Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 151 of 1484 (802296)
03-14-2017 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by PaulK
03-14-2017 2:17 PM


Re: No case at all
PaulK writes:
quote:
That the business owners might be far better off seeing that their objections have a poor grounding in Christian doctrine - a fact brought out in this discussion - is not considered.
Incorrect.
Wow, are you off there. It is most definitely considered. But who's going to have that conversation with them? The judge? Can you say, "First Amendment violation"? The law isn't there to tell you what to think or provide you with a sermon on what the True Meaning of Christmas is. It is simply there to regulate your actions. It doesn't matter why you're violating the law by discriminating against gay people.
And to that end, people have the right to be bigots. If they want to insist that their religion requires that gay people be considered tantamount to Satan, that's their right. After all, you're assuming you know the religion of the person being the bigot.
And as we have seen with Faith, trying to point out that the Bible doesn't say that or does say this other thing doesn't actually do anything. She's certain that anybody who contradicts her is an idiot and in league with the devil.
Remember, the florist in Washington who refused to provide flowers to a gay wedding was refusing to provide service to someone she claimed was a "friend." She had been happy to provide her services to these men for years. She certainly knew they were gay. There were any number of chances at conversation to discuss what the Bible instructs.
But it doesn't matter. That's not what the law is for. Even if we assumed that they had those conversations, she's still free to reject it all and maintain her position.
What she doesn't have is the right to deny them service.
In all my dealings with Faith on this subject, I've not attempted to change her mind about her religious beliefs because I maintain she has a right to them. After all, I've long argued with her on what the Bible actually says, and it still hasn't changed her mind. And in the end, it's irrelevant. The law doesn't care why a business owner treats their customers equally, only that they do.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by PaulK, posted 03-14-2017 2:17 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by PaulK, posted 03-14-2017 4:02 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 152 of 1484 (802297)
03-14-2017 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Rrhain
03-14-2017 3:06 PM


Re: related issues
Rrhain writes:
Tangle runs away ...
Given your deliberate foolishness, one must be aggressive.
You're making it very easy for me to tell you to do one.
You don't get to decide what is important.
Yes I do. Just like you get to decide what is. And just as I'm able to disagree with you.
Whys thanks ya, massa! This here back o' the bus is just fine! It gets to the bus stop sames time as the front! I wouldn't want to run the risk of upsetting anybody who might be an ally by complaining!
You see what this does? I'm on your side, I agree with the complaint, I'd be on the streets beside you. Yet you're behaving like a total arsehole. How do you think that plays with your real opponants?
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2017 3:06 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2017 5:05 PM Tangle has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 153 of 1484 (802298)
03-14-2017 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Rrhain
03-14-2017 3:49 PM


Re: No case at all
quote:
Wow, are you off there. It is most definitely considered.
Faith really considered that ? I doubt it very much.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2017 3:49 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2017 4:37 PM PaulK has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 154 of 1484 (802301)
03-14-2017 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by PaulK
03-14-2017 4:02 PM


Re: No case at all
PaulK responds to me:
quote:
Faith really considered that ? I doubt it very much.
No, not Faith.
Those of us engaging with Faith. This was your original comment:
That the business owners might be far better off seeing that their objections have a poor grounding in Christian doctrine - a fact brought out in this discussion - is not considered.
We who are engaging in Faith have tried to help her "see that her objections have a poor grounding in Christian doctrine." Because that, really, is the best solution: The law can only force you to treat people with dignity and respect. But if you are internally motivated to do so, you don't have to fight to do it. And you're much less likely to slip up. And when you do, you'll try to avoid making the same mistake in the future.
That's why my complete comment was:
Wow, are you off there. It is most definitely considered. But who's going to have that conversation with them? The judge? Can you say, "First Amendment violation"? The law isn't there to tell you what to think or provide you with a sermon on what the True Meaning of Christmas is. It is simply there to regulate your actions. It doesn't matter why you're violating the law by discriminating against gay people.
The goal is to end the discrimination and bigotry. The law can only work on the surface actions. And it is always late to the party, only being able to act after the harm has been done. If we could help the bigot find a motivation to not be bigoted, that would be more effective, but the law isn't the means to do that.
Despite what New Cat's Eye thinks, anti-discrimination laws don't regulate thought. Nobody expects them to. And, in fact, it would be anathema to the liberal principle of freedoms of religion and conscience and speech to even attempt.
Only other people can do that.
Yeah, Faith isn't considering the possibility that she's wrong. Thus, the law is necessary to ensure she doesn't run amok.
But those of us who have engaged Faith have certainly tried to help her see that her claims to Christianity have very little to do with the book she claims to revere so highly.
But then again, that's not for us to decide. It's her life, her thoughts, her..."faith." It's only a matter of convenience that there is a book that we are all somewhat knowledgeable of. The next person may follow a religious tradition that is completely unique and that only they know the details of. When faced with that person, we don't have the ability to "help them see that their objections have a poor grounding in their religious doctrine" because, well, it isn't poorly grounded at all.
And we're back to the law and discussing inconsistencies in how it is applied.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by PaulK, posted 03-14-2017 4:02 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by PaulK, posted 03-14-2017 4:47 PM Rrhain has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 155 of 1484 (802302)
03-14-2017 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Rrhain
03-14-2017 4:37 PM


Re: No case at all
You seem to have not noticed that I was discussing Faith's attempts to argue for her position.
quote:
We who are engaging in Faith have tried to help her "see that her objections have a poor grounding in Christian doctrine.
As I said, it was "a fact brought out in this discussion". However since Faith has great difficulty understanding quite simple passages from the Bible it seems rather futile to hope that she would be persuaded, no matter how sound the arguments.
Edited by PaulK, : Correct "autocorrect"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2017 4:37 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2017 5:18 PM PaulK has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 156 of 1484 (802303)
03-14-2017 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Tangle
03-14-2017 3:56 PM


Re: related issues
Tangle responds to me:
quote:
You're making it very easy for me to tell you to do one.
Do one what?
quote:
Yes I do. Just like you get to decide what is. And just as I'm able to disagree with you.
Of course.
The question is, are you going to engage in questions put to you to help clarify your position and test it for inconsistencies or are you going to run away?
A hotelier who denies a black person a room should have the law come down on them hard. That's what you said (Message 129):
At least here in the UK it's now impossible to ban anybody from a hotel based on their colour. And of course if a hotel attempted to do that they'd find themselves in a lot of trouble and they'd suffer very publicly for it. It has become the norm not to discriminate in this way. This is a good thing.
Emphasis added. But when a gay couple is denied a cake or flowers or photography, they should just "calm down" lest they be "counterproductive" and wind up "doing more harm than good."
Let's remember what you actually said in Message 41:
why ask a right-wing fundamentalist jerk-off to bake you a cake if you're queer? Some people are just looking for a fight.
Emphasis added. And in Message 73:
There are activist gays that think that they can make progress by outing law breaking bigots.
Emphasis added. You're accusing the gay people who are fighting for their rights of being "activist." That they didn't actually suffer any harm. That they weren't being sincere.
And why? Because, as you said in Message 121:
While there are still battles to be won, it seems a better tactic to me to fight those specific battles not bugger about with cakes and bakers.
So when you come along and write:
quote:
You see what this does? I'm on your side, I agree with the complaint, I'd be on the streets beside you.
You can understand why you would be considered a liar. All your posts except two in this thread have been predicated on the premise that gays seeking to have their rights upheld are doing so for ulterior motives.
The infamous florist case here in the United States refers to a gay man who had been a customer of the florist for years. When he finally decided to get married, of course he went to the person whom he thought was his friend to give them the business.
Was he "looking for a fight"? Was he being "activist"? Was he "outing" somebody? Was he, as you said in Message 129, "artificially targetting bigots on trivial issues"?
As if a wedding is "trivial" for the person getting married?
You're behaving like a total ass. How do you think this plays with those you are trying to convince you are their ally?
As for my "opponents," well, bigots gonna bigot. I've stated my position numerous times here, so let me remind you:
If you cannot treat gay people as full and equal members of society in all aspects and areas without any hesitation or question, then you're a homophobic bigot. The fact that you aren't lying in wait outside a gay bar with a baseball bat doesn't change that fact. The line is not drawn at bloodshed. Just because someone didn't die or wasn't sent to the hospital doesn't mean it isn't bigotry.
Nobody's perfect. So when your bigotry gets pointed out to you and you dig in your heels and scream and shout, that simply means you're still wedded to your prejudice. If, on the other hand, you accept that you've made a mistake, even if it wasn't intentional and you didn't realize you were doing it, and will try to examine why you made it and work to not do it again, then that means you're working on it.
So yeah, that means Obama was a bigot when he changed his mind regarding marriage equality. Ya see, back when he was just running for Illinois Senate, he stated that he was for marriage equality. But then when he made it to the White House, suddenly it was not such a great idea. And then he later "evolved." And while we can certainly be happy that he managed to finally land on the right side of the issue, the fact that he decided to hedge his bets was an act of homophobia. And it caused real harm to people.
And it's because he was pressured, because he was called out on it, because Joe Biden kicked his butt and put him on the spot regarding the issue that he finally came around.
So no, I don't care if the bigots get upset for having their bigotry called out. As someone once pointed out to me, if someone can have their philosophy of life changed just by someone talking to them for 15 minutes, then that wasn't their philosophy to begin with.
I have no illusions that anybody is going to change their mind just because of what I said. They have to do that work for themselves.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Tangle, posted 03-14-2017 3:56 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by NoNukes, posted 03-14-2017 5:21 PM Rrhain has replied
 Message 160 by Tangle, posted 03-14-2017 5:22 PM Rrhain has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 1484 (802304)
03-14-2017 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Rrhain
03-14-2017 3:28 PM


Re: related issues
Um, no. To go to your Yelp example, when enough people notice that the only time the proprietor is begging off is when the customers are gay, their still in violation of the law.
New Cat's Eye has made this point before. He is suggesting that it may take quite some time for folks to notice if the proprietor does not express his refusal in explicit terms. If the baker's schedule is "full" when a gay person enters the store, then he may get away with quite a few refusals, particularly if the baker makes a show of checking the schedule. Obvious the "busy" tactic will fail if a straight couple comes in later that day and is able to get a cake made.
I agree with you that the tactic would eventually fail, but perhaps many bakers could get away with it. The baker is in violation of the law even the first time he lies about why he won't make the cake. The question is how likely the baker is to get caught if he uses a pretext.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2017 3:28 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2017 5:47 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 158 of 1484 (802305)
03-14-2017 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by PaulK
03-14-2017 4:47 PM


Re: No case at all
PaulK responds to me:
quote:
You seem to have not noticed that I was discussing Faith's attempts to argue for her position.
You seem to have not noticed that I dealt with that, too.
However, you didn't start off with that. Remember, we can see your posts.
This is what you said (Message 145):
The whole basis for the claim that gay marriage is an attack on Christianity is based on the fact that a few Christian business openers have decided to defy State anti-discrimination laws and refuse to provide services to gay weddings.
In terms of both the scale and the limited connection to the Supreme Court decision this is absurd. That the business owners might be far better off seeing that their objections have a poor grounding in Christian doctrine - a fact brought out in this discussion - is not considered.
You will note that Faith isn't mentioned. That comes later. So I responded to that one point first.
It was only later you got around to Faith:
Indeed Faith herself puts any real concern for these people behind their use as a weapon against gay marriage - as seen by her refusal to even understand the laws under which they were convicted. And that is far from the worst of her behaviour.
But behaving badly does no better in making a case than ignoring the facts. Faced with intelligent, informed and rational opposition Faith was reduced to ranting and raving and finally running away.
And I responded to that point second:
In all my dealings with Faith on this subject, I've not attempted to change her mind about her religious beliefs because I maintain she has a right to them. After all, I've long argued with her on what the Bible actually says, and it still hasn't changed her mind. And in the end, it's irrelevant. The law doesn't care why a business owner treats their customers equally, only that they do.
Now, I'l admit that I was leaving it ambiguous that I was responding to this point because I didn't directly quote it. But for you to say that I "have not noticed that you were discussing Faith's attempts to argue for her position" is trivially proven false.
quote:
However since Faith has great difficulty understanding quite simple passages from the Bible it seems rather futil yo hole that she would be persuaded, no matter how sound the arguments.
What makes you think I hold any hope of Faith changing her mind? We've been having the same argument with her for quite literally years. If she isn't going to actually read the Bible she claims to revere after all this time, what makes any of us think that this time is going to be any different?
That's why during this discussion, I haven't really attempted to discuss Biblical doctrine with her. I have simply pointed out that people used religious doctrine to claim an exemption to civil rights laws with respect to race. They were slapped down. Thus, when faced with the identical scenario of people using religious doctrine to claim an exemption to civil rights law with respect to sexual orientation, we should be consistent and slap them down, too.
Unless, of course, the racists shouldn't have been slapped down and people do have the right to deny service on the basis of race by citing religious freedom (a la New Cat's Eye...and I'm not going to change his mind, either.)

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by PaulK, posted 03-14-2017 4:47 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by PaulK, posted 03-15-2017 1:26 AM Rrhain has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 1484 (802306)
03-14-2017 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Rrhain
03-14-2017 5:05 PM


Re: related issues
And it's because he was pressured, because he was called out on it, because Joe Biden kicked his butt and put him on the spot regarding the issue that he finally came around.
I think Tangle is saying that it is okay to kick Obama's butt around this way, but once the government and the law is on your side, and the problem is bad bakers rather than bad law, that different tactics should be applied. I don't fully agree with him, but I do understand that forcing a baker to make a cake when you could go next door can produce some negative PR for the customer.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2017 5:05 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2017 6:24 PM NoNukes has replied
 Message 164 by jar, posted 03-14-2017 6:47 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 160 of 1484 (802307)
03-14-2017 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Rrhain
03-14-2017 5:05 PM


Re: related issues
Rrhain writes:
You can understand why you would be considered a liar.
'Doing one' is a British way of nicely saying something nasty. So, you know, go do one. You're obviously not interested in reasoned and reasonable discussion.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2017 5:05 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2017 6:09 PM Tangle has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 161 of 1484 (802308)
03-14-2017 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by NoNukes
03-14-2017 5:16 PM


Re: related issues
NoNukes responds to me:
quote:
The question is how likely the baker is to get caught if he uses a pretext.
Precisely.
That's why the law is needed. It comes down the basic question:
Should a business that is open to the public be allowed to deny the public when it shows up?
New Cat's Eye position seems to be, yes. The law has no business telling a business that they cannot discriminate. Somehow, "the free market" will solve it...even though it hasn't managed to do so yet because somehow Captialism! (C) is being thwarted by the very law.
Of course, that position makes no sense. After all, the law simply says that if you discriminate, you'll be subjected to consequences. But nobody would deliberately go to a business that was known to have a problem with discrimination. If you know that the cook in the diner doesn't like , why would you go there?* As Ben Carson pointed out, they might poison the food:
If they even want to have a legal contract so they can share property and have visitation rights, I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is when people try to force people to act against their beliefs, because they say, 'they're discriminating against me.' So, you know, they can go right down the street and buy a cake, but no, let's bring a suit against this person because I want them to make my cake, even though they don't believe in it.
But here's the thing: Nobody wants them to handle the affair once it's discovered they're a bigot. The couples that ordered the cake, the flowers, the photography, they all went somewhere else. None of them wanted the bigot to have their business.
But they still got reported to the regulatory agencies. As my example points out, when you go to a restaurant and they serve you spoiled food, you don't eat it. You don't pay for it. You go somewhere else. And you still report them to the health department because they are in violation of the law. You're not going to patronize them again, but that doesn't mean they are off the hook.
And that's why New Cat's Eye's argument is self-contradictory. The people involved didn't want to use the bigots for their affairs. They would tell their friends about the bigoted experience they received and word-of-mouth would spread.
How does having the law prevent discrimination prevent that from happening? After all, lawsuits take time. The incident took place in 2013. The case is still ongoing.
And she's still in business.
And thus, we see the disingenuousness of New Cat's Eye's argument: He doesn't actually want to end racism. If people can get away with it, then they should be allowed to. Heaven forbid there should be any consequences to ones actions.
Typical Libertarian claptrap.
-----
*Well, as Tangle would say, they're "activist gays that think that they can make progress by outing law breaking bigots" and are "just looking for a fight." Of course, not those blacks who did the lunch counter sit-ins...that was a "legitimate" complaint. No, gays looking for equal treatment from a florist are focusing on the "trivial."

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by NoNukes, posted 03-14-2017 5:16 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 162 of 1484 (802310)
03-14-2017 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Tangle
03-14-2017 5:22 PM


Re: related issues
Tangle responds to me:
quote:
You're obviously not interested in reasoned and reasonable discussion.
You know, when Faith tries that tactic, we all know it's because she's running away.
What makes you think you're going to be any different?
In your first nine posts in this thread, seven of them attributed nefarious ulterior motives to gay people seeking to have their rights recognized:
Message 41:
Similarly, why ask a right-wing fundamentalist jerk-off to bake you a cake if you're queer? Some people are just looking for a fight.
Message 73:
There are activist gays that think that they can make progress by outing law breaking bigots.
Message 121:
It's a matter of tactics what approach you take to do that but misplaced activism may do more harm than good.
Message 121:
There's planty of real campaigns to be fought by whatever means without taking principled stands against bigots that just make them look petty and unnecessarily aggressive.
...
Artificially targetting bigots on trivial issues doesn't help the cause.
Message 136:
Just for completeness, I'm saying that I believe that it's likely to be counter-productive to complain about bigots not baking cakes - to go actively looking for them to make examples. Pick more strategic targets, make a point of standing above the bigots not simply against them and impress reasoned and reasonable people with your cause and demeaner.
Message 143:
LGBTs have won the major argument, so don't go around deliberately targeting baking bigots, it doesn't look good.
Message 152:
Yet you're behaving like a total arsehole. How do you think that plays with your real opponants?
So for you to come along and complain that I'm "obviously not interested in reasoned and reasonable discussion," you can understand my reaction:
You were never involved in any "reasoned and reasonable discussion." It's why you've refused to answer the very simple questions regarding your position about these "activist" gays:
The infamous florist case here in the United States refers to a gay man who had been a customer of the florist for years. When he finally decided to get married, of course he went to the person whom he thought was his friend to give them the business.
Was he "looking for a fight"? Was he being "activist"? Was he "outing" somebody? Was he, as you said in Message 129, "artificially targetting bigots on trivial issues"?
As if a wedding is "trivial" for the person getting married?
So now's the time for you to have this "reasoned and reasonable discussion." You repeatedly claimed that gays who are fighting to have their rights recognized are "activist" and "doing more harm than good."
So did Curt Freed and Robert Ingersoll "actively look for Barronelle Stutzman to make an example of"? That's the florist in Washington that's in the news.
Did Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer "actively look for Melissa and Aaron Klein to make an example of"? That's the baker in Oregon that's in the news.
Did Vanessa Willock and Misti Collinsworth "actively look for Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin to make an example of"? That's the photographer in New Mexico that's in the news.
Now's your chance, Tangle. Time to be a big boy and put your money where your mouth is. You claim to want a "reasoned and reasonable discussion," so it's time for you to engage.
Were these people "activist"? Where they "looking for a fight"? Were their lawsuits "misplaced"? Were they "petty and unnecessarily aggressive"? Were their actions "counterproductive"?
Or are you going to run away?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Tangle, posted 03-14-2017 5:22 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Tangle, posted 03-14-2017 7:21 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 163 of 1484 (802311)
03-14-2017 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by NoNukes
03-14-2017 5:21 PM


Re: related issues
NoNukes responds to me:
quote:
I think Tangle is saying that it is okay to kick Obama's butt around this way, but once the government and the law is on your side, and the problem is bad bakers rather than bad law, that different tactics should be applied.
But what, exactly, are these "different tactics" that he would prefer to see?
After all, all that happened was the the business owners got sued for violating the local anti-discrimination law. After all, what's the point of having a law to protect against discrimination if it is "misplaced activism" (his words) to avail yourself of it?
Why does he think that a hotelier that denies a room to a black person is deserving of having the law come down hard on him but a florist that denies an arrangement to a gay couple isn't?
Exactly what other "tactic" has been offered?
Oh, that's right...because a black person who sues the hotelier for denying a room isn't "activist." They didn't "artificially target" the hotelier.
But the gay couple that sues the baker is. They went "looking for a fight."
The black person is sincere.
The gay person is not.
quote:
I do understand that forcing a baker to make a cake when you could go next door can produce some negative PR for the customer.
I thought you were better than this. Time for the exasperation:
NOBODY FORCED THE BAKER TO BAKE A CAKE!
My god, are you really that naive? When Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer were denied a cake by Melissa and Aaron Klein, they didn't put their wedding on hold for more than two years in order to get a court order forcing Sweet Cakes by Melissa to bake them a damned white-cake-with-raspberry-filling monstrosity.
They went somewhere else.
They then reported the business to the regulatory agencies (especially because the bakers then took to social media to dox the Bowman-Cryers) and sued.
My god, how many times do I have to repeat the example before people remember it?
If you go to a restaurant and they serve you rotted food, you don't eat it. You don't pay for it. You don't sit around and wait for a court order to come along to make them redo your meal. You get up, leave, and go somewhere else.
But you still report them to the authorities for serving rotted food. That's a violation of the law. The fact that you are eating somewhere else doesn't let the restaurant off the hook.
So when you go to a baker and they tell you that no, they won't do your wedding, you don't just sit there waiting for a court order to come along to make them bake you a cake. You get up, leave, and go somewhere else.
But you still report them to the authorities for discrimination. That's a violation of the law. The fact that you are eating someone else's stale sheet cake doesn't let the baker off the hook.
C'mon, NoNukes. You're smart enough not to fall for conservative stupidity.
Ben Carson:
"I believe in justice and fairness for everybody. And I don't care what people's sexual orientation is. If two adults want to be together, I'm not going to stop them from being together," Carson said, after being asked about same-sex marriage. "If they even want to have a legal contract so they can share property and have visitation rights, I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is when people try to force people to act against their beliefs, because they say, 'they're discriminating against me.' So, you know, they can go right down the street and buy a cake, but no, let's bring a suit against this person because I want them to make my cake, even though they don't believe in it.
"Which is really not that smart," he quipped, "because they might put poison in your cake."
How stupid is he that he actually thinks that gay people would give any business to a known bigot?
Why are you using the same stupid argument?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by NoNukes, posted 03-14-2017 5:21 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by NoNukes, posted 03-14-2017 6:50 PM Rrhain has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 164 of 1484 (802312)
03-14-2017 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by NoNukes
03-14-2017 5:21 PM


when to keep quiet
This thread is a great example to support Tangle's position. There are times when the more effective tactic is to simply stop responding then to continue making a point but in a manner that causes even those who agree with you to simply turn off anything you say.
Bigots will always be with us.
The laws are in place.
The issue is when to make use of such laws and when to simply ignore the bigotry. Where is effort best spent?

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by NoNukes, posted 03-14-2017 5:21 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2017 6:59 PM jar has seen this message but not replied
 Message 168 by Modulous, posted 03-14-2017 7:23 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 1484 (802313)
03-14-2017 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Rrhain
03-14-2017 6:24 PM


Re: related issues
NoNukes writes:
I do understand that forcing a baker to make a cake when you could go next door can produce some negative PR for the customer.
Rrhain writes:
I thought you were better than this. Time for the exasperation:
It appears that you are looking for a fight. Even filing a lawsuit can result in negative PR. As for what tactic Tangle thinks you should use instead, well you'd have to ask him. All I have stated is that I understand what Tangle is saying. I don't agree with him. I'm perfectly fine with a noisy lawsuit or boycott, but I don't think his suggestion makes him an idiot.
Ben Carson:
Lol! Okay, bro. I can take a few insults, but citing Ben Carson at me... that one is just too harsh. ROFL. We're on the same side.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : Change two to too; spell law suit as lawsuit

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2017 6:24 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2017 7:25 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024