David Mullins and Charlie Craig’s attempt to harness to power of the state to bully someone who had the temerity to disagree with them has finally failed. Sometimes justice is done.
Is this a reference to the ruling on the Colorado bakery case? If so, true justice would be for these two guys to reimburse the baker for all costs associated with defending himself, including lost income connected to that defense.
Now if SCOTUS would address the 1st Amendment aspects of the case, that would make it truly wonderful. I think, also, there should be some way to compel SCOTUS to review and overturn public accommodation law as the infringement of liberty that it is.
No argument. I’m just choosing to focus on the fact that these two guys are bullies, looking for a victim, and trying to use the power of the state to do so.
That and the fact that the entire narrative is built on lies.
I'm sorry, but I'm laughing out loud at your naivete or blindness, if you truly believe that last...
Jiminy Cricket.
The Left, at its best, is all about fighting bullies. No doubt that there are some bullies on the Left at times, but it's hardly like a common denominator (and indeed, one would have to abandon Left-ish values to embrace being a bully...)
That is, unless you consider standing (like Jesus?) against the bullies and oppressors and abusers, the liars and slanders and rapists of the world to be "bullying" those poor bullies, oppressors and abusers, those murderers and liars and creeps.
Indeed, we DO stand strong against oppressors, but in so doing, we're siding beside and alongside the bullied and oppressed. It's difficult to be a "bully" when you're taking a stand against the bullies (possible, but difficult).
Please, girlfriend.
When did the Right become such lightweights and so feint-hearted?
Your naive, idealistic, self serving response might be somewhat true in the abstract. But in the real world of 2018, you clearly aren’t paying attention to what folks on your side are sayand doing.
The case above is one example, Samantha Bee, Rosie O’Donnell, and Kathy Griffin are others. I’ve repeatedly posted quotes from y’all that you’ve ignored. Have you buried your hard and ignored the attacks on Kanye West?
Hell, you’ve even tried to justify your own bullying, name calling, and vile comments.
Jesus never wished for peoples children to be killed, Jesus never called young vocal black conservatives “nigger”.
Pointing out that there is a large and growing strain of bullying that’s more common, public, and acceptable isn’t “faint hearted”, it’s acknowledging reality. Clearly, a quick perusal if the responses to this leftist bullying will revameal that the targets aren’t lightweight.
I do do so love your repeated attempt to align Jesus with your political views, it’s kind of cute.
One final point, if you’d notice, I didn’t suggest that everyone on the left is a bully. I merely asked a question about what appears to be a specific subset of leftists.
But why would you respond to what I actually said, when you can overreact to something I didn’t say. All the while, by your silence, giving support to the very people I’m talking about.
Here's what the fella in this case, Craig, said...
"I want him to have his own religious beliefs and his own experiences and his own ideas,” Craig said later that day in his Denver home, surrounded by his husband, dog and cat.
Then Mullins quickly added: "But you cannot practice your religion in a way that denigrates others or excludes them from full participation in public life.”
THAT is bullying? Damn, you boys are intimidated and "bullied" easily. Talk to some actual gay people... they can tell you about REAL bullying.
It's not like they were asking the "cake artist" to bake them a cake that had a gay couple fornicating drawn on it. It's not like they were demanding that the baker supported the wedding. He sells cakes. They wanted to buy a cake. Expecting a business that SELLS cakes to sell equally to them like they would anyone else is hardly bullying.
This is what I mean. The right has become a bunch of actual snowflakes who melt at the slightest disagreement with their delicate little opinions.
And don't be a complete moron. NO ONE is defending abusive language of the sort you are citing that happens in isolated instances. I do not judge all of the right by the horrible actual racists and abusers and nazis that are represented on the Right and in the GOP and by the God awful things they say (like several of your evil GOP candidates for office right now... pedophiles? Nazis?? Dayum!) and of course, I am not represented by the few on the Left who use abusive language nor do I condone it.
Of course. That goes without saying unless you're a total idiot.
Dan, if you want to ignore the facts of the case and a cherry pick spin to make yourself feel better that’s fine with me. The fact remains that these bullies chose this particular Baker knowing that he would refuse to bake the cake for the express purpose of unleashing the power of the state to coerce him to do something he did not want to do.
The facts are, Craig, that you all have gotten used to getting your way and you want everyone to bend to your will and when you don't you fuss and whine and moan and the fact is that those days are over.
You all don't get to just get your way every time. You'll have to grow up and act like adults and in a diverse society.
Oppression of others in the name of your religion will not stand.
Oh, and nobody (except the plaintiffs) was attempting to oppress or coerce anyone.
Of course, by your logic, you’d demand that a halal market refusing to cater a bar mitzva or a black baker refusing to bake a cake for KKK founders day oppressive.
Dan's response is truly a willful disregard for reality. In short, he's lying again. By Christians refusing to acknowledge the whiny and science-free claims and demands of the sexually immoral is not akin to bullying in any way. It's as if a mother is a bully for not giving in to the foot stomping of her petulant child.
And just because homosexuals take crap from people, that doesn't mean they aren't guilty of their own brand of bullying, as Craig points out with this case address by SCOTUS, which is but one case of a pair of homosexuals purposely attacking a person of faith and principle simply because they won't play along with their faux-marriage demands. The refusal of merchants to do so does absolutely no harm to these whiny self-abusers as there are plenty of people for whom profit rules over principle, that they have no need to drag good people of solid character through the legal system.
These types of craven despots also bully parents who don't want their children indoctrinated in the public schools...forced to learn proven and self-evident lies about human sexuality...lies Dan is all too willing to support in his personal defense of sexual immorality and rebellion against God.
And if they get their way, other factions of this multi-lettered minority will force the majority to suffer legal consequences for not addressing them by improper and/or invented pronouns.
But none of that is bullying because these freaks are bullied according to Dan.
And that's just this particular faction of leftists. The lefty gun-control buffoons also wish to bully the law-abiding into leaving themselves defenseless. The lefty thieves wish to bully the producers into giving up more of their hard earned money to every and any cause the left dreams up. Bullying, force and coercion are part and parcel of leftist strategy. Dan's a liar to pretend otherwise.
This case is an about anyone getting their own way, it’s about being free from being coerced to create a specific piece of art to promote a specific event. The Supreme Court decided this 7 to 2, it’s not rocket science. Your unwillingness to except the facts as they exist, and to insist on an alternative set of facts is neither new nor surprising but it is tiresome. The fact that you can’t even muster enough discomfort to specifically call out Those on your side says a great deal about your level of comfort wallowing in filth.
Thanks, but please don’t try to compare the struggle of a child with mental health issues to something as banal as a wedding cake.
A. He would have gladly sold them a cake, as he had done for many others, it WAS NOT a refusal to “sell them a cake”. B. Instead of doing the free market, adult thing, they chose to use the (biased) power of the state to punish this baker. In this case, the plaintiffs were the ones wielding the power of the state in an attempt to punish and harm someone.
There is, indeed, great pain in the lives of too many of our loved ones with mental health issues. May we all work hard to be in solidarity with them and there for them.
AND there is great pain in the thousands of years of oppression, hatred, demonization, murder, slander and harm caused to our LGBTQ friends... too often at the hands of "the church..." or at least with support from "the church..."
May we all work hard to be in solidarity with all those who have been oppressed, either by the church, or society or by our own minds.
It is not minimizing the plight of those with mental health issues to also work hard to end the oppression of long-demonized minority groups. We can have room for working for support and justice for all those in need of support and justice.
The facts, indisputable facts, are that this court did NOT decide that religious groups can opt to oppress minority groups... they merely pointed out flaws in how THIS case was handled. That is reality.
The indisputable facts are that LGBTQ folks have been oppressed for too long and the days of going along with or ignoring that very real oppression are over. People will no longer be able to hide behind their religion to support oppression.
There are clearly things you just can’t bring yourself to do.
1. Doing what you are asked to do. 2. Specifically criticizing those on your side no matter how vile or vitriolic they are. 3. Acknowledges the reality that sometimes the facts just aren’t what you want them to be.
Please disabuse yourself of the notion that the minor inconvenience of not being able to get your way about bakery goods, is in any way comparable to what those with depression go through on a daily basis.
2. IF there are ANY of those on the Left (and I know there are) who advocate violence, racism or oppression, I VERY SPECIFICALLY condemn them. Of course. Only an idiot would think other wise.
Are you an idiot?
3. The facts are the facts, man.
A. Gay folk have a huge history of oppression, repression, demonization, personal assaults, murder, being kicked out of "christian" homes for being gay, etc. Those are the facts. Do you recognize that reality?
B. For millennia, gay folk have been denied the basic human liberty of free marriage between consenting adults. Not only denied that basic human liberty, but actively demonized and slandered for merely seeking to commit in love in a marriage relationship. The church has too often actively opposed such relationships. Those are facts. Do you recognize that reality?
C. The traditional church is now considered to be in the wrong for their oppressive, slandering behavior towards gay folk, especially on the marriage question. That is no longer going to be tolerated. It is being recognized as being the oppression that it is. Do you recognize those realities and those facts?
D. When you are part of an historically oppressed group (black folk, Jews, gay folk, women, etc), sometimes, laws NEED to be enacted to protect basic liberties that have long been denied. THAT is what is happening when people like the ones in this story seek to end oppression. They are NOT "bullying," but seeking basic rights.
Do you even know what bullying is?
Yes, I recognize the facts pretty well. I recognize reality and the reality is that the church (and I, along with it, at one time) were simply wrong, from a human rights, human liberty, basic decency perspective on the matter of freedom of choice for marriage for all people, including gay folk. In trying to end that horrifying record of oppression, we do not "bully." We seek justice.
MLK was not being a "bully" when he led protests. Other civil rights activists were not "bullies" when they filed suit to seek legal satisfaction for justice demands. These guys simply are not "bullies." You do not understand the definition of the term.
...and maybe that's it. Maybe you're just not thinking about the actual definition of a Bully.
Bully: a blustering, browbeating person; especially : one who is habitually cruel, insulting, or threatening to others who are weaker, smaller, or in some way vulnerable
This "poor vulnerable" cake maker and the HUGE and powerful evangelical/conservative church tradition he is part of is not weaker or smaller than the gay community represented by these two fellas.
These two fellas are NOT being blustering or browbeating.
These two fellas do not show any sign of being "habitually cruel or insulting.
These two fellas are not habitually threatening, but they ARE using the legal system to seek justice.
That is not "threatening" unless you are threatened by justice sought.
In short, you simply are using an entirely inappropriate word in suggesting the actions of these two fellas is "bullying..." For one thing, a traditionally oppressed minority group are not in a position of power. They are, by definition, traditionally "weaker, smaller and more vulnerable."
Ok Dan, why don’t you just take over and move as far from the specifics of this case and this post to the broadest, vaguest, most general, things you can think of.
Yes, I believe that lying to unleash the biased power of the state against those who inconvenience you is bullying.
The problem with your whole harangue, is that it ignores the simple basic facts of this particular case. Despite whatever oppression, either real or imagined, may or may have existed in the past. This particular couple, in this particular instance, we’re not being persecuted or impressed. Instead, they chose to use their inconvenience fortified with lives to engage the power of the state to persecute and impress someone they disagreed with. Added to that was the fact that the state agency that they chose to use for their event data was biased and wielded their power based on their bias. I know it sounds like you were doing this, but I can’t believe that you would. It sounds as if you were advocating engaging the power of the state to a press and persecute the innocent based on real or imagined persecution that has or has not happened yet some point in the past and that may not have even actually involved the plaintiffs in this case.
And I’ll let the fact that you still haven’t pointed out anyone specifically who his comments or actions you find it worthy of Senture. It’s so much easier to hide behind vague, generalized platitudes vanity used to specifically go after the people who are the public face of your political movement. Clearly that’s a step you are not willing to take. Especially in light of the fact that Samantha be spent several minutes on her show yesterday doubling down on what she said while trying to pass it off as an apology.
The lie that the baker would not sell them a cake. Have you read my previous comments, and paid attention to them you would have known this. This is what happens when you’re more interested in putting forth a narrative, Danny and having a dialogue.
Personally I’m fine with the free market system handling these things. People can sell to whoever they choose on whatever basis they choose and the market will dictate success or failure.
1. As long as their refusal is based on the event, not the people. Or, as long as he sells cakes to mixed race couples for other things.
2. Asked and answered multiple times. If you lack the wit to find it on your own, then I can’t help you.
3. Then you have no idea what your talking about, and SCOTUS agrees with me.
No, the baker would have gladly sold them an existing cake for their wedding, as he’d sold numerous other cakes to gay couples. What he wouldn’t do, is create a work of art to commentate the occasion. Even you should be able to differentiate between people and events. This baker gladly served all sorts of people, but politely refused to create specific art works for various events.
I support the right of any business owner to decide not to participate in events they choose not to.
As I pointed out, if someone chose to base their clientele on race, the market will solve the problem all by itself.
Why would you think it’s a positive to use the oppressive, coercive force of the state to compel someone to participate in something they don’t wish to?
I’ve been patient, and replied to your hypotheticals, but no more. If you’re not going to show me the courtesy of dealing with the examples, hypotheticals, and questions I’ve put out there I see no reason to continue to do what you won’t.
Dealing with WHAT examples? What are you even talking about?
Look, you are free to support racists and other oppressors having the right to deny services to minority groups, but most of our society has rejected that model as immoral and unjust. Part of the problem that I don't think people like you "get" is that, when you're dealing with an historically oppressed minority group, it's not as simple as "let the market sort it out..." If we did that in the South in the 1950s, there'd STILL be places where minorities couldn't get service, couldn't buy or rent homes, couldn't live.
Your response is a sort of "let them eat cake!" response that ignores historic realities. Sometimes, when there have been decades, centuries, millennia of abuse and oppression of a group/groups, it's not as simple as letting the market "solve" the problem. The market does not respond all that quickly, quite often. Sometimes, as a matter of justice and morality, our society has decided that The People can opt to deny the "right" to oppress and deny service to oppressed peoples.
I'm sorry if you don't understand or get that, but your approach has "lost" in our culture. It's been deemed an immoral and unjust option and those of us who are concerned about real relief for oppressed people, here and now, not one day in the sky by and by are not willing to let the oppressors have that freedom to oppress.
And denying services to segments of society IS oppression. Denying rights to segments of society IS oppression.
I think it is a very positive to use the positive power of the People (i.e., "the state") to end oppression, by coercion if necessary. It's not "oppression" to create laws that end oppression. That is a very sick, unhealthy way of looking at it and one that lends support and comfort to actual oppressors.
I hope one day you can see that.
As to the wedding cake, I don't think you have your facts correct. I can find no actual news stories that say anything like that.
Here's the story, as I've seen it in multiple actual news sources...
Craig and Mullins decided to get married in Massachusetts, where it was legal. They would return to Denver for a reception, and those helping with the plans suggested they get a cake from Masterpiece Cakeshop.
The couple arrived with Craig’s mother and a book of ideas, but Phillips cut short the meeting as soon as he learned that the cake was to celebrate the couple’s marriage.
Phillips recalled: “Our conversation was just about 20 seconds long. ‘Sorry guys, I don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.’ ”
The couple then learned that Colorado’s public accommodations law specifically prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, and they filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The commission ruled against Phillips, and the appeals court upheld the decision.
From all I've read, he didn't know what the couple wanted on their cake, if anything. He said he'd sell them donuts or other baked goods, just not a "wedding cake..."
From all I've read, those are the facts. Perhaps you've seen different versions of the story... but the question is: Are the versions you've read reliable? Or are they from sources like "focus on the family," as opposed to actual news organizations?
I’ve seen multiple versions of the story that point out that they specifically targeted that bakery knowing he wouldn’t bake cakes to celebrate events that he didn’t support.
FYI, the Supreme Court disagrees with you (7-2) so it wasn’t a party line split.
The unarguable fact remains (it was even in your summary), that he would gladly have sold them any number of baked goods, including cakes, but that he wouldn’t “create” something specific to that particular occasion.
Ultimately the problem is that these two decided not to act like mature adults and find another baker, but instead like petulant children quick to call down the power of the state (biased against the baker, but you probably think that’s just fine) to try to force the baker to do something that violates his religious principles.
As to your first comment/screed, any unbiased reasoning person would understand that you’ve entirely misrepresented what I said, and the fact that you’re too lazy, unmotivated, or witless to find the illustrations/hypotheticals that I presented speaks more eloquently than any BS answers or responses you might come up with.
Yes, the sources I’ve read are reliable, you’re bizarre obsession with blaming “Focus on the Family” (if you’re going to blame them you could at least be accurate in the name of the organization) for everything you perceive to be wrong in the world.
To be clear, I haven’t seen, read, or heard anything from them in more than a decade. So, in the future, you can just know that the response to that idiotic question is no (now and forever) and not have to waste your time asking it.
I’ve seen multiple versions of the story that point out that they specifically targeted that bakery knowing he wouldn’t bake cakes to celebrate events that he didn’t support.
Well of course they did. And good for them! Why wouldn't they target the source of the problem?
Did you know that when Rosa Parks did what she did, that it was part of an organized, coordinated campaign? That it wasn't just a whim of the moment, but part of a plan?
That's what community organizing teaches you, how to effectively effect change against injustice.
Random protests without any planning may be helpful at times to raise awareness in general, but actual change against actual injustice takes some planning and well thought out action.
Have you ever thought that Jesus went to the same temples all the time, every week, all his life? And yet, one day he lashes out against the oppressors and cheaters. Just a random, "I've had enough of this and now I'm REALLY mad!" or part of a plan?
MLK, Gandhi and other organizers learned from Jesus actions and his teachings about effecting positive change and that, it seems to me, is a great good thing. Part of what Jesus was talking about (I think in my opinion) when he told us that we'd do even greater things than he did!
So, what's the problem with selecting one of the problem bakers to make a point against the oppressive practice of marginalizing and demonizing gay folk?
And FYI: The Supreme Court did not reject this argument. They said that the city's planners made errors in how they handled the matter, very specifically NOT that it's okay for businesses to deny business to targeted minorities. Re-read the news from an actual news source.
Ultimately the problem is that these two decided not to act like mature adults and find another baker
I'm truly sorry that you don't understand. I don't know how else to help you.
IF there is a targeted oppressed group who are targeted and oppressed by certain segments of society, then sometimes it takes positive direct action to stop the oppression. And Christians and good people SHOULD be actively working to stop oppression. Not merely turning away and pretending like the problem doesn't exist.
Women did not get the rights they wanted by merely seeking out places to vote that valued their opinions.
Black folk did not gain freedom by merely waiting for benevolent white folk to decide to stop slavery.
Gay folk have not made the great strides they've made against oppression by merely ignoring the bigots.
Positive change for justice takes positive actions.
By all means, when conservative evangelicals are an actual oppressed minority (doubt that it will happen, but just what if...), feel free to take milquetoast non-actions and hope blindly for the best. I will be there taking strong positive action to make change because working for justice on behalf of the oppressed is what good people do. It's what good Christians should do.
Put another way, it is definitively NOT a "mature adult" action to do nothing in the face of injustice. That is the action of a helpless child. To effect positive change for justice, you have to act, not hope based on nothing.
uick to call down the power of the state (biased against the baker, but you probably think that’s just fine)
No, I don't think "biased against individuals is fine..." That is why I support actions to END the biases that exist against gay folk.
Look, it's NOT a bias to say, "You are free to practice your beliefs, but NOT free to oppress others. IF your beliefs require oppressing others, then you lose..."
So no, I don't think bias is fine.
I do think, however, that this irrational martyr complex that many evangelicals suffer from, causing them to hold delusions that "the State" is out to get them and biased against those poor, oppressed fundamentalists is part of the problem in our nation. People have been blinded by this delusion, this irrational fear of oppression, even though white fundamentalists have been having their way for decades/centuries.
I've skipped over the last few comments because it's clear that Dan is refusing to engage honestly, preferring instead to perpetuate lies, such as how this case is akin to racial bias. It is not. Not even close. But let's look at Dan's other lies, beginning with his list from June 7, 2018 at 8:44 AM:
"2. IF there are ANY of those on the Left (and I know there are) who advocate violence, racism or oppression, I VERY SPECIFICALLY condemn them. Of course. Only an idiot would think other wise."
No. You don't. You're quick to exploit every little comment by someone like Trump (no great orator or man of articulation) and then rake him over the coals for it. NEVER have you posted a damned thing about a lefty doing more overtly hateful things...be it politician or other celebrity...UNTIL their sins are brought up repeatedly forcing you to say something akin to the very quote above. You're a liar.
"A. Gay folk have a huge history of oppression, repression, demonization, personal assaults, murder, being kicked out of "christian" homes for being gay, etc. Those are the facts. Do you recognize that reality?"
This isn't reality. It is pro-homosexual hyperbole. Sure, you see some really bad stuff in the Middle East by those lovely muslims. But overall, homosexuals aren't as victimized as homosexuals want everyone to believe...particularly over the last twenty to thirty years. And by the way, few are "kicked out of 'Christian' homes" for simply being homosexual. They are kicked out by refusing to reject acting on their perverse compulsions.
"B. For millennia, gay folk have been denied the basic human liberty of free marriage between consenting adults. Not only denied that basic human liberty, but actively demonized and slandered for merely seeking to commit in love in a marriage relationship. The church has too often actively opposed such relationships"
All sinners are denied the "basic human liberty" of freely and openly engaging in their sin...at least they are not enabled. There is no "slander" in calling them what they are: sinners, mentally/emotionally abnormal and of course, incredibly whiny. They don't seek a marriage relationship. They seek a homosexual relationship to which they inappropriately attach the label "marriage", which is the union of one man and one woman. The church has been absolutely in line with Christian teaching to oppose these relationships, just as they are justified in opposing all sexual immorality. You lie again.
"C. The traditional church is now considered to be in the wrong for their oppressive, slandering behavior towards gay folk, especially on the marriage question."
Only by reprobate and heretical churches, like the one Dan attends. However, preaching God's word is not oppressive, except to the morally corrupt like Dan for whom God's word is inconvenient. The traditional church is sad, but more than willing to bear that cross for God's sake. The so-called "progressive" church isn't concerned with God's sake when the things of the world are so much more important. Dan lies again and goes on to say...
"That is no longer going to be tolerated. It is being recognized as being the oppression that it is."
"No longer going to be tolerated" sounds an awful lot like Dan is looking forward to the traditional church being bullied for abiding the word of God. Calling such devotion "oppression" is oppression itself in a very 1984 sort of way. Which means you're a liar.
"D. When you are part of an historically oppressed group (black folk, Jews, gay folk, women, etc), sometimes, laws NEED to be enacted to protect basic liberties that have long been denied. THAT is what is happening when people like the ones in this story seek to end oppression. They are NOT "bullying," but seeking basic rights."
And of course, Dan's first lie here was grouping homosexuals with blacks, Jews, women and etc., as if the volitional acts of homosexual is akin to skin color, ethnicity or sex. It is not. A woman will always be a woman, but a thief does not need to steal. In the same way, the sexually immoral do not need to engage in sexual immorality, but Dan supports their "right" to do so, as well as their "right" to demand that the rest of us enable them in their sin. No laws are necessary for such, and our culture is not improved upon by virtue of the enactment of such laws that enable immoral sexual behavior. Indeed, we are the worse for it. But Dan's totally down with sexual immorality
In the meantime, these two homosexuals are not seeking to "end oppression". They seek to meet out their own brand of it by hauling a good Christian man into court for the "crime" of refusing to partake in their perversion. They seek to teach Phillips a lesson for daring to withhold his talents from expressing a position he opposes because God opposes it. Dan thinks it's totally cool that the homosexuals oppress moral people because they feel they've been oppressed by moral people opposing their sinful desires. Dan's a liar.
No one has any "right" to demand that merchants provide for absolutely any sinful request one might have. It's absurd and the greater lie is that public accommodation laws provide for the fulfillment of such immoral requests. Dan's cool with such lies, because he favors the immoral over the moral, being immoral himself.
"I recognize reality and the reality is that the church (and I, along with it, at one time) were simply wrong, from a human rights, human liberty, basic decency perspective on the matter of freedom of choice for marriage for all people, including gay folk."
You're a liar. The Church was never wrong for denying the requests of two of the same sex to be regarded as no less moral than opposite sex couples abiding God's will on human sexuality. It's their job, but Dan prefers the lie that they were oppressive for defending God's teachings. Oh sure. The Scriptures teach about liberty, but not without teaching of the consequences of bad choices...self-serving over God-serving choices...among which are rejection by the Church for refusing to repent and instead choosing rebellion against God, which Dan preaches.
"We seek justice."
You're a liar. You seek revenge for suffering the just penalty for clinging to sexual immorality. You seek to oppress those who abide God's clear and unambiguous teaching on human sexuality and marriage. You seek to perpetuate lies about what "rights" are and what justice is.
"This "poor vulnerable" cake maker and the HUGE and powerful evangelical/conservative church tradition he is part of is not weaker or smaller than the gay community represented by these two fellas."
A blatant and clearly obvious lie. The baker was indeed facing both a vastly funded homosexual lobby, which includes a segment of the Colorado government, as well as the entire Democrat Party/leftist portion of the political sphere in this country. The twisting of Constitutional understanding is a difficult thing for a righteous man to overcome and this ruling did not take such men totally off the hook. This ruling did no more than demand that Christians can still be forced so long as they are forced in a nicer manner. There was no protection for the actual enumerated right to free speech and free association of this baker by the ruling handed down in his favor.
But Dan lies again by pretending these two homosexuals are all alone and frightened little mice against the vicious lion known as the true Christian church...which Dan rejects in favor of his false religion. What a load of crap!
"These two fellas are NOT being blustering or browbeating."
Seeking out a known Christian to drag into court isn't browbeating to Dan the liar.
"Are you threatened by the idea of people seeking justice, especially justice for a traditionally oppressed and abused group?"
They are not seeking justice, liar. They are seeking revenge...to make a lesson of people like Phillips. If this were not so, they'd have taken their business elsewhere by acknowledging the right of Phillips to decide how he'll use his talents and creative abilities. The "oppression" and "abuse" homosexuals have experienced was completely self-inflicted by their choice to indulge their compulsions. Those few who remained chaste while trying to live morally, but whose unwanted sinful desires became public knowledge are the only examples of abused homosexuals. The rest are sinners who brought upon themselves their own suffering, in the same way a thief brings about his, or the liar his.
Dan, as long as you are going to insist on constructing your own reality based on lies and falsehood, I can’t help you.
1. They weren’t being oppressed by a baker. Choosing what events one wishes to be associated with is not oppression. 2., Callinf a limited selection of pastry “oppression” demeans actual oppression. 3. No amount of repetition of the basic fact of the case will penetrate your propaganda addled consciousness, so I’m done trying. 4. Apparently my hypotheticals/examples confounded you became you still haven’t addressed them.
Tje more you comment in an attempt to turn these whiny, petulant, bullies into heroes, while refusing to speak out against the specifics of your side’s behavior, the less credibility you have.
It’s interesting that for millennia homosexual sex has been common and accepted in many secular or pagan societies. But I guess ignoring facts is par for the course.
Two guys can’t get their pastries decorated gets Dan all worked, Islamic law mandating death for those engaging in homosexual acts, gets silence.
Trump saying anything Dan can use as a club gets all sorts of sound and fury. Liberals threatening death to conservatives and their children, yawn. Graphic images of bloody violence to Trump prodoced or worn by lebersls, yawn.
Like with so much of Dan’s schtick, it never changes.
What’s interesting about Dan's deification of these guys, is that they lost. SCOTUS shit this idiocy down. Let’s just ignore facts and reality in favor of spin and narrative.
The only help I need I'm getting through Christ's redeeming grace. But I don't celebrate, support, enable or in any way excuse sin...even those I too often commit...in the rebellious and deceitful way in which you, Dan, celebrate, support and enable homosexual behavior. Talk about "sin sick"! You're likely damned already. There's still time, however, so long as you still breathe. Repent, turn to Christ and accept true Christian teaching...not the heresies you've never been able to legitimately rationalize.
I'm sorry, but by your words and actions, it appears you two are just ignorant of the evil you support and promote.
You both are apparently blinded by your sin sickness, denying basic human rights and decency and opting, instead, to be a defender of the oppressors, the liars, the slanderers, the child and women molesters, the actual perverse and evil that is sadly so prevalent amongst this administration and its defenders.
Lord have mercy. May your eyes be opened, your hearts softened, your minds turned.
Us being the problem is clearly the only possible option, there’s no possible way that Dan could in any way be wrong or mistaken in any way.
There is absolutely nothing I’ve mentioned in this thread that is evil, and to muddy the waters by bringing Trump (who I didn’t support) into the conversation is just a way to dodge the fact that Dan can’t specifically condemn the individuals who are the public face of his side.
All the while maintaining a steadfast silence on the epidemic of sexual abuse in our schools. Because the NEA (joined at the hip with the DFL) wouldn’t want to be criticized in any way.
While the baker has found some relief in the SCOTUS ruling, he is not out of the water yet, nor is any other Christ-believing merchant who might be faced with the same homo-fascist behavior. The abuse of public accommodation law in order to force compliance with the demands of the sexually immoral continues. This piece provides insight to the limitations of the ruling, what it doesn't do for Christians and also provides the actual opinion of Justice Kennedy. In short, we find that Christians can continue to be bullied by fascists of the LGBT community so long as the legal/governmental entities employed by the fascists are nice about it. Until SCOTUS addresses the actual 1st Amendment aspects regarding free expression/free association, no Christian is safe from attacks by homosexuals looking to force them to accept their sinful behaviors as normal and moral.
The abuse of public accommodation law for this purpose is why such laws are unconstitutional in the first place. While protecting the "rights" of the depraved to live as they see fit, they force those who do not wish to have anything to do with such people to serve them as if their immorality is of no concern. This serves to force the "morality" of one group upon the rest of society with no concern for how the rest of society views the behavior in question...and it does so with the full force of government...something we were told is not within the government's authority.
There is nothing a merchant need do to accommodate anyone the merchant isn't personally desirous of accommodating. And why should he be so compelled? Because of some other person's notion of "fairness" or "justice"? How so? If one merchant doesn't wish to serve a black man, simply because he's black, I am much more likely to increase my profits by accommodating that black man as other black people will then choose my business over that of the fellow who refused service to that black man. This is a win-win-win situation. I win for the added business of the black man, the other merchant wins because he's not bothered with serving black people and the black people win in two ways: they know where they can be served and where they won't be, saving them time and effort.
As I oppose irrational prejudice, I too benefit by knowing that a racist merchant exists over there, so that I will now patronize the merchant over here instead. That racist will have limited his profit potential, unless the lefties are correct and we are indeed a racist nation. As we know the lefties like to pretend they aren't racist, fear being regarded as such, they will also stop patronizing merchants who prove themselves to be prejudiced and that merchant will likely have to close his business as a result. This is market forces dictating how one should conduct business and it is far more just than having a government entity force merchants to act in a way they might oppose.
Some may wonder about harm caused to one denied. What harm? Because they had to buy their Scotch Tape at a different store? Because they couldn't get their beef jerky? Nonsense. Inconvenience is not the same as harm, and who would want to enrich a merchant who hates them, anyway? Who wouldn't travel a further distance instead? But should a denial of service lead to death or actual harm, there are laws covering negligent homicide, depraved indifference and other similar crimes against humanity that would inform the prejudiced against going too far with their prejudice. But in the normal course of day-to-day business, being denied service is not real problem.
"Right" is a two-way street. But what a right is begins with a true regard for liberty, and that includes the liberty to associate with whomever one chooses and equally, choosing NOT to associate with those with whom one would prefer not associating. And if the Dans of the world believe that the sexually immoral homosexual deserves to be served despite his immorality, the Dans of the world are free to open businesses that cater to or are otherwise open to the sexually immoral. I'll take my business elsewhere like a normal, rational person is free to.
This isn't "sin sick". It's the opposite. It's respect for actual liberty of ALL citizens, not one sick, depraved group of sexually immoral individuals over the rest of society.
"I'm sorry, but by your words and actions, it appears you two are just ignorant of the evil you support and promote."
It only appears that way to you, Dan, because you're sick and depraved and a promoter of sexual immorality. When you reject God in favor of human desire, you have no standing to condescend to those who abide His clear and unambiguous teaching on human sexuality. Only those in rebellion against God would insist that abiding His teachings is oppression, simply because one prefers not to take part in a celebration of sexual depravity and immorality. Refusing to design a cake for a homosexual couple is NOT oppression in any rational sense of the word, so you're a liar by suggesting such a thing. Forcing a baker to use his talents for the purpose IS oppression by definition because it takes the baker's personal beliefs and ability to choose based upon them out of the equation...against his will. The sexually immoral can find an immoral baker who'll take their money. The moral baker is given no choice to dispense with his firmly held beliefs for the benefit of the sexually immoral. You're cool with that because you're a champion for sexual immorality over the will of God.
The "the actual perverse and evil" is you specifically and those you defend...not the Christian merchant who is supposed to have the liberty in America to live his life and run his affairs according to the dictates of his own conscience. YOU are the liar, as are those you defend, as has been proven time and time again despite your petulant "Nyuh uh" response to that proof.
Just read the following that gives a great illustration of the case. It also provides a great teaching moment for Dan in the crafting of an analogy, so it has a lot to offer a morally corrupt person like Dan.
I especially like how the author refers to the homosexuals as having a "pagan" religion. This is true of Dan, even though it bears an incredibly superficial resemblance to Christianity.
Excellent expansion on what Dan chose to misrepresent from earlier. My point was/is.
1. Either there enough racists to allow a racist business owner to run a profitable business catering exclusively to those who agree.
2. There aren’t enough people willing to patronize the racist and he goes out of business.
Either way, who cares. People are going to not patronize businesses who they disagree with. But who is hurt is one racist baker bakes racist cakes for other racists? How are people harmed by avoiding the racist baker? Unfortunately, as Dan has illustrated here, it’s not about protecting the oppressed from harm. It’s about forcing people to do what you want them to do. In other words it’s about using coercion and oppression to allegedly remedy some level of real or imagined past oppression. Makes perfect sense to me.
It is what true liberty looks like, though the intention is that people will act according to long-standing notions of morality and decency. Those like Dan expect that society acts according to newer, self-serving notions that are fraught with problems that inevitably will be borne by all, while at the same time forcing others to give up their own liberty to serve the Dans of the world.
Okay, damn, I'm trying to quit this conversation but the comments you all make... Damn.
Either way, who cares.
Who cares? Who cares???
Who cares if racists or homophobes or sexists who run businesses discriminate against whole groups of people?
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE OPPRESSED AS A RESULT of those businesses, that's who!
I think the failure you and people like you have is that you appear to think that racism, sexism and hatred of gays is just a minor inconvenience... "Oh, it must make you feel bad that these business owners don't like you... I'm so sorry that's difficult for you, but hey! if THAT baker won't sell you a cake, let you eat someone else's cake!"
Just like Marie Antoinette in her bland cultural blindness, you are failing to recognize that there are damning, oppressive, costly, deadly results of the sorts of oppression that happen when business owners can freely discriminate against minority groups of people. People DIED because of racism/sexism/homophobia. People lost HOMES because of racism/sexism/homophobia. People lost family members, got sick, were abused, were raped, were tormented because of these evils.
It's very nice that you have the luxury of viewing these attacks on human rights as sweet little inconveniences, but it's life and fucking death, man.
SURELY you are not this obtuse?
Now, I'm done. I know you two can't hear anything from me. I suggest you talk with gay folk, black folk and women about the history of very real oppression suffered at the hands of those poor business owners who only wanted to be free to be fucking pigs.
Who’s oppressed if a bunch of racists patronize one of their racist buddy’s business, while the vast majority of the rest of the world chooses not to.
Maybe you don’t understand the concept of oppression. Patronizing a business is voluntary, we get to choose where we shop, so by definition there’s not oppression.
In the case at hand, the baker was the one oppressed, by the coercive power of a government agency biased against him. Based on a narrative founded on lies.
Of course your bizarre denial of the reality that these bullies were free to by any existing cake on the bakery shelves, is problematic. Yes, it’s an inconvenience to have to search multiple stores for what you want, but it’s not oppressive.
Unlike you, we’ve heard and responded to virtually everything you’ve said. To bad you won’t do the same before you run away in your faux outrage.
"Who cares if racists or homophobes or sexists who run businesses discriminate against whole groups of people?
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE OPPRESSED AS A RESULT of those businesses, that's who!"
But how exactly are they "oppressed" as a result of those who won't serve them? Are you actually suggesting that all those for whom such "diversity" is a good thing will suddenly begin discriminating if having their liberty returned to them occurs? And if this true liberty should be restored, then "the oppressed" will have no stores at which they can shop for their needs, no homes they can rent or buy, no medical attention for their health needs? Really?
Are you suggesting that they are "oppressed" by being forced to get their Fruit Loops at the market down the street? Are they being oppressed for no longer inadvertently enriching people who hate them?
How is it a matter of life and "f**king" death (Dan embracing grace again, using whatever foul language he chooses at the blogs of others while deleting relevant comments he simply doesn't like at his own as if those relevant comments are "hateful") to allow merchants their liberty to refuse service for any reason of THEIR own choosing?
You're lying by suggesting that such liberty restored to all will result in nothing but death and destruction...fear mongering of the most deceitful and evil kind, simply to accommodate the sexually immoral, which is your great cause in your personal rebellion against God. What's more, this lie actually validates the position that most people oppose the LGBT agenda you think is deserving of God's blessing...that public opinion is NOT turning in their favor after all. Which is it, Dan? Are faithful, Christians who abide God's clearly revealed Will on the subject of human sexuality truly a dwindling population or aren't they? If they are, then restoring liberty to merchants by abolishing the unconstitutional public accommodation laws will have no negative impact on homosexuals whatsoever, instead being a positive, there being so many who embrace their immoral ways in the same corrupt manner as you do.
As to racist and other discriminatory merchants, the likelihood that they all would deny themselves the most profits possible by refusing service to the group(s) they hate is slight, I'd wager. How many would impoverish themselves by not only driving to their competitors the patronage of "the oppressed", but also that of those who disagree with their bigotry? You pretty much have your head up your ass as well as being a liar.
In the meantime, Dan proves it is the left who are the bullies as he once again deletes comments at his blog...comments that are totally on topic and directly shred his position using facts that expose his lies...by establishing a rule on which words are not allowed after the words were used in my comments. They were appropriate, accurate and honestly chosen words that are relevant to the topic of the post, but words he now dishonestly regards as akin to racial epithets. What a freakin' coward and liar.
He’s retreated back behind the walls of his blog where he can control and oppress others.
By the logic he’s been using, a blog is a forum for public comment (much like a retail business), so by denying people their right to avail themselves of that public forum he is oppressing people based on who they are.
Don’t forget, he’s previously argued that conservatism correlated to certain types of brain function (or something like that) so it’s akin to discriminating again people for the way they’re made.
Yes. I read the whole thing. More than once, as I had a two-post response to it. He deleted them because I used the term "illegal immigrant", which is now an epithet akin to saying "ni**er"...because he says so. He's made it clear, as I stated in my first comment, that he's not interested in an honest discussion on the subject. If you had an issue opening the link, he added another in his response to my first comment. You'll see how his drivel is simply exploitative hyperbole with a blatant disregard for the facts.
68 comments:
Is this a reference to the ruling on the Colorado bakery case? If so, true justice would be for these two guys to reimburse the baker for all costs associated with defending himself, including lost income connected to that defense.
Yes, and yes. But, in this climate the fact that the court made the just decision is a good thing.
But, some degree of restitution for his losses would be appropriate.
Now if SCOTUS would address the 1st Amendment aspects of the case, that would make it truly wonderful. I think, also, there should be some way to compel SCOTUS to review and overturn public accommodation law as the infringement of liberty that it is.
No argument. I’m just choosing to focus on the fact that these two guys are bullies, looking for a victim, and trying to use the power of the state to do so.
That and the fact that the entire narrative is built on lies.
A worthy focus indeed and greatly inconvenient for the bullies.
Ever notice how many of the big time public bullies are on the left?
I'm sorry, but I'm laughing out loud at your naivete or blindness, if you truly believe that last...
Jiminy Cricket.
The Left, at its best, is all about fighting bullies. No doubt that there are some bullies on the Left at times, but it's hardly like a common denominator (and indeed, one would have to abandon Left-ish values to embrace being a bully...)
That is, unless you consider standing (like Jesus?) against the bullies and oppressors and abusers, the liars and slanders and rapists of the world to be "bullying" those poor bullies, oppressors and abusers, those murderers and liars and creeps.
Indeed, we DO stand strong against oppressors, but in so doing, we're siding beside and alongside the bullied and oppressed. It's difficult to be a "bully" when you're taking a stand against the bullies (possible, but difficult).
Please, girlfriend.
When did the Right become such lightweights and so feint-hearted?
Your naive, idealistic, self serving response might be somewhat true in the abstract. But in the real world of 2018, you clearly aren’t paying attention to what folks on your side are sayand doing.
The case above is one example, Samantha Bee, Rosie O’Donnell, and Kathy Griffin are others. I’ve repeatedly posted quotes from y’all that you’ve ignored. Have you buried your hard and ignored the attacks on Kanye West?
Hell, you’ve even tried to justify your own bullying, name calling, and vile comments.
Jesus never wished for peoples children to be killed, Jesus never called young vocal black conservatives “nigger”.
Pointing out that there is a large and growing strain of bullying that’s more common, public, and acceptable isn’t “faint hearted”, it’s acknowledging reality. Clearly, a quick perusal if the responses to this leftist bullying will revameal that the targets aren’t lightweight.
I do do so love your repeated attempt to align Jesus with your political views, it’s kind of cute.
While not examples of “bullying” per se, two recent leftist narratives undercut your point.
1. The use of photos from the Obama regime of “immigrant children” in what appear to be cages in stories about the Trump immigration policies.
2. The lies still being perpetrated in the story that is the topic of the post.
I’m pretty sure Jesus wouldn’t have lied to achieve political goals. Of course, I’m pretty sure Jesus wouldn’t be involved in politics anyway.
One final point, if you’d notice, I didn’t suggest that everyone on the left is a bully. I merely asked a question about what appears to be a specific subset of leftists.
But why would you respond to what I actually said, when you can overreact to something I didn’t say. All the while, by your silence, giving support to the very people I’m talking about.
Here's what the fella in this case, Craig, said...
"I want him to have his own religious beliefs and his own experiences and his own ideas,” Craig said later that day in his Denver home, surrounded by his husband, dog and cat.
Then Mullins quickly added: "But you cannot practice your religion in a way that denigrates others or excludes them from full participation in public life.”
THAT is bullying? Damn, you boys are intimidated and "bullied" easily. Talk to some actual gay people... they can tell you about REAL bullying.
It's not like they were asking the "cake artist" to bake them a cake that had a gay couple fornicating drawn on it. It's not like they were demanding that the baker supported the wedding. He sells cakes. They wanted to buy a cake. Expecting a business that SELLS cakes to sell equally to them like they would anyone else is hardly bullying.
This is what I mean. The right has become a bunch of actual snowflakes who melt at the slightest disagreement with their delicate little opinions.
Grow up, boys.
And don't be a complete moron. NO ONE is defending abusive language of the sort you are citing that happens in isolated instances. I do not judge all of the right by the horrible actual racists and abusers and nazis that are represented on the Right and in the GOP and by the God awful things they say (like several of your evil GOP candidates for office right now... pedophiles? Nazis?? Dayum!) and of course, I am not represented by the few on the Left who use abusive language nor do I condone it.
Of course. That goes without saying unless you're a total idiot.
Are you a total idiot?
Dan, if you want to ignore the facts of the case and a cherry pick spin to make yourself feel better that’s fine with me. The fact remains that these bullies chose this particular Baker knowing that he would refuse to bake the cake for the express purpose of unleashing the power of the state to coerce him to do something he did not want to do.
The facts are, Craig, that you all have gotten used to getting your way and you want everyone to bend to your will and when you don't you fuss and whine and moan and the fact is that those days are over.
You all don't get to just get your way every time. You'll have to grow up and act like adults and in a diverse society.
Oppression of others in the name of your religion will not stand.
Oh, and nobody (except the plaintiffs) was attempting to oppress or coerce anyone.
Of course, by your logic, you’d demand that a halal market refusing to cater a bar mitzva or a black baker refusing to bake a cake for KKK founders day oppressive.
Dan's response is truly a willful disregard for reality. In short, he's lying again. By Christians refusing to acknowledge the whiny and science-free claims and demands of the sexually immoral is not akin to bullying in any way. It's as if a mother is a bully for not giving in to the foot stomping of her petulant child.
And just because homosexuals take crap from people, that doesn't mean they aren't guilty of their own brand of bullying, as Craig points out with this case address by SCOTUS, which is but one case of a pair of homosexuals purposely attacking a person of faith and principle simply because they won't play along with their faux-marriage demands. The refusal of merchants to do so does absolutely no harm to these whiny self-abusers as there are plenty of people for whom profit rules over principle, that they have no need to drag good people of solid character through the legal system.
These types of craven despots also bully parents who don't want their children indoctrinated in the public schools...forced to learn proven and self-evident lies about human sexuality...lies Dan is all too willing to support in his personal defense of sexual immorality and rebellion against God.
And if they get their way, other factions of this multi-lettered minority will force the majority to suffer legal consequences for not addressing them by improper and/or invented pronouns.
But none of that is bullying because these freaks are bullied according to Dan.
And that's just this particular faction of leftists. The lefty gun-control buffoons also wish to bully the law-abiding into leaving themselves defenseless. The lefty thieves wish to bully the producers into giving up more of their hard earned money to every and any cause the left dreams up. Bullying, force and coercion are part and parcel of leftist strategy. Dan's a liar to pretend otherwise.
I'm very sorry for the struggles your family is going through. God bless you.
And all of those who struggle.
This case is an about anyone getting their own way, it’s about being free from being coerced to create a specific piece of art to promote a specific event. The Supreme Court decided this 7 to 2, it’s not rocket science. Your unwillingness to except the facts as they exist, and to insist on an alternative set of facts is neither new nor surprising but it is tiresome. The fact that you can’t even muster enough discomfort to specifically call out Those on your side says a great deal about your level of comfort wallowing in filth.
Thanks, but please don’t try to compare the struggle of a child with mental health issues to something as banal as a wedding cake.
Again, the facts are:
A. He would have gladly sold them a cake, as he had done for many others, it WAS NOT a refusal to “sell them a cake”.
B. Instead of doing the free market, adult thing, they chose to use the (biased) power of the state to punish this baker. In this case, the plaintiffs were the ones wielding the power of the state in an attempt to punish and harm someone.
Bullies.
There is, indeed, great pain in the lives of too many of our loved ones with mental health issues. May we all work hard to be in solidarity with them and there for them.
AND there is great pain in the thousands of years of oppression, hatred, demonization, murder, slander and harm caused to our LGBTQ friends... too often at the hands of "the church..." or at least with support from "the church..."
May we all work hard to be in solidarity with all those who have been oppressed, either by the church, or society or by our own minds.
It is not minimizing the plight of those with mental health issues to also work hard to end the oppression of long-demonized minority groups. We can have room for working for support and justice for all those in need of support and justice.
The facts, indisputable facts, are that this court did NOT decide that religious groups can opt to oppress minority groups... they merely pointed out flaws in how THIS case was handled. That is reality.
The indisputable facts are that LGBTQ folks have been oppressed for too long and the days of going along with or ignoring that very real oppression are over. People will no longer be able to hide behind their religion to support oppression.
Again, your family is in my thoughts and prayers.
Dan,
There are clearly things you just can’t bring yourself to do.
1. Doing what you are asked to do.
2. Specifically criticizing those on your side no matter how vile or vitriolic they are.
3. Acknowledges the reality that sometimes the facts just aren’t what you want them to be.
Please disabuse yourself of the notion that the minor inconvenience of not being able to get your way about bakery goods, is in any way comparable to what those with depression go through on a daily basis.
2. IF there are ANY of those on the Left (and I know there are) who advocate violence, racism or oppression, I VERY SPECIFICALLY condemn them. Of course. Only an idiot would think other wise.
Are you an idiot?
3. The facts are the facts, man.
A. Gay folk have a huge history of oppression, repression, demonization, personal assaults, murder, being kicked out of "christian" homes for being gay, etc. Those are the facts. Do you recognize that reality?
B. For millennia, gay folk have been denied the basic human liberty of free marriage between consenting adults. Not only denied that basic human liberty, but actively demonized and slandered for merely seeking to commit in love in a marriage relationship. The church has too often actively opposed such relationships. Those are facts. Do you recognize that reality?
C. The traditional church is now considered to be in the wrong for their oppressive, slandering behavior towards gay folk, especially on the marriage question. That is no longer going to be tolerated. It is being recognized as being the oppression that it is. Do you recognize those realities and those facts?
D. When you are part of an historically oppressed group (black folk, Jews, gay folk, women, etc), sometimes, laws NEED to be enacted to protect basic liberties that have long been denied. THAT is what is happening when people like the ones in this story seek to end oppression. They are NOT "bullying," but seeking basic rights.
Do you even know what bullying is?
Yes, I recognize the facts pretty well. I recognize reality and the reality is that the church (and I, along with it, at one time) were simply wrong, from a human rights, human liberty, basic decency perspective on the matter of freedom of choice for marriage for all people, including gay folk. In trying to end that horrifying record of oppression, we do not "bully." We seek justice.
MLK was not being a "bully" when he led protests. Other civil rights activists were not "bullies" when they filed suit to seek legal satisfaction for justice demands. These guys simply are not "bullies." You do not understand the definition of the term.
...and maybe that's it. Maybe you're just not thinking about the actual definition of a Bully.
Bully: a blustering, browbeating person; especially :
one who is habitually cruel, insulting, or threatening to
others who are weaker, smaller, or in some way vulnerable
This "poor vulnerable" cake maker and the HUGE and powerful evangelical/conservative church tradition he is part of is not weaker or smaller than the gay community represented by these two fellas.
These two fellas are NOT being blustering or browbeating.
These two fellas do not show any sign of being "habitually cruel or insulting.
These two fellas are not habitually threatening, but they ARE using the legal system to seek justice.
That is not "threatening" unless you are threatened by justice sought.
In short, you simply are using an entirely inappropriate word in suggesting the actions of these two fellas is "bullying..." For one thing, a traditionally oppressed minority group are not in a position of power. They are, by definition, traditionally "weaker, smaller and more vulnerable."
I hope that helps.
Are you threatened by the idea of people seeking justice, especially justice for a traditionally oppressed and abused group?
Ok Dan, why don’t you just take over and move as far from the specifics of this case and this post to the broadest, vaguest, most general, things you can think of.
Yes, I believe that lying to unleash the biased power of the state against those who inconvenience you is bullying.
Not according to the definition of the word in the English language.
I'm curious... what "lie" do you think Craig, Mullins have offered? I can find no mention of lies in any stories I've read about the case.
And, what? You're making the claim that the State is biased against conservative Christianity? Some deep state conspiracy?
The problem with your whole harangue, is that it ignores the simple basic facts of this particular case. Despite whatever oppression, either real or imagined, may or may have existed in the past. This particular couple, in this particular instance, we’re not being persecuted or impressed. Instead, they chose to use their inconvenience fortified with lives to engage the power of the state to persecute and impress someone they disagreed with. Added to that was the fact that the state agency that they chose to use for their event data was biased and wielded their power based on their bias. I know it sounds like you were doing this, but I can’t believe that you would. It sounds as if you were advocating engaging the power of the state to a press and persecute the innocent based on real or imagined persecution that has or has not happened yet some point in the past and that may not have even actually involved the plaintiffs in this case.
And I’ll let the fact that you still haven’t pointed out anyone specifically who his comments or actions you find it worthy of Senture. It’s so much easier to hide behind vague, generalized platitudes vanity used to specifically go after the people who are the public face of your political movement. Clearly that’s a step you are not willing to take. Especially in light of the fact that Samantha be spent several minutes on her show yesterday doubling down on what she said while trying to pass it off as an apology.
The lie that the baker would not sell them a cake. Have you read my previous comments, and paid attention to them you would have known this. This is what happens when you’re more interested in putting forth a narrative, Danny and having a dialogue.
Than in having a dialogue
1. Do you support the "right" of anti-miscegenist bakers to refuse to bake wedding cakes for a mixed race wedding?
2. What lie?
3. It sounds like you're not familiar with the problems associated with the evils associated with oppression of certain demonized groups. Tis a shame.
The baker would literally not sell them a cake for their wedding. No lie.
The lie, then, is in lying about this couple. Shame.
Do you support the "right" of racist Christian conservative bakers to refuse service to black customers?
Personally I’m fine with the free market system handling these things. People can sell to whoever they choose on whatever basis they choose and the market will dictate success or failure.
1. As long as their refusal is based on the event, not the people. Or, as long as he sells cakes to mixed race couples for other things.
2. Asked and answered multiple times. If you lack the wit to find it on your own, then I can’t help you.
3. Then you have no idea what your talking about, and SCOTUS agrees with me.
No, the baker would have gladly sold them an existing cake for their wedding, as he’d sold numerous other cakes to gay couples. What he wouldn’t do, is create a work of art to commentate the occasion. Even you should be able to differentiate between people and events. This baker gladly served all sorts of people, but politely refused to create specific art works for various events.
I support the right of any business owner to decide not to participate in events they choose not to.
As I pointed out, if someone chose to base their clientele on race, the market will solve the problem all by itself.
Why would you think it’s a positive to use the oppressive, coercive force of the state to compel someone to participate in something they don’t wish to?
I’ve been patient, and replied to your hypotheticals, but no more. If you’re not going to show me the courtesy of dealing with the examples, hypotheticals, and questions I’ve put out there I see no reason to continue to do what you won’t.
Dealing with WHAT examples? What are you even talking about?
Look, you are free to support racists and other oppressors having the right to deny services to minority groups, but most of our society has rejected that model as immoral and unjust. Part of the problem that I don't think people like you "get" is that, when you're dealing with an historically oppressed minority group, it's not as simple as "let the market sort it out..." If we did that in the South in the 1950s, there'd STILL be places where minorities couldn't get service, couldn't buy or rent homes, couldn't live.
Your response is a sort of "let them eat cake!" response that ignores historic realities. Sometimes, when there have been decades, centuries, millennia of abuse and oppression of a group/groups, it's not as simple as letting the market "solve" the problem. The market does not respond all that quickly, quite often. Sometimes, as a matter of justice and morality, our society has decided that The People can opt to deny the "right" to oppress and deny service to oppressed peoples.
I'm sorry if you don't understand or get that, but your approach has "lost" in our culture. It's been deemed an immoral and unjust option and those of us who are concerned about real relief for oppressed people, here and now, not one day in the sky by and by are not willing to let the oppressors have that freedom to oppress.
And denying services to segments of society IS oppression. Denying rights to segments of society IS oppression.
I think it is a very positive to use the positive power of the People (i.e., "the state") to end oppression, by coercion if necessary. It's not "oppression" to create laws that end oppression. That is a very sick, unhealthy way of looking at it and one that lends support and comfort to actual oppressors.
I hope one day you can see that.
As to the wedding cake, I don't think you have your facts correct. I can find no actual news stories that say anything like that.
Here's the story, as I've seen it in multiple actual news sources...
Craig and Mullins decided to get married in Massachusetts, where it was legal. They would return to Denver for a reception, and those helping with the plans suggested they get a cake from Masterpiece Cakeshop.
The couple arrived with Craig’s mother and a book of ideas, but Phillips cut short the meeting as soon as he learned that the cake was to celebrate the couple’s marriage.
Phillips recalled: “Our conversation was just about 20 seconds long. ‘Sorry guys, I don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.’ ”
The couple then learned that Colorado’s public accommodations law specifically prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, and they filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The commission ruled against Phillips, and the appeals court upheld the decision.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-baker-who-would-not-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple/2018/06/04/50c68cf8-6802-11e8-bea7-c8eb28bc52b1_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ebf4e79a635d
From all I've read, he didn't know what the couple wanted on their cake, if anything. He said he'd sell them donuts or other baked goods, just not a "wedding cake..."
From all I've read, those are the facts. Perhaps you've seen different versions of the story... but the question is: Are the versions you've read reliable? Or are they from sources like "focus on the family," as opposed to actual news organizations?
I’ve seen multiple versions of the story that point out that they specifically targeted that bakery knowing he wouldn’t bake cakes to celebrate events that he didn’t support.
FYI, the Supreme Court disagrees with you (7-2) so it wasn’t a party line split.
The unarguable fact remains (it was even in your summary), that he would gladly have sold them any number of baked goods, including cakes, but that he wouldn’t “create” something specific to that particular occasion.
Ultimately the problem is that these two decided not to act like mature adults and find another baker, but instead like petulant children quick to call down the power of the state (biased against the baker, but you probably think that’s just fine) to try to force the baker to do something that violates his religious principles.
As to your first comment/screed, any unbiased reasoning person would understand that you’ve entirely misrepresented what I said, and the fact that you’re too lazy, unmotivated, or witless to find the illustrations/hypotheticals that I presented speaks more eloquently than any BS answers or responses you might come up with.
Yes, the sources I’ve read are reliable, you’re bizarre obsession with blaming “Focus on the Family” (if you’re going to blame them you could at least be accurate in the name of the organization) for everything you perceive to be wrong in the world.
To be clear, I haven’t seen, read, or heard anything from them in more than a decade. So, in the future, you can just know that the response to that idiotic question is no (now and forever) and not have to waste your time asking it.
I’ve seen multiple versions of the story that point out that they specifically targeted that bakery knowing he wouldn’t bake cakes to celebrate events that he didn’t support.
Well of course they did. And good for them! Why wouldn't they target the source of the problem?
Did you know that when Rosa Parks did what she did, that it was part of an organized, coordinated campaign? That it wasn't just a whim of the moment, but part of a plan?
That's what community organizing teaches you, how to effectively effect change against injustice.
Random protests without any planning may be helpful at times to raise awareness in general, but actual change against actual injustice takes some planning and well thought out action.
Have you ever thought that Jesus went to the same temples all the time, every week, all his life? And yet, one day he lashes out against the oppressors and cheaters. Just a random, "I've had enough of this and now I'm REALLY mad!" or part of a plan?
MLK, Gandhi and other organizers learned from Jesus actions and his teachings about effecting positive change and that, it seems to me, is a great good thing. Part of what Jesus was talking about (I think in my opinion) when he told us that we'd do even greater things than he did!
So, what's the problem with selecting one of the problem bakers to make a point against the oppressive practice of marginalizing and demonizing gay folk?
And FYI: The Supreme Court did not reject this argument. They said that the city's planners made errors in how they handled the matter, very specifically NOT that it's okay for businesses to deny business to targeted minorities. Re-read the news from an actual news source.
Ultimately the problem is that these two decided not to act like mature adults and find another baker
I'm truly sorry that you don't understand. I don't know how else to help you.
IF there is a targeted oppressed group who are targeted and oppressed by certain segments of society, then sometimes it takes positive direct action to stop the oppression. And Christians and good people SHOULD be actively working to stop oppression. Not merely turning away and pretending like the problem doesn't exist.
Women did not get the rights they wanted by merely seeking out places to vote that valued their opinions.
Black folk did not gain freedom by merely waiting for benevolent white folk to decide to stop slavery.
Gay folk have not made the great strides they've made against oppression by merely ignoring the bigots.
Positive change for justice takes positive actions.
By all means, when conservative evangelicals are an actual oppressed minority (doubt that it will happen, but just what if...), feel free to take milquetoast non-actions and hope blindly for the best. I will be there taking strong positive action to make change because working for justice on behalf of the oppressed is what good people do. It's what good Christians should do.
Peace, Craig.
Put another way, it is definitively NOT a "mature adult" action to do nothing in the face of injustice. That is the action of a helpless child. To effect positive change for justice, you have to act, not hope based on nothing.
uick to call down the power of the state (biased against the baker, but you probably think that’s just fine)
No, I don't think "biased against individuals is fine..." That is why I support actions to END the biases that exist against gay folk.
Look, it's NOT a bias to say, "You are free to practice your beliefs, but NOT free to oppress others. IF your beliefs require oppressing others, then you lose..."
So no, I don't think bias is fine.
I do think, however, that this irrational martyr complex that many evangelicals suffer from, causing them to hold delusions that "the State" is out to get them and biased against those poor, oppressed fundamentalists is part of the problem in our nation. People have been blinded by this delusion, this irrational fear of oppression, even though white fundamentalists have been having their way for decades/centuries.
Again, I pray for peace for you and yours.
I've skipped over the last few comments because it's clear that Dan is refusing to engage honestly, preferring instead to perpetuate lies, such as how this case is akin to racial bias. It is not. Not even close. But let's look at Dan's other lies, beginning with his list from June 7, 2018 at 8:44 AM:
"2. IF there are ANY of those on the Left (and I know there are) who advocate violence, racism or oppression, I VERY SPECIFICALLY condemn them. Of course. Only an idiot would think other wise."
No. You don't. You're quick to exploit every little comment by someone like Trump (no great orator or man of articulation) and then rake him over the coals for it. NEVER have you posted a damned thing about a lefty doing more overtly hateful things...be it politician or other celebrity...UNTIL their sins are brought up repeatedly forcing you to say something akin to the very quote above. You're a liar.
"A. Gay folk have a huge history of oppression, repression, demonization, personal assaults, murder, being kicked out of "christian" homes for being gay, etc. Those are the facts. Do you recognize that reality?"
This isn't reality. It is pro-homosexual hyperbole. Sure, you see some really bad stuff in the Middle East by those lovely muslims. But overall, homosexuals aren't as victimized as homosexuals want everyone to believe...particularly over the last twenty to thirty years. And by the way, few are "kicked out of 'Christian' homes" for simply being homosexual. They are kicked out by refusing to reject acting on their perverse compulsions.
"B. For millennia, gay folk have been denied the basic human liberty of free marriage between consenting adults. Not only denied that basic human liberty, but actively demonized and slandered for merely seeking to commit in love in a marriage relationship. The church has too often actively opposed such relationships"
All sinners are denied the "basic human liberty" of freely and openly engaging in their sin...at least they are not enabled. There is no "slander" in calling them what they are: sinners, mentally/emotionally abnormal and of course, incredibly whiny. They don't seek a marriage relationship. They seek a homosexual relationship to which they inappropriately attach the label "marriage", which is the union of one man and one woman. The church has been absolutely in line with Christian teaching to oppose these relationships, just as they are justified in opposing all sexual immorality. You lie again.
"C. The traditional church is now considered to be in the wrong for their oppressive, slandering behavior towards gay folk, especially on the marriage question."
Only by reprobate and heretical churches, like the one Dan attends. However, preaching God's word is not oppressive, except to the morally corrupt like Dan for whom God's word is inconvenient. The traditional church is sad, but more than willing to bear that cross for God's sake. The so-called "progressive" church isn't concerned with God's sake when the things of the world are so much more important. Dan lies again and goes on to say...
"That is no longer going to be tolerated. It is being recognized as being the oppression that it is."
"No longer going to be tolerated" sounds an awful lot like Dan is looking forward to the traditional church being bullied for abiding the word of God. Calling such devotion "oppression" is oppression itself in a very 1984 sort of way. Which means you're a liar.
continuing...
"D. When you are part of an historically oppressed group (black folk, Jews, gay folk, women, etc), sometimes, laws NEED to be enacted to protect basic liberties that have long been denied. THAT is what is happening when people like the ones in this story seek to end oppression. They are NOT "bullying," but seeking basic rights."
And of course, Dan's first lie here was grouping homosexuals with blacks, Jews, women and etc., as if the volitional acts of homosexual is akin to skin color, ethnicity or sex. It is not. A woman will always be a woman, but a thief does not need to steal. In the same way, the sexually immoral do not need to engage in sexual immorality, but Dan supports their "right" to do so, as well as their "right" to demand that the rest of us enable them in their sin. No laws are necessary for such, and our culture is not improved upon by virtue of the enactment of such laws that enable immoral sexual behavior. Indeed, we are the worse for it. But Dan's totally down with sexual immorality
In the meantime, these two homosexuals are not seeking to "end oppression". They seek to meet out their own brand of it by hauling a good Christian man into court for the "crime" of refusing to partake in their perversion. They seek to teach Phillips a lesson for daring to withhold his talents from expressing a position he opposes because God opposes it. Dan thinks it's totally cool that the homosexuals oppress moral people because they feel they've been oppressed by moral people opposing their sinful desires. Dan's a liar.
No one has any "right" to demand that merchants provide for absolutely any sinful request one might have. It's absurd and the greater lie is that public accommodation laws provide for the fulfillment of such immoral requests. Dan's cool with such lies, because he favors the immoral over the moral, being immoral himself.
"I recognize reality and the reality is that the church (and I, along with it, at one time) were simply wrong, from a human rights, human liberty, basic decency perspective on the matter of freedom of choice for marriage for all people, including gay folk."
You're a liar. The Church was never wrong for denying the requests of two of the same sex to be regarded as no less moral than opposite sex couples abiding God's will on human sexuality. It's their job, but Dan prefers the lie that they were oppressive for defending God's teachings. Oh sure. The Scriptures teach about liberty, but not without teaching of the consequences of bad choices...self-serving over God-serving choices...among which are rejection by the Church for refusing to repent and instead choosing rebellion against God, which Dan preaches.
"We seek justice."
You're a liar. You seek revenge for suffering the just penalty for clinging to sexual immorality. You seek to oppress those who abide God's clear and unambiguous teaching on human sexuality and marriage. You seek to perpetuate lies about what "rights" are and what justice is.
continuing...
"This "poor vulnerable" cake maker and the HUGE and powerful evangelical/conservative church tradition he is part of is not weaker or smaller than the gay community represented by these two fellas."
A blatant and clearly obvious lie. The baker was indeed facing both a vastly funded homosexual lobby, which includes a segment of the Colorado government, as well as the entire Democrat Party/leftist portion of the political sphere in this country. The twisting of Constitutional understanding is a difficult thing for a righteous man to overcome and this ruling did not take such men totally off the hook. This ruling did no more than demand that Christians can still be forced so long as they are forced in a nicer manner. There was no protection for the actual enumerated right to free speech and free association of this baker by the ruling handed down in his favor.
But Dan lies again by pretending these two homosexuals are all alone and frightened little mice against the vicious lion known as the true Christian church...which Dan rejects in favor of his false religion. What a load of crap!
"These two fellas are NOT being blustering or browbeating."
Seeking out a known Christian to drag into court isn't browbeating to Dan the liar.
"Are you threatened by the idea of people seeking justice, especially justice for a traditionally oppressed and abused group?"
They are not seeking justice, liar. They are seeking revenge...to make a lesson of people like Phillips. If this were not so, they'd have taken their business elsewhere by acknowledging the right of Phillips to decide how he'll use his talents and creative abilities. The "oppression" and "abuse" homosexuals have experienced was completely self-inflicted by their choice to indulge their compulsions. Those few who remained chaste while trying to live morally, but whose unwanted sinful desires became public knowledge are the only examples of abused homosexuals. The rest are sinners who brought upon themselves their own suffering, in the same way a thief brings about his, or the liar his.
More later.
Marshall, you are sin sick. Get help.
Dan, as long as you are going to insist on constructing your own reality based on lies and falsehood, I can’t help you.
1. They weren’t being oppressed by a baker. Choosing what events one wishes to be associated with is not oppression.
2., Callinf a limited selection of pastry “oppression” demeans actual oppression.
3. No amount of repetition of the basic fact of the case will penetrate your propaganda addled consciousness, so I’m done trying.
4. Apparently my hypotheticals/examples confounded you became you still haven’t addressed them.
Tje more you comment in an attempt to turn these whiny, petulant, bullies into heroes, while refusing to speak out against the specifics of your side’s behavior, the less credibility you have.
It’s interesting that for millennia homosexual sex has been common and accepted in many secular or pagan societies. But I guess ignoring facts is par for the course.
Two guys can’t get their pastries decorated gets Dan all worked, Islamic law mandating death for those engaging in homosexual acts, gets silence.
Trump saying anything Dan can use as a club gets all sorts of sound and fury. Liberals threatening death to conservatives and their children, yawn. Graphic images of bloody violence to Trump prodoced or worn by lebersls, yawn.
Like with so much of Dan’s schtick, it never changes.
What’s interesting about Dan's deification of these guys, is that they lost. SCOTUS shit this idiocy down. Let’s just ignore facts and reality in favor of spin and narrative.
The only help I need I'm getting through Christ's redeeming grace. But I don't celebrate, support, enable or in any way excuse sin...even those I too often commit...in the rebellious and deceitful way in which you, Dan, celebrate, support and enable homosexual behavior. Talk about "sin sick"! You're likely damned already. There's still time, however, so long as you still breathe. Repent, turn to Christ and accept true Christian teaching...not the heresies you've never been able to legitimately rationalize.
I'm sorry, but by your words and actions, it appears you two are just ignorant of the evil you support and promote.
You both are apparently blinded by your sin sickness, denying basic human rights and decency and opting, instead, to be a defender of the oppressors, the liars, the slanderers, the child and women molesters, the actual perverse and evil that is sadly so prevalent amongst this administration and its defenders.
Lord have mercy. May your eyes be opened, your hearts softened, your minds turned.
In Jesus Name,
Amen.
Us being the problem is clearly the only possible option, there’s no possible way that Dan could in any way be wrong or mistaken in any way.
There is absolutely nothing I’ve mentioned in this thread that is evil, and to muddy the waters by bringing Trump (who I didn’t support) into the conversation is just a way to dodge the fact that Dan can’t specifically condemn the individuals who are the public face of his side.
All the while maintaining a steadfast silence on the epidemic of sexual abuse in our schools. Because the NEA (joined at the hip with the DFL) wouldn’t want to be criticized in any way.
While the baker has found some relief in the SCOTUS ruling, he is not out of the water yet, nor is any other Christ-believing merchant who might be faced with the same homo-fascist behavior. The abuse of public accommodation law in order to force compliance with the demands of the sexually immoral continues. This piece provides insight to the limitations of the ruling, what it doesn't do for Christians and also provides the actual opinion of Justice Kennedy. In short, we find that Christians can continue to be bullied by fascists of the LGBT community so long as the legal/governmental entities employed by the fascists are nice about it. Until SCOTUS addresses the actual 1st Amendment aspects regarding free expression/free association, no Christian is safe from attacks by homosexuals looking to force them to accept their sinful behaviors as normal and moral.
The abuse of public accommodation law for this purpose is why such laws are unconstitutional in the first place. While protecting the "rights" of the depraved to live as they see fit, they force those who do not wish to have anything to do with such people to serve them as if their immorality is of no concern. This serves to force the "morality" of one group upon the rest of society with no concern for how the rest of society views the behavior in question...and it does so with the full force of government...something we were told is not within the government's authority.
There is nothing a merchant need do to accommodate anyone the merchant isn't personally desirous of accommodating. And why should he be so compelled? Because of some other person's notion of "fairness" or "justice"? How so? If one merchant doesn't wish to serve a black man, simply because he's black, I am much more likely to increase my profits by accommodating that black man as other black people will then choose my business over that of the fellow who refused service to that black man. This is a win-win-win situation. I win for the added business of the black man, the other merchant wins because he's not bothered with serving black people and the black people win in two ways: they know where they can be served and where they won't be, saving them time and effort.
continuing...
As I oppose irrational prejudice, I too benefit by knowing that a racist merchant exists over there, so that I will now patronize the merchant over here instead. That racist will have limited his profit potential, unless the lefties are correct and we are indeed a racist nation. As we know the lefties like to pretend they aren't racist, fear being regarded as such, they will also stop patronizing merchants who prove themselves to be prejudiced and that merchant will likely have to close his business as a result. This is market forces dictating how one should conduct business and it is far more just than having a government entity force merchants to act in a way they might oppose.
Some may wonder about harm caused to one denied. What harm? Because they had to buy their Scotch Tape at a different store? Because they couldn't get their beef jerky? Nonsense. Inconvenience is not the same as harm, and who would want to enrich a merchant who hates them, anyway? Who wouldn't travel a further distance instead? But should a denial of service lead to death or actual harm, there are laws covering negligent homicide, depraved indifference and other similar crimes against humanity that would inform the prejudiced against going too far with their prejudice. But in the normal course of day-to-day business, being denied service is not real problem.
"Right" is a two-way street. But what a right is begins with a true regard for liberty, and that includes the liberty to associate with whomever one chooses and equally, choosing NOT to associate with those with whom one would prefer not associating. And if the Dans of the world believe that the sexually immoral homosexual deserves to be served despite his immorality, the Dans of the world are free to open businesses that cater to or are otherwise open to the sexually immoral. I'll take my business elsewhere like a normal, rational person is free to.
This isn't "sin sick". It's the opposite. It's respect for actual liberty of ALL citizens, not one sick, depraved group of sexually immoral individuals over the rest of society.
"I'm sorry, but by your words and actions, it appears you two are just ignorant of the evil you support and promote."
It only appears that way to you, Dan, because you're sick and depraved and a promoter of sexual immorality. When you reject God in favor of human desire, you have no standing to condescend to those who abide His clear and unambiguous teaching on human sexuality. Only those in rebellion against God would insist that abiding His teachings is oppression, simply because one prefers not to take part in a celebration of sexual depravity and immorality. Refusing to design a cake for a homosexual couple is NOT oppression in any rational sense of the word, so you're a liar by suggesting such a thing. Forcing a baker to use his talents for the purpose IS oppression by definition because it takes the baker's personal beliefs and ability to choose based upon them out of the equation...against his will. The sexually immoral can find an immoral baker who'll take their money. The moral baker is given no choice to dispense with his firmly held beliefs for the benefit of the sexually immoral. You're cool with that because you're a champion for sexual immorality over the will of God.
The "the actual perverse and evil" is you specifically and those you defend...not the Christian merchant who is supposed to have the liberty in America to live his life and run his affairs according to the dictates of his own conscience. YOU are the liar, as are those you defend, as has been proven time and time again despite your petulant "Nyuh uh" response to that proof.
Just read the following that gives a great illustration of the case. It also provides a great teaching moment for Dan in the crafting of an analogy, so it has a lot to offer a morally corrupt person like Dan.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/06/what_the_nba_can_teach_justice_kennedy.html
I especially like how the author refers to the homosexuals as having a "pagan" religion. This is true of Dan, even though it bears an incredibly superficial resemblance to Christianity.
Excellent expansion on what Dan chose to misrepresent from earlier. My point was/is.
1. Either there enough racists to allow a racist business owner to run a profitable business catering exclusively to those who agree.
2. There aren’t enough people willing to patronize the racist and he goes out of business.
Either way, who cares. People are going to not patronize businesses who they disagree with. But who is hurt is one racist baker bakes racist cakes for other racists? How are people harmed by avoiding the racist baker? Unfortunately, as Dan has illustrated here, it’s not about protecting the oppressed from harm. It’s about forcing people to do what you want them to do. In other words it’s about using coercion and oppression to allegedly remedy some level of real or imagined past oppression. Makes perfect sense to me.
It is what true liberty looks like, though the intention is that people will act according to long-standing notions of morality and decency. Those like Dan expect that society acts according to newer, self-serving notions that are fraught with problems that inevitably will be borne by all, while at the same time forcing others to give up their own liberty to serve the Dans of the world.
Okay, damn, I'm trying to quit this conversation but the comments you all make... Damn.
Either way, who cares.
Who cares? Who cares???
Who cares if racists or homophobes or sexists who run businesses discriminate against whole groups of people?
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE OPPRESSED AS A RESULT of those businesses, that's who!
I think the failure you and people like you have is that you appear to think that racism, sexism and hatred of gays is just a minor inconvenience... "Oh, it must make you feel bad that these business owners don't like you... I'm so sorry that's difficult for you, but hey! if THAT baker won't sell you a cake, let you eat someone else's cake!"
Just like Marie Antoinette in her bland cultural blindness, you are failing to recognize that there are damning, oppressive, costly, deadly results of the sorts of oppression that happen when business owners can freely discriminate against minority groups of people. People DIED because of racism/sexism/homophobia. People lost HOMES because of racism/sexism/homophobia. People lost family members, got sick, were abused, were raped, were tormented because of these evils.
It's very nice that you have the luxury of viewing these attacks on human rights as sweet little inconveniences, but it's life and fucking death, man.
SURELY you are not this obtuse?
Now, I'm done. I know you two can't hear anything from me. I suggest you talk with gay folk, black folk and women about the history of very real oppression suffered at the hands of those poor business owners who only wanted to be free to be fucking pigs.
Damn.
Who’s oppressed if a bunch of racists patronize one of their racist buddy’s business, while the vast majority of the rest of the world chooses not to.
Maybe you don’t understand the concept of oppression. Patronizing a business is voluntary, we get to choose where we shop, so by definition there’s not oppression.
In the case at hand, the baker was the one oppressed, by the coercive power of a government agency biased against him. Based on a narrative founded on lies.
Of course your bizarre denial of the reality that these bullies were free to by any existing cake on the bakery shelves, is problematic. Yes, it’s an inconvenience to have to search multiple stores for what you want, but it’s not oppressive.
Unlike you, we’ve heard and responded to virtually everything you’ve said. To bad you won’t do the same before you run away in your faux outrage.
But thank you again for helping to make my point about the incivility of y’all on the left.
"Who cares if racists or homophobes or sexists who run businesses discriminate against whole groups of people?
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE OPPRESSED AS A RESULT of those businesses, that's who!"
But how exactly are they "oppressed" as a result of those who won't serve them? Are you actually suggesting that all those for whom such "diversity" is a good thing will suddenly begin discriminating if having their liberty returned to them occurs? And if this true liberty should be restored, then "the oppressed" will have no stores at which they can shop for their needs, no homes they can rent or buy, no medical attention for their health needs? Really?
Are you suggesting that they are "oppressed" by being forced to get their Fruit Loops at the market down the street? Are they being oppressed for no longer inadvertently enriching people who hate them?
How is it a matter of life and "f**king" death (Dan embracing grace again, using whatever foul language he chooses at the blogs of others while deleting relevant comments he simply doesn't like at his own as if those relevant comments are "hateful") to allow merchants their liberty to refuse service for any reason of THEIR own choosing?
You're lying by suggesting that such liberty restored to all will result in nothing but death and destruction...fear mongering of the most deceitful and evil kind, simply to accommodate the sexually immoral, which is your great cause in your personal rebellion against God. What's more, this lie actually validates the position that most people oppose the LGBT agenda you think is deserving of God's blessing...that public opinion is NOT turning in their favor after all. Which is it, Dan? Are faithful, Christians who abide God's clearly revealed Will on the subject of human sexuality truly a dwindling population or aren't they? If they are, then restoring liberty to merchants by abolishing the unconstitutional public accommodation laws will have no negative impact on homosexuals whatsoever, instead being a positive, there being so many who embrace their immoral ways in the same corrupt manner as you do.
As to racist and other discriminatory merchants, the likelihood that they all would deny themselves the most profits possible by refusing service to the group(s) they hate is slight, I'd wager. How many would impoverish themselves by not only driving to their competitors the patronage of "the oppressed", but also that of those who disagree with their bigotry? You pretty much have your head up your ass as well as being a liar.
In the meantime, Dan proves it is the left who are the bullies as he once again deletes comments at his blog...comments that are totally on topic and directly shred his position using facts that expose his lies...by establishing a rule on which words are not allowed after the words were used in my comments. They were appropriate, accurate and honestly chosen words that are relevant to the topic of the post, but words he now dishonestly regards as akin to racial epithets. What a freakin' coward and liar.
He’s retreated back behind the walls of his blog where he can control and oppress others.
By the logic he’s been using, a blog is a forum for public comment (much like a retail business), so by denying people their right to avail themselves of that public forum he is oppressing people based on who they are.
Don’t forget, he’s previously argued that conservatism correlated to certain types of brain function (or something like that) so it’s akin to discriminating again people for the way they’re made.
Oh yeah. The hypocrisy of that false Christian is obvious. Too bad he's so cowardly.
I don’t think he’s read the entire article he linked to, did you?
If he’ll be so gracious as to provide some details of his claims, I’ll probably address the issues I see here, it’ll be easier.
Yes. I read the whole thing. More than once, as I had a two-post response to it. He deleted them because I used the term "illegal immigrant", which is now an epithet akin to saying "ni**er"...because he says so. He's made it clear, as I stated in my first comment, that he's not interested in an honest discussion on the subject. If you had an issue opening the link, he added another in his response to my first comment. You'll see how his drivel is simply exploitative hyperbole with a blatant disregard for the facts.
Post a Comment