Gay Marriage, Forced on Everyone???

When the business owner provides an essential service like transportation, utilities or food. Bakers, on the other hand, don't provide an essential service -- nobody ever lost their job, froze or starved from a lack of a decorated cake.

Nor has anyone ever lost their job, frozen or starved from being kept away from a lunch counter for being black.

Hear that, Mewa? Being gay is just like being black.

So there's no problem with blacks having to go to the back of the bus or having separate water fountains right, since everyone still gets the service?

Water is an essential. Transportation is an essential. Assigning blacks to the back of the bus creates the potential, in the case of a bus where the back is full, of denying an essential service. Separate water fountains create the potential, if the "black" water fountain isn't working, of denying an essential service.

Any work undertaken for artistic reasons, such as a decorated cake, is not an essential service.

That was still a dumb play on your part, but it can at least be commended for some effort going into it.

Yet the odds that they might are significantly higher than the odds that any of those things would happen from lack of a wedding cake.

Ah, so now it's a question of odds, is it?

Or are you simply weaving and dodging because you don't want to admit that from a moral standpoint, your bigotry is exactly the same as the prejudices of the George Wallaces and Bull Connors of the world 50 years ago?

It is a question of essential services, yes.

Right, because a baker refusing to create a piece of artistic expression he disagrees with is exactly like a lynching.

You don't give a shit about bigotry. If you did, you wouldn't trivialize the real crimes inflicted on people who were genuinely subject to that shit, including murder, by putting a refusal to bake a fucking cake in the same context, and neither would the two lesbians who made this into a huge deal.

Nice try, but why don't you try telling Matthew Shepard how trivial anti-gay bigotry is?

Some bigots kill; others practice a softer brand of prejudice. It's as true today as it was then. And note that I wasn't comparing this to lynchings, but to the lunch counter sit-ins.

Perfect example. You think his biggest beef was about not being able to force somebody to make him a wedding cake? When people put the refusal of somebody to create something he doesn't agree with on that level, they trivialize what happened to people like Shepard.

Congratulations on not being a murderer. That makes your bigotry A-OK.

I don't hold to bigotry. And you even using that word to describe anything less than actual, material harm? Clue: your doing that means that you don't actually give a shit about bigotry.

To the contrary, it means that you approve of bigotry, but you're just a little bit ahead of the pendulum swing of bigotry.

That's how bigotry works, by the way. It's a pendulum. Blacks were subjected to some pretty awful bigotry, at the farthest swing of that pendulum -- now it's swinging back and things like affirmative action and racial quotas damage the chances of white people -- not only that, but because the pendulum is still swinging that way, these policies are either totally denied as constituting anti-white bigotry or, at best, are seen as justified, as if there's one immortal black guy and one immortal white guy, and that immortal white guy has it coming. That's the only way to justify affirmative action and racial quotas, and it's based on a racist notion.

The same is true in this case. It's either not bigoted at all to use the courts to force somebody to create something he disagrees with, or, "Oh, he has it coming."

Fuck you. Not only are you just as much a bigot as anybody who ever discriminated against anybody else, you're a hypocrite for refusing to think about it enough to realize your bigotry.

Compulsory labor is fucking wrong. It's wrong for minorities of any kind, including Christians. If a Christian went into a Muslim bakery and asked for a "Jesus is Lord" cake and they refused to make it, and subsequently the Christian took 'em to court to force them to make it, you'd be howling about how wrong and terrible and monstrous it is.

Lesbians are not special fucking snowflakes. They do not get to force people to create artistic works -- and yes, wedding cakes are artistic works, edible or not -- and then bitch when the artist ain't fuckin' feelin' it.

I don't get to force you to create some shit you ain't feelin', either.

This is where anti-discrimination laws are abuse, not justice.

The two lesbians in question can find another baker or make the cake their-fucking-selves.

Otherwise, I'll pose to you the same proposition I posed to garamet and Dickynoo -- write me up some Jack Chick style Christian tracts. I don't care if you're not Christian -- you can't refuse me, because that would be discrimination. I can use the courts to force you to create some shit you don't want to.

Yet another point is: Fucking why?

If the lez-beans in this here story discover that the baker in question isn't willing to make them a cake, why force him to do it? He's not going to do a good fuckin' job! Even if they succeed in forcing him to make their cake, it's gonna suck!

The only reason they did this was to use the court system to bully this guy. That is literally the only reason that makes any sense. And that reason constitutes bigotry on their part.

Essential? Where is it mandated that water fountains or bus services must be provided at all?

Good point. They're there as conveniences for the public. But if the public is going to be led to depend on them, either of them, and as they are essential services, then they should be provided without any kind of regard to race, sex, orientation or creed. But wedding cakes still do not fit the mold of essential services, and artists should still not be extorted into creating works which are against the artists' personal beliefs.

You want to try again? You want to come up with some more bullshit that doesn't excuse the court system bullying somebody into creating a work he (or she) doesn't believe in? Or are you done with that tired, lame, weak, fuckin' limp bullshit line yet?

'Cause y'know what? Two lesbians have no more business forcing a Christian to create a gay wedding cake that I have forcing those two lesbians to create an anti-gay cake.

Fuckin' period.

Nobody can deny anybody an essential service, but nobody can force anybody to engage in a creative work the creator disagrees with.

That's simple, and it's fair. Now, some speciaw widdle snowfwakes might not get to impose their gay views on Christians, but then, that community is against anyone imposing their views on others -- right? Fucking right?

Short, simple and sweet: If gays get to be protected from Christians, Christians get to be protected from gays.

This baker did nothing wrong. The two lesbians should have taken his refusal to make them a cake in stride, acted like adults, and continued down the fuckin' street to a hairball-friendly baker. Siccing the courts of the Christian baker for refusing to create something he didn't believe in? That was an act of bigotry and of bullying, and they should be fully legally bitchslapped for doing it. They are not the boss of fuckin' anybody. They're just lesbians, and they are not the boss of fuckin' anybody at all.

Why stop there? Separate but equal schools seem fine by their analysis.

Who is championing "separate but equal" schools?

Not me, but then I'm opposed to charter schools in general.

There are a number of school like that, and naturally, social conservatives seem to have gotten their panties in a wad over most of them. But here's some info about Harvey Milk High School in New York (the first one I was able to find a website for):

And here's some background from the LA Times on why schools like this end up being formed:

Gosh, how horrible that someone would try to address this!

I understand the rationale, but the proper response is to crack down hard on bullying, and engage the students in tolerance building exercises. If you separate a minority from an oppressive majority, you end up with people thinking it's okay for bakers to reject gay customers.

As a capitalist he did.

You're just supposed to take everyone's fucking money, and shut up.

Y'don't see the oil companies doing that shit.
They wouldn't rule the world if they did.

How's those tracts comin'?

They're going up your ass when they're ready, so don't be so enthusiastic.

Not with the gale-force ass-winds I'm dealing with this morning. BA-ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMPPP-TAH!!!

But what about the poor widdle bullies and their rights?

Gotta respect 'em. That is, if you're actually against anybody forcing their morals on other people. Otherwise, it's not that you have a problem with "legislating morality", it's more accurate to say that all you really have a problem with with is morality.

Turns out this place is only a couple blocks from where I go to church. Too bad they aren't open Sundays or I'd go there every week.

The point is not that the argument is false, but that it is invalid. Your agrument is basically that "Since the future can be known, it must be deterministic." But the future cannot be known. It can only be guessed at. (And as I said, even if you believe in God, in order to use God as an "exception" to that principle, you must demonstrate that "future" is actually a meaningful term to God, which is very much subject to debate.)

Which is not at all what you originally stated. You are having to revise your argument seriously to try to make it valid, but if you have to revise it, that shows it was not valid.

And in any case, deduction is even worse than induction at actually proving something. It has long been demonstrated that all valid deductive arguments can be restated as mere tautologies. Furthermore, even a deductive argument that is valid in form demonstrates its conclusion only if all the terms are unambiguous and all the postulates are true. I have shown that one of the postulates ("Saturday always follows Friday") is not true in every case.

And finally, Saturday does not follow Friday because of anyone's choice. Thus, even if you could demonstrate that in every case, Saturday always follows Friday, that would not prove or even tend to prove that everything is deterministic, including peoples' choices. That there is determinism in the universe is not doubted by anyone, as far as I know. But you are trying to demonstrate that everything is deterministic, which is a postulate of a very different nature. Proving "There is sugar in this cake" is not even a useful step on the way to proving "This cake is made of nothing but sugar."

Blatantly false! You can doubt such reasoning by questioning the truth of the postulates, or by demonstrating ambiguity in the terms. That is the case even if the form of the argument itself is valid.

Not even remotely.

Honestly, you're smart and you know it, but lately you seem to be simply imagining arguments you know you have already dealt with instead of what people are actually saying. That's a waste of time.