It saddens me that some people can't think for themselves and need to follow their imaginary friends guide book.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As jim says.. It must be a mental illness.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There seems to be a ring of truth to what you say. At least that's, as the judge in the baker/gays case put it, at first blush. The problem with your being saddened is that it is not just SOME people who can't think for themselves, MOST can't. And, in the final analysis, NONE of us can--unless there are absolutes to guide us. In an uncertain, relative world there is nothing substantial to think about except in relation to something else. In such a world you cannot "think for yourself." You can only perceive through points of view. And those may be endless. And, in the end, they all amount to nothing more than imaginary thoughts. So, even in such a world, for our simple finite minds, we need a guidebook. The question, then, is how do we accommodate such a diversity of perceptions? Should the guidebook be dictated by a regime of thinkers we perceive to be experts on what and how we should think? Should we resolve the uncertainty by submitting to being cast into a one-size-fits-all mold? Or can we accommodate our massive spectrum of differences in such a way that we can all agree (whatever agree means in a relative world) to exist in some form of free harmony which allows our unique perspectives to flourish? Is there room in such a world for different religious perspectives, and atheistic perspectives, and agnostic perspectives, of mystical or artistic perspectives, of strictly rational scientific perspectives? Or must all but one be stamped out for the sake of creating a world which makes us secure against our ultimate ignorance?

Hey, the Founders had an idea. Just a thought. It was a friendly and imaginative guidebook.

It's simple. Be Cool. And don't be an a s s hole. How hard is it?? Baker is the later. The gays have their issues as well... But in the end... It's all about the 2 commandments. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Muahahaha
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hey . . . when we make our own commandments, it ain't hard at all. Problem is making everyone else follow our commandments.

Eben for dictator!

I think it was the Judy Garland montage that was Photo-frosted on top that was a little too much.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:rotf2::rotf2: How did I know you would respond to that line?
I was thinking of you when I threw in the bit about absolutes.

Actually, every rational or semi-rational, person "deals" in absolutes. Objectivist/relativist philosophers who "prove" there are no absolutes do so by definition. They define an absolute as something distinct and unaffected by anything else that exists unchanged for all time. And then they go through a catechism of questions where they make you define your terms and eventually trap you by stating nothing you answer can exist distinct and unchanged (or something like that) for eternity.

But, as Likwid might say, who gives a damn about eternity? Eternity can exist in a moment. Relatively speaking. Or otherwise. And who gives a crap about some philosopher's restrictive definition of "absolute." We have our own utilitarian definitions. Religious folks do. Scientists do. Mechanics do. Critics and rhetoricians do. Dreamers do. And Siths do. But Siths are not the only ones that do.

Absolute is a concept which provides limitations when limitations are needed or useful. Nebe absolutely cannot smoke weed when he blows glass. Absolute zero is some baseline from which to describe relative temperatures. In some instances 1 plus 1 absoslutely equals 2. We limited, imperfect beings need the guidebook which Nebe mocks. Then he prescribes a two commandment guidebook which he thinks is his own concoction. Like those "commandments" didn't exist in the realm of human thought and he just thought them up by himself without the input of all he had learned from others. Or so it seems if he is serious about the sad state of some people not being able to think for themselves.

And if we don't recognize some defined absolutes, at least for the moment, we may find it difficult, if not impossible to function in a world outside of our sleeping dreams. How would relativity be possible to describe without absolute points of view? If every point of view was relative to another point of view and that to another point of view, and that to another point of view ad infinitum it would be impossible to describe what was actually relative to what. It would all be an endless chain of indefinite possibility.

So for the necessity of the moment we deal in our trite mundane absolutes--just in order to "exist"--to get food and clothing and medical attention and money and sex and see a good movie about siths.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1025780) Maybe the guy made really nice cakes? So if he decided to not sell to black people would that be ok as well? -spence

it would not be ok in my opinion....but he should have the right to decide whether he wanted to or not and be judged by the market and either flourish or more likely fail based on his decisions....just as a black baker should have the right to not sell to white people, just as a gay baker should have the right to refuse to bake a cake for a heterosexual wedding....forcing them to do so seems like a recipe for disaster so to speak

Originally Posted by Nebe View Post

The baker really screwed up... He should have never ever ever told them that he refused to serve them because they were gay...

so he should have lied.....doesn't that violate both Nebe commandments? or is lying cool ? suppose he had lied about his values and made the cake and the couple found out weeks after the wedding that their cake was made by a raging homophobe @#$^%$# with a mental illness....imagine how painful it would be for them every time that the looked at the wedding pictures and saw that cake...... probably grounds for a lawsuit there too...

personally, I prefer the honest racist, homophobe, sexist, bigot... whatever etc......at least you know where you stand with them and can make a better informed decision as to whether you want to associate with or trust your catering to them ....


Detbuch had a great point, if this couple approached this baker and he'd agreed to make the cake but they then declined citing his religious propensities(or they could lie I guess), could the baker file suit against the couple for discrimination and could a judge force the couple to purchase a cake from this baker?

Scott...what the difference between not selling to blacks vs gays?? I'd like to hear this logic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn't differentiate

You can pray away the ghey. Oh wait...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

don't think anyone here has suggested that either...reaching now?...odd videos and inferences....:)

It was a joke.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"2.- Don't be an #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&.;)"

You're so tense these days.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I ordered a bong from Eben for Christmas...that should help :)

sorry.. i don't sell to stoners.. oh wait…:rotf2:

God damn right it is. Nebe, you claim to hate it when one person forces their beliefs onto another, and somehow, you can't see that's exactly what the liberals are doing to this baker. If you genuinely feel no one should be forced against his will to accept the beliefs of another, then how in God's name can you not be on the baker's side? Can you explain that?

I see 2 possibilities...

(1) you are in fact in favor of coercion, when you happen to agree with those trying to force their beliefs onto another

(2) you haven't thought this through

You go ahead and explain it, I'm all ears...

Hell no, not unless the baker belonged to some demographic that the liberal stormtroopers have anointed with "victim" status.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

God damn right it is. If you genuinely feel no one should be forced against his will to accept the beliefs of another, then how in God's name can you not be on the baker's side? Can you explain that?




I apologize in advance but this just struck me as amusing :uhuh:

maybe rephrase the question Jim :huh:

Scott, I am not sure I can re-phrase it with any more simplicity or clarity. Nebe says he doesn't like it when one person tries to force his beliefs onto another. That's what he said, his words, in an earlier post on this thread. Somehow, he cannot connect the dots to conclude that it's the gay rights activists who are trying to force their beliefs onto the baker. The baker isn't forcing his Christianity on anyone, he just wants to be left alone to act according to his beliefs. No one here has made a better argument for the baker's rights, than Nebe. And somehow, he thinks he's making a compelling case in opposition to the baker. He's making my argument for me, and he's not able to grasp that.

As to his comment about following an imaginary friends guide book. Assuming he is talking about the bible, that's a pretty offensive comment, and you'd think we could expect more from someone who claims to be as progressive, enlightened, and evolved as he thinks that he is.

In all fairness Jim I think they just wanted a cake. This isn't exactly cramming their beliefs down the bakers grill.If a muslim wants a cake I doubt he is attempting to convert,nor do I think the baker is vulnerable to any type of mind meld.Just keeping it real here.Can you explain how ordering a cake from a baker is forcing ones beliefs on another? I mean,he DOES sell cakes right?
IMO he can sell to whomever he wants but if he only sells to people of the same religion it will probably be a short carreer.Like I stated before,I support his right to sell to his choice of customer but your shallow depiction of a vulnerable merchant may be short sighted.

If the baker wants to be left alone, the baker should not run a business that is open to the public.

So can the baker refuse to sell to whoever he does not feel that his religion agrees with??
What if he refused service to blacks??
What if he refused service to Muslims???

Jim, the thing you are not grasping is that he is forcing his religion on the gays.. Because he is telling them he won't sell them a cake because his religion does not agree with it.

I don't know if I have said this yet, but the biggest homophobes are always the ones who fight a constant struggle to repress their own gay urges.. I mean really... What kind of Colorado cowboy decides he is going to make pretty cakes with little roses all over them??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

2 guys wanted a cake and the baker didn't want to make it for them.....and now they are Gay Rights Activists and the Baker is forcing his religion down their throats.

I prefer you just refer to them as 3 Stubborn A-holes....:hihi:

:rotfl:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm not sure it matters what it was they were purchasing. What matters is that what they were asking, was interpreted by this man as contradictory to his religious views.

"Can you explain how ordering a cake from a baker is forcing ones beliefs on another?"

The courts are telling this guy that he must provide the cake, or face fines. The court is ordering this man to participate in that which violates his religious beliefs. I'm not sure I see how that's different from courts ordering Catholic OBGYN's to provide abortions. I'm not saying a cake is the moral equivalent of an unborn baby, I'm saying that these would both be examples of the government ordering someone to participate in that which violates their religion. If that's not a violation of the Freedom Of Religion, I don't know what is, do you?

And remember I support gay marriage. But I also support the Bill Of Rights, and I don't like it when the courts pretend those protections don't exist when it serves their personal agenda to do so.

"Jim, the thing you are not grasping is that he is forcing his religion on the gays.. "

Wrong What you cannot grasp, is that there is a huge difference between asking to be left alone to paractice one's religion, and actively forcing your religion on someone else.

What is the baker doing to "force" anything on these guys? Is he asking them to go to church? Is he asking them to go to confession, or to accept Jesus? Is he asking them to speak out against gay marriage? Is he asking them to read the Bible, or to get communion?

No, no, no, and no. What the baker is asking, is to be allowed to practice his religion as he sees fit, without interference from the government.

"So can the baker refuse to sell to whoever he does not feel that his religion agrees with??
What if he refused service to blacks?? What if he refused service to Muslims???"

Let's say I own a restaurant. I don't think I'd have the right to exclude Muslims who wanted to come in and eat. But if Muslims asked me to cater, and therefore participate in, a Muslim religious ceremony, I should have the right to refuse. Not that I would personally refuse, but like it or not, I have the constitutional right to do so.

It is the gays, and the court, that are trying to force this man to participate (as he sees it) in something which violates his religion. That doesn't sit well with me.

"I don't know if I have said this yet, but the biggest homophobes are always the ones who fight a constant struggle to repress their own gay urges.. "

Yeah, yeah, whatever. The more opposed one is to homosexuality, the more gay that person is, right? Sure. Now you're a psychiatrist. Using your 'logic', if I think all pedophiles should be put in jail for life, does that make me a closet child molester, Dr Freud?

"What kind of Colorado cowboy decides he is going to make pretty cakes with little roses all over them??"

You're an artist, so that makes you a sissy too then? When backed into a corner from which there is no escape, just insult the guy for his career choice.

Seems to me that one could therefore say the same thing about the Boy Scouts?

I don't beleive I'm struggling even a bit, I don't think it could be more simple. But Merry Christmas to you as well!

Yeah, they could. there are a bunch of stubborn A-Holes there as well.

No Shortage of Stubborn A-Holes in the World...Right Jim

The 2 commandments... It could save the world.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree with you that it is OBVIOUS the only party being forced upon in this dispute is the baker. Even if he were trying to convert the gays, which he wasn't, he wouldn't have been forcing them or "cramming" anything on them. While it is true the gays were also not forcing the baker to become gay, or even to tolerate or accept the "gay life style," they used the government to force him to their wishes or face a penalty.

Those who accept government mandates such as prohibition of discrimination by private citizens fail to see the problem of Constitutional "slippage." Or they don't care about it. And, after all, it only seems fair that we should not "discriminate." Even if we are forced not to. But the slippage has been happening, at first gradually, now quickly, over time, and various rights have slipped away with it. We have not noticed that what was once referred to as the "vast residuum" of rights beyond those in the Bill of Rights, we individuals once had possessed are now gone. We don't notice because it happened in pieces over time and only seemed to affect a few folks when government mandates backed by SCOTUS decisions forced a farmer here or there not to grow more than a certain amount of a crop, or a cheaper healthy alternative to whole milk during the depression era was eradicated because it competed with the dairy industry, or the thousands of little closures or restrictions of business were forced by the misuse of Commerce Clause, and transfers of wealth and creation of huge bureaucracies which imposed their will on the people were created by Commerce and Welfare Clauses. They happened bit by bit, with the announced purpose of helping us all to a better life. That was easy enough for us to say OK . . . that's good. The whole process has expanded to such a mass/mess that more and more are beginning to take note. We woke up one morning and were astounded to learn that we had to buy something, not for the privilege of receiving some right, but because the government wanted it so. Oh yeah, there was the usual rationalization about the public good. But the public was finally being told on a massive scale, not just a little here or there, that it could not decide its own good. Government would do that.

Oh yeah, Jim, we still have the Bill of Rights, don't we? Well, apparently we have not been noticing, those are slipping away as well. Amendments have been "interpreted" to mean other than they were intended. Most have little force if the government can get five judges to agree. The most sacred First and Second have been under assault for some time. And anti-discrimination laws have slipped from prohibition of government to prohibition of citizens from discriminating.

Your protection of speech and practice of religion have been severely assaulted by anti-discrimination laws. Once only government was prohibited from those discriminations. That has now crept into prohibition of individuals doing so in places of "public accommodation." What does that do to your first amendment rights? They have been narrowed. And as the drum beats for the continuous expansion of the concept of "equality" the definition of a place of public accommodation can very well, and probably will, expand. Do you accommodate public airwaves into your home? Do you receive letters and circulars into your home? So when you must accommodate the public as the government dictates, do you really own your business? Can you really own your property? If what you ostensibly "own" can be taxed and regulated at will, do you really own it. If you cannot freely have a right to your expression of speech in your public place because it "discriminates" against someone who enters who does have that right, do you really have freedom of speech? Oh, and there is something new called the "doctrine of government speech" which the court has conjured out of the usual thin air which can supersede your individual right to free speech when the two are in conflict. But that has not reared its ugly head in a major noticeable way for the larger public to notice. It may well do so down the road when the government needs to apply it in larger portions.

None of this bothers most folks. They don't notice it. Or don't care because it doesn't seem to affect them in any bad way . . . so far as they can tell. We're all busy working (most of us) and playing and don't want to be bothered by the little laws and such the government passes. We trust it's all for the good, and necessary.

I still find it hard to wrap around the idea that the federal government can force us to buy health insurance. I am certain the Founders would have thought that was cause for another revolution. But they would have thought that well before this. But so long as we think this is all for the good, we accept it . . . and the Constitution slips away.

TDF, you brought up that term, not me. I believe you thought it was funny at the time.

I believe this baker deserves the same constitutional protections that we give to the Klan when they want to hold a rally. If that makes me a stubborn ahole, then I can live with that.

I still think it was funny....that hasn't changed.

And I agree with everything there....but yet you have this "Talent" of alienating people, even when they agree with you (like Me)

and I also consider myself a Stubborn A-Hole as well....just ask my wife and kids :hee:

Point taken, merry christmas and a very happy new year to you guys...

I just thought you might want to try a different approach seeing as how he was just channeling Marx :uhuh:

right...whatever happened to agreeing to disagree?

What about a store cashier that sues because they were fired for not selling alcohol because their muslem religion forbids them from doing so?

If memory serves me right (hopefully) that clerk won their lawsuit because they shouldn't be forced to do something that was against their religious beliefs.

So what it sounds like is that the courts only acknowledge religions OTHER than Catholicism as real religions worthy of constitutional protection.