If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
What is "Net Neutrality" the Truth
On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 13:28:20 -0500, "Mayayana"
wrote: The weirdest part of all to me: If you're a gay couple, why would you want to force a fundamentalist quasi- Christian to bake your wedding cake? Why would a fundamentalist quasi-Christian (pseudo-Christian?) offer to bake and decorate a wedding cake for a gay couple? The fake Christian offered to do it and the gay couple accepted. Contract created. THEN the fake Christian wanted to back out of the deal. |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
What is "Net Neutrality" the Truth
wrote
| The weirdest part of all to me: If you're a gay couple, | why would you want to force a fundamentalist quasi- | Christian to bake your wedding cake? | | Why would a fundamentalist quasi-Christian (pseudo-Christian?) offer | to bake and decorate a wedding cake for a gay couple? The fake | Christian offered to do it and the gay couple accepted. Contract | created. THEN the fake Christian wanted to back out of the deal. That's not what the news says. The gay couple say that the baker refused as soon as he knew the cake was for a gay wedding: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...age-cake-case/ "Charlie and I and Charlie's mother went into Masterpiece Cakeshop. We had a binder of ideas for cake. We sat down with the owner, Jack Phillips. And within a couple of moments he asked me if the cake was for us, and we told him that it was, and he then told us he would not make a cake for a same-sex wedding. What followed was an incredibly awkward pregnant pause after which we got up and we left." But what difference does it make? If it were me I would have found another baker. They may win their case and make the world safe for gay cakes baked by fundamentalist religious devotees, but so what? They could have just left him alone and found another baker. As I asked before, do you really want waiters spitting into your food because you insist on eating where you're not wanted to express your "rights"? I would never do business where I felt I wasn't wanted, regardless of what the law says. You can't legislate those things. And it sounded like the baker was actually very polite. He just said outright that the job was against his religion. (My first job, at 15, was at McDonalds. We used to get occasional people who came in to order custom. For instance, ketchup but no pickle. They thought they were being clever because it forced the cook to cook a fresh burger. The cook resented having to do a single. He normally cooked batches of 24. So whenever there was a custom order we'd all sneak glances into the kitchen to see the ritual drool of the cook onto the custom burger. Shocking? Gross? If you think so then you're probably eating a lot of spit.) There's a similar scenario happening with the gender bending trend and the current sexual harassment issue. People have a legal and moral right to not be subject to violence and those are real issues. But they don't have a right to simply not deal with anything that bothers them. And they don't have a right to force the world to their terms. That's not rights. That's just being a brat. Did Al Franken harass a newswoman? Was he just being adolescent? Or was she, perhaps, a prima dona (being a former model) who was condescending and Al was putting her in her place? We may never know. His side of the story was not relevant. Only the possibility of sexism was relevant to the witch-hunting mob. There was a case recently At Brandeis Univ in MA where a sculpture was put up. It looked to be a dumpy man in briefs, sleepwalking. He looked pitiful. Not inspiring art, but somehow it was assigned to be put on some lawn. A few young women insisted it must be taken down because it "made them feel unsafe". 300 people signed the petition. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sculptu...ollege-campus/ Pleasantly, the staff said they had meant to spark discussion and debate with the statue. Are the young women suffering because they're exposed to sexist violence fantasy triggers? Or are the pro-statue people suffering because their choice of art is being impinged upon? Why do we legislate sexism but not art fascism? Why do we infantilize women so that they believe they're too delicate to tolerate white American suburbs without special restrictions? Can't you accept at least some legitimacy for the view of the baker and his claimed rights to religious freedom? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
What is "Net Neutrality" the Truth
On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 11:29:15 -0500, "Mayayana"
wrote: Can't you accept at least some legitimacy for the view of the baker and his claimed rights to religious freedom? Not really. The baker is *not* running a business that ONLY sells to selected specific APPROVED customers. He is competing for general public sales--and he knows it. Therefore, he has to comply with the laws pertaining to businesses operating in that area (selling to the general public). If he did NOT want to sell to the general public, then he should not be operating a business that *does* sell to the general public. He should be operating a business that only sells to churches approved by him. But THAT would really cut into his revenues and profits. It is the tradeoff he accepts IF he does NOT want to sell to the general public. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|