Posts by freemindfade

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.

freemindfade

What goes around comes around. Just because you're top of the intersectionality popularity game one week doesn't mean someone else won't come and use the system against you.

A few years back darkmatters2525 (they do funny you tube animation on the Bible), did a video about the inevitable endless plight of SJW's. Eventually, everything becomes guilty and everything becomes banned, even all the SJW's. Modern leftism is as degenerative a mind virus as the Abrahamic religions. Socialism, social justice warrioring, PC culture, the snake just eats the tail.

And you are totally right Simon, this is why I keep saying, fight for maximum freedoms, not more stupid laws and quit moving the Overton window into oblivion.

We didn't make the progress we have of liberal ideas up until now by censorship, shaming, and all this other stupid crap. Stephen Fry made that clear a recent Monk debate about political correctness. he as a man married to another man in the UK, knows it didn't happen by shouting down, and censoring the world.

21

Miss America and Misguided Views on Sexuality

by Simon in

so miss america pageant is going to remove the swimsuit and evening gown parts of their pageant because they have decided it's demeaning to women.

i guess it will just be women in overcoats telling us they want world peace .... bravo, we all applaud, right?

maybe we shouldn't be so quick to do so .... what is it really saying?

freemindfade

Why not just make women wear burkas and then the problem will be solved eh?
It's insanity.

But if you bring up the idea even merely rhetorically (as you just did) to make a point about how insane things are, your words will get twisted like Vice did, then Michelle Goldberg at the monk debates saying Jordan Peterson said women shouldn't wear heels and makeup to the office. You literally cannot win in this new PC wasteland.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jhl5yeZlltI

The left is a bottomless pit of endless stupidity

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.

freemindfade

These gay activists could use their time in a better way. Instead of trying to force other people to accept them and wasting our court systems valuable time, they should look at the opportunity before them. They can open a bakery to serve the gay community and everyone else or not. If they decide to serve exclusively gay people, that's fine with me. From a business point of view, it'd be stupid, but they would have the right to serve whomever they want. And I would defend that right.

Capitalism > Discrimination Laws

To my point much earlier, look at Jim Crow laws, the GOVERNMENT enforced required segregation to hold back the market from NOT discriminating.

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.

freemindfade

I guess the point is that your sexual orientation is not a choice, whereas being a homophobe is a choice. And not a choice that should be pandered to in public. What homophobes do and say in private is their business. But there should be no place for discrimination in public, no matter how “sincerely held” their homophobia.

Oversimplification, it's not just virtuous to hate injustice and hate superstitious religions. You need to proceed in a way that will protect rights for all, there are prices that come with maximum freedom and liberty, but those freedoms mean a lot to all people even good non-bigoted people. So everyone should stop pretending just because you can throw your hand up and say "I hate religion", and "I hate homophobes" you are somehow making some kind of intellectual case and not just virtue signaling which is pointless and self-serving. Many provocative discussions have a broad spectrum of viewpoints that exist, if its this cake case, or climate change, or immigration, of abortion, there are not just two black and white far left and right ideas, but many people trying to walk the center line of sensibility in the middle. Too often the discussion degrade into you are all this or that, usually by the people with nothing intelligent to say and nothing to add to the debate.

So stop trying to paint everyone into an extreme for wanting to have an idea that evaluates a broader range of issues at play and doesn't reduce it to nonsensical virtue grabbing. Its very nice you dislike homophobia, congratulations, me too! and probably most people, I wish it would go away. Now can we have a discussion about the details of how this impacts free speech, free exercise, and not pretend like its a debate on whether or not being a homophobic ass hole is good or not, because most all of us already believe that's NOT GOOD.

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.

freemindfade

its not about events. The government doesn’t recognize events. They recognize services. If you offer a service, you have to offer a service to all.

How can you ever refuse service to anyone for anything then???

What if they tell you to make a chocolate cake, and you abhorrently hate chocolate? Should government thugs come in and force you to make it? What if you are DJ that only plays hip-hop music and someone wants you to do a country music-themed wedding, and you say no?

I think it's been hammered home about a dozen times here that he did NOT refuse them service to his business, he refused to do contract work for an event. Not the same.

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.

freemindfade

It just curdles are girdle when someone refuses to make a cake, its inhumane and cruel.

I think it's so stupid too 1. as a normal human being who is not a bigot, and 2. as a business owner. It makes no sense to me. Make the GD cake, take the money, and spend it with your Jesus loving family! I still believe though that most people are open-minded and changing the way they think. These people will be relics soon.

My 2 yo daughter is actually going to be the flower girl in a gay wedding this November and I have to give a speech, ironically, they are not having a cake lol!

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.

freemindfade

The Baker chooses not to make other types of cakes because of his religious beliefs such as Halloween cakes or adult themed cakes but the difference between those examples and the gay couple is that he doesn’t make Halloween cakes for ANYBODY.

Wrong

Halloween = event: no cakes for any participating

Gay wedding = event: no cakes for any participating

is that too simple as well?

he doesn't stop people who come in and ask them if they celebrate Halloween then kick them out of his store. he chooses not to work for Halloween, and not for gay weddings. Want to sue Hobby Lobby, chick fillet, and other fundie companies for being closed on Sundays? Its a ridiculous downward spiral that in the end steps on freedom.

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.

freemindfade

The cake retailers are there to make a cake for various situations for the general public as a public service.

Under government compulsion??? Good lord I can't...

Personal biases or prejudices should therefore be restrained regarding human sexuality or religious affiliations.

So we need thought police to watch for thought crime, so we can eliminate prejudice forever! You are talking about restraining thought and speech, you think that will just be imposed or used against the religious? Doesn't work that way bright eyes. You are giving the government too much credit.

We have reasonable discrimination boundaries in place, and we probably need to reevaluate those.

Maybe the state should seize the means of cake production, therefore, they can ensure fair distribution of cakes so there is never any unfairness at all! I see where you are going with this comrade Fink Marx

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.

freemindfade

What if someone is a graphic designer and a vegan and a slaughterhouse comes knocking asking them to design some promotional material for them. Should they be able to chose not to?
What about if the government wants some pro-war propaganda printing?
Or how about you're a musician and we want you to perform at a rally for the war ...
Hey, you can't refuse a customer if the customer wants something ... right?

Yep, this is why even though I am totally pro-gay-marriage and all that comes with it, I will defend the rights that got us to this point, when we see something we don't like we can't just sell our soul to the government for a quick feel-good solution. It just because a tool that can be used the other way.

We have gotten off track and think that running around and shaming and censoring the bad guys is virtue, its not, its god damn lazy and narcissistic. Fight for whats right. Do something! Be the Neil DeGrasse Tyson, not the Michael Eric Dyson, fight for maximum freedom and choice rather than authoritarian control and central planning

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.

freemindfade

Fink, putting a sign on your door that says "no gays allowed" and choosing to not work an event are NOT and never will be the same thing. No matter how many mental gymnastics you do and how much word salad you dish out.