jetero
Posts: 3221
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 2:13 pm

Blerg.
 
CCGPV
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:18 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 2:28 pm

luckyone wrote:
CCGPV wrote:
2122M wrote:

So this is interesting. I think you and I see the world quite differently in a lot of ways, but I found myself agreeing with most of this post. I highlighted the above text in particular because part of me was thinking, "why force this one baker to make a cake when you have options" and the other part was thinking "where does it end? Where do you draw the line between freedom of religion/speech and discrimination along the lines of redlining, housing discrimination, employment discrimination ect.."

Using 'creative expression' as the framework for this ruling makes sense to me and at least attempts to draw that line between the types of business a company should be compelled to engage in (regardless of the customer) and the types of business they can refuse.

However,

I think for the most part (some exceptions), there is no 'tyranny of the minority', just minorities that wish more people would subscribe to your 'live and let live (with equal status)' philosophy.


They look at it as being forced to do something they don't want to do for no real reason than to prove a point. And they're right. Go somewhere else to get your cake don't drag me in court because you want to force me to make you a cake. People find that oppressive. Forcing someone through courts and threat of jail (in this situation) isn't the way to change hearts and minds.

The LGBT community can demand certain kinds of treatment because of who they are but the religious community cannot because of who they are. Many people find this off putting and hypocritical. People defend by saying "they can't help who they are" but neither can someone who was indoctrinated into a religion since birth. Its who they are, too. To many it has nothing to do with LGBT or religion- its the simple fact of being forced to do something that in the end has no effect on the customer what so ever.

Fair or unfair, would you look upon a group that actively sought to discriminate you for decades with any particular degree of fondness? Would you find it easy to generate any amount of sympathy for them when all of a sudden they start whining after you being on the receiving end of all that, and they’re getting a taste of their own medicine?


Of course not. They discriminate against my beliefs too. I doubt he'd want to make a birthday cake for Satan or Allah. According to them I'm going to burn in hell right alongside the homosexuals. Doesn't explain it away though.

I find religious people (of all faiths) generally annoying but that's why I avoid them. I'm not going to force someone to serve me if they don't want to. I'll go somewhere else and let the market decide. And it will.
Stay curious
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 11361
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 2:47 pm

MaverickM11 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
MaverickM11 wrote:
Are you able to tell the difference between meat and a person?



I am, are you also able to comprehend that a butcher shouldn't be forced into serving halal or kosher meat to a jew or muslim just because they want to buy from him. It's the same with the bakery, why should the baker be forced into serving people he doesn't want to serve.

Maybe this is easier for you to understand, what if the baker was black and didn't want to serve white people I wouldn't have a problem with that either, I'd just go somewhere else, this couple were grandstanding and wanted to make an issue where there really wans't one. They could have easily gone to another baker for the cake.


Great so maybe you can understand how not selling to white people is different from a hardware store not selling cruises...to anyone.


Now you’re just being foolish, hardware stores don’t sell cruises, but if a specialist gay travel company declined to sell a cruise to a straight person that would be ok.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 11361
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 2:53 pm

Blerg wrote:
luckyone wrote:
Blerg wrote:


Didn't you write that you are married to a guy earlier? That would make you as biased on this topic as I am.

For the record I am not even Catholic so once again you are making assumptions based on your own personal paradigms. You are making a conclusion without having all the facts available to you. Of course I understand the difference between gender and sex. That's not a discussion here. What we are discussing is the consequences of politicizing gender dysphoria and its impact on the lives of people with this mental disease.

Being married to a same sex partner has nothing to do with gender dysphoria or being transgender. And no, clearly you do not because if you did, you would not have made several of the statements you have, including the inference I just corrected. Stop while you’re behind, sir.


Being someone who is not only gay but also married to a man means that you are much more prone to be sympathetic to the Leftist cause and to defend the normalization of gender dysphoria.


Why would a gay person be more likely to sympathise with trans people, the gay guy in my office as an example is about as far right as possible for a Norwegian and he’s absolutely not pro trans, he thinks adding the T to LGB takes away from his cause and muddies the waters, adding confusion.
 
Blerg
Topic Author
Posts: 599
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 11:42 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 2:57 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
Blerg wrote:
luckyone wrote:
Being married to a same sex partner has nothing to do with gender dysphoria or being transgender. And no, clearly you do not because if you did, you would not have made several of the statements you have, including the inference I just corrected. Stop while you’re behind, sir.


Being someone who is not only gay but also married to a man means that you are much more prone to be sympathetic to the Leftist cause and to defend the normalization of gender dysphoria.


Why would a gay person be more likely to sympathise with trans people, the gay guy in my office as an example is about as far right as possible for a Norwegian and he’s absolutely not pro trans, he thinks adding the T to LGB takes away from his cause and muddies the waters, adding confusion.


A gay is far more likely to be supportive of the Leftist cause then to be against it.
 
jetero
Posts: 3221
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:03 pm

Blerg wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
Blerg wrote:

Being someone who is not only gay but also married to a man means that you are much more prone to be sympathetic to the Leftist cause and to defend the normalization of gender dysphoria.


Why would a gay person be more likely to sympathise with trans people, the gay guy in my office as an example is about as far right as possible for a Norwegian and he’s absolutely not pro trans, he thinks adding the T to LGB takes away from his cause and muddies the waters, adding confusion.


A gay is far more likely to be supportive of the Leftist cause then to be against it.


Oh the things that are considered "Leftist" these days.

Total BLERG.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2135
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:18 pm

Tugger wrote:
Would a baker be required to bake a "halal" cake for a Muslim person, or a kosher cake for a Jewish person?


Your comparison is off, in the example of the cake a standard service is being denied because of the customer, in the example you use the service itself is what is being denied.

Denial of service based on the service = OK.
Denial of service based on the customer = Not OK.

Think of it like " your post was stupid because of what you said" being different to " your post was stupid because you said it"

Fred
Image
 
Flighty
Posts: 9302
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:21 pm

Here's how I think if it.

This case was about forced speech. In America, you cannot force someone to pledge allegiance or say "congratulations on your gay wedding." By the same token, you cannot force people to say obscene things. The baker was basically right.

This is not really the same as a pharmacist filling a prescription. This case was about free speech and art. You can't make an artist paint any message you want or else accuse him or her of discrimination. The baker has the right to approve or deny his own speech, even in an establishment open to the public.
Last edited by Flighty on Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
jetero
Posts: 3221
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:21 pm

Flighty wrote:
Here's how I think if it (and yes I should half ashamedly admit I have watched a couple of Jordan Peterson videos where I learned this phrase).

This case was about forced speech. In America, you cannot force someone to pledge allegiance or say "congratulations on your gay wedding." By the same token, you cannot force people to say obscene things. The baker was basically right.

This is not really the same as a pharmacist filling a prescription. This case was about free speech and art. You can't make an artist paint any message you want or else accuse him or her of discrimination. The baker has the right to approve or deny his own speech, even in an establishment open to the public.


Well this particular case resolved none of those questions in case you're interested.

The premise about "forced speech" is defensible only if you believe baking cakes and putting icing on them is art.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2135
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:22 pm

Blerg wrote:
What we are discussing is the consequences of politicizing gender dysphoria and its impact on the lives of people with this mental disease.
Well they say the first step to being cured is to admit the problem and its good to see that you now see Religious belief as a mental disease.

Fred
Image
 
jetero
Posts: 3221
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:30 pm

mad99 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Tugger wrote:
Would a baker be required to bake a "halal" cake for a Muslim person, or a kosher cake for a Jewish person?


Your comparison is off, in the example of the cake a standard service is being denied because of the customer, in the example you use the service itself is what is being denied.

Denial of service based on the service = OK.
Denial of service based on the customer = Not OK.

Think of it like " your post was stupid because of what you said" being different to " your post was stupid because you said it"

Fred


He’s said he’s got no issues selling a cake to them but they want him to design a special cake based on who they are and as an artist feels he can’t.
So it’s type of service being requested that was denied not the client?


Asking the guy to bake a cake that he would bake anyone else and is part of his core business is "special"? Now that's a reach.
 
User avatar
mad99
Posts: 1078
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:33 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:31 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Tugger wrote:
Would a baker be required to bake a "halal" cake for a Muslim person, or a kosher cake for a Jewish person?


Your comparison is off, in the example of the cake a standard service is being denied because of the customer, in the example you use the service itself is what is being denied.

Denial of service based on the service = OK.
Denial of service based on the customer = Not OK.

Think of it like " your post was stupid because of what you said" being different to " your post was stupid because you said it"

Fred


He’s said he’s got no issues selling a cake to them but they want him to design a special cake based on who they are and as an artist feels he can’t.
So it’s type of service being requested that was denied not the client?
 
Flighty
Posts: 9302
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:35 pm

jetero wrote:
Flighty wrote:
Here's how I think if it (and yes I should half ashamedly admit I have watched a couple of Jordan Peterson videos where I learned this phrase).

This case was about forced speech. In America, you cannot force someone to pledge allegiance or say "congratulations on your gay wedding." By the same token, you cannot force people to say obscene things. The baker was basically right.

This is not really the same as a pharmacist filling a prescription. This case was about free speech and art. You can't make an artist paint any message you want or else accuse him or her of discrimination. The baker has the right to approve or deny his own speech, even in an establishment open to the public.


Well this particular case resolved none of those questions in case you're interested.

The premise about "forced speech" is defensible only if you believe baking cakes and putting icing on them is art.


Well let's say it's not art, even though it is. Let's say we are talking shoe repair. Can you compel the guy or gal doing shoe repair to say congratulations on your gay wedding? Or else shut the store down?

The way I read the story (I won't be playing lawyer today - got real work to do), the baker IS required to sell cakes to everyone, and he should be shut down if he refuses. And he did not refuse to sell plaintiffs a cake. What he refused to do was speak against his own beliefs. They tried to compel him to do it, but it turns out that public accommodation does not cover that. Indeed protections for his religion may protect him FROM that.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 10118
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:35 pm

Blerg wrote:
MaverickM11 wrote:
Blerg wrote:
The last time I checked they can use the toilet of their biological sex, that is the one with which they were born. If a schizophrenic person thinks it can fly, should we open a window for them and let them jump out of it?

Last time you checked they were using whatever facilities they were most comfortable with, without any issue whatsoever, until the GOP and evangelicals decided they must be punished and be marginalized.

Blerg wrote:
The whole toilet debate is beyond stupid and pointless. Luckily the Trump administration has put an end to it and no, they don't want to deny their existence. What they want to do is synchronize US policies with science which clearly states that these people are sick. The Left is desperately trying to present as if they are just like everyone else which is wrong especially when you look at suicide rates among people suffering from gender dysphoria. Normal people don't end up killing themselves.

These people are sick says the guy who believes in an imaginary sky fairy :rotfl: A) Trump hasn't put an end to anything and B) why do you care if you're not American? "The left is...trying to present as if they are just like everyone else" How awful to treat them like human beings. Best to treat them like garbage. For Jesus!


Once again your tirade of attacks continues. The sheer fact that you have to resort to personal attacks just goes to show that you have some personal issues you need to make peace with.

We are talking about people with gender dysphoria and 'attacks' on them have nothing to do with Jesus but with black on white scientific facts. It's science that says they are troubled and that they need medical treatment/assistance. Furthermore, it's not 40% of Christians that end up killing themselves for them to be labelled mentally unstable members of the society.


Of course being discriminated, bullied or talked about just like you're doing has nothing to do with the suicide rates.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
jetero
Posts: 3221
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:35 pm

Flighty wrote:
Well let's say it's not art, even though it is. Let's say we are talking shoe repair. Can you compel the guy or gal doing shoe repair to say congratulations on your gay wedding? Or else shut the store down?


Flights, do you pay a shoe repair guy to congratulate you on your wedding? Is that part of his core service? Certainly not where I'm from. But perhaps it's part of some religious tradition.

Flighty wrote:
The way I read the story (I won't be playing lawyer today - got real work to do), the baker IS required to sell cakes to everyone, and he should be shut down if he refuses. And he did not refuse to sell plaintiffs a cake. What he refused to do was speak against his own beliefs. They tried to compel him to do it, but it turns out that public accommodation does not cover that. Indeed protections for his religion may protect him FROM that.


Well you read incorrectly. Reread the decision. The decision was that the Colorado Commission on Human Rights or whatever it's called in its application of its rules discriminated unfairly based on the guys religion. There was zero opinion on cake-baking as a form of art, or the right of a cake-baker to deny "special" wedding cake service to gay couples. The right of state and local governments to enact public accommodation laws was affirmed.
 
CCGPV
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:18 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:42 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
Tugger wrote:
Would a baker be required to bake a "halal" cake for a Muslim person, or a kosher cake for a Jewish person?


Your comparison is off, in the example of the cake a standard service is being denied because of the customer, in the example you use the service itself is what is being denied.

Denial of service based on the service = OK.
Denial of service based on the customer = Not OK.

Think of it like " your post was stupid because of what you said" being different to " your post was stupid because you said it"

Fred


Should an artist be required to paint a vulgar picture if asked by a customer? Should a Jewish carpenter be required to build a Wahhabi Mosque if asked?
Stay curious
 
jetero
Posts: 3221
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:44 pm

CCGPV wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
Tugger wrote:
Would a baker be required to bake a "halal" cake for a Muslim person, or a kosher cake for a Jewish person?


Your comparison is off, in the example of the cake a standard service is being denied because of the customer, in the example you use the service itself is what is being denied.

Denial of service based on the service = OK.
Denial of service based on the customer = Not OK.

Think of it like " your post was stupid because of what you said" being different to " your post was stupid because you said it"

Fred


Should an artist be required to paint a vulgar picture if asked by a customer? Should a Jewish carpenter be required to build a Wahhabi Mosque if asked?


Yawn.

Should a Palestinian doctor be required to deliver a Israeli baby?

These worthless "whatabouts" exactly why the government (and society, for that matter) has an interest in establishing public accommodation laws and a framework for individuals to obtain legal remedies. A good faith effort to obtain legal remedy for a "sincerely held" belief of legal wrongdoing is not harassment. I'm not quite sure what to say to Westerners who believe differently.

If you want to establish a standard, establish a standard.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 6699
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 4:00 pm

The constitution is the standard and religious freedom is protected by it.
 
CCGPV
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:18 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 4:01 pm

jetero wrote:
CCGPV wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:

Your comparison is off, in the example of the cake a standard service is being denied because of the customer, in the example you use the service itself is what is being denied.

Denial of service based on the service = OK.
Denial of service based on the customer = Not OK.

Think of it like " your post was stupid because of what you said" being different to " your post was stupid because you said it"

Fred


Should an artist be required to paint a vulgar picture if asked by a customer? Should a Jewish carpenter be required to build a Wahhabi Mosque if asked?


Yawn.

Should a Palestinian doctor be required to deliver a Israeli baby?

These worthless "whatabouts" exactly why the government (and society, for that matter) has an interest in establishing public accommodation laws and a framework for individuals to obtain legal remedies. A good faith effort to obtain legal remedy for a "sincerely held" belief of legal wrongdoing is not harassment.

If you want to establish a standard, establish a standard.


Generally speaking I don't want to establish a standard for service. In private business situations (not safety related) the market should decide what is acceptable.

Its not whataboutism at all. That word is becoming a catch all for dismissing anything one disagrees with. Rulings like this will open questions like this up. We're seeing it already. Its going to get way more nuanced and way more controversial the more we regulate .

The doctor should not if they don't want to. If its a condition of their employment at a practice then yes. If they are an independent doctor then no. Why should they be? Where does requiring a person to do something against their will stop? Where will it stop?
Stay curious
 
jetero
Posts: 3221
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 4:06 pm

CCGPV wrote:
Its not whataboutism at all. That word is becoming a catch all for dismissing anything one disagrees with.


Asking "what about this?" and "what about that?" is the very definition of whataboutism, it's no catch-all, buddy.

CCGPV wrote:
Rulings like this will open questions like this up.


You haven't even comprehended what the ruling says!

CCGPV wrote:
The doctor should not if they don't want to. If its a condition of their employment at a practice then yes. If they are an independent doctor then no.


A fine legal mind there. It's not a civil right (either from the baker's perspective or the couple's perspective). The standard is what someone "wants to" or "feels like" doing.

CCGPV wrote:
Where does requiring a person to do something against their will stop? Where will it stop?


Oh boy. :sarcastic:
 
jetero
Posts: 3221
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 4:07 pm

seahawk wrote:
CCGPV wrote:
jetero wrote:

Yawn.

Should a Palestinian doctor be required to deliver a Israeli baby?

These worthless "whatabouts" exactly why the government (and society, for that matter) has an interest in establishing public accommodation laws and a framework for individuals to obtain legal remedies. A good faith effort to obtain legal remedy for a "sincerely held" belief of legal wrongdoing is not harassment.

If you want to establish a standard, establish a standard.


Generally speaking I don't want to establish a standard for service. In private business situations (not safety related) the market should decide what is acceptable.

Its not whataboutism at all. That word is becoming a catch all for dismissing anything one disagrees with. Rulings like this will open questions like this up. We're seeing it already. Its going to get way more nuanced and way more controversial the more we regulate .

The doctor should not if they don't want to. If its a condition of their employment at a practice then yes. If they are an independent doctor then no. Why should they be? Where does requiring a person to do something against their will stop? Where will it stop?


A doctor usually has sworn the Hippocratic Oath, which binds him to help people regardless of religion, race or gender. A baker has done no such thing and getting a wedding cake or not can hardly be compared to getting medical assistance.


Erm Seahawk, if the person in that example complained through a Western court system, the Hippocratic Oath would have no standing whatsoever in the decision.
 
jetero
Posts: 3221
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 4:08 pm

seahawk wrote:
The constitution is the standard and religious freedom is protected by it.


That's fine and dandy but I doubt it means what you think it means in this case.
 
jetero
Posts: 3221
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 4:10 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
Blerg wrote:
A gay is far more likely to be supportive of the Leftist cause then to be against it.

Incredible how treating gays as equal is seen as a "Lefitst" cause rather than as a human decency one.


"Leftist" is now officially a meaningless catchword for any position counter to a right-wing populist agenda.

How far we have fallen.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 6699
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 4:11 pm

CCGPV wrote:
jetero wrote:
CCGPV wrote:

Should an artist be required to paint a vulgar picture if asked by a customer? Should a Jewish carpenter be required to build a Wahhabi Mosque if asked?


Yawn.

Should a Palestinian doctor be required to deliver a Israeli baby?

These worthless "whatabouts" exactly why the government (and society, for that matter) has an interest in establishing public accommodation laws and a framework for individuals to obtain legal remedies. A good faith effort to obtain legal remedy for a "sincerely held" belief of legal wrongdoing is not harassment.

If you want to establish a standard, establish a standard.


Generally speaking I don't want to establish a standard for service. In private business situations (not safety related) the market should decide what is acceptable.

Its not whataboutism at all. That word is becoming a catch all for dismissing anything one disagrees with. Rulings like this will open questions like this up. We're seeing it already. Its going to get way more nuanced and way more controversial the more we regulate .

The doctor should not if they don't want to. If its a condition of their employment at a practice then yes. If they are an independent doctor then no. Why should they be? Where does requiring a person to do something against their will stop? Where will it stop?


A doctor usually has sworn the Hippocratic Oath, which binds him to help people regardless of religion, race or gender. A baker has done no such thing and getting a wedding cake or not can hardly be compared to getting medical assistance.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 6386
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 4:11 pm

Blerg wrote:
A gay is far more likely to be supportive of the Leftist cause then to be against it.

Incredible how treating gays as equal is seen as a "Lefitst" cause rather than as a human decency one.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
CCGPV
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:18 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 4:15 pm

jetero wrote:
CCGPV wrote:
Its not whataboutism at all. That word is becoming a catch all for dismissing anything one disagrees with.


Asking "what about this?" and "what about that?" is the very definition of whataboutism, it's no catch-all, buddy.

CCGPV wrote:
Rulings like this will open questions like this up.


You haven't even comprehended what the ruling says!

CCGPV wrote:
The doctor should not if they don't want to. If its a condition of their employment at a practice then yes. If they are an independent doctor then no.


A fine legal mind there. It's not a civil right (either from the baker's perspective or the couple's perspective). The standard is what someone "wants to" or "feels like" doing.

CCGPV wrote:
Where does requiring a person to do something against their will stop? Where will it stop?


Oh boy. :sarcastic:


You can play the exasperated intellectual like no other.

Still doesn't change the facts.

Literally every single gay rights group denounces the ruling and every religious group praised it yet it doesn't mean a thing!
Stay curious
 
jetero
Posts: 3221
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 4:16 pm

CCGPV wrote:
jetero wrote:
CCGPV wrote:
Its not whataboutism at all. That word is becoming a catch all for dismissing anything one disagrees with.


Asking "what about this?" and "what about that?" is the very definition of whataboutism, it's no catch-all, buddy.

CCGPV wrote:
Rulings like this will open questions like this up.


You haven't even comprehended what the ruling says!

CCGPV wrote:
The doctor should not if they don't want to. If its a condition of their employment at a practice then yes. If they are an independent doctor then no.


A fine legal mind there. It's not a civil right (either from the baker's perspective or the couple's perspective). The standard is what someone "wants to" or "feels like" doing.

CCGPV wrote:
Where does requiring a person to do something against their will stop? Where will it stop?


Oh boy. :sarcastic:


You can play the exasperated intellectual like no other.

Still doesn't change the facts.

Literally every single gay rights group denounces the ruling and every religious group praised it yet it doesn't mean a thing!


:roll: :butthead:

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

Maybe the gay rights groups denounced it because the Court did not take an opportunity to decidedly gay peoples' right of public accommodation. Could that be?

Maybe the religious group praised it because the decision stated that in their application of their own regulations the CHRC violated the baker's first amendment rights, without issuing any opinion on the regulation itself. Could that be?

Keep on chasing that tail.
 
CCGPV
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:18 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 4:18 pm

seahawk wrote:
CCGPV wrote:
jetero wrote:

Yawn.

Should a Palestinian doctor be required to deliver a Israeli baby?

These worthless "whatabouts" exactly why the government (and society, for that matter) has an interest in establishing public accommodation laws and a framework for individuals to obtain legal remedies. A good faith effort to obtain legal remedy for a "sincerely held" belief of legal wrongdoing is not harassment.

If you want to establish a standard, establish a standard.


Generally speaking I don't want to establish a standard for service. In private business situations (not safety related) the market should decide what is acceptable.

Its not whataboutism at all. That word is becoming a catch all for dismissing anything one disagrees with. Rulings like this will open questions like this up. We're seeing it already. Its going to get way more nuanced and way more controversial the more we regulate .

The doctor should not if they don't want to. If its a condition of their employment at a practice then yes. If they are an independent doctor then no. Why should they be? Where does requiring a person to do something against their will stop? Where will it stop?


A doctor usually has sworn the Hippocratic Oath, which binds him to help people regardless of religion, race or gender. A baker has done no such thing and getting a wedding cake or not can hardly be compared to getting medical assistance.


Yeah, in a matter of life and death or active care. Not in choosing customers.
Stay curious
 
CCGPV
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:18 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 4:21 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
Blerg wrote:
A gay is far more likely to be supportive of the Leftist cause then to be against it.

Incredible how treating gays as equal is seen as a "Lefitst" cause rather than as a human decency one.


Amazing how allowing people to peacefully practice their beliefs is now a "righy" cause than a human decency one.

Both sides feel persecuted for being forced to do something they don't want to do. That's what this all comes down to. We need to ALL be more understanding.
Stay curious
 
luckyone
Posts: 2528
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 4:43 pm

seahawk wrote:
CCGPV wrote:
jetero wrote:

Yawn.

Should a Palestinian doctor be required to deliver a Israeli baby?

These worthless "whatabouts" exactly why the government (and society, for that matter) has an interest in establishing public accommodation laws and a framework for individuals to obtain legal remedies. A good faith effort to obtain legal remedy for a "sincerely held" belief of legal wrongdoing is not harassment.

If you want to establish a standard, establish a standard.


Generally speaking I don't want to establish a standard for service. In private business situations (not safety related) the market should decide what is acceptable.

Its not whataboutism at all. That word is becoming a catch all for dismissing anything one disagrees with. Rulings like this will open questions like this up. We're seeing it already. Its going to get way more nuanced and way more controversial the more we regulate .

The doctor should not if they don't want to. If its a condition of their employment at a practice then yes. If they are an independent doctor then no. Why should they be? Where does requiring a person to do something against their will stop? Where will it stop?


A doctor usually has sworn the Hippocratic Oath, which binds him to help people regardless of religion, race or gender. A baker has done no such thing and getting a wedding cake or not can hardly be compared to getting medical assistance.

No he hasn’t. The Hippocratic Oath is not legally binding in any way. Many medical schools don’t even do it anymore.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9302
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 5:11 pm

jetero wrote:

Should a Palestinian doctor be required to deliver a Israeli baby?



Yes. But they should not be required to praise the event in speech or writing. That is Orwellian. (Whatever this ruling said or didn’t say.)
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 11361
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 5:19 pm

jetero wrote:
mad99 wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:

Your comparison is off, in the example of the cake a standard service is being denied because of the customer, in the example you use the service itself is what is being denied.

Denial of service based on the service = OK.
Denial of service based on the customer = Not OK.

Think of it like " your post was stupid because of what you said" being different to " your post was stupid because you said it"

Fred


He’s said he’s got no issues selling a cake to them but they want him to design a special cake based on who they are and as an artist feels he can’t.
So it’s type of service being requested that was denied not the client?


Asking the guy to bake a cake that he would bake anyone else and is part of his core business is "special"? Now that's a reach.


The baking is the easy part, the hard part is decorating which is the special part.
 
jetero
Posts: 3221
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 5:21 pm

Flighty wrote:
jetero wrote:

Should a Palestinian doctor be required to deliver a Israeli baby?



Yes. But they should not be required to praise the event in speech or writing. That is Orwellian. (Whatever this ruling said or didn’t say.)


Boy do you have a strange view of core services. Shoe shiners and doctors required to "praise" you after they shine your shoes or deliver your baby.

An Orwellian dystopia, if you're so interested, one full of propaganda and misinformation. Those things to me are pretty synonymous with this sort of mindless right-wing populism.

Did baker bake cakes for non-Christian couples (or people who didn't get married in church by an ordained minister, or people who otherwise violated his view of Christianity) "praising them" by writing, "Congrats John and Jane on your wedding"?

If so, I'd say he's good. If not, I'd say it's a pretty flimsy standard as far as general rules for public accommodation goes. The defense essentially agreed, never holding that it was his right to refuse service but rather that baking a cake is artistic expression. That's a bit off to me as well, but, I'm one of those crazy whack-job "leftists."

But this particular question remains unsettled. Calculated restraint by the Supreme Court in this regard, including Justices Kagan and Breyer joining in the decision, was probably the best way to go.
 
jetero
Posts: 3221
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 5:22 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
The baking is the easy part, the hard part is decorating which is the special part.


9 times out of 10 (10?) the form of which is picked from a catalog?
 
jetero
Posts: 3221
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 5:32 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
jetero wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
The baking is the easy part, the hard part is decorating which is the special part.


9 times out of 10 (10?) the form of which is picked from a catalog?


It’s still many hours worth of work, work which he wasn’t interested in doing for this couple so why should he be forced into doing it?


That's not the legal standard that his attorneys argued--they argued artistic expression and acknowledged that other participants (e.g., the caterer) did not engage in artistic expression, so therefore they could not refuse service.

So is caking an artistic expression or not? At the end of the day that's what it comes down to.

(People are continually ignoring decades of legal precedent with regard to public accommodation in the United States. It's fine if you want to, but many of the questions that are being posed here as if they're still open have already been decided to be unconstitutional. The only "new" thing is that they involve the wedge issue of gay marriage, which was at the heart of the plaintiffs' argument.)
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 11361
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 5:33 pm

jetero wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
The baking is the easy part, the hard part is decorating which is the special part.


9 times out of 10 (10?) the form of which is picked from a catalog?


It’s still many hours worth of work, work which he wasn’t interested in doing for this couple so why should he be forced into doing it?
 
jetero
Posts: 3221
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 5:33 pm

seahawk wrote:
luckyone wrote:
seahawk wrote:

A doctor usually has sworn the Hippocratic Oath, which binds him to help people regardless of religion, race or gender. A baker has done no such thing and getting a wedding cake or not can hardly be compared to getting medical assistance.

No he hasn’t. The Hippocratic Oath is not legally binding in any way. Many medical schools don’t even do it anymore.


https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/21/hip ... s-doctors/

At least in the USA a modified version seems to be quite common, but it is also only a moral declaration just a your religious faith.


And what does that have to do with whether the oath has any legal bearing (on its own) whatsoever?
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 6699
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 5:39 pm

luckyone wrote:
seahawk wrote:
CCGPV wrote:

Generally speaking I don't want to establish a standard for service. In private business situations (not safety related) the market should decide what is acceptable.

Its not whataboutism at all. That word is becoming a catch all for dismissing anything one disagrees with. Rulings like this will open questions like this up. We're seeing it already. Its going to get way more nuanced and way more controversial the more we regulate .

The doctor should not if they don't want to. If its a condition of their employment at a practice then yes. If they are an independent doctor then no. Why should they be? Where does requiring a person to do something against their will stop? Where will it stop?


A doctor usually has sworn the Hippocratic Oath, which binds him to help people regardless of religion, race or gender. A baker has done no such thing and getting a wedding cake or not can hardly be compared to getting medical assistance.

No he hasn’t. The Hippocratic Oath is not legally binding in any way. Many medical schools don’t even do it anymore.


https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/21/hip ... s-doctors/

At least in the USA a modified version seems to be quite common, but it is also only a moral declaration just a your religious faith.
 
jetero
Posts: 3221
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 5:47 pm

seb146 wrote:
What I really want to see (and would totally support) is Muslim shop owners denying service to evangelicals. Let's see how far this notion of "let's discriminate based on religion" goes then!


Again, the decision did not address such scenarios.

That won't stop people from thinking it did and declaring it a "win" or rationalizing it one way or the other.

I just think people should realize what the decision actually meant instead of debating what they think it meant. (What was that called? "Exasperated intellectualism"?)
 
seb146
Posts: 16963
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 5:47 pm

What I really want to see (and would totally support) is Muslim shop owners denying service to evangelicals. Let's see how far this notion of "let's discriminate based on religion" goes then!
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
CCGPV
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:18 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:00 pm

jetero wrote:
seb146 wrote:
What I really want to see (and would totally support) is Muslim shop owners denying service to evangelicals. Let's see how far this notion of "let's discriminate based on religion" goes then!


Again, the decision did not address such scenarios.

That won't stop people from thinking it did and declaring it a "win" or rationalizing it one way or the other.

I just think people should realize what the decision actually meant instead of debating what they think it meant. (What was that called? "Exasperated intellectualism"?)


It was a win for the cake shop. They won the case. They didn't sell the cake to the gay couple.

Doesn't matter what the future holds. The cake shop won the case and they didn't have to serve those who they didn't want to.
Stay curious
 
seb146
Posts: 16963
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:09 pm

CCGPV wrote:
jetero wrote:
seb146 wrote:
What I really want to see (and would totally support) is Muslim shop owners denying service to evangelicals. Let's see how far this notion of "let's discriminate based on religion" goes then!


Again, the decision did not address such scenarios.

That won't stop people from thinking it did and declaring it a "win" or rationalizing it one way or the other.

I just think people should realize what the decision actually meant instead of debating what they think it meant. (What was that called? "Exasperated intellectualism"?)


It was a win for the cake shop. They won the case. They didn't sell the cake to the gay couple.

Doesn't matter what the future holds. The cake shop won the case and they didn't have to serve those who they didn't want to.


Is it really? 100 people claim victory but 100,000 who refuse to give them business so that bakery no longer exists. Is that really a victory for the elitists and evangelicals? If they do not have money or a business?
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
jetero
Posts: 3221
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:10 pm

CCGPV wrote:
jetero wrote:
seb146 wrote:
What I really want to see (and would totally support) is Muslim shop owners denying service to evangelicals. Let's see how far this notion of "let's discriminate based on religion" goes then!


Again, the decision did not address such scenarios.

That won't stop people from thinking it did and declaring it a "win" or rationalizing it one way or the other.

I just think people should realize what the decision actually meant instead of debating what they think it meant. (What was that called? "Exasperated intellectualism"?)


It was a win for the cake shop. They won the case. They didn't sell the cake to the gay couple.

Doesn't matter what the future holds. The cake shop won the case and they didn't have to serve those who they didn't want to.


Whatever floats your boat, CC.

The First Rule of CC: CC is the only moderating voice and is always right.

The Second Rule of CC: Lecture others on their intransigence.

The Third Rule of CC: He doesn't care anyway--it's all to get his rocks off. (Do you need a helping hand so we can get this over with?)

The same complaint can be brought to CCHR tomorrow and this decision would have any (well, only contextual) legal bearing on whether the caker has a right to refuse service to a gay couple. If that's a win to you, well, fine.

I'm sure there are plenty of other gay couples out there happy to endlessly "harass" the holy caker (i.e., that is a likely enough scenario for what the "future holds" that you feel "doesn't matter"). (And, no, I'm not condoning that.)
 
CCGPV
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:18 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:17 pm

seb146 wrote:
CCGPV wrote:
jetero wrote:

Again, the decision did not address such scenarios.

That won't stop people from thinking it did and declaring it a "win" or rationalizing it one way or the other.

I just think people should realize what the decision actually meant instead of debating what they think it meant. (What was that called? "Exasperated intellectualism"?)


It was a win for the cake shop. They won the case. They didn't sell the cake to the gay couple.

Doesn't matter what the future holds. The cake shop won the case and they didn't have to serve those who they didn't want to.


Is it really? 100 people claim victory but 100,000 who refuse to give them business so that bakery no longer exists. Is that really a victory for the elitists and evangelicals? If they do not have money or a business?


I don't care about the baker or his store. He should go out of business for being a jerk and a bigot. So should all the other businesses that behave in a racist, sexist, bigoted, whatever way. But it should be their right to do that. I always side on the side of more personal freedom. Every time. Doesn't mean i'm a racist, or homophobic. It applies to everyone across the board equally. Same reason I fought for and supported gay marriage and the bathroom issue- its a person's personal choice to do whatever they want to do.

I care about the right of a person to be free to do what they want. There's no physical harm to the customer. There's no financial harm to the customer. Let that business owner be a terrible person. Go to a business that wants you (99.9% of businesses).

Saying everyone who opposes this is a gay-hating bigot it typical discourse in America these days. Once again there's only two polarized sides. I support BOTH parties...the right of the gay couple to get married and have a wedding AND the right of the store owner to refuse service.
Stay curious
 
CCGPV
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:18 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:21 pm

jetero wrote:
CCGPV wrote:
jetero wrote:

Again, the decision did not address such scenarios.

That won't stop people from thinking it did and declaring it a "win" or rationalizing it one way or the other.

I just think people should realize what the decision actually meant instead of debating what they think it meant. (What was that called? "Exasperated intellectualism"?)


It was a win for the cake shop. They won the case. They didn't sell the cake to the gay couple.

Doesn't matter what the future holds. The cake shop won the case and they didn't have to serve those who they didn't want to.


Whatever floats your boat, CC.

The First Rule of CC: CC is the only moderating voice and is always right.

The Second Rule of CC: Lecture others on their intransigence.

The Third Rule of CC: He doesn't care anyway--it's all to get his rocks off. (Do you need a helping hand so we can get this over with?)

The same complaint can be brought to CCHR tomorrow and this decision would have any (well, only contextual) legal bearing on whether the caker has a right to refuse service to a gay couple. If that's a win to you, well, fine.

I'm sure there are plenty of other gay couples out there happy to endlessly "harass" the holy caker (i.e., that is a likely enough scenario for what the "future holds" that you feel "doesn't matter"). (And, no, I'm not condoning that.)


I have never once said my opinion is the right opinion. Not once.

I don't lecture anyone. I give my point of view and explain what I mean. I don't insult and cast aspersions like you do to those you disagree with.

And yeah I don't really care because this issue will never effect me personally in any way. Its all about personal rights for me- nothing to do with the couple being gay. I'm never going to need a wedding cake and if I did and they said they didn't feel comfortable making me one I'd take 12 seconds and call another bakery.

Calm down man nobody is angry here but you. I'm talking about the big picture legally and you're playing the "everyone is a bigot" route. No wonder people get so up in arms all the time because everyone who disagrees with someone is a racist or a bigot or a leftie or a fascist. Ridiculous.
Stay curious
 
jetero
Posts: 3221
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:22 pm

CCGPV wrote:
you're playing the "everyone is a bigot" route.


HOW?????????????????????????????? Please provide examples.

CCGPV wrote:
No wonder people get so up in arms all the time because everyone who disagrees with someone is a racist or a bigot or a leftie or a fascist. Ridiculous.


How is that germane to anything I have said in this thread?

You're talking to thin air.
 
CCGPV
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:18 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:15 pm

jetero wrote:
CCGPV wrote:
you're playing the "everyone is a bigot" route.


HOW?????????????????????????????? Please provide examples.

CCGPV wrote:
No wonder people get so up in arms all the time because everyone who disagrees with someone is a racist or a bigot or a leftie or a fascist. Ridiculous.


How is that germane to anything I have said in this thread?

You're talking to thin air.


Because you outright dismiss people with insults or one word answers with anything you judge to be not worthy. Its unbecoming. You're just too smart or good to listen to those peons who have the audacity to disagree with you- that's how you come across. But that's how you communicate and you seem to enjoy that and that's fine just don't expect people to take you seriously. Those of us who try and listen to both sides or debate an issue we might not agree with will have to deal with it. I suppose It just makes it more interesting in the end, more of a challenge.
Stay curious
 
jetero
Posts: 3221
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:18 pm

CCGPV wrote:
jetero wrote:
CCGPV wrote:
you're playing the "everyone is a bigot" route.


HOW?????????????????????????????? Please provide examples.

CCGPV wrote:
No wonder people get so up in arms all the time because everyone who disagrees with someone is a racist or a bigot or a leftie or a fascist. Ridiculous.


How is that germane to anything I have said in this thread?

You're talking to thin air.


Because you outright dismiss people with insults or one word answers with anything you judge to be not worthy. Its unbecoming. You're just too smart or good to listen to those peons who have the audacity to disagree with you- that's how you come across. But that's how you communicate and you seem to enjoy that and that's fine just don't expect people to take you seriously. Those of us who try and listen to both sides or debate an issue we might not agree with will have to deal with it. I suppose It just makes it more interesting in the end, more of a challenge.


So, in other words, none of what you wrote prior as your rationale for disagreement (e.g., saying "everyone is a bigot" or calling people a "racist or a bigot or a leftie or a fascist") actually applied. Glad we cleared that up. More reason not to take you seriously.

CC's feelings are just hurt, or he's the self-appointed morality police for people whose feelings get hurt or minimized when they say ridiculous things. It's impossible to argue logically with a good 5 ideologues on here. How do you feel about people who continually claim things about others that aren't true? Or do your elevated standards only apply to not calling someone Mr Poopy Pants? If you have such high-minded motivations, what do you think about someone who repeatedly says that they're here to watch chaos, while enjoying every minute of it? A person who says from time to time he made something up or doesn't believe what he posted?

Others are perfectly capable of deciding whether they want to take me "seriously," thank you. But keep on speaking for them, Sheriff CC. You're debating style, not logic.
 
CCGPV
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:18 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:47 pm

jetero wrote:
CCGPV wrote:
jetero wrote:

HOW?????????????????????????????? Please provide examples.



How is that germane to anything I have said in this thread?

You're talking to thin air.


Because you outright dismiss people with insults or one word answers with anything you judge to be not worthy. Its unbecoming. You're just too smart or good to listen to those peons who have the audacity to disagree with you- that's how you come across. But that's how you communicate and you seem to enjoy that and that's fine just don't expect people to take you seriously. Those of us who try and listen to both sides or debate an issue we might not agree with will have to deal with it. I suppose It just makes it more interesting in the end, more of a challenge.


So, in other words, none of what you wrote prior as your rationale for disagreement (e.g., saying "everyone is a bigot" or calling people a "racist or a bigot or a leftie or a fascist") actually applied. Glad we cleared that up. More reason not to take you seriously.

CC's feelings are just hurt, or he's the self-appointed morality police for people whose feelings get hurt or minimized when they say ridiculous things. It's impossible to argue logically with a good 5 ideologues on here. How do you feel about people who continually claim things about others that aren't true? Or do your elevated standards only apply to not calling someone Mr Poopy Pants? If you have such high-minded motivations, what do you think about someone who repeatedly says that they're here to watch chaos, while enjoying every minute of it? A person who says from time to time he made something up or doesn't believe what he posted?

Others are perfectly capable of deciding whether they want to take me "seriously," thank you. But keep on speaking for them, Sheriff CC. You're debating style, not logic.


Amazing. Where do you come up with this stuff? I'm not sure what book about me your're studying but you need to put it down.

I've never claimed to be correct or morally superior, have high-minded opinions or the gatekeeper of anything. I staunchly argue the moderate opinions I have. You keep assuming that and bringing that up. I don't know why. You're the only one who constantly brings that up. Nobody should believe or take anything anyone says on the internet seriously. This is internet 101.

Yeah, I enjoy the back and forth and the inanity of some posters. There are about a thousand other people on these forums that do too. Its why many people participate- for the absurdity sometimes, for the entertainment sometimes, for the knowledge sometimes. This is what the off topic forum is for. If I were here to cause trouble for trouble's sake I'd be posting incorrect information in Civil Av or giving bad advice in the photog forum. You're the only one who's insulting people in those forums. I never have.

Seb and I have extremely heated discussions and we both think each other is insane at times but we are having a good time- we have the ability to do that. Do I enjoy watching the same users lose their mind over and over? Absolutely. I also enjoy debating with some about things we both feel passionately about. I can do that without feeling personally slighted or misunderstood. Its not that big of a deal, man. We're aviation nerds here.

Just because someone isn't using or participating in the forums exactly like you want them to doesn't make them "insane" or "a sheriff." Don't read into it too much or take things so seriously. Its all fun!!
Stay curious
 
jetero
Posts: 3221
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:50 pm

CCGPV wrote:
jetero wrote:
CCGPV wrote:

Because you outright dismiss people with insults or one word answers with anything you judge to be not worthy. Its unbecoming. You're just too smart or good to listen to those peons who have the audacity to disagree with you- that's how you come across. But that's how you communicate and you seem to enjoy that and that's fine just don't expect people to take you seriously. Those of us who try and listen to both sides or debate an issue we might not agree with will have to deal with it. I suppose It just makes it more interesting in the end, more of a challenge.


So, in other words, none of what you wrote prior as your rationale for disagreement (e.g., saying "everyone is a bigot" or calling people a "racist or a bigot or a leftie or a fascist") actually applied. Glad we cleared that up. More reason not to take you seriously.

CC's feelings are just hurt, or he's the self-appointed morality police for people whose feelings get hurt or minimized when they say ridiculous things. It's impossible to argue logically with a good 5 ideologues on here. How do you feel about people who continually claim things about others that aren't true? Or do your elevated standards only apply to not calling someone Mr Poopy Pants? If you have such high-minded motivations, what do you think about someone who repeatedly says that they're here to watch chaos, while enjoying every minute of it? A person who says from time to time he made something up or doesn't believe what he posted?

Others are perfectly capable of deciding whether they want to take me "seriously," thank you. But keep on speaking for them, Sheriff CC. You're debating style, not logic.


Amazing. Where do you come up with this stuff? I'm not sure what book about me your're studying but you need to put it down.

I've never claimed to be correct or morally superior, have high-minded opinions or the gatekeeper of anything. I staunchly argue the moderate opinions I have. You keep assuming that and bringing that up. I don't know why. You're the only one who constantly brings that up. Nobody should believe or take anything anyone says on the internet seriously. This is internet 101.

Yeah, I enjoy the back and forth and the inanity of some posters. There are about a thousand other people on these forums that do too. Its why many people participate- for the absurdity sometimes, for the entertainment sometimes, for the knowledge sometimes. This is what the off topic forum is for. If I were here to cause trouble for trouble's sake I'd be posting incorrect information in Civil Av or giving bad advice in the photog forum. You're the only one who's insulting people in those forums. I never have.

Seb and I have extremely heated discussions and we both think each other is insane at times but we are having a good time- we have the ability to do that. Do I enjoy watching the same users lose their mind over and over? Absolutely. I also enjoy debating with some about things we both feel passionately about. I can do that without feeling personally slighted or misunderstood. Its not that big of a deal, man. We're aviation nerds here.

Just because someone isn't using or participating in the forums exactly like you want them to doesn't make them "insane" or "a sheriff." Don't read into it too much or take things so seriously. Its all fun!!


So in other words it's OK to be full of sh*t

Took me long enough but I'm getting on the 2122M highway

:wave:

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos