The cake non-bakers were politically correct

[dblack]

I've pissed off more people than I can count by supporting political correctness. It's not that I'm happy to see hyper-sensitive douchebags shaming dissenters into submission - but I do find it preferable to legal remedies for social disputes. People can express their values through who and what they patronize. That seems reasonable to me, even if the values they're expressing are, expressly, unreasonable.

I've also offended many of my liberal friends by defending racists and bigots against legislation aimed at stifling their biases. Again, I'm not defending their beliefs, which I find largely repulsive. But I am defending their right to express those beliefs, both in speech and in action.

The thing is, in both cases, we're talking about the same social power: shunning. The vast bulk of human interaction is governed, not by laws as many would assume but, by informal social mores (aka PCism). People choose to support those they agree with, and avoid those they don't. That's how we collaboratively create a culture without resorting to violence. That's the way it ought to be.

We don't need oppressive laws to defend us from bigots. They can put up their "No Gays" or their "No Christians" signs and express their pathetic views. We can laugh at them, and PC them into submission. Or not. Maybe they're right and we're wrong.

 

[Lakhota]

I sure as hell wouldn't want someone to bake a cake for me who hated me.

 

[Moonglow]

I prefer ice cream cakes anyway and I can decorate it myself like I always have, so eat me world...

 

[dblack]

I prefer ice cream cakes anyway and I can decorate it myself like I always have, so eat me world...

I'm not selling you a cake if you're going to write 'Eat Me' on it.

 

[task0778]

I've pissed off more people than I can count by supporting political correctness. It's not that I'm happy to see hyper-sensitive douchebags shaming dissenters into submission - but I do find it preferable to legal remedies for social disputes. People can express their values through who and what they patronize. That seems reasonable to me, even if the values they're expressing are, expressly, unreasonable.

I've also offended many of my liberal friends by defending racists and bigots against legislation aimed at stifling their biases. Again, I'm not defending their beliefs, which I find largely repulsive. But I am defending their right to express those beliefs, both in speech and in action.

The thing is, in both cases, we're talking about the same social power: shunning. The vast bulk of human interaction is governed, not by laws as many would assume but, by informal social mores (aka PCism). People choose to support those they agree with, and avoid those they don't. That's how we collaboratively create a culture without resorting to violence. That's the way it ought to be.

We don't need oppressive laws to defend us from bigots. They can put up their "No Gays" or their "No Christians" signs and express their pathetic views. We can laugh at them, and PC them into submission. Or not. Maybe they're right and we're wrong.

Here's the problem with your idea of PCism instead of legislation: how many more people would get hurt by those with pathetic views waiting for PCism to take it's course and shut down the wrong-doers? There are some pathetic views (think hate speech) that simply cannot be tolerated in a civil society, you don't get to slander somebody without paying a legal price. You don't get to silence somebody's free speech or practice their religion. I don't think we should wait in some cases for social mores to catch up with A-holes who would deny somebody those rights.

Another problem: there are some places where the local social mores are just not going to change, possibly for a very long time (think racism in the South back in the day). Or some places in certain locales today where social mores are pretty much controlled by some people with a particular political bent, aided by the media and academia. Some people will always want the non-cakebaker to bake that cake regardless of his/her religious or personal beliefs. I.E., a gay couple rights supersede anyone else's freedom of religion or expression cuz the cake-baker is a Christian. [Wonder if they'd say the same thing for a Muslim baker. How come it's always a Christian that gets targeted?] It's gonna take a really long time for social mores to change in some places. And in the meantime, a lot of people could be harmed or forced to do certain things against their wishes or suffer the consequences.

Oppressive laws? NO. Reasonable laws? I think in some cases they are needed to remedy some activities asap.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Hollywood has made several groups politically correct to hate

 

[JBond]

Stop typing mores. It is making me crazy.

 

[Silhouette]

To the OP. How do you feel about neutrality vs kids in CA being forced this Fall to learn about "important gays in history"? You know, bootstrapping a persons sexual habits as part of their iconic status & then teaching that to kids in school where their parents can't opt them out?

Has anyone here heard if CA will also mandate a course in public schools called "important Christians in history"; where an icon's accomplishments are tied directly to their faith?

 

[dblack]

To the OP. How do you feel about neutrality vs kids in CA being forced this Fall to learn about "important gays in history"? You know, bootstrapping a persons sexual habits as part of their iconic status & then teaching that to kids in school where their parents can't opt them out?

Has anyone here heard if CA will also mandate a course in public schools called "important Christians in history"; where an icon's accomplishments are tied directly to their faith?

We shouldn't be using government to indoctrinate children.

 

[Silhouette]

To the OP. How do you feel about neutrality vs kids in CA being forced this Fall to learn about "important gays in history"? You know, bootstrapping a persons sexual habits as part of their iconic status & then teaching that to kids in school where their parents can't opt them out?

Has anyone here heard if CA will also mandate a course in public schools called "important Christians in history"; where an icon's accomplishments are tied directly to their faith?

We shouldn't be using government to indoctrinate children.

That's a very general answer. My specific question was about exactly the situation in CA. Do you think that it is now illegal to require children in California to study "famous gays in history" if "famous Christians in history" would be a forbidden class? Remember the recent USSC ruling on state-neutrality mandates.

 

[dblack]

To the OP. How do you feel about neutrality vs kids in CA being forced this Fall to learn about "important gays in history"? You know, bootstrapping a persons sexual habits as part of their iconic status & then teaching that to kids in school where their parents can't opt them out?

Has anyone here heard if CA will also mandate a course in public schools called "important Christians in history"; where an icon's accomplishments are tied directly to their faith?

We shouldn't be using government to indoctrinate children.

That's a very general answer. My specific question was about exactly the situation in CA. Do you think that it is now illegal to require children in California to study "famous gays in history" if "famous Christians in history" would be a forbidden class? Remember the recent USSC ruling on state-neutrality mandates.

I don't really care. The state-neutrality thing is just a dodge because Roberts is a chickenshit. Government shouldn't be deciding issues like this. Period.

 

[Silhouette]

To the OP. How do you feel about neutrality vs kids in CA being forced this Fall to learn about "important gays in history"? You know, bootstrapping a persons sexual habits as part of their iconic status & then teaching that to kids in school where their parents can't opt them out?

Has anyone here heard if CA will also mandate a course in public schools called "important Christians in history"; where an icon's accomplishments are tied directly to their faith?

We shouldn't be using government to indoctrinate children.

That's a very general answer. My specific question was about exactly the situation in CA. Do you think that it is now illegal to require children in California to study "famous gays in history" if "famous Christians in history" would be a forbidden class? Remember the recent USSC ruling on state-neutrality mandates.

I don't really care. The state-neutrality thing is just a dodge because Roberts is a chickenshit. Government shouldn't be deciding issues like this. Period.

You do care because you started this thread and went into great detail about how you cared about the dissection of neutrality.

Here's what you said:

The thing is, in both cases, we're talking about the same social power: shunning. The vast bulk of human interaction is governed, not by laws as many would assume but, by informal social mores (aka PCism). People choose to support those they agree with, and avoid those they don't. That's how we collaboratively create a culture without resorting to violence. That's the way it ought to be.

We don't need oppressive laws to defend us from bigots. They can put up their "No Gays" or their "No Christians" signs and express their pathetic views.

In the private sector. But in the public sector the Court just said that the state can't put up a "No Christians Allowed" "sign" (or message, implied or overt) in public schools while rolling out the "Gays welcome!" red carpet and FORCING children to consume that propaganda at a PUBLIC school; not allowing parents to opt their kids out...no less... Some consider this forced-pedophilic grooming, which exacerbates the violation of neutrality into heightened malfeasance on behalf of the state as an accomplice. No sexualized content without parental permission is for a reason.

So please answer the question: IS IT FAIR FOR CA TO FORCE KIDS IN SCHOOL TO LEARN ABOUT "IMPORTANT GAYS IN HISTORY" AND FORBID ANY CLASS THAT TEACHES "IMPORTANT CHRISTIANS IN HISTORY"? Yes or no. It's just a one word answer.

 

[Pop23]

This whole question is just crazy.

On June 26, 2015, the date of the Obergfell decision, this, and thousands of other Bakers were afforded a chance at a new market to serve. That market is same-sex weddings.

Most Bakers opted to start a new line of product to satisfy this new market, while a tiny minority opted not to add this line of product.

Read again from above. What Obergfell did was open marriage to "same-sex" couples. NOT GAY COUPLES ONLY.

I have read nowhere that this Baker would bake a wedding cake for a heterosexual same-sex couple, he simple does not offer the service regardless of sex or sexuality. He makes no distinction.

On the other hand, he supplies cake to opposite sex couples, regardless of the sexuality of those couples. Both could be straight, one could be straight and the other homosexual, both could be gay, he cares not. I've read nothing that indicates that he questions the sexuality of these couples, he simply bakes the cake as it is a product he offers.

 

[Silhouette]

I have read nowhere that this Baker would bake a wedding cake for a heterosexual same-sex couple, he simple does not offer the service regardless of sex or sexuality.

.

You can rest easy. Yours is a winning argument. So is the "Jude 1/Romans 1" argument. Both can be framed in upcoming briefs to the same end: a victory for people of faith. Just curious, what do you think about post #12 regarding the recent USSC decision on the mandate for state-neutrality in all this?

 

[Pop23]

I have read nowhere that this Baker would bake a wedding cake for a heterosexual same-sex couple, he simple does not offer the service regardless of sex or sexuality.

.

You can rest easy. Yours is a winning argument. So is the "Jude 1/Romans 1" argument. Both can be framed in upcoming briefs to the same end: a victory for people of faith. Just curious, what do you think about post #12 regarding the recent USSC decision on the mandate for state-neutrality in all this?

Seems a bit odd to me in either case. I am not aware of the "test" that confirms homosexuality?

 

[Timmy]

This whole question is just crazy.

On June 26, 2015, the date of the Obergfell decision, this, and thousands of other Bakers were afforded a chance at a new market to serve. That market is same-sex weddings.

Most Bakers opted to start a new line of product to satisfy this new market, while a tiny minority opted not to add this line of product.

Read again from above. What Obergfell did was open marriage to "same-sex" couples. NOT GAY COUPLES ONLY.

I have read nowhere that this Baker would bake a wedding cake for a heterosexual same-sex couple, he simple does not offer the service regardless of sex or sexuality. He makes no distinction.

On the other hand, he supplies cake to opposite sex couples, regardless of the sexuality of those couples. Both could be straight, one could be straight and the other homosexual, both could be gay, he cares not. I've read nothing that indicates that he questions the sexuality of these couples, he simply bakes the cake as it is a product he offers.

Where in the Bible does it say “thou shall not bake cakes for the gays”?

I question the bakers beliefs . He’s a fake Christian . If you don’t really follow the religion, why should u be able to claim religious exemption of the law?

 

[Pop23]

This whole question is just crazy.

On June 26, 2015, the date of the Obergfell decision, this, and thousands of other Bakers were afforded a chance at a new market to serve. That market is same-sex weddings.

Most Bakers opted to start a new line of product to satisfy this new market, while a tiny minority opted not to add this line of product.

Read again from above. What Obergfell did was open marriage to "same-sex" couples. NOT GAY COUPLES ONLY.

I have read nowhere that this Baker would bake a wedding cake for a heterosexual same-sex couple, he simple does not offer the service regardless of sex or sexuality. He makes no distinction.

On the other hand, he supplies cake to opposite sex couples, regardless of the sexuality of those couples. Both could be straight, one could be straight and the other homosexual, both could be gay, he cares not. I've read nothing that indicates that he questions the sexuality of these couples, he simply bakes the cake as it is a product he offers.

Where in the Bible does it say “thou shall not bake cakes for the gays”?

I question the bakers beliefs . He’s a fake Christian . If you don’t really follow the religion, why should u be able to claim religious exemption of the law?

Where in my post did I use his faith?

You want to argue whether or not he is true to his faith, have at it, I might join in, but if you are going to answer my post, I suggest you answer with something relevant to it.

Oh, and he does bake cakes for gays, likely on a daily basis, he does not however supply same sex wedding cakes regardless of the sexuality of the couple.

 

[dblack]

To the OP. How do you feel about neutrality vs kids in CA being forced this Fall to learn about "important gays in history"? You know, bootstrapping a persons sexual habits as part of their iconic status & then teaching that to kids in school where their parents can't opt them out?

Has anyone here heard if CA will also mandate a course in public schools called "important Christians in history"; where an icon's accomplishments are tied directly to their faith?

We shouldn't be using government to indoctrinate children.

That's a very general answer. My specific question was about exactly the situation in CA. Do you think that it is now illegal to require children in California to study "famous gays in history" if "famous Christians in history" would be a forbidden class? Remember the recent USSC ruling on state-neutrality mandates.

I don't really care. The state-neutrality thing is just a dodge because Roberts is a chickenshit. Government shouldn't be deciding issues like this. Period.

You do care because you started this thread and went into great detail about how you cared about the dissection of neutrality.

This thread has nothing to do with 'neutrality'.

In the private sector. But in the public sector the Court just said that the state can't put up a "No Christians Allowed" "sign" (or message, implied or overt) in public schools while rolling out the "Gays welcome!" red carpet and FORCING children to consume that propaganda at a PUBLIC school; not allowing parents to opt their kids out...no less... Some consider this forced-pedophilic grooming, which exacerbates the violation of neutrality into heightened malfeasance on behalf of the state as an accomplice. No sexualized content without parental permission is for a reason.

So please answer the question: IS IT FAIR FOR CA TO FORCE KIDS IN SCHOOL TO LEARN ABOUT "IMPORTANT GAYS IN HISTORY" AND FORBID ANY CLASS THAT TEACHES "IMPORTANT CHRISTIANS IN HISTORY"? Yes or no. It's just a one word answer.

No.

That answer was very clearly included in 'We shouldn't be using government to indoctrinate children'. But if one word answers are your limit, there you go.

Listen, you're are clearly on a campaign to turn every one of these discussions into a platform for you to express your issues with homosexuals. But that's not the topic here. Go flame the flamers somewhere else.

 

[Silhouette]

Seems a bit odd to me in either case. I am not aware of the "test" that confirms homosexuality?

Exactly. The publishers of the books went round and round about it with the gay lifestylists. Visit the link in my signature for the link to the story about that. Seems that the gays were trying to "out" people that the publishers weren't certain were gay and it was causing issues. Still is. As far as I know though, CA is green lighting the gay-propaganda course mandate for this Fall in public schools. Wonder if they'll make kids take its equivalent (neutrality) in "famous Christians in history' where the person's Christianity is tied to their accomplishments; just like its counterpart?

I like your argument on how sexual orientation isn't necessarily the deal killer for the baker. That's another topic too, but it is related here. It's true. There is no requirement that the "same-sex" couple be sexually involved at all. The baker's objection can just simply be that he does not consider two people of the same gender ever qualifying "as married". A LOT of people feel the same way about that.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I sure as hell wouldn't want someone to bake a cake for me who hated me.

good, an you shouldn't have to bake one for people who hate you....you're catching on to this freedom thing