Posts by slimboyfat

286

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

by Simon in

seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

slimboyfat

Let me get this straight, you believe businesses should be allowed to refuse mixed race couples? Really? You are aware this is illegal? I don’t think even the BNP support such a policy these days.

You complain it would mean that people who don’t like gay marriage would need to make gay wedding cakes. So what? And people who don’t like black people need to serve black people too. Diddums. Get over it.

The polling shows only 14% of Americans support the “right” to refuse gay customers. I’d say that’s a minority, and out of touch.

But perhaps not surprising since JWs are the most homophobic religious group polled and that’s our background.

286

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

by Simon in

seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

slimboyfat

What about people in business who oppose mixed race marriages? Should they be allowed to refuse to make cakes for mixed race couples? If it’s against their “beliefs”?

Thank goodness such prejudice is supported by a vanishingly small segment of the population now - only 14% support prejudice against 72% on the side of customers doing nothing more offensive than getting married.

Amazing how out of touch this forum is.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-baker-poll/most-americans-oppose-businesses-refusing-to-serve-gay-people-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKCN1J02WN

New research shows nearly 5% of people now identify as gay, rising to 8% among millennials - refutation of the nonsense on this forum a few months ago about gay population be “exaggerated” and only 2% or some such rubbish.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/05/23/same-sex-marriage-poll-americans/638587002/

2

Blood Directive

by Phoebe in

jw
friends

is there a new blood form to fill out?

maybe it's been mentioned here and i've missed it but when they were chasing me with the gdpr, they also mentioned they wanted to me to fill out a new blood directive.

not that they'll be chasing me for much longer ;).

slimboyfat

I’m glad to see his videos back up, but I don’t find Mark terribly lucid or analytical. I’d hold judgment on whether this form represents anything new.

286

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

by Simon in

seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

slimboyfat

Celebrating a wedding is not offensive. If a business owner thinks otherwise and wants to discriminate on the basis of his beliefs then he’s the one who’s got a problem. He can have those beliefs all he wants but he should not be allowed to use a business to project that prejudice in public. Why? Because it’s rightly against the law to discriminate in a public setting on the basis of race, gender or sexuality. You can’t refuse a service because someone is black and you can’t refuse a service because someone is gay. It’s really incredibly simple.

People comparing a wedding cake to asking someone to collaborate in making something offensive need to have a talk with themselves. It’s a wedding cake. Get a grip.

This forum may be a bastion for prejudiced views (down to 17%, quite a minority) but thank goodness society is headed is a completely different direction. Enjoy your Pyrrhic victory.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-baker-poll/most-americans-oppose-businesses-refusing-to-serve-gay-people-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKCN1J02WN

286

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

by Simon in

seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

slimboyfat

If you are a business, how can you refuse to make a cake for someone’s wedding, if your business is making wedding cakes? On the grounds that you don’t agree with their sexuality? How can that be legal? I think reactionaries probably ought to enjoy their victory here while it lasts, because it surely can’t stand. It’s no different than a hotel owner claiming they are at liberty to refuse other races as guests if they wish. An argument that isn’t likely to impress many people these days,

22

Only one real point per WT study...

by JW_Rogue in

has anyone else noticed that in the wt study articles the main point they want you to remember is always somewhere around paragraph 11-14?

it's like a formula.

intro and overview paragraphs 1-4. basic wt stuff 5-8 (not controversial).

slimboyfat

Let me get straight to the point here. Yes you are correct. This is a true observation you have made.

36

I've graduated at last

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

after a bit of a kerfuffle over a procedural matter, my university has awarded me a degree.

(the procedural problem was caused by my independent selection of what i wanted to study).

award : bachelor of arts.

slimboyfat

Those look like some very interesting topics you covered.

28

Our very own pale.emperor on the "shunned" podcast.......

by dubstepped in

well, i offered in one of his threads to have him on the show and posters seemed excited at the possibility and we got it done so now you can hear from the man himself on the newest episode of "shunned".

one of our very own stepped up to tell his story, well, aside from myself of course.

it was great getting to actually speak with him.. this is my first international interview for the podcast.

slimboyfat

Is he famous? And where is he emperor of?

138

LEAKED: WHQ Accounts: 2016-2020 Budget

by Fay Dehr in

leaked: whq accounts: 2016-2020 budget [part 1 of 5] https://youtu.be/g08tw2v3b4s.

leaked: whq accounts: 2016-2020 budget [part 2 of 5] https://youtu.be/rpceb5v0vbe.

leaked: whq accounts: 2016-2020 budget [part 3 of 5] https://youtu.be/2xa08ukc_6i.

slimboyfat

Any JWs who wander onto this site and stumble on these videos are likely to end up contributing less to WT as a result, not more.

They need to be careful how they handle the messaging around their financial crisis. Because if they come out and say: “we are in a desperate situation because brothers are contributing less”, all their audience is likely to hear is “most JWs are contributing less”, and contribute less themselves.

78

So What Drastic Money Change is Next?

by OnTheWayOut in

jw
friends

okay, they cheapened the product by getting rid of hardcover books.

they reduced printing of mags.

they drastically reduced the number of pieces of printed paper that members would "place" in people's hands in various ways, the biggest one being that they put them on a cart and don't encourage people to take them.they cut d.o.

slimboyfat

What else do you think the real estate sales are for???

To cover running costs, which was hinted in Lett’s broadcast in 2015 (“the sale of a property only covers costs for a few months”) and confirmed by these comments made for an internal audience.