PDA

View Full Version : Does this come to par with homosexual discrimination?



WILDJOKER5
08-06-2014, 03:25 PM
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/running-group-ordered-to-stop-prayer-at-shopping-mall/#disqus_thread

So these ladies were told they cant have a prayer before they did their daily workout at a privately owen mall. I stand with private businesses to have policies against whatever they deem to have with no provocation to those reasons. Its their business, their property, they can do as they please as long as it doesnt harm someone physically. But I am wondering who believes this banning of prayer is as big of a deal as the baker that didnt want to make a cake for a same sex marriage? Shouldnt Al be organizing a march on the mall? Should Pelosi or Obama weigh in on how a person of faith is being discriminated against? Shouldnt Reid be passing a bill in senate to keep malls from forbidding prayer?

Rusty Jones
08-06-2014, 04:20 PM
[QUOTE=WILDJOKER5;345835Shouldnt Al be organizing a march on the mall? [/QUOTE]

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22always+bring+up+al+sharpton%22&hl=en&gbv=2&oq=&gs_l=

WILDJOKER5
08-06-2014, 04:29 PM
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22always+bring+up+al+sharpton%22&hl=en&gbv=2&oq=&gs_l=

And your point? If he doesnt like discrimination, which this mall is definately doing, why is he not running down to GA to organize a protest? I understand that these women had a pretty good head on their shoulders and didnt pull the race card but just packed up and went else where saying the mall has that "right" to ban prayer from its property. But where is the left calling them bigots?

Rusty Jones
08-06-2014, 04:31 PM
And your point? If he doesnt like discrimination, which this mall is definately doing, why is he not running down to GA to organize a protest? I understand that these women had a pretty good head on their shoulders and didnt pull the race card but just packed up and went else where saying the mall has that "right" to ban prayer from its property. But where is the left calling them bigots?

That is the point. Conservatives always bringing up Al Sharpton. Do conservatives have anything else besides that in their little bag of tricks?

WILDJOKER5
08-06-2014, 04:42 PM
That is the point. Conservatives always bringing up Al Sharpton. Do conservatives have anything else besides that in their little bag of tricks?

Is that like how Obama always blames Bush? Or the left bringing out Sarah Palin when bashing "stupid" conservatives? I am pretty sure I mentioned a few people. Got the learders of the party, and the biggest mouth piece. But hey, cherry pick if you want. You still didnt answer my questions, just trying to high jack the thread from the issue.

sandsjames
08-06-2014, 04:43 PM
That is the point. Conservatives always bringing up Al Sharpton. Do conservatives have anything else besides that in their little bag of tricks?

Yes. Profiling. Test norming. Stop and frisk. We have an entire bag full of stuff. Arresting people doing illegal shit...stuff like that.

sandsjames
08-06-2014, 04:45 PM
Is that like how Obama always blames Bush? Or the left bringing out Sarah Palin when bashing "stupid" conservatives? I am pretty sure I mentioned a few people. Got the learders of the party, and the biggest mouth piece. But hey, cherry pick if you want. You still didnt answer my questions, just trying to high jack the thread from the issue.

The issue is that there isn't an issue. The women reacted as they should have. Just as everyone else should react when told their actions inside a private establishment are not acceptable. Leave. Accept the fact that it's the right of the owner to make the decision. Move on with your life.

Rusty Jones
08-06-2014, 04:46 PM
Since you want to talk about Al Sharpton, here's something else for you to add to your bag of tricks, something that you'd be all for that the "reverend" would also be happy to support: http://www.charismanews.com/us/44903-restaurant-offers-discount-for-public-prayer-over-meal

WILDJOKER5
08-06-2014, 04:48 PM
The issue is that there isn't an issue. The women reacted as they should have. Just as everyone else should react when told their actions inside a private establishment are not acceptable. Leave. Accept the fact that it's the right of the owner to make the decision. Move on with your life.

You are completely right, and I started off my post with backing the Mall owner. The issue I had was wondering if the hypocricy of the left would come to play. And from one poster, it has.

sandsjames
08-06-2014, 04:52 PM
Since you want to talk about Al Sharpton, here's something else for you to add to your bag of tricks, something that you'd be all for that the "reverend" would also be happy to support: http://www.charismanews.com/us/44903-restaurant-offers-discount-for-public-prayer-over-meal

Again, up to the private organization to do so. Not a Christian? Go pretend to pray anyway, if you're smart. If people don't like it...don't go there. Such a simple concept.

sandsjames
08-06-2014, 04:52 PM
You are completely right, and I started off my post with backing the Mall owner. The issue I had was wondering if the hypocricy of the left would come to play. And from one poster, it has.

Let's be honest...we both know that the "Left" doesn't have an issue with civil rights, inclusion, PC, etc. The only issue they have, just as the right does, is with what will get them the most votes.

WILDJOKER5
08-06-2014, 04:55 PM
Since you want to talk about Al Sharpton, here's something else for you to add to your bag of tricks, something that you'd be all for that the "reverend" would also be happy to support: http://www.charismanews.com/us/44903-restaurant-offers-discount-for-public-prayer-over-meal

LOL, I love how he ended it with conjecture and hypothetical hyperbole. One, you dont need to pray out loud to be seen bowing your head. Two, since it doesnt have to be outloud, you dont know who they are praying to. Three, one form of Christianity is not always lovey dovey towards another, not even in the protestant world. Four, they arent checking to see if your history suggests your are only praying for a discount, so anyone can lie and fake pray. Five, giving a discount to people isnt a tax on others. If that was true, then every tax credit and rebate is a tax on others and the poor impose more on the wealthy through earned income tax and daycare and spitting out a ton of kids. Just hilarious is all. But anyways, back to the origional thread, as much as you want to high-jack this one into your own bashing of conservatives thread.

Rusty Jones
08-06-2014, 05:57 PM
Is that like how Obama always blames Bush?

He doesn't. Yet another item from the conservative bag of tricks: take what you perceive to be the mindset of Obama supporters, and put it on Obama himself. Kind of like Obama "playing the race card," when he's never accused any particular white politician or group of politicians of being racist. Again, you take what you perceive Obama supporters to be doing, and you put it on Obama himself. You might be able to fool yourself, but you're not fooling me.


Or the left bringing out Sarah Palin when bashing "stupid" conservatives?

Or Bachmann, or Limbaugh, or Cruz, or Santorum, or Bush Jr, or Quayle, or Beck... would you like me to continue?


I am pretty sure I mentioned a few people. Got the learders of the party, and the biggest mouth piece. But hey, cherry pick if you want. You still didnt answer my questions, just trying to high jack the thread from the issue.

Why not? All you want to talk about is "the hypocrisy of the left," and if you're gonna do that... then you'd best be ready to defend the right.


You are completely right, and I started off my post with backing the Mall owner. The issue I had was wondering if the hypocricy of the left would come to play. And from one poster, it has.

Nope, because those "examples" you tried to give were non-examples. Try again.


LOL, I love how he ended it with conjecture and hypothetical hyperbole.

Al Sharpton is a religious leader, is he not? Or is the REAL problem your inability to admit that you have something in common with him?


One, you dont need to pray out loud to be seen bowing your head. Two, since it doesnt have to be outloud, you dont know who they are praying to. Three, one form of Christianity is not always lovey dovey towards another, not even in the protestant world. Four, they arent checking to see if your history suggests your are only praying for a discount, so anyone can lie and fake pray. Five, giving a discount to people isnt a tax on others. If that was true, then every tax credit and rebate is a tax on others and the poor impose more on the wealthy through earned income tax and daycare and spitting out a ton of kids. Just hilarious is all. But anyways, back to the origional thread, as much as you want to high-jack this one into your own bashing of conservatives thread.

Again, you want to talk about the left; be ready to defend the right.

WILDJOKER5
08-06-2014, 06:14 PM
Why not? All you want to talk about is "the hypocrisy of the left," and if you're gonna do that... then you'd best be ready to defend the right.Maybe you forget that I dont support "the right".


Al Sharpton is a religious leader, is he not? Or is the REAL problem your inability to admit that you have something in common with him?I am lost cause you are referring to Al with a link to an article written by Jennifer LeClaire. Funny how you really want to call him a "religious leader" though. And I am not sure what you mean I have something in common with Al? Does Al call for private businesses to be able to exclude whom ever they want from their place of establishment?


Again, you want to talk about the left; be ready to defend the right.
You aren't saying anything to defend the actions, or inactions, of these ladies being discriminated against. All you are doing is trying to blast me for bringing up Democratic leaders. I can go to Boxerman, Gutierez, Washerman-Schultz, Juan Williams, Ed Schultz, Olbermann, Madow... well, shoot, all of MSNBC. But from what you are responding to, what do you think I should have to defend?

USAF-Controller
08-06-2014, 08:02 PM
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/running-group-ordered-to-stop-prayer-at-shopping-mall/#disqus_thread

So these ladies were told they cant have a prayer before they did their daily workout at a privately owen mall. I stand with private businesses to have policies against whatever they deem to have with no provocation to those reasons. Its their business, their property, they can do as they please as long as it doesnt harm someone physically. But I am wondering who believes this banning of prayer is as big of a deal as the baker that didnt want to make a cake for a same sex marriage? Shouldnt Al be organizing a march on the mall? Should Pelosi or Obama weigh in on how a person of faith is being discriminated against? Shouldnt Reid be passing a bill in senate to keep malls from forbidding prayer?

This is not the same as homosexual discrimination. The mall is banning an action and not a state of being. If the mall were to say "No Christians allowed" then it would be on par.

sandsjames
08-06-2014, 08:15 PM
This is not the same as homosexual discrimination. The mall is banning an action and not a state of being. If the mall were to say "No Christians allowed" then it would be on par.The cake shop people didn't ban gays. They just didn't want to put stuff on the cakes. I'd have no problem if a cake shop owner refused to make a cake with a Jesus figure on it...

Rusty Jones
08-06-2014, 08:26 PM
Maybe you forget that I dont support "the right".

No, you're forgetting that you DO. Right/left, conservative/liberal, are binary concepts; despite what Libertarians have to say.


I am lost cause you are referring to Al with a link to an article written by Jennifer LeClaire.

Why? Surely, Al would be all for restaurant owners giving incentives for praying, given his primary occupation, correct? Why is the author relevant? It's not like I'm using LeClaire as a credible source to back up a statement; I'm just bringing up an article that she wrote, and discussin what Al Sharpton would or wouldn't do here.


Funny how you really want to call him a "religious leader" though.

Is he not? Is he not a Baptist minister, originally ordained as a Pentecostal minister?


And I am not sure what you mean I have something in common with Al?

That you'd both be all for incentives for praying. How could a Christian, least of all a reverend, NOT be?


Does Al call for private businesses to be able to exclude whom ever they want from their place of establishment?

Does he need to do that in order to have something in common with YOU?


You aren't saying anything to defend the actions, or inactions, of these ladies being discriminated against.

They're not being discriminated against. They were asked to leave, not because of who they are, but because of what they were DOING.


All you are doing is trying to blast me for bringing up Democratic leaders. I can go to Boxerman, Gutierez, Washerman-Schultz, Juan Williams, Ed Schultz, Olbermann, Madow... well, shoot, all of MSNBC. But from what you are responding to, what do you think I should have to defend?

You said that the only idiot conservate we have to pick on is Palin. I was just showing you that there are plenty more that we to pick on. All you did you was just post names of random liberals.

USAF-Controller
08-06-2014, 08:28 PM
The cake shop people didn't ban gays. They just didn't want to put stuff on the cakes. I'd have no problem if a cake shop owner refused to make a cake with a Jesus figure on it...

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

sandsjames
08-06-2014, 08:33 PM
I'm not sure what you're getting at here.Well, I'm getting at the fact that cake shops didn't ban gays, as you stated. Then I'm getting at that I have no issue with private companies deciding who they will and will not serve. So when it comes to the mall asking the people praying to leave and the cake shop choosing not to serve gays, there is no difference. The cake shop didn't NOT serve the gays because they were gay. They didn't want to serve them because of an "action" (wanting a same sex couple on the cake). No different than the praying.

Rusty Jones
08-06-2014, 08:35 PM
The cake shop people didn't ban gays. They just didn't want to put stuff on the cakes. I'd have no problem if a cake shop owner refused to make a cake with a Jesus figure on it...

If the cake shop has Jesus figures in stock, and refuses to put one on your cake, then you have a legitimate gripe.

This would be like going to Victoria Secret to get something that you want your wife to wear, only to be told that they won't sell it to you because you're a man.

sandsjames
08-06-2014, 08:36 PM
They're not being discriminated against. They were asked to leave, not because of who they are, but because of what they were DOING.



Nor were the gays in the cake shop. The shop would have been more than happy to sell them a cake. Just not one with depictions they disagreed with. So they weren't discriminating against gays. They were not served because of what they wanted on their cake.

sandsjames
08-06-2014, 08:41 PM
If the cake shop has Jesus figures in stock, and refuses to put one on your cake, then you have a legitimate gripe. No, it wouldn't. Not if I, as a shop owner, only sell the figures as sets. If I sell two male or two female figures then I now have to re-order so that I once again have complete sets. Also, if I was a cake shop owner I wouldn't be decorating cakes with stuff that I felt was obsene. Even though I have all the necessary products to do so, I wouldn't do it. What if someone comes in asking for a picture of a penis on their cake? Or a picture of a naked woman? If I feel it's obsene I wouldn't do it.


This would be like going to Victoria Secret to get something that you want your wife to wear, only to be told that they won't sell it to you because you're a man.No...that would be like going into Victoria's Secret and telling the cashier that I didn't want the bra and panties set, I wanted the bra and bra set...even though that's not how the sets come.

USAF-Controller
08-06-2014, 08:54 PM
Well, I'm getting at the fact that cake shops didn't ban gays, as you stated. Then I'm getting at that I have no issue with private companies deciding who they will and will not serve. So when it comes to the mall asking the people praying to leave and the cake shop choosing not to serve gays, there is no difference. The cake shop didn't NOT serve the gays because they were gay. They didn't want to serve them because of an "action" (wanting a same sex couple on the cake). No different than the praying.

I'm torn on the cake shop issue. I believe if you do business with the public then you have an obligation not to discriminate. On the other hand I believe in the right to refuse service to anyone you choose. In the case of the mall, the article I read said they had problems with religious groups in the past. I think the mall staff (like SO many others)does not know the difference between being religous, praying and proselytizing. Personally, I think that the mall is being a bit heavy handed with its outright ban on prayer.

Rusty Jones
08-06-2014, 09:00 PM
Nor were the gays in the cake shop. The shop would have been more than happy to sell them a cake. Just not one with depictions they disagreed with. So they weren't discriminating against gays. They were not served because of what they wanted on their cake.

Great, so if you order a pizza with sausage and olives, should they be allowed to refuse that because they don't believe that those two toppings should go on the same pizza?


No, it wouldn't. Not if I, as a shop owner, only sell the figures as sets. If I sell two male or two female figures then I now have to re-order so that I once again have complete sets.

...and that argument is complete bullshit. For one, you don't know that they come in sets. In fact, I bet they don't; or at least most don't. Because you still have to account for interracial marriages, the possibilities aren't finite enough for all figurines to be prepackaged in pairs.


Also, if I was a cake shop owner I wouldn't be decorating cakes with stuff that I felt was obsene. Even though I have all the necessary products to do so, I wouldn't do it. What if someone comes in asking for a picture of a penis on their cake? Or a picture of a naked woman? If I feel it's obsene I wouldn't do it.

This is a disingenuous argument. Why? You can "get away" with this, because it's not an "adult" store; i.e., children could be present. Hell, it might even be illegal for you to do that, even if you wanted to. Now, if you owned an adult novelty store with a cake shop in it, that would be different. Strange, but different.


No...that would be like going into Victoria's Secret and telling the cashier that I didn't want the bra and panties set, I wanted the bra and bra set...even though that's not how the sets come.

Again, you're assuming that the figurines came in sets, when you don't know that. But, for the sake of argument, it's more like them refusing to sell you two of the same bras.

sandsjames
08-06-2014, 09:03 PM
I'm torn on the cake shop issue. I believe if you do business with the public then you have an obligation not to discriminate. On the other hand I believe in the right to refuse service to anyone you choose. In the case of the mall, the article I read said they had problems with religious groups in the past. I think the mall staff (like SO many others)does not know the difference between being religous, praying and proselytizing. Personally, I think that the mall is being a bit heavy handed with its outright ban on prayer.

Again, they didn't refuse to serve the couple. They just weren't willing to make the product a certain way. So I don't see any discrimination. ABC doesn't have TV shows I enjoy watching. I don't keep the channel on ABC. I change it to a channel that is able to serve me the programming I like. Does that mean that ABC is discriminating against me? Should they air shows to appease everyone, or should they air show that appeal to a vast majority of their audience?

As far as the ban on prayer, I can see it (inside the building). Public displays of things like that are apt to cause civil discourse. It's much easier to avoid arguments in a place like that by not allowing it to happen.

sandsjames
08-06-2014, 09:11 PM
Great, so if you order a pizza with sausage and olives, should they be allowed to refuse that because they don't believe that those two toppings should go on the same pizza? Believe it or not, there are certain pizza places that don't have a "build your own" option. If I order a Hawiaan, I get ham and pineapple. If they even have the option to change stuff, there is an extra charge. Are pizza places discriminating? I could easily find another pizza place that fit my needs rather than demanding that the first place change how they make pizzas.




...and that argument is complete bullshit. For one, you don't know that they come in sets. In fact, I bet they don't; or at least most don't. Because you still have to account for interracial marriages, the possibilities aren't finite enough for all figurines to be prepackaged in pairs. I have no idea if they do or not. I will bet, however, that when the cake place in question orders figures, they order equal numbers of male and female figures. I'd be willing to bet my paycheck on that one.




This is a disingenuous argument. Why? You can "get away" with this, because it's not an "adult" store; i.e., children could be present. Hell, it might even be illegal for you to do that, even if you wanted to. Now, if you owned an adult novelty store with a cake shop in it, that would be different. Strange, but different. I definitely wouldn't be licking the icing in that store.


Again, you're assuming that the figurines came in sets, when you don't know that. But, for the sake of argument, it's more like them refusing to sell you two of the same bras.Again, even if they didn't come in a set, they were probably ordered in equal numbers. So they are sold as a set.

Now, if the couple purchased two sets then I'd have no problem with it. They can mix and match and place the figures on the cake themselves. In that situation I would have a problem with the cake shop owner. Again, I don't know the situation any more than what I read on various sites. But what I do know is that the owner should never be required to produce a product that is not part of their normal product line.

Rusty Jones
08-06-2014, 09:13 PM
Again, they didn't refuse to serve the couple. They just weren't willing to make the product a certain way. So I don't see any discrimination. ABC doesn't have TV shows I enjoy watching. I don't keep the channel on ABC. I change it to a channel that is able to serve me the programming I like. Does that mean that ABC is discriminating against me? Should they air shows to appease everyone, or should they air show that appeal to a vast majority of their audience?

You said yourself that ABC doesn't have shows that you enjoy watching. I made it clear earlier that it's about refusing to sell someone something that they have in stock.

sandsjames
08-06-2014, 09:14 PM
You said yourself that ABC doesn't have shows that you enjoy watching. I made it clear earlier that it's about refusing to sell someone something that they have in stock.

And I'm saying the cake store didn't have figures in stock to allow for 2 male or 2 female figures to be sold and still be able to satisfy their largest group of consumers without ordering more figures.

Rusty Jones
08-06-2014, 09:18 PM
And I'm saying the cake store didn't have figures in stock to allow for 2 male or 2 female figures to be sold and still be able to satisfy their largest group of consumers without ordering more figures.

And I'm telling you for the fourth time that you don't know that. The owner of the shop didn't even say that. Surely, if what you're saying was true, he'd have stated that.

sandsjames
08-06-2014, 09:19 PM
And I'm telling you for the fourth time that you don't know that. The owner of the shop didn't even say that. Surely, if what you're saying was true, he'd have stated that.You're right, I don't know that, anymore than you know that if it is or isn't.

So do you think that a cake shop owner who is anti-gun should be forced to decorate a cake with guns all over it? Or what if I walk into a cake shop with a black owner and ask for a cake decorated with KKK members on it? Should they have to serve me? I really hope the answer to both of those is "NO!"

Rusty Jones
08-06-2014, 09:31 PM
You're right, I don't know that, anymore than you know that if it is or isn't.

So do you think that a cake shop owner who is anti-gun should be forced to decorate a cake with guns all over it? Or what if I walk into a cake shop with a black owner and ask for a cake decorated with KKK members on it? Should they have to serve me? I really hope the answer to both of those is "NO!"

In the case of guns, yes. In the case of KKK, no. Again, we're talking about business that with whole families - including children - as customers.

USAF-Controller
08-06-2014, 09:51 PM
Again, they didn't refuse to serve the couple. They just weren't willing to make the product a certain way. So I don't see any discrimination. ABC doesn't have TV shows I enjoy watching. I don't keep the channel on ABC. I change it to a channel that is able to serve me the programming I like. Does that mean that ABC is discriminating against me? Should they air shows to appease everyone, or should they air show that appeal to a vast majority of their audience?

As far as the ban on prayer, I can see it (inside the building). Public displays of things like that are apt to cause civil discourse. It's much easier to avoid arguments in a place like that by not allowing it to happen.

The article I read on the cake matter said that the store owner was happy to make anything that the couple wanted except a wedding cake. Any kind of wedding cake for a gay wedding was against his beliefs. I did not read anything about toppers at all.

You're right, I don't know that, anymore than you know that if it is or isn't.

So do you think that a cake shop owner who is anti-gun should be forced to decorate a cake with guns all over it? Or what if I walk into a cake shop with a black owner and ask for a cake decorated with KKK members on it? Should they have to serve me? I really hope the answer to both of those is "NO!"

If I own a cake store and Im anti-gun, then Im not going to carry gun decorations for my cakes. I certainly wont carry decorations of KKK members.

sandsjames
08-06-2014, 10:11 PM
In the case of guns, yes. In the case of KKK, no. Again, we're talking about business that with whole families - including children - as customers.Glad we get to pick and choose who's morals we get to follow as far as discriminating.

sandsjames
08-06-2014, 10:12 PM
If I own a cake store and Im anti-gun, then Im not going to carry gun decorations for my cakes. I certainly wont carry decorations of KKK members.But you have the ability to decorate it with icing, if asked to do so.

USAF-Controller
08-06-2014, 10:19 PM
But you have the ability to decorate it with icing, if asked to do so.

In theory, yes. I honestly don't know how I would respond if asked. I do not think my personal beliefs trump the law

sandsjames
08-06-2014, 10:26 PM
In theory, yes. I honestly don't know how I would respond if asked. I do not think my personal beliefs trump the lawPersonal freedom and choice is the law...look at what the SCOTUS had to say about Hobby Lobby.

USN - Retired
08-06-2014, 10:41 PM
"We're not going to give up on destroying the health care system for the American people." ~Paul Ryan

"We're not going to give up on destroying the health care system for the American people."
~Paul Ryan

Paul Ryan did make this statement, but if you watch the longer video clip you can tell it was a slip of the tongue. The sentence right before this quote he claims certain policies are destroying the healthcare system and he wants to stop those. Then this sentence just appears to be accidentally missing a few words, something along the lines of "We're not going to give up on [stopping what we believe is] destroying the health care system..."

http://quotefail.com/quote/paul-ryan-were-not-going-give-destroying-health

Rusty is trying to mislead us (again).

WILDJOKER5
08-06-2014, 10:59 PM
No, you're forgetting that you DO. Right/left, conservative/liberal, are binary concepts; despite what Libertarians have to say.

LOL, this is where I know I can't talk to you anymore. You are so close minded that its pretty pointless trying and wasting time. There are many aspects of the political spectrum, not just two. Good luck with rainmaker.

WILDJOKER5
08-06-2014, 11:11 PM
In the case of guns, yes. In the case of KKK, no. Again, we're talking about business that with whole families - including children - as customers.

There aren't families with their kids in the KKK?

USN - Retired
08-06-2014, 11:15 PM
No, you're forgetting that you DO. Right/left, conservative/liberal, are binary concepts; despite what Libertarians have to say.

You may want to review the Nolan chart.

Check this link for the Nolan chart:
http://humanknowledge.net/PoliticalSpace.jpg

Rusty Jones
08-07-2014, 12:35 PM
There aren't families with their kids in the KKK?

There are families where children see their dad's penis everyday, too. What's your point?


You may want to review the Nolan chart.

Check this link for the Nolan chart:
http://humanknowledge.net/PoliticalSpace.jpg

Proves my point more. Libertarianism is on the y-axis, and not the x-axis like conservative and liberal. In another words, both you and WJ5 are still on the right, no matter how far "up" or "down" you are.

WILDJOKER5
08-07-2014, 03:44 PM
There are families where children see their dad's penis everyday, too. What's your point?So a KKK or stars and bars cake isnt on par with a pron cake. Just saying. Its not illegal to include your kids in the KKK or neo-nazi or any other hate group activities. It is illegal to expose your kids to the world of pron, especially if that business is taking place in your home.


Proves my point more. Libertarianism is on the y-axis, and not the x-axis like conservative and liberal. In another words, both you and WJ5 are still on the right, no matter how far "up" or "down" you are.
Fiscally speaking, sure. But where the GOP and I disagree on is where they feel its the governments position to spend money on their morality agendas. Santorum is a good example. When sex ed was brought up in the BOE spending plan and didnt cover abstinence, he proposed even more money be spent on that topic. I believe its up to the parents to teach that subject to their kids.

USAF-Controller
08-07-2014, 04:57 PM
Personal freedom and choice is the law...look at what the SCOTUS had to say about Hobby Lobby.

Freedom for yourself. Not freedom to discriminate against others.

USN - Retired
08-07-2014, 05:08 PM
Proves my point more. .

Your point has not been proven. It appears that you are having trouble understanding the Nolan chart. I'll try to explain it to you. You said earlier...


No, you're forgetting that you DO. Right/left, conservative/liberal, are binary concepts; despite what Libertarians have to say.

The Nolan chart clearly shows us that the differences between conservatives and liberals are not "binary".

Here's the Nolan chart again: http://humanknowledge.net/PoliticalSpace.jpg

Furthermore, you said....


Libertarianism is on the y-axis, and not the x-axis like conservative and liberal. In another words, both you and WJ5 are still on the right, no matter how far "up" or "down" you are.

If you look at the Nolan chart closely, then you will see that conservatives and liberals are on both the X axis and Y axis. Therefore, the differences between conservatives and liberals are not "binary". The differences are not even "one dimensional".

Here's a link to a wikipedia page that provides a good explanation of the Nolan Chart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_chart

The Nolan chart allows you to understand politics in two dimensions instead of one.

Perhaps politics appears to be "binary" to you because you are consumed with so much hatred, anger, and bitterness.

Furthermore....


"We're not going to give up on destroying the health care system for the American people." ~Paul Ryan

"We're not going to give up on destroying the health care system for the American people."
~Paul Ryan

Paul Ryan did make this statement, but if you watch the longer video clip you can tell it was a slip of the tongue. The sentence right before this quote he claims certain policies are destroying the healthcare system and he wants to stop those. Then this sentence just appears to be accidentally missing a few words, something along the lines of "We're not going to give up on [stopping what we believe is] destroying the health care system..."

http://quotefail.com/quote/paul-ryan-were-not-going-give-destroying-health

Rusty, if you need to mislead us to make your point, then you don't really have a point.

sandsjames
08-07-2014, 05:20 PM
Freedom for yourself. Not freedom to discriminate against others.Still haven't pointed out any discrimination. The shop didn't tell these people to leave. The shop didn't tell these people they wouldn't make a cake for them. This shop doesn't have a "no gays" policy.

USAF-Controller
08-07-2014, 09:13 PM
Still haven't pointed out any discrimination. The shop didn't tell these people to leave. The shop didn't tell these people they wouldn't make a cake for them. This shop doesn't have a "no gays" policy.

I don't believe I have ever tried to point out discrimination in this thread. My statement about freedom was in response to yours about personal freedoms being the law under the HL ruling.

sandsjames
08-07-2014, 09:17 PM
I don't believe I have ever tried to point out discrimination in this thread. My statement about freedom was in response to yours about personal freedoms being the law under the HL ruling.Ok...and I'm saying that none of those personal freedoms being followed are in any way discriminating against anyone.

Rusty Jones
08-07-2014, 10:28 PM
Your point has not been proven. It appears that you are having trouble understanding the Nolan chart. I'll try to explain it to you. You said earlier...



The Nolan chart clearly shows us that the differences between conservatives and liberals are not "binary".

Here's the Nolan chart again: http://humanknowledge.net/PoliticalSpace.jpg

No, YOU are having trouble. Apparently, you don't know the difference between left/right and up/down.


Furthermore, you said....



If you look at the Nolan chart closely, then you will see that conservatives and liberals are on both the X axis and Y axis. Therefore, the differences between conservatives and liberals are not "binary". The differences are not even "one dimensional".

Here's a link to a wikipedia page that provides a good explanation of the Nolan Chart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_chart

The Nolan chart allows you to understand politics in two dimensions instead of one.

Same thing. Just like looking at a chart in algebra class. If your coordinates are 9,9; then guess what? You might be nine up, but you're still nine to the right. In other words... still to the right, no matter how "up" or "down" you are.


Perhaps politics appears to be "binary" to you because you are consumed with so much hatred, anger, and bitterness.

Hatred, anger, and bitterness? Is that YOU, using those words to describe someone? Who is it again that harbors so much hatred against the poor? Ah, YOU!


Furthermore....



"We're not going to give up on destroying the health care system for the American people."
~Paul Ryan

Paul Ryan did make this statement, but if you watch the longer video clip you can tell it was a slip of the tongue. The sentence right before this quote he claims certain policies are destroying the healthcare system and he wants to stop those. Then this sentence just appears to be accidentally missing a few words, something along the lines of "We're not going to give up on [stopping what we believe is] destroying the health care system..."

http://quotefail.com/quote/paul-ryan-were-not-going-give-destroying-health

Rusty, if you need to mislead us to make your point, then you don't really have a point.

Yeah, have you said the same of those who speak of "Obamaphones" or those who claim that he's abusing his power through the use of executive orders, when he has issued only a fraction of those issued by his predecessors? I doubt it.

USN - Retired
08-08-2014, 12:17 AM
No, YOU are having trouble. Apparently, you don't know the difference between left/right and up/down.

Same thing. Just like looking at a chart in algebra class. If your coordinates are 9,9; then guess what? You might be nine up, but you're still nine to the right. In other words... still to the right, no matter how "up" or "down" you are.

So are you finally admitting that you were wrong when you said...


Right/left, conservative/liberal, are binary concepts; despite what Libertarians have to say.

Or do you not even see that you are not being consistent? If you have a system, i.e.the Nolan chart, that is both left/right AND up/down, then you have a system that can not be only binary.

Again, the differences between conservatives and liberals are not "binary". Look again at the Nolan chart and try thinking in two dimensions. It won't hurt you. I promise.


Hatred, anger, and bitterness? Is that YOU, using those words to describe someone? Who is it again that harbors so much hatred against the poor? Ah, YOU!


It is not hate. It is tough love. You apparently don't understand the difference. That is why you are so confused and angry.


Yeah, have you said the same of those who speak of "Obamaphones" or those who claim that he's abusing his power through the use of executive orders, when he has issued only a fraction of those issued by his predecessors? I doubt it.

Is that your way of admitting that you are trying to mislead us? We all now know that you were trying to mislead us with that silly quote in your signature block which is really nothing more than a slip of the tongue by Paul Ryan. You should just admit it and apologize for your behavior. It might help you feel better about yourself.

sandsjames
08-08-2014, 12:24 AM
Yeah, have you said the same of those who speak of "Obamaphones" or those who claim that he's abusing his power through the use of executive orders, when he has issued only a fraction of those issued by his predecessors? I doubt it.Right...but his executive orders have been for major policies as a way to bypass checks and balances. It has never been used this often for policies in the past.

Rusty Jones
08-08-2014, 12:43 AM
Right...but his executive orders have been for major policies as a way to bypass checks and balances. It has never been used this often for policies in the past.

So where do you draw the line on what's too "major" for EOs?

sandsjames
08-08-2014, 01:02 AM
So where do you draw the line on what's too "major" for EOs?Really I don't like any of them unless it's a matter of national security when congress is not in session. However, I'm good with it for temporary holds on "major" policies...things that may be argued by a large section of the population which could have Constitutional implications. I'm also ok with it for establishing councils, task forces, etc.

Any EO created just because congress can't, or won't, pass a bill is, IMO, not a good idea.

USAF-Controller
08-08-2014, 05:25 PM
Ok...and I'm saying that none of those personal freedoms being followed are in any way discriminating against anyone.

That's your opinion and I respectfully disagree.

MitchellJD1969
08-08-2014, 06:02 PM
"Hate" what a useless and meaningless word.

Measure Man
08-08-2014, 06:25 PM
Well, I'm getting at the fact that cake shops didn't ban gays, as you stated. Then I'm getting at that I have no issue with private companies deciding who they will and will not serve.

I disagree that a company can just decide who they will and will not serve.

However, I do think a company can decide WHAT they will serve...especially a business like cake-decorating that is creative and artistic. His brand is on every cake he makes.

However, as far as just selling the products you have or routinely make...they should have to do business with protected classes. So, if he has cupcakes in the window, he can't refuse to sell them to a gay couple...as I understand it, he offered to sell them anything else, just would not create a cake with a same-sex couple on it. I have no problem with the bakers conduct, if that's the true story.

sandsjames
08-08-2014, 06:43 PM
That's your opinion and I respectfully disagree.

If the shop was willing to sell 2 male figures to a straight couple and not to a gay couple, then it's discrimination. If the shop was willing to sell cakes to everyone except gays, then it's discrimination. There is absolutely nothing in that cake shop, through action or intent, that is designed to keep gays from shopping there.

Rusty Jones
08-08-2014, 06:46 PM
The way I see it, if he has it in stock, he should be required to sell it to any customer who comes to buy it. If I own and operate small clothing store, and I suspect that a customer is gay, should I be allowed to refuse to sell him women's clothing items?

sandsjames
08-08-2014, 07:38 PM
The way I see it, if he has it in stock, he should be required to sell it to any customer who comes to buy it. If I own and operate small clothing store, and I suspect that a customer is gay, should I be allowed to refuse to sell him women's clothing items?

I didn't know gays wore women's clothes. I'm pretty sure that's a cross-dresser. Might want to educate yourself on that one.

Rusty Jones
08-08-2014, 07:44 PM
I didn't know gays wore women's clothes. I'm pretty sure that's a cross-dresser. Might want to educate yourself on that one.

Oh, boy. Okay, look - I know the difference. HOWEVER, there are gay men who wear certain women's clothing items, without fully cross-dressing. For example, some might use women's deodorant or perfum, jewelry, or wear women's jeans. You know, an "androgynous" look.

And so I ask the question again; should I be allowed to refuse to make the sale in that situation?

hustonj
08-08-2014, 07:53 PM
"Hate" what a useless and meaningless word.

Oh, I disagree. The word says a great deal.

It says that the object of your hate is important to you, that you spend a great deal of time thinking about it, that you give it a great amount of influence in your life.

Hating something requires being aware of it, keeping track of it, and working at cross purposes to it on a continuing basis.

Personally, I find that it is far more beneficial to ignore or dismiss things that I don't like than it is to make them an intimate part of my life so that I can oppose them. There are some reasonable exceptions. Poverty. Negative prejudice. Forced slavery. Oppression. Brutatlity. I could understand someone choosing to hate those things and focusing on opposing them.

A kind of music? An entertainer? A type of food? Hating those sorts of things is a waste of time and energy.

USN - Retired
08-08-2014, 08:11 PM
And so I ask the question again; should I be allowed to refuse to make the sale in that situation?

Absolutely. Then the customers can walk over to my shop, and I will sell them what they want. Any business owner who wants to make a profit lives by the maxim: give the customer what he or she wants. I fully support the right of my business competitor to be really stupid and refuse a sale for some silly reason, so I can then steal his customers away from him and make more profit.

Rusty Jones
08-08-2014, 08:16 PM
Absolutely. Then the customers can walk over to my shop, and I will sell them what they want. Any business owner who wants to make a profit lives by the maxim: give the customer what he or she wants. I fully support the right of my business competitor to be really stupid and refuse a sale for some silly reason, so I can then steal his customers away from him and make more profit.

That's not what happened to the cake shop. His sales actually increased, due to other homophobes who supported his cause flocking in. Same thing happened with Chick-fil-A.

TJMAC77SP
08-08-2014, 09:02 PM
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22always+bring+up+al+sharpton%22&hl=en&gbv=2&oq=&gs_l=

Should have perused your link (first one). In this article it is a commenter who makes the accusation. Seems to be pretty far from the point you were attempting to make.

Answering hyperbole with hyperbole...........yeah that'll get the point across.

http://www.wthr.com/story/25203580/2014/04/09/mugshot-released-for-16-year-old-accused-of-trapuzzano-murder

TJMAC77SP
08-08-2014, 09:10 PM
No, you're forgetting that you DO. Right/left, conservative/liberal, are binary concepts; despite what Libertarians have to say.


This continues to be your failure at critical thinking. NO ONE, repeat NO ONE is all of one thing and none of the other. I consider myself to be conservative and there are many issues where I fall on the side of the liberals.

You on the other hand might just come closer than anyone I have ever seen to defying my first statement. But even there you don't because your single-mindedness is laser focused on race.

sandsjames
08-08-2014, 09:13 PM
Oh, boy. Okay, look - I know the difference. HOWEVER, there are gay men who wear certain women's clothing items, without fully cross-dressing. For example, some might use women's deodorant or perfum, jewelry, or wear women's jeans. You know, an "androgynous" look.

And so I ask the question again; should I be allowed to refuse to make the sale in that situation?

I wouldn't refuse to in that situation because it's no where near the same thing. There are several reasons why a person would by clothing for another sex. There is only one reason why a person would order a wedding cake with 2 same sex figures. Though that's my personal opinion.

I definitely think people should be able to refuse selling bikinis and spandex to fat chicks.

sandsjames
08-08-2014, 09:15 PM
That's not what happened to the cake shop. His sales actually increased, due to other homophobes who supported his cause flocking in. Same thing happened with Chick-fil-A.

That's just because of the publicity. I'm sure sales evened out very quickly.

Rusty Jones
08-08-2014, 09:23 PM
This continues to be your failure at critical thinking. NO ONE, repeat NO ONE is all of one thing and none of the other. I consider myself to be conservative and there are many issues where I fall on the side of the liberals.

You on the other hand might just come closer than anyone I have ever seen to defying my first statement. But even there you don't because your single-mindedness is laser focused on race.

Go eat a dick.

Rusty Jones
08-08-2014, 09:27 PM
I wouldn't refuse to in that situation because it's no where near the same thing. There are several reasons why a person would by clothing for another sex. There is only one reason why a person would order a wedding cake with 2 same sex figures. Though that's my personal opinion.

Okay, so what if he's already sporting an androgynous look while he's in your store?


That's just because of the publicity. I'm sure sales evened out very quickly.

No, because his store didn't stay open long enough for that. They actually required him to sell those types of cakes to customers, so he took his ball and went home.

sandsjames
08-08-2014, 09:49 PM
Okay, so what if he's already sporting an androgynous look while he's in your store?



No, because his store didn't stay open long enough for that. They actually required him to sell those types of cakes to customers, so he took his ball and went home.

The situations are completely different. The store sells perfume. The store sells women's clothing. These are products sold...and should be sold to everyone. In the cake shop, a cake with two same sex figures is not a product they sell. They wouldn't sell it to anyone, gay or straight.

USN - Retired
08-08-2014, 10:13 PM
That's not what happened to the cake shop. His sales actually increased, due to other homophobes who supported his cause flocking in.

It appears that I missed something. Are we talking about a real cake shop or a hypothetical cake shop?


Same thing happened with Chick-fil-A.

Not the same thing. Here's what really happened...

A series of public comments were made in June 2012 by Chick-fil-A's chief operating officer Dan Cathy opposing same-sex marriage. Chick-fil-A's charitable endeavor, the S. Truett Cathy-family-operated WinShape Foundation, made millions in donations to political organizations which oppose LGBT rights. In March 2014, Cathy admitted regret over drawing his company into the controversy. Of note, Chick-fil -A did not refuse to serve to anyone, except on Sunday. On Sunday, Chick-fil-A refused service to everyone.

Should it be illegal to openly oppose same sex marriage?


"We're not going to give up on destroying the health care system for the American people." ~Paul Ryan

"We're not going to give up on destroying the health care system for the American people."
~Paul Ryan

Paul Ryan did make this statement, but if you watch the longer video clip you can tell it was a slip of the tongue. The sentence right before this quote he claims certain policies are destroying the healthcare system and he wants to stop those. Then this sentence just appears to be accidentally missing a few words, something along the lines of "We're not going to give up on [stopping what we believe is] destroying the health care system..."

http://quotefail.com/quote/paul-ryan-were-not-going-give-destroying-health

Rusty is still trying to mislead us.

sandsjames
08-08-2014, 10:17 PM
It appears that I missed something. Are we talking about a real cake shop or a hypothetical cake shop?

Yes...real cake shop. Owner wouldn't sell a cake with 2 same sex figures on top. I'm surprised you didn't hear about this. Was all over the news (or media entertainment channels) and social media...

USN - Retired
08-08-2014, 10:26 PM
Go eat a dick.


I was once pubically berated by a moderator and then banned from the forum because I questioned the engagement ring tradition. Is that comment by Rusty more bad or less bad (or should I say "rude"?) than questioning the engagement ring tradition?

Of note: I will not rat out Rusty to the moderators, so if Rusty does get banned, it will not be because of me.

USN - Retired
08-08-2014, 10:43 PM
Yes...real cake shop. Owner wouldn't sell a cake with 2 same sex figures on top. I'm surprised you didn't hear about this. Was all over the news (or media entertainment channels) and social media...

Interesting.

Here's the solution for same sex couples on Oahu who want a wedding cake...

1. Go to this website and buy the figures
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=same+sex+marriage+figures&tbm=shop

2. Go to Napoleon's Bakery and order the cake. Here's the website:
http://www.napoleonsbakery.com/custom-wedding.html

3. Put the figures on top of the cake.

4. Stop worrying about the homophobes and what they think.

There are numerous Napoleon's Bakeries on Oahu and their cakes are really good (seriously).

Why are we making this issue so hard???

TJMAC77SP
08-08-2014, 10:44 PM
Go eat a dick.

So I guess that translates to..........."I have no reasonable response to that so I will revert to my usual homoerotic retorts."

Mjölnir
08-08-2014, 11:23 PM
I was once pubically berated by a moderator and then banned from the forum because I questioned the engagement ring tradition. Is that comment by Rusty more bad or less bad (or should I say "rude"?) than questioning the engagement ring tradition?

Of note: I will not rat out Rusty to the moderators, so if Rusty does get banned, it will not be because of me.

I will say it again, this time publicly that you were not banned because of what you asked, but the manner in which you posed your point of view. Please don't misrepresent the facts.

And no, Rusty's langauge there is not appropriate, but we aren't here 24/7 either.

Stalwart
08-09-2014, 03:19 AM
However, I do think a company can decide WHAT they will serve...especially a business like cake-decorating that is creative and artistic. His brand is on every cake he makes.

I had not thought of that angle on this argument ... it is a very good point.

Measure Man
01-21-2015, 02:32 AM
Yes...real cake shop. Owner wouldn't sell a cake with 2 same sex figures on top. I'm surprised you didn't hear about this. Was all over the news (or media entertainment channels) and social media...

So, here's the opposite case.

Guy wanted a anti-LGBT cake made and the cake maker refused.

http://denver.eater.com/2015/1/20/7858569/cake-shop-faces-legal-action-for-refusing-to-make-anti-lgbt-cake


My opinion on it remains the same for both cases...cake making is a creative custom-made product...the cake-maker has their brand on each cake and should be allowed to determine WHAT they will make.

If they have cupcakes pre-made in the window, they should have to sell them to whoever comes in to buy them.

sandsjames
01-21-2015, 11:11 AM
So, here's the opposite case.

Guy wanted a anti-LGBT cake made and the cake maker refused.

http://denver.eater.com/2015/1/20/7858569/cake-shop-faces-legal-action-for-refusing-to-make-anti-lgbt-cake


My opinion on it remains the same for both cases...cake making is a creative custom-made product...the cake-maker has their brand on each cake and should be allowed to determine WHAT they will make.

If they have cupcakes pre-made in the window, they should have to sell them to whoever comes in to buy them.

Agree...cake maker did the right thing, IMO.