A Christian couple over in Belfast runs a bakery business and has 4 shops. They make large cakes for special occasions but refused to make one with 2 cartoon figures on it and a message for a campaign to support same sex marriage (such a law has been voted down over there so far). Now the couple have been reported to the Equalities Commission for refusing to make the damn cake. Now queers are a fact of life and have rights but it seems anyone who doesn't agree with some minority gets the pc brigade going crackers. Instead of just going somewhere else the cake wanters as usual try to create mayhem and the baker couple made no great scene but simply refused on their own personal rights and grounds. It is getting to the stage that every minority (like this 2% one) can get fanatical at the least wee thing and the rights of others doesn't count. At the rate things are going we will eventually have a law against offending someone. Humbug comes to mind.
Would you still cheer them on of the couple they refused service to was black instead? Or scottish? :rolleyes:
Humbug comes to mind.
Or ex-colonist? Or Orange?
In these cases, both sides tend to go overboard. In the US, we had same-sex couples sue the bakeries. The proper response is to say "Fuck you too" and tell sympathetic people to not patronize the shop. Then the religious hastily craft poorly thought out legislation that allows for religious discrimination. Find a passage in the Bible, Quran, etc and you can discriminate based on it. Talk about opening a Pandora's Box.
I tend to think the marketplace will sort this out. If a place gets reputation for discrimination, they'll get fewer customers and be forced to close. Sure, there might be a big push by some churches to patronize the place, but that can't be maintained indefinitely.
But why is it that certain Christians seem to be more obsessed with homosexuality then 99% of the queers themselves are? Jesus had a good message, but the political Christians seem to overlook everything he said, and focus on a few passages ripped completely out of the context of their time and place, not to mention all the surrounding passages (OT, a bunch of religious laws about not eating shellfish, having clothes made of two difference fabrics and other stuff non-sensible in today's world; NT in Roman's it's clear something else besides modern homosexuality was occurring, most likely a pagan fertility ritual or temple prostitution, Corinthians:ancient Greek had different word for homosexual than the one Paul choose.)
Not humbug macallan and i bow to your long experience in that corner.
As ithappens, queers are protected by law like any other group or minority but they tend to be more militant in their attitude via their organisations. The cake was part of a campaign as I pointed out so if you are mounting a campaign one is equally entitled to object to it so the couple are exercising their rights too. The other stuff you come out with is codswallop. If someone was a democratically inclined person and ran a bakery and a customer wanted a cake to push Communism or Fascism I can see where the owner might feel obliged to stand back.
This couple were not aggressive they just stated their view and faith and are we to expect the queer minority to have more rights than others? The customer in this case could have objected and had their moan then went somewhere else. Equally Northern Ireland has not passed any new law like the rest of the country so that adds to the matter. It is over the top stuff by the complainer.
Do tell us how queers somehow have more rights than others this time, Howie. If the bigotted bakers are allow to discriminate against Blacks and Asians, but not homosexuals that would be the case. However, I don't think it is somehow. The came that LGBT people have more rights than other minorities is patently absurd. In the US, it's nearly universal that you can discriminate in hiring based on race/ethnicity or gender by law, but in many (if not most) places you can based sexual orientation. Maybe on Planet Howie, LGBT people have more rights than other minorities, but here on Earth that claim is laughable and easily shown to be false.
What silliness are you sputing now? The couple who own the 4 shops don't discriminate against blacks or anyone, etc so don't throw that nonsense into the equation. Queers are amongst the most vociferous minorities and parade in the streets annually and can wax lyrical about their stance. Can I remind you yet again and the other small minded so-called open-minds that the couple are not in your face people at all. We always get this rubbish every time the queers do not get what they want. And another reminder that the cake was for a "campaign lettered project." Indeed, i did point out that the new laws for queers in Scotland, England, Wales do NOT include Ulster where the Assembly has discussed this and did not repeal as on the mainland. In turn the cake was to indicate a political stance. Obviously the couple did not agree with the stance and therefore on the side of the N. Ireland Assembly! It is all as plain as the nose on the face syndrome. So as I pointed out it was a reaction to the opiniated project which kind of changes the situation.
As always here we get the knee-jerk baloney when no-one was waging a damn war aginst queers. They can have their campaign but equally those that do not agree with it have their rights too and what is the Equality Commission going to do? it cannot to my mind go against the local parliament in NI.
Is there an article or something? People report things every day. It's hardly mayhem. In fact having a commission to report to is the opposite of mayhem. Bit of an ordered dispute really. The Commission is no doubt in place to mediate such things. Who has blown this out of proportion isn't clear, as you've jumped to your own conclusion seemingly before a decision has been reached.
Not humbug macallan and i bow to your long experience in that corner.
...
This couple were not aggressive they just stated their view and faith and are we to expect the queer minority to have more rights than others?
So, somehow, having the same rights as everyone else is having more rights than everyone else when you're queer? Yup, humbug.
What silliness are you sputing now? The couple who own the 4 shops don't discriminate against blacks or anyone, etc so don't throw that nonsense into the equation.
But they do disctiminate against queers, which is different how exactly? :rolleyes:
Queers are amongst the most vociferous minorities and parade in the streets annually and can wax lyrical about their stance. Can I remind you yet again and the other small minded so-called open-minds that the couple are not in your face people at all.
Irrelevant rubbish.
We always get this rubbish every time the queers do not get what they want.
Because some jackass thinks discriminating against them is just fine & dandy? Oh the horror :rolleyes:
Now where are all those extra rights your lot claims they have?
Firstl ensbb3, it was reprted by the BBC and on their telext.
As for the usal smart alecs here - on subjects such as queers and i mention macallan and Sanguinemoon as typical (!) this tripe about persecution of them is pointless. They have well financed organisations - eg. Stonewall the leading one and others. In show business they are treated like heroes are ably illustrated in the media as in a similar fashion. Here is Scotland the Scottish Parliament has a committee structure where the public can right in or supply petitions. Recently the Nationalist regime happily accepted 20,000 people who sent in their support for the independence Yes campaign and that was treated as a brilliant thing. However when people sent on over 50,000 against the intention to allow queer marriages that was ignored. So the liberal agenda is hardly one of well, open minds at all. Instead here in this thread core matters are being suitably ignored. Poof marriage is not allowed in Northern Ireland even after repeated raising of it in the Assembly.
So as i pointed out as simply as i could knowing that macallan and Sanguinemoon would ignore what didn't suit one has to wionder about their intelligence not mine. If someone wants a cake design on a campaign issue that is a point of view is it not? Therefore anyone who has a different point of view (which also agrees with what the local parliament has decided) that is fair enough. Do try and see that matter instead of dodging the issue. In simple terms the bakers are on the side of the Stormont Assemby and the cake wanter on the other side so fair enough I reckon.
the usual drivel
You still didn't tell us which special rights they supposedly have, why you think discriminating against them is ok and how on earth equal rights are somehow special when you're queer.
No, more waffling about how they make you feel uncomfortable by existing won't help.
I wonder if it even occurs to these bakers and their American counterparts that far from taking a principled stance, they're actually making their side look petty and vindictive. In America equal protection under the law was written into the Constitution from the beginning, and now that it's being enforced we have a few "Christian" bakers protesting by refusing to bake a cake. What's that supposed to accomplish?
Indeed, the overall the damage the fundamentalist Christians have done to their cause greatly exceeds that the queers have done. Want proof? Why is that same-sex marriage is the law in a growing number of states? Because the fundies couldn't be satisfied with it merely being illegal, they had to push of constitutional amendments against it - amendments even conservative judges had to throw out based on the Equal Protection clause of the Federal Constitution. Why is there's a LGBT rights movement in the first place? Because queers were being harassed, discriminated against, police raiding their meeting places even though they just trying to have beer at the bar. Karma's a bitch.
Leaving aside the self-aggrandisement of Macallan as is his style I would say Sanguinemoon that is a point of view you express but has to be thought about more widely. I remember cases such as the following.
The elderly couple who on visiting their Local Towbn Council offices noticed a leafet from some queer group amongst the others on display. In turn they asked if they could put up one from their own religious background opposing the stance. They did so quite normally and without any in-you-face reaction. However the outcome was a visit some time later by two policemen who spent an hour (!) haranguing them. It was upsetting but they did subsequently put in an official complaint which surprise, surprise, was upheld for them. Follow this by another Christian couple who ran a guest house fromtheir home. On finding 2 possible visitors were queer they said they could not accept them. In turn the 2 men concerned took action against them by suing the husband and wife. They argues that it was still their home and they should determine who could stay and they lost! This Belfast incident is much in the same truck as these and others and as queers tend to instantly get nippier than other groups much bother caused. The liberal mind is selective however as recently again a home-owner advertised for a tenant staying publicly the enquirer "had to be Pakistani." (!). Although an illegality so far they have got way with that.
For me, i ddin't have a problem with minorities having the same rights as the majority but at the samee time it seems the majority is increasingly less likely to have the same freedoms. Indeed much of the liberal mind which is of course meant to be ;liberal' often shows more antagonism than those they would condemn. On the Belfast matter I notice that the answers here have totally ignored the fact that the cake was to have a campaign slogan which adds a different slant to the matter. So of you do not agree with the campaign intention you have no right to your stance? In addition the campaign lost the vote in the Northern Ireland Assembly so adds yet another dimension which too is being subtly passed by here. Queers can of course queer away whilst at the same time those that do not agree with their pursuit equally are entitled to a view that is contradictory. So in the end it was a campaign cake and therefore open house on alternative opinions.
The elderly couple who on visiting their Local Towbn Council offices noticed a leafet from some queer group amongst the others on display.
Their opinion is well represented without direct opposition via a hate leaflet. "Elderly couples" tend to be bigoted.
Follow this by another Christian couple who ran a guest house fromtheir home. On finding 2 possible visitors were queer they said they could not accept them. In turn the 2 men concerned took action against them by suing the husband and wife. They argues that it was still their home and they should determine who could stay and they lost!
When you turn your home into a bed and breakfast, or whatever y'all call them, it's no longer just your home. It's now subject to discrimination laws. This is a horrible example of yet more bigotry.
As for the shop owners. While they should have a right to turn down work, they don't have a right to do business in public and discriminate. The moment they made it because they don't agree with gay rights they were wrong. What a stupid and petty reason. It's just a cake.
You would of been right at home with George Wallace (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h3766.html) standing in the doorway saying they can do what they want as long as they do it somewhere else.
I remember you telling about the leaftlet incident before. How the couple asked is one thing, what the leaflet actually said might be something else entirely. Did it claim all lgbt people are going to hell, although the actual biblical evidence for this is flimsy. The "clubber passages" tend to be mistranslated and/or taken out context, Did the leaftlet suggest "therapy" to change sexual orientation, which psychologist agree causes long term psychological damage. What the leaftlet exactly was about is important. For the police to get involved there had to be more to the story than a Christian couple wanting to place a simple, innocent leaftet. Media outlets like the DM are careful not to let out details like that.
The bigger is picture is what is this obsession in some Christian circles about queers? Christianity devolving religion known for its hang-ups about what happens in other people's bedrooms than anything else.
Yes there will be some Christians who are more in your face however that is not the general case here and it does seem however that the more radical queers have an agenda of their own. I do recall some time ago a well know queer on television criticising some in his own world for their arrogance.
Yes there will be some Christians who are more in your face however that is not the general case here and it does seem however that the more radical queers have an agenda of their own. I do recall some time ago a well know queer on television criticising some in his own world for their arrogance.
Translation: rjhowie is upset about them damn queers not staying in the closet where they belong so he can't pretend they don't exist.
Picking on the queers is also a cheap political stunt by the GOP. They want to "energize" their base by pushing for some legislation against gays, ie an anti-equal marriage amendment, poorly thought out "religious freedom" bills that effectively allow discrimination if you can find some passage in the Bible to justify it, etc. The sad thing is there doesn't seem to much correlation between the GOP base being "energized" and success in the general election. If anything, there might a negative one. So they kick around the queers basically for nothing.
Then we have the media. There was stink about the CEO of Mozilla stepping down because he supported California's Prop 8 (the anti-same sex marriage amendment in that state.) The media made out that there was this huge boycott by queers against Firefox and we had Christians calling gays bullies. In fact, the biggest boycott by far was by OK Cupid, a dating website run by a heterosexual man. Maybe there were some queers actively boycotting Firefox, but most of us couldn't care less. As I said, the situation with that baker in Belfast mirrors what's happened a couple times in the US. Yes, a couple (well maybe a few times but the incidents are actually rare.) The media makes out that if a baker refuses to make a cake for a same-sex couple, the couple will immediately sue. Probably 99 percent of the time, the gays will just leave and tell their friends not visit that shop. What's missing from the news articles is what exactly happened when the gays did sue. My gut and knowledge of the LGBT community tells it had to be something more than the baker saying "Gay marriage is against our beliefs." Something far uglier must have transpired in the shop, but there's no way for me to prove it.
None of this is to say there aren't radical queers (or any other minority for that matter.) Regardless of the group, even a majority such as Christians, there are individuals that make a big stink out of nothing.
Even so, on the surface it seems that your bakers are in the wrong. If you open your shop to the public, you need to be willing to serve all the public. If we start saying you can refuse service based on some belief, it opens the doors to all sorts of discrimination. People that support bakers refusing to make a cake for a gay couple are only see the one incident and are missing the big picture, which is not a pretty one. By the way, did you know that arguments against gay marriage are the same ones used against interracial ones, including the religious objections?
Every kind of queer configuration doesn't pass as marriage and every kind of weirdness on cake doesn't make it a wedding cake.
Speaking of cakes, I like this one (from 8:30 to the end) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgiqLmzCk0g
So automatiucally every old couple of bigoted? What an over simplified nonsense answer that is! May i remind that they were not aggressive but asked for the right to place a leafelt from their tradtion on the leaflet place? Also, that when the put in an offical complaint on police harassment they received an apology so do try and look more. And on the husband and wife that did bed & breakfast in their home there needs to be a further clarification. On their website they stated for all to see that queer couple would not receive shared rooms and their mistake was not reminding the 2 of that. The case is now going to the Human Rights Court in europe. Now back to the Belfast thingy.
The cake was to be inscribed "Support gay marriage." The couple running the bakery are against queer marriage and as we live in a democracy (I think) they have an equal right of opinion. Today in a national British newspaper - was either the "I" or the London times a queer writer has accused his own side of being deliberately provocative time after time and many would be better being a bit more sensible in their pogroms. That is sensible from a queer protagonist as the militancy he obviously af=grees with me on distantly only raises hackled in opposition. Churches here are quite entitled under law notto have same sex marriage so can we expect yet another pogrom. All of this only emphasises what i have said about being in your face attitudes from queerdom. It is okay for them to have a view but not for anyone opposed to their opinion? Something deeply getting flawed in our supposed democratic tradition! And yet again the Assembly in Belfast rejected queer marriage so the bakery couple are hardly lone antagonisers. They simply disagreed and no doubt another court action by the tyranny of the minorities.
The "
Freedom of Speech" includes, with many other variations, the
"Freedom of Expression".
The queers who wanted to express themselves had a right to do so, & so did the bakers, who also have the same rights, expressed themselves by not producing the
"Queer Cake".
It's what some might call a
'Mexican Standoff', where both sides have freely expressed themselves in opposite directions, & whereas no party, in short, gained any
'ground', but both freely expressed their prerogatives nevertheless.
As a proper remedy, the queers could have/should have sought out another baker more politically sympathetic to their desire to make their political statement....,.,period.
That said, if the queers further choose to snowball their obvious political bonanza here, they have the right to express their freedom of speech in the public media & the courts........not to force the bakers to make their cake (which never was the goal anyway), but to place their queer agenda into the court of public opinion, a spectacle they will cherish forever.
Whether he realizes it or not, dear ole salty RJ has played right into their political hands......here in DnD.....giving them a forum they could never have dreamt of . (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/hitler002.gif)
The bakers, by standing to their principals & expressing their rights, actually might end up having to shit up a rope, but in the end, by all that's good in their personal domain, they won't have to make a limp wristed cake for the queers to ejaculate on then consume -- unless that is -- they choose to submit, reap all the free publicity by doing so, & in the process dash to hell all their principals & rights.
These bakers may end up losing some patronage, but then again they might as well gain some too.
The only shameful tragedy here would be if Government stood up on one side or the other, rather than declaring a mutual
'draw'.
This is what I wrote in another thread dealing with free speech:
All speech or expression of idea should be considered soundly protected as free speech until such expression &/or statements are proven to cause serious criminal harm to another, or others, in a manner totally unacceptable by society because it is proven to cause serious criminal harm, & that such harm is subject to penalty via existing law.
What is said or expressed via any medium may be repugnant, unpopular, & despised by the general public, but unless it causes serious criminal harm to society as a whole, those statements & expressions must be permitted in any free & open society, & also protected by law in order to protect those making the statements or expressions in question.......,
.........Regardless, whether there be a basis in fact or not, speech that is distasteful or insulting, should have no bearing on whether the speaker can or can't exercise it's use under the auspices of freedom of speech protection.
Under the protection of freedom of speech, I could insult anyone I so please, as long as the insults I hurl could not be construed as being directly insightful of physical harm by others upon the individual or individuals I insult.
The same goes for hate speech, which has no actual basis in law & was borne solely out of Political Correctness, that unless the speech was directly attributable to insighting physical violence by others upon the object of the hate speech, such speech should be rightfully protected by freedom of speech in a free & open society.
Never at any cost, within a free & open society, should Political Correctness ever be allowed to trump free speech in any way, manner, or form......
Rock on...... (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/blowjob002.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/giddy.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/JerkOFF.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/blowjob002.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/Lesbo12.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/kissingmonkey002.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/Homo10.gif)
FWIW, I seem to remember a few months back that there was a problem between Chic-Fil-A and the LGBT community. It ended with the LGBTs boycotting for at least a short time, and no discernible difference in the business of selling chicken. Chic-Fil-A did not discriminate either in hiring practice or in serving customers, as far as I know-- it's just that the owners of the outfit actually dared to have a non-PC opinion and they voiced it publicly.
Chic-Fil-A is still in business, if they're in a financial bind because of the boycott it's not so anyone would notice.
It's not a freedom of speech issue. The client requests certain wording and you give it to them. That's the nature of business. If you're doing work for yourself, then it becomes a freedom of speech issue.
All the research points to one conclusion regarding sexual orientation, be heterosexual, gay/lesbian or bisexual, people are born into it and it can't be changed. What's that you say? "Political correctness" No. Many independent studies that passed peer review. Oh, the researchers' peers were just being politically correct themselves? No. In fact, a counter-researcher trying to disprove that sexual orientation is chosen "behavior" wound up reaching the same conclusion. This is why is immoral to discriminate against the LGBT community. People used to the same arguments to discriminate against blacks, that they were the cursed descendants of Ham (one of Noah's sons.) In the case of both discrimination based on sexual orientation and race, the Bible was merely a whitewash and excuse for bigotry.
FWIW, I seem to remember a few months back that there was a problem between Chic-Fil-A and the LGBT community. It ended with the LGBTs boycotting for at least a short time, and no discernible difference in the business of selling chicken. Chic-Fil-A did not discriminate either in hiring practice or in serving customers, as far as I know-- it's just that the owners of the outfit actually dared to have a non-PC opinion and they voiced it publicly.
Chic-Fil-A is still in business, if they're in a financial bind because of the boycott it's not so anyone would notice.
A few gays boycotted them. I didn't want their greasy chicken anyway, so you can't really say I boycotted. But one group is always boycotting another and it almost never works. Did you hear about the groups trying to boycott General Mills because they offer domestic partnership benefits? It's not hurting General Mills, either. If we're gonna talk about boycotts, it's only fair to point that we Christian groups trying to boycott companies left and right for exercising the beliefs of the Board and CEO. Remember the Christian groups trying to boycott Disney for hiring out the park to an LGBT group, never mind that they did the same for Christian groups. I daresay there are more silly Christian boycotts going on than gay ones.
All the research points to one conclusion regarding sexual orientation, be [it] heterosexual, gay/lesbian or bisexual, people are born into it and it can't be changed.
And if that's not really the case, you'll argue — what? Of course, it doesn't matter; your proclivities (politically,
Sang… Let's not get distracted!) are set in stone (tablets): Only those who disagree with you should be discriminated against.
Does that discrimination legitimately get elevated to a criminal (or civil, actionable) offense? I know your answer… I disagree.
BTW: The "research" has
shown no such conclusion, except by hysterically gesticulating… (Is that what you mean, by "points"? :) ) The research is equivocal, at best. And you surely know it.
Of course, if you mean questionnaires filled out by self-selected respondents, etc.: There's a reason most
sociology research is considered bunk…
——————————————————
@
Howie: Do you not know the difference between "care" and "cry"…? Your knuckles on the keyboard give you away! :)
It's not "research." It's research. I suppose you think the research amounts to question such as "Were you born gay?" Far from it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm
A group of 90 healthy gay and heterosexual adults, men and women, were scanned by the Karolinska Institute scientists to measure the volume of both sides, or hemispheres, of their brain.
When these results were collected, it was found that lesbians and heterosexual men shared a particular "asymmetry" in their hemisphere size, while heterosexual women and gay men had no difference between the size of the different halves of their brain.
In other words, structurally, at least, the brains of gay men were more like heterosexual women, and gay women more like heterosexual men.
A further experiment found that in one particular area of the brain, the amygdala, there were other significant differences.
In heterosexual men and gay women, there were more nerve "connections" in the right side of the amygdala, compared with the left.
The reverse, with more neural connections in the left amygdala, was the case in homosexual men and heterosexual women.
The Karolinska team said that these differences could not be mainly explained by "learned" effects, but needed another mechanism to set them, either before or after birth.
Do you get it? It's not questionnaires filled out by self-selected respondents. It's not even sociology. It's biology and neurology. Now all science is somewhat equivocal. There's alway, always some perceived flaw in the research. However, the preponderance of evidence leads to a biological cause of homosexuality and not just from this one study I pointed out.
As I said before the marketplace will, in the fullness of time, weed out businesses that discriminate against the LGBT community. Let's put it this way, do you think businesses that discriminated against racial minorities in the past would have survived? The legislation against that discrimination reflected the changes in society's attitude. Likewise, the legislation against discrimination based sexual orientation is a mirror of society's evolution into one in which all people possess what Thomas Jefferson called "inalienable rights." I don't regret to inform you that equal protection under the law, as required by the constitution, is gradually becoming reality.
Sang, it would do good to link to the original http://ki.se/en/news/societys-attitudes-have-little-impact-on-choice-of-sexual-partner
Now, when you read through it, the usual flaws of modern neurology stick out. The heading (which is meant to reflect the conclusion of course) says "Society's attitudes have little impact on choice of sexual partner", whereas in the text it says that "the unique environment" is responsible for 61-66% of the impact. The unique environment means the direct growth environment, the family (distinguished from broader attitudes, law and media) which still by extension means the society, so the conclusion is actually the opposite of what the heading says!
Genetics, which Sang is emphasising, is said to have 18-39% of the impact. The upper margin of it would be significant, but what really catches my attention is the oddly wide range of this aspect found in the study. Can genetics really be called an important and reliable guide here? Not to mention the fact that every favourable commentator conflates correlation (which is what the research studied) with causation...
Now, when you read through it, the usual flaws of modern neurology stick out.
You mean these flaws (http://xkcd.com/882/)?
(Yes, the university's own PR department is just as bad. You'd still have to at the very least check the actual abstract and even that might be trying to draw too much attention to itself. A quick scan of the actual introduction and conclusion is the most useful if you're pressed for time.)
It seems the man wanting to promote queer marriage went to another baker shop and they accepted the order (!) so a lot of ballyhoo about something that is hardly earth quaking. A point is still raised however. If you can be forced to publish a view you disagree with on a cake then presumably you can now be forced to do so in a book a newspaper or a tv programme?! Damn stupid nonsense from the cake campaign bloke. And apart from this matter of the wider implications on being forced into something is the half-wit going to take court action against the Northern Ireland Assembly as well as the list I give here? He got his cake so that should be it. Belfast has enough to contend with withur some individual wanting to hog the limelight.
An homosexual cake is against the public mental health.
The baker can't do it by law.
I came across a blog-- and accompanying video, I strongly suggest you look over the whole thing-- that raises an interesting point that seems to be slipping from some of the more militant minds here. That point is "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins".
It's something that, strangely enough, a 2nd Amendment Rights advocate gets as he's arguing that some of the more radical elements in the pro-gun camp are doing more harm than good. By openly carrying AR-15s into Wal-Marts, Chipotles, Taco Bells and so on, all they do is alienate the public and eventually create the very calls for more gun control these activists fear.
So-- I have to ask what, exactly, is gained by LGBT activists going into a bakery owned by a Christian family and DEMANDING a cake that has pro-LGBT propaganda on it, violating the Christian family's beliefs? Were there no other bakeries in Northern Belfast that would do it? Or, as I strongly suspect, was it more important to make an example out of this bakery so nobody else would dare to say anything against the LGBT community? Could it be that the right of free speech is one way only? Better believe it. I stand for your right to speak unless I disagree with what you say, then I'll sue you into oblivion. If you don't kowtow to my every demand, I'l drive you so far out of business that it's not funny. Yep-- that's sure what it looks like.
Take a look at the link below, and pay special attention to the video at the bottom of the blog piece. It's about gun rights/open carry, but the principles apply to this to where rights are concerned.
http://chrishernandezauthor.com/2014/07/06/please-open-carriers-stop-defending-my-rights/ (http://chrishernandezauthor.com/2014/07/06/please-open-carriers-stop-defending-my-rights/)
Oh dear, oh dear, I have already said mjsmsprt40 that he got the cake at another bakery.
Oh dear, oh dear, I have already said mjsmsprt40 that he got the cake at another bakery.
It doesn't end just at the bakery. Here in the States we've had some issues where some pressure-group or another decides to make an example of somebody who doesn't instantly jump to the pressure-group's demands, and the concept that people other than the pressure-group might have rights too seems to escape them. I will say that some of our TV preachers have been notorious for demanding that a business respond favorably to their demands "or else" so it isn't just one sided by any means.
Racing off to court and screaming "discrimination" seems to be something that certain people are more likely to do than others though. Funny thing, we have a group that wants the government to keep its hands off of "our bodies" but wants to compel businesses by law to pay for birth control. So-- it never ends.
Oh dear, oh dear, I have already said mjsmsprt40 that he got the cake at another bakery.
Then why did you bring it up in the first place?
So-- I have to ask what, exactly, is gained by LGBT activists going into a bakery owned by a Christian family and DEMANDING a cake that has pro-LGBT propaganda on it, violating the Christian family's beliefs? Were there no other bakeries in Northern Belfast that would do it? Or, as I strongly suspect, was it more important to make an example out of this bakery so nobody else would dare to say anything against the LGBT community? Could it be that the right of free speech is one way only? Better believe it. I stand for your right to speak unless I disagree with what you say, then I'll sue you into oblivion. If you don't kowtow to my every demand, I'l drive you so far out of business that it's not funny. Yep-- that's sure what it looks like.
I agree for the most part. The point of a disagreement is that you seem to assume they deliberately choose a bakery that would deny them service. I don't think they did.
I will say that some of our TV preachers have been notorious for demanding that a business respond favorably to their demands "or else" so it isn't just one sided by any means.
Few, if any, pressure groups have the power to enforce the "or else." Did some radical Christian groups really think they could force General Mills not offer same-sex benefits? Did some gay groups really think they could bring down Chick-A-Fila? If so, both sides were completely delusional.
Every impotent boycott is also a great chance to coax money out of supporters. Suddenly both sides of every issue have a chance raise money when one firm or whatever is allegedly denying some group their rights and the pressure group "needs" money to support the boycott, the fact that it actually cost very little to send out a mass emails telling people not to buy from General Mills or Chick-A-Fila not withstanding. You could even go Katsung and accuse the leaders of the gays and Christians of being in collusion to rake in the money for the leaders of the pressure groups.
/Entered into thread expecting no less than 8 paragraphs of Mr. Howie's grousing.
/Left thread having had expectations met
Now, when you read through it, the usual flaws of modern neurology stick out.
You mean these flaws (http://xkcd.com/882/)?
(Yes, the university's own PR department is just as bad. You'd still have to at the very least check the actual abstract and even that might be trying to draw too much attention to itself. A quick scan of the actual introduction and conclusion is the most useful if you're pressed for time.)
It all goes to illustrate the fairly modest and moderate (but obvious) point that anything anyone wants to justify with this kind of science - including the scientists themselves - is flawed. For the present moment, it is more than enough to refute Sang's popular understanding of what he was reading.
For the present moment, it is more than enough to refute Sang's popular understanding of what he was reading.
Hardly. Tell us why the brains of pure homosexuals are different from heterosexuals. Your article doesn't seem to address that issue. I say "pure" because there's a wide spectrum human human sexual orientation. Many claiming to be gay are actually bisexual to a degree and likewise with "straight" people. Further, genetic factors are not the only variable. It's not as simple as genes or environment. I was emphasizing brain size and structure, not genetics. That's far from the same thing. Of course I brought up neurology, but never said anyone's neurology was strictly the result of genetics. To explore this a little further, let's look at the conclusions brought up the article you offered.
Overall, the environment shared by twins (including familial and societal attitudes) explained 0-17% of the choice of sexual partner, genetic factors 18-39% and the unique environment 61-66%. The individual's unique environment includes, for example, circumstances during pregnancy and childbirth, physical and psychological trauma (e.g., accidents, violence, and disease), peer groups, and sexual experiences.
The first sentence is the one you're drawing your conclusions from, but you ignore the second one. Note "circumstances during pregnancy." One those circumstance is Epigenetics. (http://io9.com/5967426/scientists-confirm-that-homosexuality-is-not-genetic--but-it-arises-in-the-womb) In a nutshell, these are temporary switches that impact the genes and influence, among many other things, sexual orientation.
There's likely not one single cause of sexual orientation. For Bill, it might "run the family." For Tom, there epigenetic switch might have triggered it. In any case, the research points to a prenatal origin.
BTW, nearly all science is flawed, regardless of the field. There's always some factor the researcher didn't consider, but that doesn't automatically mean his conclusions are wrong. If it did, we'd still be back in the dark ages as far as our understanding of the universe goes.
For the present moment, it is more than enough to refute Sang's popular understanding of what he was reading.
Hardly. Tell us why the brains of pure homosexuals are different from heterosexuals. Your article doesn't seem to address that issue.
Sorry, I dug up the wrong study. The right one must be this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18559854 The date matches, the numbers match. The thing is that the only number in the abstract is the size of the sample. Now, if it would state the correlation figures, I would give it a thought. What I linked to earlier, stated correlation figures. It was a better study, with much larger sample too, so it cannot be ignored. Yours is ignorable.
There's likely not one single cause of sexual orientation.
Which is the whole point. "Sexual orientation" in the relevant sense does not exist. There is just cultural-instinctual accommodation/deviation. There's absolute sexual liberalism on one extreme, strict celibacy on the other, and a certain range of normalcy in between. You favour a wider range of normalcy, but I favour a narrower range, so that society would have a workable definition of family, a properly legal and social meaning of marriage, and a solid sense of decency. That's about it.
What a daft comment you made there tt92 about why it was brought up.It is all about the fuss the man made and all he had to do was go to another baker but no, he had to create a hoo-ha, go the equalities Commission and consider legal action. I have already pointed out that if you cannot have your own view denied over a damn cake the same applies to teleivision, newspapers and so on You simply ignore the definitive and go for ignoring things. It would be so easy for the baker to lose his 4 shops and the staff all get their books because of a difference in opinion over a campaign. Well no doubt it won't be long until there is a law against offending someone next. Even differences in opion on a qiet way such as this baker is a no-no. So much for democracy!
Nice dance there mjsmsprt40 but on a more serious note what you say has a ring of truth and the way some monorities create confrontations actually.
I didn't ask why it was brought up.
I asked why YOU brought it up.
Which is the whole point. "Sexual orientation" in the relevant sense does not exist.
For that to be true, we would also have ignore the fact that the majority of men have no capacity to be sexually attracted to another man. The same thing goes for women. It's surprisingly easy to forget that heterosexuality is also a sexual orientation. Like homosexuality, it's determined in the womb
You favour a wider range of normalcy, but I favour a narrower range, so that society would have a workable definition of family, a properly legal and social meaning of marriage, and a solid sense of decency. That's about it.
Whose definition of decency? I find it indecent that people are denied equal protection under the law. A majority of Americans now support equal marriage, so a same-sex couple would appear to be perfectly workable definition of a family.
Which is the whole point. "Sexual orientation" in the relevant sense does not exist.
For that to be true, we would also have ignore the fact that the majority of men have no capacity to be sexually attracted to another man. The same thing goes for women. It's surprisingly easy to forget that heterosexuality is also a sexual orientation.
It's surprisingly easy to forget that when there's just one sexual orientation, then there's absolutely no sexual orientation at all. When there's just one species, the concept of species does not make sense. When there's just one colour, the concept of colour does not make sense. Same with gender or sex. "Sexually attracted to the same sex" is a contradiction in terms, i.e. a self-contradiction, because for attraction to be sexual, it has to be gender-based, because sex and gender are the same thing.
Heterosexuality can be a concept only in contrast with homosexuality. When you admit homosexuality, heterosexuality also becomes a concept. Dig up some history of the concept of heterosexuality to see how astonishingly modern it is. Is it because people throughout history forgot that heterosexuality is a sexual orientation? No, it's because the concept of sexual orientation the way you are putting it does not even make sense.
Like homosexuality, it's determined in the womb
Let's just ignore for now that, even after citing research, you did not establish the womb theory of sexual orientation at all.
You favour a wider range of normalcy, but I favour a narrower range, so that society would have a workable definition of family, a properly legal and social meaning of marriage, and a solid sense of decency. That's about it.
Whose definition of decency?
That's the point. When you have no idea of a universal definition of decency, then you have no claim on it. At best you can dismiss the relevance of decency, but this only makes you look worse, not better.
I find it indecent that people are denied equal protection under the law. A majority of Americans now support equal marriage, so a same-sex couple would appear to be perfectly workable definition of a family.
And how about the people with squarely opposite definition marriage and family (which happens to be the definition that applied for all history and is being undermined and overturned only in the last few decades)? How about their sense of decency? And not just decency, but the actual content of what marriage is about, namely raising the next generation of humans who should produce and raise yet another generation on their own. How about some modicum of respect for the actual content of these legally, socially, and biologically central functions? How is it decent to make a mockery of all this? I am not at all disputing decency here, but your way of citing it to promote indecency and irrationality.
A further experiment found that in one particular area of the brain, the amygdala, there were other significant differences.
In heterosexual men and gay women, there were more nerve "connections" in the right side of the amygdala, compared with the left.
The reverse, with more neural connections in the left amygdala, was the case in homosexual men and heterosexual women.
The Karolinska team said that these differences could not be mainly explained by "learned" effects, but needed another mechanism to set them, either before or after birth.
Surely -even in your educational experience- you've heard of
post hoc, ergo propter hoc? But —
Science!—————————————————
Forgive me,
ersi, for I mostly agree with your post just prior to mine… (That's an abrogation of "the laws of nature," no? :) )
I don't "hate" gays. I don't think many others do, either. But I
do think some
gays (but much more so, some busy-body-biddies who resent the fact that they,
their clique, isn't recognized for the "geniuses" they obviously are, aren't given absolute power over "us plebes"…) think the only way they can be "happy" is to secure the political ability to make others miserable!
No need to determine what is really going on, if you can use
whatever results to spin it your way… It's the "your way" that you don't recognize,
Sang.
But, then, your degree is in Sociology, isn't it? :)
It's surprisingly easy to forget that when there's just one sexual orientation, then there's absolutely no sexual orientation at all. When there's just one species, the concept of species does not make sense. When there's just one colour, the concept of colour does not make sense. Same with gender or sex. "Sexually attracted to the same sex" is a contradiction in terms, i.e. a self-contradiction, because for attraction to be sexual, it has to be gender-based, because sex and gender are the same thing.
And yet homosexuality (or whatever you prefer to call it) exists. Deviation being it's nature, practice and classification.
How societies should deal with it depends, but specially there's a million more important things to societies to solve first.
What some people likes to do in bed it's not exactly a priority and the imposition of such agenda inadmissible. Disguise it as "rights" is an insult to people's real rights.
(That's an abrogation of "the laws of nature," no? :) )
You and your Hilarious Words.
I am just doing a little bit of natural philosophy a.k.a. philosophy of nature here. Anyone sensible cannot deny the sensibleness of that.
I don't hate queers either. It's just that the aspect of human nature that they have chosen to advertise is disastrous for youth and that's quite unfortunate. They don't stop at advertising their own perversion, but are forcing the entire society - everybody, regardless of "orientation" - to cater to the queer sector specifically. They were tolerable as long as they were a subculture, but now they demand to be acknowledged as mainstream. Whoever does not join them gets labelled intolerant, and this is enough to sway the insecure. Properly Orwellian divisive propaganda tactic. In longer term they are determined to demolish the institution of marriage and family. The wedding cake incidents illustrate this clearly.
There is a modest and moderate way to be decadent, but the LGBT folks of our era won't have it this way.
In longer term they are determined to demolish the institution of marriage and family. The wedding cake incidents illustrate this clearly.
Longer? Here, the words "father" and "mother" are not that "politically correct" already. :eyes:
What some people likes to do in bed it's not exactly a priority and the imposition of such agenda inadmissible. Disguise it as "rights" is an insult to people's real rights.
The problem is when one of the two major national political parties in fact makes it a top priority for them. They proceed to pass laws and constitutional amendments aimed specifically at LGBT community. Now they're upset because increasingly their efforts are found to be in violation of the Federal Constitution, which trumps state and local laws via the "Supremacy Clause." All they had to was leave the queers alone and gay marriage most likely would not be the law of the land in 19 states and growing.
Properly Orwellian divisive propaganda tactic. In longer term they are determined to demolish the institution of marriage and family.
And yet it doesn't occur to that they're affirming the institution of marriage and family? Marriage and family were in trouble long before this even became an issue. You say "There is a modest and moderate way to be decadent, but the LGBT folks of our era won't have it this way." However, it apparently doesn't even register to you that married is a move away from decadence.
It's sadly funny when someone claims to not hate gay people, then proceeds to go on tirade about how gay people are perverse, out to destroy marriage and family, somehow for forcing everyone to cater to them.
Properly Orwellian divisive propaganda tactic. In longer term they are determined to demolish the institution of marriage and family.
And yet it doesn't occur to that they're affirming the institution of marriage and family? Marriage and family were in trouble long before this even became an issue. You say "There is a modest and moderate way to be decadent, but the LGBT folks of our era won't have it this way." However, it apparently doesn't even register to you that married is a move away from decadence.
Sexual revolution of the sixties (or whenever that was in the West) severely damaged the institution of marriage and you say that further "liberation" is here to save it? Maybe, to secure proper salvation for marriage, let's give animals the right to marry too? It doesn't even register to you that these moves take away the last residue of meaning in marriage.
Of course, from your point of view there was no meaning in marriage anyway, so you can easily say what you are saying. The sexual liberation generation directly propagated sex with anyone and further "liberation" promotes sex with any
thing. What is the purpose of legalising this or legislating it in any way? How does it make sense when people marry their dildos?* The only meaning of marriage that queers have is that wedding is pretty - particularly in church.
* These are rhetorical questions, in case you are wondering. In philosophy this is called reductio ad absurdum, which calls one's attention to a flaw in reasoning. But I expect that for you the absurdity of your position, with its absolute lack of definitions, foundations and aims, doesn't even register.
It's sadly funny when someone claims to not hate gay people, then proceeds to go on tirade about how gay people are perverse, out to destroy marriage and family, somehow for forcing everyone to cater to them.
Not "somehow". I was quite specific about how it's going on. Anyway, you are obviously not going to respond to any of my focal points, because the last thing you want is for things to begin to make sense.
You really need to think before anything about queers Sanguinemoon. That silliness about about hating queers then going on a tirade? You very conveniently ignored the reasonable assertion that regarding the cake I compared to that on television, newspapers, etc. Will be looking forward to the examples of me saying I hate the poor beggars. I do feel sorry for them however (!) and they have leaders who are very controversial and indeed deliberately bloody minded in trying to silence any alternative opinion. This cake is yet another example of being deliberately provocative and trying to frighten off even reasonable attitudes from those who don't agree with them. Have a wide selection of friends in my circle of political and religious corners but no queers and although you will no doubt think that is a loss I don't mind as I'm happy as Larry with my enjoyable life! 8)
[move]
Put this on a cake........Put this on a cake........Put this on a cake...........Put this on a cake..........Put this on a cake........Put this on a cake...........Put this on a cake...........Put this on a cake..........Put this on a cake........Put this on a cake...........Put this on a cake...........Put this on ar cake..........Put this on a cake........Put this on a cake...........Put this on a cake...........Put this on a cake..........Put this on a cake........Put this on a cake.........Put this on a cake...........Put this on a cake..........Put this on a cake........Put this on a cake...........Put this on a cake...........Put this on a cake..........Put this on a cake........Put this on a cake..........Put this on a cake...........Put this on a cake..........Put this on a cake........Put this on a cake............Put this on a cake...........Put this on a cake..........Put this on a cake........Put this on a cake..........Put this on a cake...........Put this on a cake..........Put this on a cake........Put this on a cake..........Put this on a cake...........Put this on a cake..........Put this on a cake!!!!![/move]
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-sTaJ79w9WQw%2FU3vuYRLzadI%2FAAAAAAAAEng%2F2z58tgtJ4qM%2Fs1600%2Fgay%2Blove%2B1.gif&hash=112bbb4b78fa5cc06badefaf5239266e" rel="cached" data-hash="112bbb4b78fa5cc06badefaf5239266e" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sTaJ79w9WQw/U3vuYRLzadI/AAAAAAAAEng/2z58tgtJ4qM/s1600/gay+love+1.gif)
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/firefart.gif)
You should keep your utterly yeuchy life style to yourself Smiley instead of filming yourself. :o
COOL IT! Personal attacks are verboten on most forums, this one too.
Yes, MJM....yer right, I was over the top a tad........(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/hitqt9.gif).............I didn't mean any literal harm.................I was being my sometimes silly, overly mischievous, sarcastic self.
I totally removed my last post, which upon reflection, my attempt at humor was overly personal as you indicate.
Mea culpa, Mea culpa, Mea culpa.
Ach, i wouldn't be too fazed SmileyFaze. I think that mjsmsprt40 was getting too hasty in his waffle there! You can of course argue for yourself and I will certainly do. Glad when a boy i never played cowboys and Indians with our Chicago friend or soldiers as the games would have stopped as a UN man was called in! Anyway my answer was light although missed in Illinois. :rolleyes:
....i wouldn't be too fazed SmileyFaze. I think that mjsmsprt40 was getting too hasty in his waffle there!.......
Well, unlike some, when I'm wrong, I'm not afraid to take it like a man & admit it.
Waffle??? ..... On the contrary, MJM was spot on, & I appreciate his
'honest' moderation & intervention.
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/cheerskj4.gif)
Ach, i wouldn't be too fazed SmileyFaze. I think that mjsmsprt40 was getting too hasty in his waffle there! You can of course argue for yourself and I will certainly do. Glad when a boy i never played cowboys and Indians with our Chicago friend or soldiers as the games would have stopped as a UN man was called in! Anyway my answer was light although missed in Illinois. :rolleyes:
Waffle?
WAFFLE?
Waffles? With eggs and bacon. A cup of good,strong coffee. Gotta start the day right.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.witzel.org%2Fff%2Fwaffle_06.jpg&hash=a6141f27980377230378d1d53de67827" rel="cached" data-hash="a6141f27980377230378d1d53de67827" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.witzel.org/ff/waffle_06.jpg)
Haha. Now a more appropriate addition mjsmsprt40!
That silliness about about hating queers then going on a tirade? You very conveniently ignored the reasonable assertion that regarding the cake I compared to that on television, newspapers, etc.
I only said that because Ersi did. There's a peculiar form of political correctness that bigots now demand not be called what they are. Gay people are not out to destroy marriage and family, but in fact what they're doing is embracing those values. It's very hard to make the case that same-sex marriage damages the institution and without fail, those arguments fall to silliness about people marrying their dog or toaster.
Are gay people trying to force their will on the majority? Every group has its radicals that do this. In fact, it should be noted that all this came about because some Christian groups tried to force their beliefs into state constitutions and the Federal one. At least in America, there's a term called Culture War. The fact remains the Right, through the so-called "culture war", they declared war on us. Now the have the audacity to call us bullies or even fascists now that they're losing in court of public opinion and the court of law (what they were doing was flagrantly unconstitutional.) Far from it, LGBTs are among the most tolerate people you'll ever meet. Of course, we get called intolerant if somebody attempts to pass an amendment against us and we have the nerve to say something about it.
In the end, it is absurd to sue over something like a cake. Mjmsprt40 is probably right that it actually hurts our cause. However, it also seems petty to refuse to bake a cake and focus on very few passages in the Bible. If the LGBT risks being known for suing over little things like this, Christianity itself risks being more known to opposition to the LGBT community than for the forgiveness and non-judgement that Jesus actually preached.
I would say that it does not jelp your cause at all and as I also pointed out there have been times when well known queers here in the public eye have said the same thing. He got his campaign cake and after a suitable moan that should have been it. Whether the other baker is Christian or not or even if religion needs to be involved is a distraction. I know an Aethist who is very against queerdom and querer mariage so emphasises my point. So what a surrise eh folks a passing point that the queers promoter here and the definitive agin man here in Glasgow thinks! Maybe i will hugh the Pope next?! Nah, maybe not. :D
Hugh the Pope?
Is that the German one or the South American?
Well I wouldn't hug any dashed Pope whether South American Iberian stock or Hitler Youth one. And I wouldn't hugh him either.
Whether the other baker is Christian or not or even if religion needs to be involved is a distraction.
Is it? It's always Christian groups that engage in one silly boycott after another of companies that offer same-sex benefits or seem in anyway sympathetic to the LGBT community, then have the never to claim victim status and in some cases call us fascists if we have anything to say about it. They had the audacity to lambast us and call us fascists and socialist (never mind those are on opposite ends the political spectrum :rolleyes: ) after that company decided to give money to deprive us of our constitutional rights because they're Christian run and we had something to say about it.
The Brendan Eich situation was a little ironic. He was briefly CEO of Mozilla. He gave money to support California's Prop 8 (against gay marriage) and boasted about the Christian boycott of Starbucks made allegedly made the sales go down (note yet another Christian boycott of a company offering the same benefits to all employees.) There was an "boycott" of Mozilla mostly conducted by a heterosexual website (OK Cupid) and a few Mozilla employees. When Eich stepped down, numerous Christians and Christian Groups, such as NOM, proclaimed a boycott of the browser (how many actually used the browser in the first place is unknown :p ) So we had wound up with a Christian boycott in response to a small boycott mostly conducted by heterosexual and not by the actual gay community. Do you understand yet? We have all these Christians claiming that LGBT are intolerant of other opinions, yet are more boycott happy than the gays are. Maybe these Christian groups, whose methods and teaching have nothing to do with Christ, such follow his advice he said "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye." (Mathew 7:3-5)
Everybody's entitled to their opinion and the right to express it, but at the end of the day, the constitution is the law of the land - not somebody's religious feelings. The constitution, through the 14th amendment, provides equal protection under the law for all American citizens. Marriage provides so many protections that denying equal marriage as repeatedly found unconstitutional; just like it was when people were attempting to use religion to deny inter-racial marriage. It does seem odd and a little backwards that conservatives are the ones that seem to lack a sense of history; we've seen this movie before just with different actors. Guess what? The script has the same ending.
Hmmm.... I'm a Christian. If I boycott Starbuck's, would anybody-- notice?
I never buy Starbuck's anyway because I just plain don't like their coffee-- it has nothing to do with who sleeps in who's bed. In fact, until I read about it just now on this forum I didn't know anybody was boycotting the place. It's not so's you'd know by the number of customers buying their overpriced, yucchy coffee and pounding away on laptops and tablets in their seating areas. They don't seem to be hurting much at all.
These boycotts, regardless of group - it doesn't have to be Christians or LGBT, get more media attention than they deserve. The companies know damn well that few outside the activists circle will actually participate. Mjmsprt40 comment about why he doesn't go to Starbucks brings up another point: how many "boycotters" even use the given product or patronize the target companies stores anyway? Go sit in the dunce corner if you think Starbucks, Hobby Lobby, General Mills, Google, etc haven't figured this out. While it is understandable to not want to give a company that offended you business, thinking you'll get some many million more people to follow your lead and cause damage to the firm is delusional.
The Belfast thing is being overdone of course. The Christian baker (passing coincidence!) said no but didn't adopt an aggressive and in your face tone. The queer asking for the the cake with his campaign slogan could then object and simply go elsewhere and that would have been that. He did as i said go elsewhere and got the dashed thing. But nope on he goes to the Equalities Commission and possible court action. Absolutely over the top. Even more so when the tax payer is paying for that monstrosity of a Commission and any Court action! Whatever happens over in the ex-colonies is up to them and I know there are States that don't practice the giving in to queerdom. Here that minority can exist like any other that are liked or disliked and yet they still shout out more from a 2% corner than many bigger minority groups. Seems to me the way things are going in the West it is pointless being in the majority for anything as rights become stretched for such!
"Tyranny of the minorities" (!). :whistle:
How is that you know for sure the bakers didn't adopt an aggressive tone? Because they said so and Daily Mail reported their word as fact? Sure, some people are sue-happy, engaging in the next silly boycott seems to their favorite hobby, etc. That goes for any minority or majority. But most people don't behave this way, as you well know. For a gay couple to sue over something like a cake they'll have to spend money to get a lawyer, miss work for the court dates along with the meetings with their lawyer, etc. You have to wonder what really happened the parties to make the queers resort to going through all this trouble. What's the story behind the story?
After a little reading, it seems the bakers might have indeed broke the law. Some are arguing for a "conscience clause" that allows firms to refuse business based on their beliefs, similar to what some folks are pushing for in the US. The trouble is that this extends far beyond the LGBT community and opens a door to wholesale discrimination based on religion (possibly even against denominations of Christianity) , race, etc. It's not all that far-fetch to imagine some Baker refusing service to a Muslim wedding, claiming "belief." What will happen when the conscience laws turns against the Christians?
Some people don't need much prodding to create trouble.
Several years back now, the city of Zion, Illinois was forced by court order to change its street signs and corporate seal. Reason: An atheist drove through town, got caught speeding, and decided to make an issue of the corporate seal of Zion, which included Christian imagery in it. The imagery actually dated back historically to Zion's founding when it was a Mormon community. The atheist in question was a well known militant gadfly, looking for opportunities to create this sort of problem. He got his decision and the city of Zion was forced to change the corporate seal. He didn't live in Zion, he actually lived in Buffalo Grove, a good half-hour to forty-five minute drive away. I never did find out why he drove through Zion that day in the first place, but he did and got nabbed for speeding. The city seal on the side of the police car set him off, and-- the rest is history.
The atheist in question was a well known militant gadfly, looking for opportunities to create this sort of problem. He got his decision and the city of Zion was forced to change the corporate seal. He didn't live in Zion, he actually lived in Buffalo Grove, a good half-hour to forty-five minute drive away.
I'm actually friends with his son (who went to school with my wife). You'd probably enjoy a conversation with his son's partner.
Btw, I can't seem to find any references to the man speeding in e.g. the 1986
Chicago Tribune (nor in the 2011 repetition of the affair).
That example by mjsmsprt40 it unfortunately a thing that is so easy to be typical of much that is going on these days and atheists also get the bit between their teeth. Recently down over the Border in England a church had a poster sign outside that advised atheists they had better be right (!).And an atheists took exception to that humour and complained to the police!
Sanguinemoon, you are so up to your ears in this queer agenda that you automatically come up with this throwaway on how do i know the baker was not in the face. I dare say had it been in the failing Guardian or similar that would be okay but horror you react by throwing in the Daily Mail! Daft. Oh, and i take it the Belfast media is also in your diatribe?? Then that stuff about the individual queer wanting the campaign cake might then be out of pocket and all that baloney. Having the Equalities Commission on board is another consideration. The uptight queer could sue the baker and maybe force the closure of the 4 shops the staff go unemployed. After all the elderly couple who refused a room in their bed and breakfast home were sued by the 2 queers. There was nothing stopping the man from complaining then going elsewhere (which he did remember and got it). Maybe queerdom wants to stretch itself and be the most minority and beat the Muslims and everyone else but these incidents are over the top. We are gradually reaching the point that amongst our rights and freedoms we wil soon have a law about offending anyone. That is not as pushed as might be thought. As a person of some strength can occasionally be in a discussion or argument where something might be offensive twoards me but I don't start crying and run to authorities.
We are now experiencing something which I would call "tyranny of the minorities" which increasingly has worked into the psyche of the majority who have either become complacent or fearful of expressing an opinion. So this culprit in Belfast had the right to moan but has made a war out of a trivial thing in reality. You have yor stance and I have mine so learn to try and live with it.
My stance? You and OakdaleFTL suffer the same disease, inventing a radical position for me - a position that runs contrary to everything I've actually said. Do you somehow imagine that I support complaining to the commission and suing, despite the fact I clearly said otherwise?
Oh now it is holier than thou dear laddie! Over the years you haven't realised much about what you put in. As soon as there is any query on this particular subject you can bet you will hurry in to defend them. When one considers that queerdom is no silent non-reacting minority. I pointed out that one paper journalist who is a queer himself has said in print that very often they do themselves no favours by some reactions. They exists like any other minority group be they what they are and as we have been conditioned into biting our fingernails to accommodate (un-necessarily often) the majority have become pushed into a corner by their own stupidity.
They exist and part of life and i only wish they could accept the percentage they have and stop damn well acting as it special treatment should be given out and every supposed incident treated like an act of war. The Wolfendon Report is history of decades ago and from a past of persecution often they are under the same law as everyone else. I don't have much time for things like say, Communism, Islam and some other outlooks but I don't go looking for wars to create. If Reds, Islamists, Zionists get too troublesome, I will challenge and the same with queers. Don't hate them of course but i have my rights like the population. :happy:
:lol:
Oh now it is holier than thou dear laddie! Over the years you haven't realised much about what you put in. As soon as there is any query on this particular subject you can bet you will hurry in to defend them. When one considers that queerdom is no silent non-reacting minority. I pointed out that one paper journalist who is a queer himself has said in print that very often they do themselves no favours by some reactions. They exists like any other minority group be they what they are and as we have been conditioned into biting our fingernails to accommodate (un-necessarily often) the majority have become pushed into a corner by their own stupidity.
They exist and part of life and i only wish they could accept the percentage they have and stop damn well acting as it special treatment should be given out and every supposed incident treated like an act of war. The Wolfendon Report is history of decades ago and from a past of persecution often they are under the same law as everyone else. I don't have much time for things like say, Communism, Islam and some other outlooks but I don't go looking for wars to create. If Reds, Islamists, Zionists get too troublesome, I will challenge and the same with queers. Don't hate them of course but i have my rights like the population. :happy:
I don't even know what the Wolfendon Report even is, without having to do a web search on it. Now about these "special rights." That's an old myth. Asking to be able to get legally married is not a special right. Asking to not be discriminated in the workplace is not a special right and yes, it still happens. Does is this mean to force any given preacher to perform the ceremony? Of course not. Does this mean forcing an employer to hire and promote an LGBT person above a more qualified heterosexual? Same answer. It does mean give the LGBT person an equal opportunity.
BUT if you want to special rights, how about the Christian Group trying to force their beliefs into the Constitution because there branch of Christianity doesn't believe in same-sex marriage? That's the ultimate special right. If two queers go before a judge and get married, or even go before a preacher at a gay church, it in no way impacts the Christian activists' church nor marriage. Yet, the demand their belief, based on a few passages of the Bible, not only be made law but be enshrined in the Federal and state Constitutions. They're the ones asking for the special privilege of discriminating based on "faith" , blind to the Pandora's Box they're trying to open. Yes, the very people that accuse us of demanding special rights are doing so. All we ask is equal protection under the law as required by 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. I'm sure the UK has similar provisions.
Yet most Christians won't turn away customers based on their sexual orientation. Likewise most LGBT people will not sue over nonsense like a cake. BTW, did you see me defend the activists suing over this cake, at all? Yes, I will most certainly defend the LGBT community if you are anyone tries to bad mouth us. But the actions of individuals are on a case by case basis,as usual. In this particular incident, I find both parties to be idiots.
.........the actions of individuals are on a case by case basis, as usual. In this particular incident, I find both parties to be idiots.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?action=reporttm;topic=430.78;msg=23986)
I could appreciate & support the premise of that position, & to take one step further, the only reason we are even discussing this incident is simply because some of these same
idiots wanted their 15 minutes of notoriety, when they legitimately only deserved a shrug & 10 seconds (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/good.gif)
[...]the only reason we are even discussing this incident is simply because some of these same idiots wanted their 15 minutes[...]
I'll second that. But then, it's the OP's specialty.
Now for the next part. Suddenly activists from both sides need you to send money....
Now if those people in Belfast (and the couple cases in the US out millions of LGBT people, mind you....) are sincere, they do need learn what "pick your battles" means. Of course, being idiots, they don't know what that means. Now let's say there's a more serious issue. A gay person gets fired for his job. Some would automatically conclude that he fired because he's gay. Before you jump on his bandwagon, better make sure if's not filled with manure.
I assume by Constitutive you are talking about the ex-colonies? as we do not have one here actually. All sorts of groups try to use the US Constitution and doesn't the same country muscle in everywhere in the world when not wanted. Hhmm, think the Belfast queer wanted his cake and eat it..... :yikes: