RE: An American dialogue

RE: An American dialogue (Full Version)

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

Message

LadyPact -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 5:45:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Right. And, there could easily be an unConstitutional State law, right? Absolutely. It's almost a ridiculous irony that this case comes from Colorado. The same state that twenty-five years ago put an initiative on the state ballot that was passed by a majority of voters to make discrimination legal. It was repealed on the basis that it was unconstitutional eventually. That doesn't mean that it wasn't passed into state law. quote: 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? A lot of what we discuss regarding law is about semantics. To get closer though, I'll address the point. This transaction, from what I understand, is not parallel to requiring a person to attend a march that was against their beliefs. There is nothing about the case that says the physical presence of Phillips would be required after the cake was made. He wasn't going to serve the cake, be in attendance, or have any interaction with the guests. He was going to be paid to do a job that very well would have been completed on the premises of the business. quote: Apparently, not-for-profit businesses can discriminate and it's okay. Got it. Are not for profits to be considered businesses? If they are, why aren't they paying taxes? quote: They didn't refuse service based on being too busy. That was never the claim, either. Agreed. I have to admit, I feel the same way about whether this case is about religious freedom or is it about art. quote: 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. As a Mom, I probably would have tried have have my kid treated equally, too. quote: 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. Halloween = Not available to anyone. Divorce celebration = Not available to anyone. Wedding = Available depending on who is being married. quote: 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. Am I mistaken that Phillips has given interviews on this subject that are on video/audio? There's a link to one on this thread, isn't there? I'm quite interested to know if the policy that Phillips (religious exception) is being used for things like cakes made for housewarmings where the couple isn't married or baby showers where the parents aren't married. What about cakes for Jewish celebrations?

JVoV -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 5:59:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 ^%(*& 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. You realize you just made the decision of how I should interpret the meaning of Biblical verses? The same thing you've railed against time and time again. The danger of religious texts is that they can easily be taken out of context to promote most agendas. It's not a matter of how reasonable people interpret them, but how those on the fringe do.

JVoV -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 7:44:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 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. Dude. I said that on page 5. But we went with it anyway. Even after you screwed me out of the marijuana infusion I originally wanted for my gay cake. And I still think the Court is likely to throw the case back to square one, issuing precise instructions on how the Colorado CRC must proceed. Either way, this decision will certainly not be the last we hear on the matter.

DaddySatyr -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 8:43:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic acting like a three year old for the rest of your life, is superb revenge!!!! have at it. Not at all. Although I'm not surprised you haven't figured this situation out correctly, I do recognize that the old lucy has raised its head, again. I knew civility for extended periods of time was beyond you. It's also just another example of when lucy has no logical argument, the attacks begin.

DaddySatyr -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 8:45:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul 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. I do enjoy not letting name-callers, dehumanizers (by virtue of name calling) and people who have nothing better to do than vent their spleens do so unabated. It is a lot of fun to call out the bullshit, where it lives and breathes.

DesideriScuri -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 9:07:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub You still did not answer my question... what is to be done when religious rights conflict with human rights? It will depend on the religious right and the human right. quote: 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 A Denny's chef is just as custom as a custom cake decorator? If that's truly your understanding, then you're far beyond being lost. I would have no problem with a brick layer declining contract work for whatever reason he or she wanted, as long as the brick layer is the owner of the company doing the work. If the bricklayer works for a company, the company gets to decide on the work. If the bricklayer has an issue that's between the bricklayer and the company. It is precisely about the artistic talent that the couple went to Masterpiece Cakeshop to have a cake custom decorated. To pretend it isn't is disingenuous.

DesideriScuri -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 9:25:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV 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. Is it really that tough to think that the ACLU would jump on a case to file a response to a cross motion in a case where both sides filed cross motions, if they weren't involved in cross motion for the side they're representing? quote: 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. The ADF is immaterial to this part of the discussion, yes. The ACLU has been involved since the beginning of the judicial process. The Colorado CRC made the initial decision, from which the lawsuit (in front of an Administrative Law Judge) arose. Nowhere have I said that the couple couldn't find representation (and Michael never said it that I could see). My involvement was an attempt to get this stupid back-and-forth between you and Michael to stop. That's all.

DesideriScuri -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 9:53:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Right. And, there could easily be an unConstitutional State law, right? Absolutely. It's almost a ridiculous irony that this case comes from Colorado. The same state that twenty-five years ago put an initiative on the state ballot that was passed by a majority of voters to make discrimination legal. It was repealed on the basis that it was unconstitutional eventually. That doesn't mean that it wasn't passed into state law. quote: 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? A lot of what we discuss regarding law is about semantics. To get closer though, I'll address the point. This transaction, from what I understand, is not parallel to requiring a person to attend a march that was against their beliefs. There is nothing about the case that says the physical presence of Phillips would be required after the cake was made. He wasn't going to serve the cake, be in attendance, or have any interaction with the guests. He was going to be paid to do a job that very well would have been completed on the premises of the business. Wouldn't you agree the cake is a big part of the reception? Everyone would know it was his cake. To pretend otherwise is really silly. His cake being there is the physical presence part. quote: quote: Apparently, not-for-profit businesses can discriminate and it's okay. Got it. Are not for profits to be considered businesses? If they are, why aren't they paying taxes? They are businesses. They are a not-for-profit businesses. quote: quote: They didn't refuse service based on being too busy. That was never the claim, either. Agreed. I have to admit, I feel the same way about whether this case is about religious freedom or is it about art. I think it's both, really. quote: quote: 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. As a Mom, I probably would have tried have have my kid treated equally, too. I understand that, but that wasn't the point. quote: quote: 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. Halloween = Not available to anyone. Divorce celebration = Not available to anyone. Wedding = Available depending on who is being married. Homosexual wedding = not available to anyone Heterosexual wedding = available to anyone That's the distinction, and yes, I think it's very important. All those unavailabilities are due to his religious beliefs. quote: quote: 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. Am I mistaken that Phillips has given interviews on this subject that are on video/audio? There's a link to one on this thread, isn't there? I'm quite interested to know if the policy that Phillips (religious exception) is being used for things like cakes made for housewarmings where the couple isn't married or baby showers where the parents aren't married. What about cakes for Jewish celebrations? Yes, there is video of him claiming he said that. But, what I was specifically stating was there was no video of him at that moment with the gay couple. He can claim all he wants that's what he said (and I haven't seen anything where the gay couple supports or refutes the baker's claim of what he said). Unless there is video/audio of that moment in time, or the gay couple corroborates it, it's an unproven claim. I didn't want to say that's what the baker said because there is no way I can prove it.

DesideriScuri -> RE: An American dialogue (12/16/2017 9:56:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 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. I didn't answer the question. Since it didn't apply in this case, I didn't actually answer it. I have since done so.

Lucylastic -> RE: An American dialogue (12/17/2017 1:02:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic acting like a three year old for the rest of your life, is superb revenge!!!! have at it. Not at all. Although I'm not surprised you haven't figured this situation out correctly, I do recognize that the old lucy has raised its head, again. I knew civility for extended periods of time was beyond you. It's also just another example of when lucy has no logical argument, the attacks begin. I havent begun to attack you.

bounty44 -> RE: An American dialogue (12/17/2017 3:48:15 AM)
no, what I realize is that you cannot ascribe meanings to things that aren't there, chalk it up to "interpretation" and then have a freebie to either do whatever you want, or to use it as a whipping boy example. and in terms of "danger," that's why we have intelligent, studied and reasonable people adjudicating on such things. I expect people in conversation to at least have some similar abilities.

bounty44 -> RE: An American dialogue (12/17/2017 3:56:28 AM)
you might have, but what you continue to do in the meantime is not promote your side's position so much as tell the Christian baker what his faith life must look like. and no, that's not the same as me telling you the verse in Nehemiah doesn't have anything to do with miscegenation. what it continues to come down to for me, and its worth saying again, is that one side is okay using the law to coerce people and the other side is more interesting in liberty and letting people figure things out without the government. its an essential difference between left and right and id rather live in a society where the latter overwhelmingly predominates. quite honestly, I look at the other side as enemies of freedom.

DaddySatyr -> RE: An American dialogue (12/17/2017 5:45:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I havent begun to attack you. Of course not. It's why, by-and-large, you leave names off your quote boxes so you can continue with the passive-aggressive attacks. Yes, your style is more along the lines of acerbic comments "tossed out" as if to no one in particular.

JVoV -> RE: An American dialogue (12/17/2017 8:06:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 you might have, but what you continue to do in the meantime is not promote your side's position so much as tell the Christian baker what his faith life must look like. and no, that's not the same as me telling you the verse in Nehemiah doesn't have anything to do with miscegenation. what it continues to come down to for me, and its worth saying again, is that one side is okay using the law to coerce people and the other side is more interesting in liberty and letting people figure things out without the government. its an essential difference between left and right and id rather live in a society where the latter overwhelmingly predominates. quite honestly, I look at the other side as enemies of freedom. I don't see attacks on any religious beliefs here. The Civil Rights Act passed in the 60's certainly didn't attack any beliefs of racial superiority. This is America, and everyone can believe pretty much anything they want; flat Earth, aliens, religion... But our laws are to define unacceptable actions, and religion cannot be allowed as a defense to those laws. How many murderers claim "God told me to do it"?

kdsub -> RE: An American dialogue (12/17/2017 9:04:08 AM)
quote: It will depend on the religious right and the human right. The human right I am talking about is only the same rights you have as a non gay human being. The same rights that your God gave every human being on this earth. The right to live a legal life without being discriminated against and forced to live with less rights than you. Butch

LadyPact -> RE: An American dialogue (12/17/2017 9:25:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Wouldn't you agree the cake is a big part of the reception? Everyone would know it was his cake. To pretend otherwise is really silly. His cake being there is the physical presence part. As I'm reading this part, I think there are several points. Do I think a cake is a big part of the reception? Yes. I think it's very reasonable for any couple to want one. I'm iffy about the everyone would know who made it part. Some people would because it would be a subject that would be a part of casual conversation. It's enough that I'd be willing to concede the point. The last part, as I interpret it, is a part of Phillips' defense and again why we have a case at all. By baking the cake, is that the same as Phillips endorsement of the occasion, the same as his physical presence, etc. quote: They are businesses. They are a not-for-profit businesses. That's kind of a weird way to look at it, but ok. quote: I understand that, but that wasn't the point. It's part of the point. Just as much as Phillips has his belief about his religion, other people have their belief about people shouldn't be discriminated against. quote: Homosexual wedding = not available to anyone Heterosexual wedding = available to anyone That's the distinction, and yes, I think it's very important. All those unavailabilities are due to his religious beliefs. Which is one of the things that makes the case interesting. Can a person use their religious beliefs as justification for discrimination? It might also be prudent to think about where that road might lead us. quote: Yes, there is video of him claiming he said that. But, what I was specifically stating was there was no video of him at that moment with the gay couple. He can claim all he wants that's what he said (and I haven't seen anything where the gay couple supports or refutes the baker's claim of what he said). Unless there is video/audio of that moment in time, or the gay couple corroborates it, it's an unproven claim. I didn't want to say that's what the baker said because there is no way I can prove it. As I said earlier, I haven't read everything out there about the case but I'm not aware of any dispute regarding how the original interaction transpired. It's actually my understanding that the couple was rather rude to Mr Phillips after they were told he would not do the custom order. Which, I kind of understand. Most people's initial reaction, if they feel they are being treated unfairly, might not be the nicest expression of their displeasure. Speaking of which, I would like to take this opportunity to say that I have greatly enjoyed discussing this case with you. It is my opinion that you have treated me and my opposing view with dignity and respect. For that, I'd like to thank you.

bounty44 -> RE: An American dialogue (12/17/2017 11:10:30 AM)
again, the law is what is being interpreted right now, so please stop talking like youre the arbiter of truth. if it were as simple as listening to you, the case wouldn't in court. its not the guys belief, its his free practice of those beliefs. your comment of "how many people say 'god told me to do it'" is irrelevant in the same way your verse from Nehemiah was. actually, even more so as the only answer to that question is found in psychiatric journals as opposed to any legitimate revelation from god.

JVoV -> RE: An American dialogue (12/17/2017 2:11:17 PM)
I don't think even the NSA has God's lines of communication tapped. Of course, there is scripture about God telling people to kill, and further scripture about God's wrath when He's disobeyed. Sorry dude, if God tells me I gotsta cut ya, then I gotsta cut ya. I think this case hinges most on the precedent of Heart of Atlanta v US 1964. (Sorry, for some reason I can't make the button to add a link work) https://www.usconstitution.net/events.html quote: Heart of Atlanta v U.S. (379 U.S. 241), 1964 Building on the Brown case, the Court was asked if the separate but equal doctrine is properly extended to public accommodation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade discrimination in public accommodation, such as hotel rooms, on the basis of race. The Heart of Atlanta Motel, which the Court noted advertised nationally and on public roadways, did not rent rooms to blacks. The motel's argument is that the government overstepped its bounds by using the Commerce Clause to exert influence over the hospitality industry in forcing them to treat black guests as they would white guests. Oddly, the motel argued that the Congress had forced the motel to rent to blacks, placing it in a state of indentured servitude, forbidden by the 13th Amendment. The motel lost its case in district court and appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court found that the Congress did have the power exerted in the Act, and that the motel had no case against the Act. It was forced to remove its no-blacks policy, cutting down one of the main roots of segregation. Religion is a poor excuse for discrimination. Businesses must offer their goods and services equally to anyone that can pay. So if Masterpiece Bakery wants to enjoy the priveledge of selling custom-made wedding cakes to straight couples, then it should be expected to do so for same-sex couples as well. I would also point out the mistake of the right in pushing this case to the Supreme Court. The decision of Colorado's CRC only applied to Colorado; the Supreme Court's decision will apply to the entire country.

JVoV -> RE: An American dialogue (12/17/2017 2:48:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Wouldn't you agree the cake is a big part of the reception? Everyone would know it was his cake. To pretend otherwise is really silly. His cake being there is the physical presence part. As I'm reading this part, I think there are several points. Do I think a cake is a big part of the reception? Yes. I think it's very reasonable for any couple to want one. I'm iffy about the everyone would know who made it part. Some people would because it would be a subject that would be a part of casual conversation. It's enough that I'd be willing to concede the point. The last part, as I interpret it, is a part of Phillips' defense and again why we have a case at all. By baking the cake, is that the same as Phillips endorsement of the occasion, the same as his physical presence, etc. quote: They are businesses. They are a not-for-profit businesses. That's kind of a weird way to look at it, but ok. quote: I understand that, but that wasn't the point. It's part of the point. Just as much as Phillips has his belief about his religion, other people have their belief about people shouldn't be discriminated against. quote: Homosexual wedding = not available to anyone Heterosexual wedding = available to anyone That's the distinction, and yes, I think it's very important. All those unavailabilities are due to his religious beliefs. Which is one of the things that makes the case interesting. Can a person use their religious beliefs as justification for discrimination? It might also be prudent to think about where that road might lead us. quote: Yes, there is video of him claiming he said that. But, what I was specifically stating was there was no video of him at that moment with the gay couple. He can claim all he wants that's what he said (and I haven't seen anything where the gay couple supports or refutes the baker's claim of what he said). Unless there is video/audio of that moment in time, or the gay couple corroborates it, it's an unproven claim. I didn't want to say that's what the baker said because there is no way I can prove it. As I said earlier, I haven't read everything out there about the case but I'm not aware of any dispute regarding how the original interaction transpired. It's actually my understanding that the couple was rather rude to Mr Phillips after they were told he would not do the custom order. Which, I kind of understand. Most people's initial reaction, if they feel they are being treated unfairly, might not be the nicest expression of their displeasure. Speaking of which, I would like to take this opportunity to say that I have greatly enjoyed discussing this case with you. It is my opinion that you have treated me and my opposing view with dignity and respect. For that, I'd like to thank you. The facts of the incident have been stipulated to by the couple and the bakery owner in court documents. Both sides agree that it happened the same way. I've never been to a wedding where I blamed the wedding cake designer for the groom being abusive, or the bride being a slut, or the groom being a slut, or much of anything I didn't like about the couple. The only times I've ever asked about the bakery has been when I was impressed by the design or the taste. I have been involved in one wedding that gave out something similar to a theater playbill, listing all of the businesses involved as sort of production credits. But all of those businesses had donated their services for the event, and knew about the playbill when they agreed to do so.

JVoV -> RE: An American dialogue (12/17/2017 3:53:31 PM)
For the record, I do believe in religious freedom for all Americans. And even outside of our religious beliefs, there will likely be things that each of us do not want to do, or could not bring ourselves to do in good conscience. Yes, that forces us to make decisions about our career paths, the companies we work for, and what we are able to turn into a successful business. I think the majority of us can agree that no doctor should be forced by government to perform an abortion, when it is against the doctor's beliefs. But a doctor can't pick and choose which abortions they'll perform based on the patient's race, religion, marital status, sexual preference, or the child's gender. So a doctor that is willing to provide abortion services needs to do so for all patients across the board. The Kosher deli can't be forced to make ham sandwiches. But it also can't discriminate against its clientele. So every menu option available to a Hasidic Jew has to be available to everyone else as well. An Uber driver can't discriminate against anyone in a protected class either. The drivers do apparently give their passengers a score at the end of each trip, though I'm a bit confused on how that rating is decided. Bad passengers can be refused or banned based on that score, meaning because of the passengers' actual behavior. Uber and Lyft have both recently banned a Republican something-or-other, because of her controversial Tweets. I think she tagged them both and asked for a white driver... And finally, I do not believe that a bakery has the right to refuse to do a custom wedding cake for same sex couples, if that bakery provides custom wedding cakes for hetero couples. I really think that the owner of the bakery has to decide for himself on the appropriate course of action, but the choices should be to either provide wedding cakes to all customers, or to none.

Page: << < prev 17 18 [19] 20 21 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625