered.  I know that seems odd but that is often how the Supreme Court works.  Right now, they have only said that a part of the lower court's decision needs to be explored further.

Who pays the courts, lawyers, the time spent? 6 years of legal hassle.
All this must cost a small fortune.
If it is the cake shop, they are already bankrupt. Put out of business? Goal achieved.

Quote from: pr126 on June 13, 2018, 11:03:16 AM
Who pays the courts, lawyers, the time spent? 6 years of legal hassle.
All this must cost a small fortune.
If it is the cake shop, they are already bankrupt. Put out of business? Goal achieved.

The cake shop, as well as the gay couple, were probably funded by special interest groups.  I doubt a normal person could afford this kind of litigation.  In some courts and some situations, a winning lawyer may try to arrange the right to sue the loser of the case to pay for all court costs.  I've heard about this happening, but honestly, I've never heard of an actual outcome in one of these situations.  I'm not sure what it's for.  I guess just to add risk and try to get the other side to settle out of court.  But legal shit isn't my expertise.  It might be something else.

Quote from: pr126 on June 13, 2018, 11:03:16 AM
Who pays the courts, lawyers, the time spent? 6 years of legal hassle.
All this must cost a small fortune.
If it is the cake shop, they are already bankrupt. Put out of business? Goal achieved.

It can happen.  In this case it was deliberate targeting.  Usually this is done in Washington DC against political opponents.  But you can crowd fund if you are Comey.

Quote from: pr126 on June 13, 2018, 11:03:16 AM
Who pays the courts, lawyers, the time spent? 6 years of legal hassle.
All this must cost a small fortune.
If it is the cake shop, they are already bankrupt. Put out of business? Goal achieved.

The cake shop and the gay couple were supported by special interests.  Few individual cases reach the Supreme Court on their own costs.