Why do Bakers have to Bake Cakes they don't Agree with but Google etc. can discriminate? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14836667
Decky wrote:Only in your own imagination. In reality the left do not want privately owned companies to exist, let alone for them to have any kind of power over anything.

Americans in particular seem to want to push out this nonsensical propaganda where the left are pro business and business is pro left. Why would business support the same people who want to exile them from the country (at the very least) and take ever single bit of their property down to the last stick of furniture?


That's the ancient left, there are few of those left now (no pun intended), just a few fanatics. The new left, like to periodically show how cool they are by signaling against "capitalism" but when it comes down to it are more than happy to remain customers of Starbucks and Apple and would actually be rather sad at the prospect of the government having the sole right to serve coffee or manufacture communication devices, because there is nothing cool about waiting all day for cup of cold coffee that tastes like liquid dogshit (because it is liquid dogshit) or trying to make a phonecall on a mobile phone that is not legally allowed to exist.

So instead they get their rebellious kicks in ways that don't injure their own interests quite so much (who said leftists are dumb?) by shaking their fists at common sense stuff like sexual dimorphism, human biodiversity etc.
#14868436
As much as I think places shouldn’t be forced to do anything, I think it’s just as stupid as people who can’t leave their religion at the door when they work in a business that deals with the public. If you can’t set aside your beliefs and just do your job, or do the business you set up to do, then you’re just as much of a idiot as anyone 'trying to force' you to do something you don’t want to do.

As an atheist I won’t kick a guy out of my store or refuse business to him when he says he is looking for a religious book, item, or clothing, etc, even though I’m vehemently against that. You know why? Because I’m not a fucking crybaby who thinks the world revolves around me.
#14868450
The baker case has reached the SCOTUS, I expect them to BTFO of all the lower courts that ruled against the baker.

If they don't, we can force Muslims to bake Christian cakes until they go back to sand land, get their shit together and found a new Ottoman empire. Yes I went there.
#14868499
quetzalcoatl wrote:Because they can?

You have a point, albeit a typically half-assed one. Google, Twitter, and Facebook are effectively monopolies in their respective markets. This gives them outsized power to regulate speech. As long as you are willing to tolerate such monopolies, don't cry over their abuses. You don't like Google, don't use it. If you can find enough people to agree with you, you will succeed in changing their behavior. That's how it works in a market system. So either reject the church of the free market, or manipulate it to your advantage.

The bottom line is don't stand on a street corner sobbing about how mean Google is - kick them where it hurts: in the pocketbook.

And if you don't like Walmart, don't shop there?
What if there's nothing else? Stop shopping altogether?

In my city, a private company - Bell - has a monopoly on telecommunication infrastructure. How can you punish them if you don't like their corporate behavior? Build your own Internet from scratch?

My point: in the case of giant corporate monopolies, a collective action (like nationalization) is the only effective response to their inevitable abuse of power.
#14868607
SolarCross wrote:That's the ancient left, there are few of those left now (no pun intended), just a few fanatics. The new left, like to periodically show how cool they are by signaling against "capitalism" but when it comes down to it are more than happy to remain customers of Starbucks and Apple and would actually be rather sad at the prospect of the government having the sole right to serve coffee or manufacture communication devices, because there is nothing cool about waiting all day for cup of cold coffee that tastes like liquid dogshit (because it is liquid dogshit) or trying to make a phonecall on a mobile phone that is not legally allowed to exist.

So instead they get their rebellious kicks in ways that don't injure their own interests quite so much (who said leftists are dumb?) by shaking their fists at common sense stuff like sexual dimorphism, human biodiversity etc.


TRUTH.
#14868623
Answering the question in the thread title is pretty easy when one considers history and modern society.

In history and in modern society, gay people were and are oppressed and marginalised. Because of this, laws were made to protect them.

In the other hand, white guys working in IT are not oppressed and marginalised and never have been. Thus, there is no need for laws to protect these people from discrimination.
#14868739
Pants-of-dog wrote:Answering the question in the thread title is pretty easy when one considers history and modern society.

In history and in modern society, gay people were and are oppressed and marginalised. Because of this, laws were made to protect them.

In the other hand, white guys working in IT are not oppressed and marginalised and never have been. Thus, there is no need for laws to protect these people from discrimination.

It isn't exactly wrong to say that gays were "oppressed and marginalised" but I think it is only fair to remember that it wasn't random malevolence which prompted that. Christians following the advice of the Torah took sodomy to be a crime, if you believe in the God of the Torah and are guided by that sacred literature there isn't really an alternative interpretation. Consequently the practice was legally persecuted by Christians and those influenced by Christians. Incidently so also are / were other unusual sexual practices: pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia etc. We aren't yet at the point of calling sheep shaggers "marginalised and oppressed" but the logic would be the same if we did.

Don't get me wrong I am not saying sodomists should face legal or extra-legal persecution but there was a reason for it and that reason wasn't to be bad but to be good according to the Christian world view.
#14868744
redcarpet wrote:As much as I think places shouldn’t be forced to do anything, I think it’s just as stupid as people who can’t leave their religion at the door when they work in a business that deals with the public. If you can’t set aside your beliefs and just do your job, or do the business you set up to do, then you’re just as much of a idiot as anyone 'trying to force' you to do something you don’t want to do.

As an atheist I won’t kick a guy out of my store or refuse business to him when he says he is looking for a religious book, item, or clothing, etc, even though I’m vehemently against that. You know why? Because I’m not a fucking crybaby who thinks the world revolves around me.


Your example is not equivalent to that of the Baker because you do not believe as part of your own Atheist religious beliefs that you could in fact go to Hell for supporting a same-sex union in any way shape or form.

A religious person who believes they will potentially go to hell for baking a cake for a Gay Marriage should not be forced to do so. That is a violation of the right to Freedom of Religion.

Scripture explicitly says a Christian could possibly go to Hell for the decision to supply a homosexual marriage with catering(or otherwise support in any way a homosexual relationship). It is explicit that in the Torah and Old Testament, it states that "Homosexuality is the sin of Abomination" and in Genesis described Sodom and Gomorrah getting wiped off the face of the earth because of "Abominable sins" including a group of men wanting to "know(debase, rape or otherwise sexually corrupt)" the two male visitors of Lot.

In this day and age you can fucken order a wedding cake on the fucken internet and have it delivered anywhere anonymously. And they could have fucken done the "name icing" themselves or just not had it. Lazy.

They could gave just not told him they were doing it for a gay wedding and/or had another individual order it.

They were fucken pushy selfish cunts and you know it.
#14868745
Colliric is becoming more homo frustrated since trump's win. He's most likely angry at his butt buddy and taking it out on his fellow gays. He's the poster boy of the white conservatives in america.
#14868757
Libertarian353 wrote:Colliric is becoming more homo frustrated since trump's win. He's most likely angry at his butt buddy and taking it out on his fellow gays. He's the poster boy of the white conservatives in america.


Except of cause I'm a Melbournian Victorian Australian......
#14868848
SolarCross wrote:It isn't exactly wrong to say that gays were "oppressed and marginalised" but I think it is only fair to remember that it wasn't random malevolence which prompted that. Christians following the advice of the Torah took sodomy to be a crime, if you believe in the God of the Torah and are guided by that sacred literature there isn't really an alternative interpretation. Consequently the practice was legally persecuted by Christians and those influenced by Christians. Incidently so also are / were other unusual sexual practices: pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia etc. We aren't yet at the point of calling sheep shaggers "marginalised and oppressed" but the logic would be the same if we did.

Don't get me wrong I am not saying sodomists should face legal or extra-legal persecution but there was a reason for it and that reason wasn't to be bad but to be good according to the Christian world view.


Sure. That is one of the reasons. Not the only one.

—————————-

colliric wrote:Your example is not equivalent to that of the Baker because you do not believe as part of your own Atheist religious beliefs that you could in fact go to Hell for supporting a same-sex union in any way shape or form.

A religious person who believes they will potentially go to hell for baking a cake for a Gay Marriage should not be forced to do so. That is a violation of the right to Freedom of Religion.

Scripture explicitly says a Christian could possibly go to Hell for the decision to supply a homosexual marriage with catering(or otherwise support in any way a homosexual relationship). It is explicit that in the Torah and Old Testament, it states that "Homosexuality is the sin of Abomination" and in Genesis described Sodom and Gomorrah getting wiped off the face of the earth because of "Abominable sins" including a group of men wanting to "know(debase, rape or otherwise sexually corrupt)" the two male visitors of Lot.


Since baieries are businesses and businesses have no immortal souls and do not follow a religion, this argumentnmakes no sense unless you are confusing the business with the people who work there or own it.

In this day and age you can fucken order a wedding cake on the fucken internet and have it delivered anywhere anonymously. And they could have fucken done the "name icing" themselves or just not had it. Lazy.

They could gave just not told him they were doing it for a gay wedding and/or had another individual order it.

They were fucken pushy selfish cunts and you know it.


Calm down.

colliric wrote:Except of cause I'm a Melbournian Victorian Australian......


It is “of course”, not “of cause”.

And I guess you are upset because Australia is legalising gay marriage.
#14868854
colliric wrote:A religious person who believes they will potentially go to hell for baking a cake for a Gay Marriage should not be forced to do so. That is a violation of the right to Freedom of Religion.

What about someone who believes they will go to hell if they associate with other races? Do these 'faithful' get government protection too?

What about people who think that their dead ancestors will bite off their toes if they cross the street on any color light except amber?

People who think aliens will suck out their brains if they take off their Batman halloween costume?
#14868876
@colliric,

Unfortunately, it appears, in a liberal society, there are going to be certain professions that Christians will not be able to perform without violating the law or their conscience. I see a future where there will be a whole host of careers that Christians just simply won't be able to do anymore because the following of their conscience will put them at odds with civil-rights laws.

Depending on how this court case goes, we could very well see an America where Christians cannot pursue various creative fields such as photography, custom cake design, etc., etc. The law will simply make it impossible for them to do so. I expect for it to be the same for Christians all throughout the west.

There was a really good article on this, which stated that no matter who wins this case, everyone will lose. If the LGBTQ community wins, Christians will become more scared, galvanized, defensive, and likely to support radical political measures (which is actually fine with me).

If the Christian community wins, it will probably create years of continued litigation and embarrassing situations for the Christian community where some Fighting Fundie throws queers out of his diner in Jackson Mississippi, which will only hasten more ire against evangelicals from the left.

Our political systems and trends have made these clashes inevitable and really impossible to deescalate. Violence will be seen, more and more, from this time forward, as the only legitimate option by both sides as they continue to become more and more opposite in their views and insistent that others conform to them, on both sides.


http://www.theintell.com/opinion/201712 ... -cake-case


QatzelOk wrote:What about someone who believes they will go to hell if they associate with other races? Do these 'faithful' get government protection too?


Why Not? I suppose though, that bridge has already been crossed in U.S. Law.

QatzelOk wrote:What about people who think that their dead ancestors will bite off their toes if they cross the street on any color light except amber?

People who think aliens will suck out their brains if they take off their Batman halloween costume?


These examples demonstrate the limitations of a liberal society to differentiate between historic western religion and that which can only be described under the heading of "cult" or "mental illness." For this reason, you are probably right. Unfortunately.
#14868895
Pants-of-dog wrote:My mother is a practising Catholic. By that I mean she goes to church regularly and honestly believes in the redemptive power of the Christ.

She has no problem with gay marriage.


Well, a lot of people are inconsistent with the teachings of their church and doctrine. For those who are sincere in their beliefs however, comprehensively, doing something that could possibly be construed as a support for an incredibly wicked and immoral practice would be a violation of their conscience.

For instance, I have one brother, whom I love, and he is gay. I believe that homosexuality is a horrific, and damnable sin, and if under a theocracy would be a capital-punishment worthy crime if convicted.

This makes my religious convictions terribly difficult to bear in the face of my only brother who I grew up very close with; however, I do not change them. Ultimately how convenient or easy life can be is not my criteria for the views I hold. I hold them because I believe them to be true, no matter what the consequences.

Now, I would help my brother if he was hurt or needed aid, but I cannot go to his wedding or do anything to show support for his lifestyle and I will not do so. Fortunately, he understands the seriousness of my convictions and we are at a truce when it comes to discussing or debating the issue and we show each other respect and still get together with my parents on the holidays to exchange gifts, etc.

In the end, as I said, people who hold to the dogma of their church and scriptures, verbatim, will see a future where they will not be able to pursue certain careers. It is just a fact, Christian views are inherently discriminatory at certain points and so will be by definition illegal. This day is dawning in the west.
#14868906
Since my mother has held her beliefs even in the face of adversity, I am certain she does not hold these beliefs because they are supposedly easy and convenient.

In fact, her commitment to dealing with poverty (a far more significant teaching of the Christ) has been so inconvenient for her that she risked far more than her career.

As for homosexuality, she follows the example of Jesus.
#14868910
Pants-of-dog wrote:As for homosexuality, she follows the example of Jesus.


Jesus Christ taught that the whole law (Matthew 5:17-20) was authoritative and not to be discarded until heaven and earth passed away, that Law teaching that homosexuality was an abomination before the Lord and to be punished with Death, which is reiterated by St. Paul in Romans 1, when He likewise affirmed that homosexuality was an unnatural abomination worthy of death.

So, since you claim your mother follows the beliefs and example of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church, I suppose you would say she likewise believes in such as He professed?
#14868916
I was obviously referring to the fact that Jesus never condemned it or mentioned it or even seemed to care about it at all. She, likewise, does not care about the sex lives of consenting adults.

If I meant his teachings, which is what you are referring to, I would have used that word and not “example”.

As for your concerns about Biblical fundamentalists not being able to get jobs, that is already the case. Not many Young Earth Creationists getting jobs as evolutionary biologists, or flat earthers getting jobs as cartographers and geographers.

Show me the Money!" We had a saying in N[…]

Potemkin. Um no. NASA has proven there are planet[…]

You won't hear it in MSM https://www.facebook.com[…]

The Deep Thinks of Hong Wu

You left out the part about the laziness to learn[…]