US Politics

Nikhil said:
It is not bigotry. He is following what his religion says. His religion has hundreds of millions of followers and occupies mainstream positions in culture, history and society. He doesn't hold "different views". He holds traditional mainstream views. He himself has said that he never turns anyone away and serves everyone irrespective of race, nationality, language, ethnicity and sexual orientation. He refuses to bake cakes with Halloween messages, anti American messages, cakes with sexual and explicit messages and cakes with hateful and abusive messages to any group or community. He has refused to bake cakes with anti gay messages and homophobic messages in the past. How can you call him bigoted?

He however cannot bake a cake for a same sex wedding. His religion considers marriage to be a sacred bond and a wedding to be a sacred ceremony. How can he bake and design a cake for a ceremony of the kind that his religion is opposed to?

How can you call him bigoted when he refuses to bake cakes that have anti gay messages, homophobic messages, racist messages and messages that direct hate to any race, ethnicity or community? He has refused to bake cakes with hate messages in the past.
Click to expand...

The fact that it's mainstream doesn't make it okay, nor does it mean he's not a bigot. Racism was once mainstream in American society - nevertheless no one would be able to claim now that they'd refuse to serve black people because it's their view that they're inferior on the basis of it being their own personal belief. His religion may say that, but then what his religion's saying is then bigoted.

And irrespective of what religion he follows I'm sure he'll break a number of specifications and requirements on a regular basis, because most religious texts are filled with plenty of contradictory and inane things that followers will conveniently ignore when it suits them.

He may not be as extreme as other bigots if he's refusing to put 'hate' messages etc - nevertheless that doesn't excuse his bigotry in this case. If he'd refused to serve someone who was black, he wouldn't be able to defend himself by saying he doesn't do cakes with hateful messages against blacks. He'd still be a racist. And in this case he's still being a bigot.
 
Nikhil said:
It is not bigotry. He is following what his religion says. His religion has hundreds of millions of followers and occupies mainstream positions in culture, history and society. He doesn't hold "different views". He holds traditional mainstream views. He himself has said that he never turns anyone away and serves everyone irrespective of race, nationality, language, ethnicity and sexual orientation. He refuses to bake cakes with Halloween messages, anti American messages, cakes with sexual and explicit messages and cakes with hateful and abusive messages to any group or community. He has refused to bake cakes with anti gay messages and homophobic messages in the past. How can you call him bigoted?

He however cannot bake a cake for a same sex wedding. His religion considers marriage to be a sacred bond and a wedding to be a sacred ceremony. How can he bake and design a cake for a ceremony of the kind that his religion is opposed to?

How can you call him bigoted when he refuses to bake cakes that have anti gay messages, homophobic messages, racist messages and messages that direct hate to any race, ethnicity or community? He has refused to bake cakes with hate messages in the past.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. Church said earth was flat and christians believed it. Church said earth was centre of universe and christians believed it. Quoting religion was some kind of super authority that can never be wrong is just plain stupid.
 
Nikhil said:
It is not bigotry. He is following what his religion says. His religion has hundreds of millions of followers and occupies mainstream positions in culture, history and society. He doesn't hold "different views". He holds traditional mainstream views. He himself has said that he never turns anyone away and serves everyone irrespective of race, nationality, language, ethnicity and sexual orientation. He refuses to bake cakes with Halloween messages, anti American messages, cakes with sexual and explicit messages and cakes with hateful and abusive messages to any group or community. He has refused to bake cakes with anti gay messages and homophobic messages in the past. How can you call him bigoted?

He however cannot bake a cake for a same sex wedding. His religion considers marriage to be a sacred bond and a wedding to be a sacred ceremony. How can he bake and design a cake for a ceremony of the kind that his religion is opposed to?

How can you call him bigoted when he refuses to bake cakes that have anti gay messages, homophobic messages, racist messages and messages that direct hate to any race, ethnicity or community? He has refused to bake cakes with hate messages in the past.
Click to expand...
No, he isn't.
 
Nikhil said:
It is not bigotry. He is following what his religion says. His religion has hundreds of millions of followers and occupies mainstream positions in culture, history and society. He doesn't hold "different views". He holds traditional mainstream views. He himself has said that he never turns anyone away and serves everyone irrespective of race, nationality, language, ethnicity and sexual orientation. He refuses to bake cakes with Halloween messages, anti American messages, cakes with sexual and explicit messages and cakes with hateful and abusive messages to any group or community. He has refused to bake cakes with anti gay messages and homophobic messages in the past. How can you call him bigoted?

He however cannot bake a cake for a same sex wedding. His religion considers marriage to be a sacred bond and a wedding to be a sacred ceremony. How can he bake and design a cake for a ceremony of the kind that his religion is opposed to?

How can you call him bigoted when he refuses to bake cakes that have anti gay messages, homophobic messages, racist messages and messages that direct hate to any race, ethnicity or community? He has refused to bake cakes with hate messages in the past.
Click to expand...


hes a bigot
 
Cheesy said:
The fact that it's mainstream doesn't make it okay, nor does it mean he's not a bigot. Racism was once mainstream in American society - nevertheless no one would be able to claim now that they'd refuse to serve black people because it's their view that they're inferior on the basis of it being their own personal belief. His religion may say that, but then what his religion's saying is then bigoted.
Click to expand...

Racism is not a religious thing. So your post is awfully stupid. Also, the baker is not a racist. Don't make stuff up. Read up on the case. Replying to you or even reading your posts is getting tedious.

Cheesy said:
He may not be as extreme as other bigots if he's refusing to put 'hate' messages etc - nevertheless that doesn't excuse his bigotry in this case. If he'd refused to serve someone who was black, he wouldn't be able to defend himself by saying he doesn't do cakes with hateful messages against blacks. He'd still be a racist. And in this case he's still being a bigot.
Click to expand...

He never said or tried to refuse to serve a black person. Why say that at all? Once again you are trying to make the bakery an imaginary person. Don't try to imagine or make stuff up about him. This issue is about him being made to use his skill and expertise to bake a cake that goes against his religious beliefs. Why even try to imagine him being a racist or whatever. you are saying that to simply please yourself and further your viewpoint. Tedious posts. Especially when he says that he refuses to serve hateful people and racist people. And when he has refused to bake cakes with hateful messages and homophobic message or racist messages.
 
Nikhil said:
Racism is not a religious thing. So your post is awfully stupid. Also, the baker is not a racist. Don't make stuff up. Read up on the case. Replying to you or even reading your posts is getting tedious.

He never said or tried to refuse to serve a black person. Why say that at all? Once again you are trying to make the bakery an imaginary person. Don't try to imagine or make stuff up about him. This issue is about him being made to use his skill and expertise to bake a cake that goes against his religious beliefs. Why even try to imagine him being a racist or whatever. you are saying that to simply please yourself and further your viewpoint. Tedious posts. Especially when he says that he refuses to serve hateful people and racist people. And when he has refused to bake cakes with hateful messages and homophobic message or racist messages.
Click to expand...

Read my post again. I didn't say he was racist - I'm pointing out that if he was, he wouldn't be able to use the fact racism was once 'mainstream' as an excuse to serve a customer, and hence the fact his mainstream religion opposed homosexuality means it shouldn't be used as an excuse there either.
 
Cheesy said:
Read my post again. I didn't say he was racist - I'm pointing out that if he was, he wouldn't be able to use the fact racism was once 'mainstream' as an excuse to serve a customer, and hence the fact his mainstream religion opposed homosexuality means it shouldn't be used as an excuse there either.
Click to expand...

You even trying to make up situations such as "If he had refused to serve a black person..." "If he was a racist" "If he had wings..." "If he was a nuclear scientist" just proves that you just want to slander him. There is no need to even imagine situations of that sort about him or think in that way.
 
Nikhil said:
You even trying to make up situations such as "If he had refused to serve a black person..." "If he was a racist" "If he had wings..." "If he was a nuclear scientist" just proves that you just want to slander him. There is no need to even imagine situations of that sort about him or think in that way.
Click to expand...

No, I'm pointing out he's a bigot and his views being religious or mainstream don't change that. It's called an analogy.
 
There is the law and there is your religion.
Using your religion to deny someone a service is BS.
 
Cheesy said:
No, I'm pointing out he's a bigot and his views being religious or mainstream don't change that. It's called an analogy.
Click to expand...

He's not a bigot. He is following his religion which is a personal thing for him and something that he holds dear. He is not going to use his art or expertise to do something that his religion says is wrong. Don't say "black people" or whatever now. Religious scripture doesn't say to discriminate based on race. This issue is about about his religious beliefs preventing him from doing something that goes against his religion. So your racism analogy is wrong.
 
Nikhil said:
It is not bigotry. He is following what his religion says. His religion has hundreds of millions of followers and occupies mainstream positions in culture, history and society. He doesn't hold "different views". He holds traditional mainstream views. He himself has said that he never turns anyone away and serves everyone irrespective of race, nationality, language, ethnicity and sexual orientation. He refuses to bake cakes with Halloween messages, anti American messages, cakes with sexual and explicit messages and cakes with hateful and abusive messages to any group or community. He has refused to bake cakes with anti gay messages and homophobic messages in the past. How can you call him bigoted?

He however cannot bake a cake for a same sex wedding. His religion considers marriage to be a sacred bond and a wedding to be a sacred ceremony. How can he bake and design a cake for a ceremony of the kind that his religion is opposed to?

How can you call him bigoted when he refuses to bake cakes that have anti gay messages, homophobic messages, racist messages and messages that direct hate to any race, ethnicity or community? He has refused to bake cakes with hate messages in the past.
Click to expand...
Then he shouldn't be in that business.
 
Nikhil said:
He's not a bigot. He is following his religion which is a personal thing for him and something that he holds dear. He is not going to use his art or expertise to do something that his religion says is wrong. Don't say "black people" or whatever now. Religious scripture doesn't say to discriminate based on race. This issue is about about his religious beliefs preventing him from doing something that goes against his religion. So your racism analogy is wrong.
Click to expand...

This isn't an excuse. If my religion asks me to follow a rule that's bigoted then I'm a bigot if I follow it. He is discriminating against the gay couple here, and his religion shouldn't be used to suggest that's okay. I suspect he breaks plenty of religious conventions on a regular basis when they don't suit him. Unless you are suggesting he follows the Bible word for word.
 
Nikhil said:
Jesus spoke about homosexuality being a sin in the bible. Why would he go against his own teachings? Jeses wouldn't have made the bloody cake.
Click to expand...
Judge not, that ye be not judged.

For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Click to expand...
Jesus has got his apron on.
 
Nikhil said:
He's not a bigot. He is following his religion which is a personal thing for him and something that he holds dear. He is not going to use his art or expertise to do something that his religion says is wrong. Don't say "black people" or whatever now. Religious scripture doesn't say to discriminate based on race. This issue is about about his religious beliefs preventing him from doing something that goes against his religion. So your racism analogy is wrong.
Click to expand...

So apparently it’s ok to be a bigot if your scriptures told you so.

Do you even realize how dumb that sound?
 
Cheesy said:
This isn't an excuse. If my religion asks me to follow a rule that's bigoted then I'm a bigot if I follow it. He is discriminating against the gay couple here, and his religion shouldn't be used to suggest that's okay. I suspect he breaks plenty of religious conventions on a regular basis when they don't suit him. Unless you are suggesting he follows the Bible word for word.
Click to expand...

Eating lobster or rabbit would do it.
 
Funny enough I've never heard of a self-proclaimed Christian hiding behind his/her religion when it comes to those that eat shellfish, or those that trim their beards, or those that have remarried, or those that were not virgins upon marriage, and other nonsense that work of fiction spouts. Nah, often only matters when it's a gay person/couple.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
Jesus has got his apron on.
Click to expand...

Eh... That's really not how that verse works.

It's used by many people to justify behavior that Jesus (adherer to the law) would have condemned, given his lack of sin.

The following verses speak of removing the log of wood in your eye before condemning the speck of dust in someone else's eye. It doesn't justify the speck of dust or the log of wood's existence.

Regarding the court ruling... The baker refuses to print "gay" messages on any cake he sells. To anyone. I'm not sure that is discriminatory. If he flat out refused to serve the couple at all, that would have been slammed down by the court (assuming it made it that far). Compelling a baker to print something he doesn't want to print veers too far into a violation of his right to free speech, and can be flipped around to censor or compel less contentious writings.
 
adexkola said:
Eh... That's really not how that verse works.

It's used by many people to justify behavior that Jesus (adherer to the law) would have condemned, given his lack of sin.

The following verses speak of removing the log of wood in your eye before condemning the speck of dust in someone else's eye. It doesn't justify the speck of dust or the log of wood's existence.
Click to expand...
It doesn't justify anything, no. It's explaining it is only for God to judge. Thus you shouldn't be refusing to make someone a cake because you judge their sin.
 
MrMarcello said:
Funny enough I've never heard of a self-proclaimed Christian hiding behind his/her religion when it comes to those that eat shellfish, or those that trim their beards, or those that have remarried, or those that were not virgins upon marriage, and other nonsense that work of fiction spouts. Nah, often only matters when it's a gay person/couple.
Click to expand...
They spout out about the “New Covenant”.

Here’s a question for them... if god wiped out all evil with Noah’s Flood, then what the feck happened?
 
Carolina Red said:
They spout out about the “New Covenant”.

Here’s a question for them... if god wiped out all evil with Noah’s Flood, then what the feck happened?
Click to expand...

I'm a Christian and if I'm into baking, I'd happily bake a cake for those guys as long as they paid me. I believe in the new convenant and I don't know what the feck happened after Noah's flood.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
It doesn't justify anything, no. It's explaining it is only for God to judge. Thus you shouldn't be refusing to make someone a cake because you judge their sin.
Click to expand...

And I think that's the leap that a lot of people made, that is unsound (by biblical proofing). Judgement is used as an ultimate form of condemnation. Not declining to profer services.
 
adexkola said:
And I think that's the leap that a lot of people made, that is unsound (by biblical proofing). Judgement is used as an ultimate form of condemnation. Not declining to profer services.
Click to expand...
Once you've managed not to condemn a sinner you crack on with the loving thy neighbour bit and that includes cake.
 
Have we done this one? Not that there's much to say...

A day after a South Dakota lawmaker said business owners should be able to turn away customers based on their race in a Facebook post, he publicly apologized through the same medium.

In a post late Tuesday night, Rep. Michael Clark said comments he'd made earlier in the week were "very racist."

"I made some comments here on Facebook, defending a Colorado Baker decision not create a cake for a Homosexual [sic] wedding," he wrote in a post on Tuesday. "The comments I made were very racist. I would like to apologize for those comments. Businesses should not be able to discriminate solely based on race, sex, national origin, age, or handicap."

The public apology came hours after the Argus Leader posted a story about the initial Facebook post, in which the Hartford Republican said business owners should be able to discriminate based on race.
Click to expand...

https://eu.argusleader.com/story/ne...hael-clark-civil-rights-act-scotus/676716002/
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
It wouldn't ever really work like that. The primary is open and anyone can enter. Each party might endorse a specific candidate or they might not.
But then the top 2 advance to the final election. Since usually 2-4 candidates from each party enter the vote splits aren't really a problem like you imagine. It would have to be really weird like 6 Democrats that split the vote perfectly evenly and only 2 republicans. Its not really a practical scenario as usually in that case 1-3 Dems would drop out and another 1-2 Republicans would enter.

I personally think it works much better than party primaries and the only people that ever complain are the two political parties themselves whose role and purpose has been neutered.

Which leads to me struggling to even find a beneficial purpose of political parties in this day and age. They appear increasingly outdated organizations that cause more harm than good at this point.
Click to expand...
I think the fear stems from the fact that they could end up not having a candidate for the election. Even for the primary last night, there was genuine concern having too many Dems candidate in certain districts could split the vote and lock them out.
 
Nikhil said:
Jesus spoke about homosexuality being a sin in the bible. Why would he go against his own teachings? Jeses wouldn't have made the bloody cake.
Click to expand...

There's nothing in the bible to support this. Jesus did say a man should leave his parent's home, find a wife and make a home of his own and the two shall become one. The take away from that would be that marriage should only between a man and a woman, but nothing explicit about homosexuality. Im an atheist btw and don't even believe Jesus existed.
 
Loublaze said:
There's nothing in the bible to support this. Jesus did say a man should leave his parent's home, find a wife and make a home of his own and the two shall become one. The take away from that would be that marriage should only between a man and a woman, but nothing explicit about homosexuality. Im an atheist btw and don't even believe Jesus existed.
Click to expand...
We're so very in the wrong thread here but most atheist historians would disagree.
 
Utdfrom2002 said:
I think the fear stems from the fact that they could end up not having a candidate for the election. Even for the primary last night, there was genuine concern having too many Dems candidate in certain districts could split the vote and lock them out.
Click to expand...

There was no genuine concern. You are probably thinking of a random quote from a Dem or Rep party employee that is afraid of losing an easy job. I'll break this down since I am a big supporter of the open primary.


San Francisco is considered to be about 84% liberal. That is 8 and a half liberals for every one conservative. Berkeley and Oakland are even more liberal. Yorba Linda, birthplace of Richard Nixon and home to his Presidential library only has 21% registered Democrats.
1/4 of all registered voters in California decline to state a party affiliation. That number has been slowly but steadily growing for the last 20 years.

So why should an artificial system force a fake choice on general ballot between a Republican and Democrat? If two Democrats or one Democrat and one Independent or one Republican and one Independent better represent the actual population than the artificially enforced one Dem and one Rep choice then why should the two parties be given this artificial advantage?
If the best two candidates are of the same party or even no party then those should be two in the general election, not an artificially enforced choice that allows extra options for corruption.

If a city like San Francisco decides the two best candidates are two Democrats then the Republicans can simply feck off. There is no concern. There is celebration because that is proof the system is better representing the people of that area. Who cares if one of the major parties is "locked out" of one election in one district?

That simply shows that party needs to better learn to appeal to the voters of that district. Its their own damn fault. Neither the Democrat national party nor Republican national party has a Right or entitlement to be on every election ballot.

That's one of the most illiberal, undemocratic sly ideas that both parties have sold really well in America, but its complete rubbish. They both bleet about a "free market" but both party employees are filled with self-serving, greedy individuals who don't want an actual free market for politics. They just want their artificial system of graft and corruption.

ADD:
BTW
For fun, if you really want to see what Democracy in the Wild looks like check out the backgrounds on the complete list of 135 candidates for the California Governor Recall election

http://radio-weblogs.com/0101365/stories/2003/08/14/glist.html
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.