Gay Marriage, Forced on Everyone???

I think the issue regarding quantum theory is that you can indeed perfectly know the future, but only if you observed the beginning of time, at any point afterward, entropy prevents us from knowing the complete history of every particle, without which we cannot know the complete future.

I just want to know when I'm getting my hoverboard.

Entropy doesn't destroy information. (Although whether information can be destroyed - for example in a black hole - is an interesting topic.)
It's the uncertainty principle prevents us from knowing the past (or the future) in perfect detail. It dictates that the location and momentum of any elementary particle is fundamentally indeterminate - existing only as a probability, and that the more precisely you know one of those values, the less precisely you know the other.

The uncertainty principle hasn't been overturned. That's why I'm very surprised that anyone would claim that quantum mechanics is deterministic.

It does when they use the courts to strong-arm you into engaging in labor against your will.

Tits.

Excellent! Now anti-discrimination laws are slavery.

Yeah, but according to Muad slavery wasn't really that bad.

a lawsuit is too far, IMO. i've been denied an apartment because the guy said "it would just be too complicated...this is a very tight-knit community". i didn't sue him. i told him he needed to get laid and get over himself.

When they result in the equivalent of forced labor, they are, yeah.

John Castle will now prove his point by baking Volpone's "gay cake."

i could go for some gay cake.

Otherwise known as Volpone's penis.

mmmm.....it's so....[?=...........]moist! [/?]

Not until you write some Jack Chick style Christian tracts and hand them out all through your neighborhood.

Those poor lunch counter owners in the '60s ...

Mmmm... I haven't had bologna in forever. Or cheap cotto salami.

Yeah, 'cause all that hot brown sludge they were slingin' constituted an artistic creation, just like a wedding cake.

See, that's the difference the "let's enslave people to the minority" crowd refuses to recognize:

The slop at a lunch counter already fucking exists. That sludge is created and served with zero creative effort.

A wedding cake, on the other hand, is not a mere service -- it is a creation. The baker needs to decorate that mother fucker.

You hit him up with some shit he ain't feelin', and for one thing, you're gonna get a shit-ass product. For another, if he ain't feelin' it at all, he has not only the right but a responsibility to turn down the job. If he ain't feelin' it, he's not gonna give you a good product. And you're not gonna want what he turns out if he's forced to do it.

This wasn't about two dykes wanting their wedding cake. They could have gone to a sympathetic baker for that.

This was about two dykes shoving their shit in a Christian's face and trying to force him to do something he couldn't bring himself to do. Something that, do to his own moral compass, he was quite literally unable to pull off.

He told them that, and they tried to use the law to strong-arm him into doing it anyway.

That's fucking bullying. That's nothing but bullying, and the two women in this case should be legally smacked down for doing it. You find someone who can do what you want done; if you find someone who can't, you leave that person the fuck alone.

Just because you're "special" and have "special" rights doesn't mean you can bully the other retards.

Yes, actually. It was not the government's fucking business then, and it is not the government's fucking business now.

gul -- garamet -- dickynoo -- When are you fuckers gonna write me Jack Chick tracts, huh? You don't get to discriminate. You can't refuse to do it. That'd be discrimination. Then I could slug you for $50 fucking grand each of yez. You will mold yourself to my lifestyle or I will financially cripple you.

Y'all are down with that shit, right? Fuckin' right?

I get to make you express an artistic vision that you don't agree with, right? I get to fuckin' make you go against your own principles, don't I?

(Now watch all three of those hypocrite fucks dance around and not answer this question.)

This is total bullshit. A person or persons should have the same rights granted by the STATE to everyone else by STATE OFFICIALS/EMPLOYEES. However, most cake bakers and clergymen are not state employees. They're private citizens. You should neither be compelled to marry a couple if you are a pastor or priest or compelled to bake a cake for any reason if you are a pastry chef. Now if the government wants to open their own bakeries (to be open Monday through Friday 8-5 only, of course) have at it. But in my opinion this law is as unconstitutional as FORCING people to buy health insurance. Yes, you have rights to do all kinds of things, but that shouldn't mean you are obligated to exercise those rights on demand by a third party or anybody else. I have a license which allows me to go teach on my days off for teachers who are sick, taking a mental health day, screwing a student, IDK... I choose not to because public education in this country SUCKS, and I want no participation in the shit that passes for "learning" today. I guess you should have my district attorney fine me $50,000 by withholding a public good. That is, after all... worse than withholding a private good, like a stupid fucking cake. What the hell do two lesbians need with this particular bakery anyway. Send them to fucking Walmart if they can't find a baker. Walmart will bake a cake with a swastika on it with the words Sieg Heil underneath it. There are plenty of businesses out there who will do ANYTHING YOU WANT if you have the money. This is nothing but two angry lesbians trying to make a statement and I give them a P+ as in Positively Pathetic.

Too easy...

Of course, there are always JC's posts - both cheap and full of bologna.

Is that who you want to be when you grow up? Wassamatta, burn out already? And you've only got him half right.

I won't answer for the others, but you couldn't afford my rates.

Now, that's not the answer you want, so go ahead and claim it's not an answer.

Because I'm still waiting for you experts on "gay cake" to post a recipe, or at least for you and Volpone to compare notes.

[YT="garamet's rates"]5zIDgPVg9HM[/YT]

How about if the baker put up a sign like I have seen elsewhere "WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE". That seems like a fair enough thing.
What is next? Shall we force painters to draw pictures of St peter on his knees sucking a cock? Certainly the preparing of wedding cakes is as much an art as any other. When the government is able to force people to design that which they do not like, a great freedom is lost in this nation.

We don't need to hear about your porn collection.

Is that the best you can do? EP asked a valid question. At what point does the business owner or artist get to say, "I won't do this work because I don't believe in it"? Or does the creator of artistic works have no such right? At what point can the State compel an artistic endeavor through extortion or violence?

Y'all won't touch this question, and the longer you go without addressing it, the more glaring it becomes.

Stop fucking dancing and address the question. When do I get to force you to create some shit you don't believe in?

The argument here aims to show that freedom is possible even if the future is knowable, and even if the possibility of such knowledge hails from a deterministic nature of our universe. Even if you can prove that we can't know the future or that the universe is not deterministic, that could make the argument unnecessary at best, but not false.

On a side note, I'm not using induction, but deduction from definition. Even if the world ends Friday night, the day that fails to come next is a Saturday. To introduce doubt into such reasoning is not impossible, but only at the cost of doubting logic itself, and then all further arguments become moot.

Asked and answered. Post #321: the sentence you chose to ignore.

Now ask it a third time.

At what point does the business owner STOP being able to discriminate? Are you willing to apply the principle you advocate here across the board? (I know some people are, and apparently think that the government was wrong to force racial integration in the '50s and '60s; I just can't remember if you're one of them.)