RE: An American dialogue

RE: An American dialogue (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DaddySatyr -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 10:03:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I'd recommend you put him on hide then. JVoV isn't going to be apologizing, imo. So, you're going to continue to repost and on and on it will go. While I appreciate your suggestion, all that would do is allow it to spew its bullshit, unanswered. No dice. Michael

DaddySatyr -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 10:06:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Who is stalking who. ..... Jus saying Im not involved in you stalking jvov. You take that for yourself. First of all, it's: "who is stalking whoM" Then, I guess you would have to define "stalking" as: "someone responding to a post in which they're mentioned or they're being directly responded to, themselves." Eliminating that wouldn't work out well on a forum, would it? Find a place where I've done anything other than that with the dishonorable, defamatory, he-cunt and you might have a case.

LadyPact -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 10:22:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Then you wrote: "he had created many wedding cakes, and wants to continue doing so." It's more correct to say he wants to remain in the business of creating wedding cakes, which is a part of the reason why this is a case at all. He's not doing favors for friends, engaging in private enterprise, or failing to fall into a category that doesn't charge sales tax. A business must comply with state law, including the statues regarding discrimination. quote: You are falsely equating decorating a cake celebrating a heterosexual wedding with decorating a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding. According to his beliefs, those two things are not the same. Would it be okay to force you to favorably march in a parade supporting an anti-gay message? Favorably march means you are marching in support of the message. Are we conflating private time with professional (business related) time? quote: Do all churches perform homosexual weddings? I've asked before and you never explained why it's okay for a church to not perform a homosexual wedding, even though they perform heterosexual weddings. Your response was to the effect that it was okay since they decline to perform weddings for some heterosexual couples, too. If that's okay, as long as Masterpiece Cakeshop declines to decorate a cake for a heterosexual wedding, it's okay, right? Obviously, I'm not butch. [:)] My answer, however, would be that we have different standards and practices that are distinguished between not for profit entities and for profit businesses. quote: Does it occur to you, that Masterpiece Cakeshop might not have accepted work celebrating every heterosexual wedding it's been offered? I know when I got married, we were lucky in that it was a late summer wedding and not in the prime wedding time, else our 6-month wedding prep would have been 12 months too late. I find it highly unlikely that the bakery refused service on the basis that they were "too busy". If they could not have accommodated based on business overflow, they would have records to establish the volume of business records stipulating that they couldn't have done the job for anyone, rather than selecting who they would do a custom order for based on religious beliefs. Just like I can't walk into a restaurant, hotel, or club that is already at maximum capacity and claim that I am being discriminated against because I am a woman, rather than being denied access on the basis that the venue is already full. I haven't read every piece of information regarding this case. However, I tend to think this could have been resolved easily if Master Piece Cake Shop has any record whatsoever of denying any heterosexual couple a comparable product based on religion. If that were the case, any attorney would have had the shop owner put that information right up there to show that this wasn't discrimination. To be honest, I'm quite interested to know how many heterosexual couples could order a custom job that very same day.

JVoV -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 11:12:55 AM)
Desi, dig deeper. Page 12 of this thread is where you'll find DS's original mention of the ACLU, and my original request for him to stop lying. 6 pages of this bullshit from him. Note that his post quoted below was edited with additions after I made this post. quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV The gay couple did not pursue a civil suit against the bakery, but took the issue to the State agency that handled this sort of thing. From there, the State took over. Only if the ACLU is a state agency, now. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is the actual name of the case. Please stop lying.

DesideriScuri -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 11:15:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I'd recommend you put him on hide then. JVoV isn't going to be apologizing, imo. So, you're going to continue to repost and on and on it will go. While I appreciate your suggestion, all that would do is allow it to spew its bullshit, unanswered. No dice. Michael And, JVoV hasn't stopped, so your reaction isn't doing anything, either. Just saying.

Wayward5oul -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 11:19:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I sincerely hope you'll stop spamming the thread with the oft-repeated post. It's really serving no useful function to anyone but (maybe) you. Until it (the he-cunt) does the honorable thing, every time it mentions me in a post or responds to me, I will continue to point out its willful misrepresentation and its "lofty goals" with which the thread was started. I do respect you and your opinion and appreciate you, doing the actual reading, before arriving at a decision, but I intend to treat it (the he-cunt) as it seems to want to treat me. Peace, Michael I'd recommend you put him on hide then. JVoV isn't going to be apologizing, imo. So, you're going to continue to repost and on and on it will go. I don't see that happening, Desi. DS has repeatedly stated that he is having more fun in the forums than he has had in a long time. He is enjoying this.

DesideriScuri -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 11:24:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Then you wrote: "he had created many wedding cakes, and wants to continue doing so." It's more correct to say he wants to remain in the business of creating wedding cakes, which is a part of the reason why this is a case at all. He's not doing favors for friends, engaging in private enterprise, or failing to fall into a category that doesn't charge sales tax. A business must comply with state law, including the statues regarding discrimination. Right. And, there could easily be an unConstitutional State law, right? quote: quote: You are falsely equating decorating a cake celebrating a heterosexual wedding with decorating a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding. According to his beliefs, those two things are not the same. Would it be okay to force you to favorably march in a parade supporting an anti-gay message? Favorably march means you are marching in support of the message. Are we conflating private time with professional (business related) time? Depends on if he was getting paid to be there or not. You'd rather put up semantics arguments rather than address the point though? quote: quote: Do all churches perform homosexual weddings? I've asked before and you never explained why it's okay for a church to not perform a homosexual wedding, even though they perform heterosexual weddings. Your response was to the effect that it was okay since they decline to perform weddings for some heterosexual couples, too. If that's okay, as long as Masterpiece Cakeshop declines to decorate a cake for a heterosexual wedding, it's okay, right? Obviously, I'm not butch. [:)] My answer, however, would be that we have different standards and practices that are distinguished between not for profit entities and for profit businesses. Apparently, not-for-profit businesses can discriminate and it's okay. Got it. quote: quote: Does it occur to you, that Masterpiece Cakeshop might not have accepted work celebrating every heterosexual wedding it's been offered? I know when I got married, we were lucky in that it was a late summer wedding and not in the prime wedding time, else our 6-month wedding prep would have been 12 months too late. I find it highly unlikely that the bakery refused service on the basis that they were "too busy". If they could not have accommodated based on business overflow, they would have records to establish the volume of business records stipulating that they couldn't have done the job for anyone, rather than selecting who they would do a custom order for based on religious beliefs. Just like I can't walk into a restaurant, hotel, or club that is already at maximum capacity and claim that I am being discriminated against because I am a woman, rather than being denied access on the basis that the venue is already full. I haven't read every piece of information regarding this case. However, I tend to think this could have been resolved easily if Master Piece Cake Shop has any record whatsoever of denying any heterosexual couple a comparable product based on religion. If that were the case, any attorney would have had the shop owner put that information right up there to show that this wasn't discrimination. To be honest, I'm quite interested to know how many heterosexual couples could order a custom job that very same day. They didn't refuse service based on being too busy. That was never the claim, either. Actually, one of the couple's mother called the next day, and Masterpiece Cakeshop again declined to custom decorate a cake for a homosexual wedding. They won't custom decorate a cake celebrating homosexual weddings, divorce or Halloween. All because the owner and decorator believes those things run afoul of his religious beliefs. It's been recorded (on paper, not video/audio) that he would gladly sell them anything he bakes, but he won't custom decorate a cake celebrating a homosexual wedding. He won't custom decorate a cake celebrating a homosexual wedding for anyone, homosexual or heterosexual.

DesideriScuri -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 11:29:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Desi, dig deeper. Page 12 of this thread is where you'll find DS's original mention of the ACLU, and my original request for him to stop lying. 6 pages of this bullshit from him. Note that his post quoted below was edited with additions after I made this post. quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV The gay couple did not pursue a civil suit against the bakery, but took the issue to the State agency that handled this sort of thing. From there, the State took over. Only if the ACLU is a state agency, now. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is the actual name of the case. Please stop lying. As it turns out, you're in the wrong here. The Colorado CRC ruled and there was a lawsuit in front of an Administrative Law Judge. The complainants' lawyers in that case included two ACLU lawyers. I did plenty of digging. If you think I'm wrong, go dig yourself and prove it.

kdsub -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 11:43:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub If that were true my friend then some Muslims would feel entitled to throw gays off of roofs...some Christians would feel empowered to stone gays to death... My friend religion rights have limits... the limit is when your religious right denys me my human rights. Are we as Americans going to allow some religions to have privileges that non religious do not have? If you say Christians can deny food to gays but not none religious you are giving special privileges to a Christian sect. Because we are a country of many religions with many beliefs as well and a good portion of agnostics and atheist our Constitution FIRST guarantees our human rights and only then provides that the government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Denying food is not free exercising of their religion... Providing a cake is not prohibiting their religion... If it is please show me anywhere in the Bible where it says not to provide food to anyone. Bottom Line I believe our human right to equality trump religious rights when when the two come in conflict. Butch A custom decorated cake is far more than just "food" and you fucking know it. What a disingenuous argument. Also, you do not have a human right to commission anyone to do custom work for you. No it is not...sheee what is this crap about art...it is no more art than a brick layer or civil engineer or a Denny's chef... and I fucking know it. There is nothing special about a baker compared to any other profession. There are minimum wage teenagers decorating cakes at Schnucks that are the equal of many wedding cakes I have seen in my life. Worrying about how artistic a cake is not answering to what is important in my post...It is simply a deflection... I would appreciate your thoughts on which rights or most important in an America... not a Christian America... when Religious Rights conflict with Human rights. It happens all the time and as far as I know human rights always win. There are religions and customs whose practices are illegal in this country... why... because they conflict with our human rights.. Are we to award this half ass Christian with no mercy or compassion or forgiveness special rights that others will not have? Butch

bounty44 -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 12:34:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Are we to award this half ass Christian with no mercy or compassion or forgiveness... Butch in terms of those attributes, you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the man in question.

DesideriScuri -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 12:42:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub If that were true my friend then some Muslims would feel entitled to throw gays off of roofs...some Christians would feel empowered to stone gays to death... My friend religion rights have limits... the limit is when your religious right denys me my human rights. Are we as Americans going to allow some religions to have privileges that non religious do not have? If you say Christians can deny food to gays but not none religious you are giving special privileges to a Christian sect. Because we are a country of many religions with many beliefs as well and a good portion of agnostics and atheist our Constitution FIRST guarantees our human rights and only then provides that the government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Denying food is not free exercising of their religion... Providing a cake is not prohibiting their religion... If it is please show me anywhere in the Bible where it says not to provide food to anyone. Bottom Line I believe our human right to equality trump religious rights when when the two come in conflict. Butch A custom decorated cake is far more than just "food" and you fucking know it. What a disingenuous argument. Also, you do not have a human right to commission anyone to do custom work for you. No it is not...sheee what is this crap about art...it is no more art than a brick layer or civil engineer or a Denny's chef... and I fucking know it. There is nothing special about a baker compared to any other profession. There are minimum wage teenagers decorating cakes at Schnucks that are the equal of many wedding cakes I have seen in my life. Worrying about how artistic a cake is not answering to what is important in my post...It is simply a deflection... I would appreciate your thoughts on which rights or most important in an America... not a Christian America... when Religious Rights conflict with Human rights. It happens all the time and as far as I know human rights always win. There are religions and customs whose practices are illegal in this country... why... because they conflict with our human rights.. Are we to award this half ass Christian with no mercy or compassion or forgiveness special rights that others will not have? Butch Really? It's not more than just food? Fuck that. Go to fucking Meijer/Kroger/WalMart and get the $10 cake and use that at a wedding. There's a reason people would go to Masterpiece Cakeshop for wedding cakes. Hint: It's not simply because the cake is delicious. You do not have a human right to cake, of any sort. You do not have the right to force someone to do something for you against their will. If you think you have a human right to food, go to your local grocer and just eat. You'll be thrown out on your ass, or escorted by cops. You do not have the right to food until you pay for it. At that point, your grocer has accepted your offer of payment and the right to that food has been transferred to you. Until then, it's not yours and you have no right to it.

Lucylastic -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 12:49:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Who is stalking who. ..... Jus saying Im not involved in you stalking jvov. You take that for yourself. First of all, it's: "who is stalking whoM" Then, I guess you would have to define "stalking" as: "someone responding to a post in which they're mentioned or they're being directly responded to, themselves." Eliminating that wouldn't work out well on a forum, would it? Find a place where I've done anything other than that with the dishonorable, defamatory, he-cunt and you might have a case. acting like a three year old for the rest of your life, is superb revenge!!!! have at it.

kdsub -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 12:51:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub If that were true my friend then some Muslims would feel entitled to throw gays off of roofs...some Christians would feel empowered to stone gays to death... My friend religion rights have limits... the limit is when your religious right denys me my human rights. Are we as Americans going to allow some religions to have privileges that non religious do not have? If you say Christians can deny food to gays but not none religious you are giving special privileges to a Christian sect. Because we are a country of many religions with many beliefs as well and a good portion of agnostics and atheist our Constitution FIRST guarantees our human rights and only then provides that the government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Denying food is not free exercising of their religion... Providing a cake is not prohibiting their religion... If it is please show me anywhere in the Bible where it says not to provide food to anyone. Bottom Line I believe our human right to equality trump religious rights when when the two come in conflict. Butch A custom decorated cake is far more than just "food" and you fucking know it. What a disingenuous argument. Also, you do not have a human right to commission anyone to do custom work for you. No it is not...sheee what is this crap about art...it is no more art than a brick layer or civil engineer or a Denny's chef... and I fucking know it. There is nothing special about a baker compared to any other profession. There are minimum wage teenagers decorating cakes at Schnucks that are the equal of many wedding cakes I have seen in my life. Worrying about how artistic a cake is not answering to what is important in my post...It is simply a deflection... I would appreciate your thoughts on which rights or most important in an America... not a Christian America... when Religious Rights conflict with Human rights. It happens all the time and as far as I know human rights always win. There are religions and customs whose practices are illegal in this country... why... because they conflict with our human rights.. Are we to award this half ass Christian with no mercy or compassion or forgiveness special rights that others will not have? Butch Really? It's not more than just food? Fuck that. Go to fucking Meijer/Kroger/WalMart and get the $10 cake and use that at a wedding. There's a reason people would go to Masterpiece Cakeshop for wedding cakes. Hint: It's not simply because the cake is delicious. You do not have a human right to cake, of any sort. You do not have the right to force someone to do something for you against their will. If you think you have a human right to food, go to your local grocer and just eat. You'll be thrown out on your ass, or escorted by cops. You do not have the right to food until you pay for it. At that point, your grocer has accepted your offer of payment and the right to that food has been transferred to you. Until then, it's not yours and you have no right to it. You still did not answer my question... what is to be done when religious rights conflict with human rights? A cake decorator as a profession is no more custom than then any of the professions I have listed... To make this baker's ability as a deciding factor is ridiculous. There is an issue here and it has nothing to do with artistic values. PS...of course we have a right to tell people they must do something that is against their will.... that is the point of laws and the Constitution. Butch

bounty44 -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 2:05:58 PM)
he did answer your question, by rejecting the premise you proposed. refusing to make a specially designed cake, that essentially qualifies as a creative work, that is, art, is not denying someone their "human rights." as an aside, given how many choices for non-confrontational transactions exist, people kinda get tired of activist gays picking fights where they aren't necessary. and how incredibly ironic you use the words mercy, compassion and forgiveness (wrongly to boot)---see if you can use them rightly as attributes with which the couple should be looking at the baker. lets destroy someone's livelihood because we don't like their Christianity!

JVoV -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 3:16:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Desi, dig deeper. Page 12 of this thread is where you'll find DS's original mention of the ACLU, and my original request for him to stop lying. 6 pages of this bullshit from him. Note that his post quoted below was edited with additions after I made this post. quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV The gay couple did not pursue a civil suit against the bakery, but took the issue to the State agency that handled this sort of thing. From there, the State took over. Only if the ACLU is a state agency, now. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is the actual name of the case. Please stop lying. As it turns out, you're in the wrong here. The Colorado CRC ruled and there was a lawsuit in front of an Administrative Law Judge. The complainants' lawyers in that case included two ACLU lawyers. I did plenty of digging. If you think I'm wrong, go dig yourself and prove it. Unless you have a link to the actual first complaint in the case, as opposed to cross-motions filed by both parties, then you have no idea when the ACLU was approached, do you, or whether they were approached by the couple themselves, or their attorney, Paula Greisen. So then you can't say I'm wrong with any truth. In fact, the ACLU has a reputation for documenting and publishing all legal actions that they're involved in directly, correct? Yet they've published no documentation regarding the original complaint. Either way, the point is moot. Unless of course you believe that gay couples don't have the right to seek legal advice or representation, which would be another thread altogether. What attorneys from where joined the case, and when, is in fact irrelevant and an unnecessary distraction from the topic at hand. A distraction that has taken far too much time and energy already, so I'll spend no more discussing it once this is posted. Or we can also talk about Roy Moore's indirect involvement, through the foundation he founded and draws a salary from, and his wife is president of, and we can talk about the ADF's involvement from at least the first counter-motion published by the ACLU. But that would all be rather useless, wouldn't it? I don't believe I was wrong in asking DS to stop lying. I do believe I should have chosen instead to tell him to blow it out his ass. Either way, his "Only if the ACLU is a state agency, now" comment is complete and utter bullshit.

JVoV -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 3:34:53 PM)
Bible verses can be used to justify a religious conviction against interracial marriage. The book of Nehemiah certainly provides enough material for that, though others do as well. Nehemiah 13:27 ►KJV quote: Shall we then hearken unto you to do all this great evil, to transgress against our God in marrying strange wives? Can an interracial couple be denied a wedding cake because of this? Or does the Civil Rights Act make such discrimination illegal? Colorado's Civil Rights Act has been updated to included sexual orientation, as of 2008. Yes, that is a few years before the State legalized gay marriage, but the law is valid, nonetheless.

kdsub -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 4:01:40 PM)
No he did not he just repeated dogma that does not address the conflict between religious and human rights

bounty44 -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 4:10:14 PM)
^%(*& maddening. those verses have nothing to do with "interracial marriage." they have specifically to do with the Israelites not marrying people who were their avowed enemies at the time and being led astray by them. all the verses you left out before the one you quoted indicate that clearly. further, apart from that, as has been stated numerous times, the short version is Christians don't live under "the law"---they live under "grace." when its re-iterated in the new testament, its an essential part of the Christian life. a disposition towards heterosexual marriage and contrariness to homosexuality is one of those things. the supreme court is hearing the issue, so despite yours and every other lefties attempt here to be the final arbiter of the law and to tell us what the Christian baker's faith practice should be like in regards to his work, its just simply not so.

bounty44 -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 4:16:18 PM)
there is no point in asking the question in the abstract because the answer does not specifically address the issue at hand. so he answered the question you actually didn't ask, but heavily implied. in THIS case, there is NO conflict between religious and human rights because humans don't have a right to a specially decorated cake. and what he said was not "dogma," it was his opinion.

JVoV -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 5:27:56 PM)
So is there a human right to decorate cakes?

Page: << < prev 16 17 [18] 19 20 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.640625E-02