Fun Discuss By Briggs on April 8, 2015 • ( 69 Comments ) I’m on the road—and in a chair. Share this:FacebookRedditTwitterPinterestEmailMoreTumblrLinkedInWhatsAppPrint Related Categories: Fun
Nice Hat. (Now some words to make the post longer.)
Been a long time since I’ve seen a brick road.
George the Martian relaxing by the pool. Now we know the probability of that.
What a tough life there!
Dangit! I wanted to spy on what you are reading. Care to fill us in (but not while lounging, of course)?
Beowulf – that’s a thousand words there (and he’s counting on us to fill in any words that are missing)
James – only works on Blade Runner – did you ever read Dick’s “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep”? Or any of his stuff for that matter? One of Dick’s creations (not certain which one now – novel? novella?), Had the Earth in the grip of Super Global Warming – to go outside was to die
I am a fan of Phillip K. Dick. And an unreasonably huge fan of Blade Runner. I’m not sure if I’ve read the one where to go outside was to die. I might have, but forgotten it since it’s been a while. The only full length things of his that I read are counter-clock world, DADOES, and A Scanner Darkly (also with a great movie adaptation).
Nothing unreasonable about being an huge fan of Blade Runner. I recently picked up the 25th Anniversary DVD and spent an entire day watching different flavors, commentary, etc. They had three different commentaries by personnel of different aspects of the show.
What I loved was that at least two of the commentaries (including the writers) confirmed the story that Rutger Hauer had in fact suggested the ending of his monologue as his character died.
I only recently read “Do Androids…”, it was in a 4-story set which also included “The Man in the High Castle”. I distinctly remember as a young child in 60’s hearing the underlying premise of that story without knowing who or what. So I was amazed to finally read it 50 years later.
Still haven’t found the “Total Recall” source material by Dick
The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch (1965) was the runaway Global Warming story although the story was NOT about Global Warming in general. It was in the four story collection which included Androids, High Castle and Ubik
Isn’t bottled water evil?
It looks like The Villages. Somewhere in Florida or the south (Cabbage Palm or large Palmetto over the fence.)
I just saw a PSA featuring the woman who plays “Bones” who was relating how having a child changes your perspective on things that are important including “NOT buying bottled water”
So yes – bottled water evil
Did you receive any funding from Big Oil for this vacation? Why are you evading that question?
Get some sunblock on those burning legs right away!
I have that same DVD set. Love it.
The source material for Total Recall is the short story “We Can Remember It For You Wholesale”. Also an excellent story!
As I sit here in the East and watch the
global warmingsnow falling outside my window while estimating if I can get out tomorrow morning without shoveling, I cannot help but wonder why someone isn’t helping that poor man who has fallen through the ice – he is so cold that his skin has turned red.
On the difference in morality of the participation of selling to someone while knowing that he would use it to murder someone and to sell a cake for a gay wedding.
1) The murder
The sin is the act of murder, which is the 6th commandment. So selling a gun to a buyer that informs of is intent to use the gun to kill someone makes the seller an accomplices of the murder.
2) The wedding
Homosexuality is not even part of the ten commandments while adultery is. Yet adultery which is very common is never mentioned by the religious crowd as a reason for denial of service. Yet, in Leviticus they are both reserved the same treatment:
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”
“If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.””
Putting the hypocrisy of the religious crowd aside. The sin is the sexual act not the wedding. One cannot claim that he participate in a sinful act by baking a cake because the wedding is not a sinful act.
Unlike the gun which is the reason of the death, the cake, flowers, or even the wedding do not cause or facilitate the sexual act.
In the end the person who deny the service is the one committing the worst sin in judging its neighbor.
“You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.”
I see the serial wedding
trollbore is back.
the cake, flowers, or even the wedding do not cause or facilitate the sexual act.
Abetting: something I am unfortunately doing with this post.
Reminds me of the time this person fed the Canadian on the right who subsequently followed us all over the park constantly poking around for attention. So I’ll stop but just like Deidre I couldn’t resist the temptation to do it once. They’re so cute.
The troll obviously lacks the good moral sense to see that celebrating a sinful act, especially to promote the act as good and not sinful, is sinful as well.
If i wanted a cake with ‘Go Uganda! Kill all the gays!’ written on it, all would object and say that such a celebration is wrong! But how could it be? By your reasoning the cake isn!t helping to commit murder in Uganda, so it must be fine.
Gimme a break!
I’m glad you struck out troll. Briggs’ “Discuss” to me meant “unthreaded” and “open season”. If you’re bored, that’s yours to own. You weren’t bored with the April 4th post discussion where there’s over 100 comments (most between you & Sylvain).
I think you know that I have problems with any Biblically minded person “choosing” to act in such a manner (regarding the RFRA matter at hand, that is).
In Jesus’ sermon on the mount, as I understand it, where you can be conscripted by a Roman soldier to help him carry gear for a mile, Jesus said to walk another mile. Pretty certain carrying the mile was anathema let alone two.
If you’re told to bake a cake, bake some muffins as well.
You mention your right to bring your conscientious objections before a “secular” court. Doesn’t the NT talk about NOT “suing” a brother in “secular” court over matters of Faith. How much more should you NOT bring out matters of Faith in dealing with a NON-brother in a “secular” court.
You’ve stated many times that the RFRA isn’t necessary, why defend it?
The whole “bake two” thing that’s going around is odd. Stand To Reason addressed it recently, and I’ll just repeat their (I think correct) response.
If someone comes to you and says “Help me murder a Muslim”, should we help them murder two? Of course not! The “walk two miles” can’t, at first glance, be applied to helping someone do something immoral. Are Christians who are outside an abortion clinic supposed to help abort two babies if someone entering asks them to help abort 1? Imagine that evil that would spread through the world if, but for the asking, Christians had to comply!
More of the passage is:
Notice that it uses words like ‘sue’ and ‘force’. I’d need to read more to figure out the finer distinctions of that passage. I think though, at first glance, it is hard to believe that ‘going two miles’ would ask us to willfully comply with immoral acts.
You’ve stated many times that the RFRA isn’t necessary, why defend it?
I’m not actually . I’m objecting to the misstatements about the Indiana version including the idea it’s all about wedding cakes (which morphed into pizzas based on one persons answer to a question). I think I said a statute reaffirming a portion of the First Amendment shouldn’t have been necessary but apparently it is. In fact, the federal one was supposed to be general but the court ruling was it should be left up to the states to adopt it.
You weren’t bored with the April 4th
But I am now. We should give it a rest for a while. Our Canadian goose is just repeating what he’s already said while adding nothing new. There was already threads for comments on this. I see what he’s doing as trolling. YMMV.
I’m just trying to figure out why “baking a cake” is immoral.
And actually, I’m told, there’s more to the walk a mile then another. The soldier can only ASK/CONSCRIPT for a mile, he can get in trouble for making someone walk two.
It’s still problematical for me bringing matters of faith before a secular court.
It’s why this Christianity thing IS so hard.
My premise from the beginning is that a SSA couple should be the discriminators! They should be finding some one that will put their heart into the SSA project!
If the SSA is looking for a quick buck in suing, there IS way out for the Christian rather than to comply. Accept the consequences.
Not to keep on this but: Doesn’t the NT talk about NOT “suing” a brother in “secular” court over matters of Faith. is a misstatement. One is not suing over matters of faith per se but is petitioning the court to keep someone from trampling on the right to exercise it. That’s a secular matter.
This is my faith:
37 Jesus replied, ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Love him with all your mind.’—(Deuteronomy 6:5) 38 This is the first and most important commandment. 39 And the second is like it. ‘Love your neighbor as you love yourself.’—(Leviticus 19:18) 40 Everything that is written in the Law and the Prophets is based on these two commandments.”
The only possible way ANY ONE could trample on my exercise of that faith, is to kill me. No legislation nor court nor administrator could prevent the exercise of the above.
I’ll bake the cake – And would probably get sued over the results.
This is my faith .. No legislation nor court nor administrator could prevent the exercise of the above.
That’s nice but does that have to be true for others? Interesting to know perhaps but otherwise what’s the point?
I’m just trying to figure out why “baking a cake” is immoral.
It’s not in itself but it is seen by some as supporting an immoral act . If you believe something as immoral then supporting that something is also immoral.
Wedding cakes, flower arrangements and photographs are not essential to a wedding. Even so, there are NO gay cake bakers, florists or photographers that can do these things? Not a single LGBT is smart enough to cash in on this or maybe just volunteer to provide these things?
It is, in fact, an effort to force someone to provide a service or sell against their wishes and beliefs. Try buying something from B&H Photo during Passover or the Sabbath. You can’t. Are they not discriminating against all non-Jewish religions with this practice? How is this any different? Should they be taken to court over it?
It seems there REAL reason for this hullabaloo is to force acceptance. You think what I’m doing is IMMORAL It’s clearly not enough that you can’t stop me from doing this thing. I’m going to MAKE you support me doing it. Hah Hah Hah! Effectively, thought control.
I see this as a direct attack on the foundations of this country. One of the pillars of that foundation is religious freedom.
As I said, this is getting quite boring. Did these questions and concerns suddenly occur to you? Where were you last week?
That’s strange. I missed the closing i-tag on my second quote. Instead of italicizing the whole post only the last couple of sentences were affected. Also the second break before them was dropped. A similar thing happened the other day where I intended to italicize two paragraphs but it wasn’t applied to the beginning of the second but was applied somewhere in the middle seemingly at random.
I was there last week. You shut me down on one of the posts … I’m guessing you’re some flavor of Christianity … so now I just wanted to understand your heart as I’m still trying to understand my own.
Peace out? as the kids say? Is that what the kids really say?
I can never get the HTML tags to work, either.
You shut me down on one of the posts
Sorry, John, it was not my intention to do so. I’ll try to watch my tone in the future.
I was raised as a Christian but I’m not a religious person. I’m not even against same sex marriage although I would have preferred it to be called a union instead. There are economic advantages that I don’t see should be denied to anyone. I AM totally against someone rubbing it in anyone’s face just to make a point — particularly by using something as trivial as a cake or floral arrangement to do so.
For some reason, it’s not enough that someone has to tolerate it. Hell, no! They must actively support it — or else! And support it in a way that tramples on the very first right in the very first amendment of the Constitution. That’s where I draw the line. I see no compelling reason to allow it.
Thanks for that.
“Shut down” perhaps wasn’t the correct term, I just felt like I should stop,
Back in the 70’s when equal housing (for homosexuals [it WAS the term back then]) was all the rage, I used to take the “Devil’s Advocate” position with a friend of mine. It can be hard to keep that up.
Come on guys, Sylvian’s a real believer in individual freedom. I’m sure if he had a cake shop in the US, he’d rush right back to the kitchen to bake a wedding cake that said “Together forever, just like the 2nd amendment and the NRA”. He’d even make cute side cakes shaped like Smith and Wesson 50 caliber handguns. Maybe even throw in wedding napkings using modified 50 caliber shells as napkin rings, just to show his support for individual rights. The mints, of course, would feature targets showing the couples’ extreme prowess with weapons—all 10 shots are head shots. Just helping a couple celebrate their beliefs, you know.
Maybe some .38 appetizers served in little waist holsters as well. Uh yup!
A long time ago (80’s) there was a restaurant just outside of DC that served drinks in a Mason jar. The dessert menu was delivered in a violin case carried by a 30’s progressive wearing a fedora (looking a lot like the two gun wielding gents in the this blog’s previous background) who said: “Da boss wantsa know if ya got any last requests.”
Worked there. Should be a bang up hit at Sylvain’s party.
DAV: Yes! I like the .38 appetizers served in waist holders! Perfect.
Other then the mints, which I would offer circle targets instead of heads, yes I would agree to do it.
You seem well versed in the Bible:
Where do your beliefs originate?
And where do they come from today?
God? The government?
Supernatural? or Natural?
You obviously lack the common sense to realize that baking a cake as nothing to with free speech.
Azucar bakery accepted to bake a cake in the shape of the bible, but refused to inscribe the verse of Leviticus. In the end, there was a cake offered the client refused it.
All the bakeries that lost their discrimination cases refused to bake any cake. A cake by itself is not a message. So to bake a cake does not condone the ceremony.
Examples where a bakers would be able to refuse to bake a cake is the cake in phallic shape. But a wedding cake is not a message.
My parents are catholics so I am too but I have quit practicing a long time ago, around age 12, mainly because of the hypocrisy. I believe in God not religion.
My spiritual work is pretty much done in my own thought and readings.
Google and openbible helps to find verses from the verses.
Sylvain: I don’t want circles, I want heads. Either you provide what I want or I’m suing you for not providing service. You don’t get to decide here—you are a business, remember?
You are welcome to sue me but you will lose. I do not refuse you services I just refused to do something that is not in my catalog. I don’t have mints in the forms of a head.
If you sell custom mints, which I would not be at your establishment if it did not clearly so state on the door, you can create the mints. You make the mint, a custom stencil just like you do for the two men you are selling wedding mints to, and you make the mints. If you don’t have mints, I’ll settle for the stencil on the cake then. Same saying, just add the stencil off to the side. You DO sell custom cakes.
I always feel like I’m transparent and everybody knows me.
But don’t know if I’ve said my background or not. Not sure if any one cares.
I grew up Catholic although my father hadn’t completed classes or failed to convert; left it to up my mother.
My leaving happened in my late teens or 20’s. I tried to leave it all behind but couldn’t, really. Today I consider myself a once and future Catholic.
Today I find the Bible fascinating after I’d given it up as more or less worthless 20 years ago.
Let’s say that the head shaped mint is part of my catalog which I usually sell for halloween. I would have to sell you the mint in the shape of head, but I could refused to do head wound.
If I never did any head shape mint then I can reserve the right to refuse a specific shape.
Notice that I don’t refuse services I only refuse the part that concerns speech.
Sylvain: It’s NOT a head wound. It’s a bullet hole in a paper target. Really, you need to get a grip here. (And people think gun owners are out of touch with reality.)
A further example of your “logic”:
Okay, I have decided to “marry” four women—not with a “real” license, of course. That would be illegal. Just a church wedding, like the poor homosexuals were forced to settle for in the past, until the country wakes up to the rights of the polygamists to have multiple wives. I want a cake with 4 brides and one groom on the top. I also want “Love you forever, Sheila, Sandy, Rosy and Bess”. I’ll need cupcakes with all our kids names on them so they are included in the ceremony.
IF you put figurines on any cakes you sell, you MUST put mine on as requested. IF you put any custom lettering, you MUST put mine on as requested. Sure, you can skip figurines and custom lettering, watching your customers go to Walmart instead because if you can’t get custom, why go to an expensive shop? I might even stand outside your shop (in the street of course, never on your property) with maps to Walmart so no one pays for your off-the-shelf products at higher prices than they should.
And that’s how businesses should work in Sylvain’s world.
Second question: If this is about “rights”, why do gay couples not go to Muslim bakeries, demand a cake and sue if one is not forthcoming? If it was about rights, that would be the most fertile ground. Oh, wait, it’s not about rights…….
“It’s NOT a head wound. It’s a bullet hole in a paper target. ”
Sorry I was seeing something more sinister than that. That’s not a big deal.
But to push the situation further:
1) The costumer ask for a mint with the head of the president printed on it with a hole in the head. Then its not discrimination.
2) The baker is anti-gun for any reason. He could not refuse to bake the cake unless its in the shape of a gun. But he could refuse to put the message on the cake and other gun themed requested.
If the baker only and ever had figurine showing a groom and his bride touching hand, hugging or kissing. He doesn’t have in stock two grooms or two brides. Then he doesn’t have to put them on the top of the cake. If he possess separate figurine of bride and groom, then he has to sell two of but doesn’t have to put in on the cake.
He can not be force to put any writing on the cake.
However if he ever provided a gay themed wedding cake, even if it was for an anti-gay rally who made the cake explode then he would have to provide a gay themed wedding cake for a gay couple.
There are some subtleties that you seem not to grasp.
A cake by itself is not a message. The phallic, breast or gun shape of a cake does become speech.
The writing is a message protected by free speech, or not to speech. The figurine is a message that the baker does not have to provide.
In the case Azucar they offered to sell a cake in a shape of a bible without the verses, while the bakers that lost their cases in court refused to bake any cake.
The Muslim bakeries.
You probably refers to this:
Notice that in the video Crowder insist on the writing. It seems that most Muslim baker would not refuse to bake the cake, but to put the writing. They have the right to refuse the writing, not to make the cake.
This is a test
This is a test
I am getting an internal error while posting
It’s working again.
All I wanted to say was Durn them blockquotes
Because most no’s were because of the writing, they did not refuse the cake.
Any of the people I asked don’t remember a wedding cake having any writing on it.
Good illustration of the point –
Actually it a very bad illustration of the point. Crowder does not understand the issue at all. Which is why the religious right loses in court.
Nice video. Hitler couldn’t have said it better:
And force businesses to do what we want . All hope is lost. We will have no sprinkle cake. No calazones, no part phallic party favors favors. Businesses will be able to operate freely. It’ll be just like America.
Precisely the issue. We have people using the law to bully public acceptance. They really don’t want the cake. If they did they could have simply asked for one without revealing what it was for. They wanted to make an issue of it. Oh wait! They wanted writing and stuff which Sylvain said was OK to refuse.
As I said before: It isn’t enough that you tolerate something. I’m going to MAKE you publicly support it! BWAH! HA! HA!.
I’d be very careful buying anything from a bakery or food place that I sued or threatened to sue or even one where I caused a fuss. No telling what extra ingredients might be added in the future.
Other than the very despicable and disgusting ways of portraying Nazis as pro-gay while gays were one of the group of put in the gas chambers.
“They wanted writing and stuff which Sylvain said was OK to refuse.”
Do you contend that all cake taste the same? That any bakery use the same recipe for their cake?
A cake from bakery A can only be bought at bakery A. Bakery B has different recipe, might be farther away or might not have the form in its catalog or the artistry that bakery A has, which is why the customer would chose one bakery over the other.
The writing can be done anywhere. The figurine can be bought anywhere.
Azukar Bakery: No discrimination
“Marjorie Silva, the owner of the bakery, told Jack that she would make him the bible-shaped cakes, but would not decorate them with the biblical verses and the image of the groomsmen that he requested. Instead, she offered to provide him with icing and a pastry bag so he could write or draw whatever messages he wished on the cakes.”
Result: Offered a cake in the shape in the form of bible, but refuse message. No discrimination.
Refusal to bake any cake regardless of the inscription.
Result: No cake or any message offered. Discrimination.
On this link you have 15 cases brought before court for discrimination.
Please find one where the baker offered to bake the cake but refuse the message and was still condemned.
Sylvain: No one committing atrocities or violations of rights under Hitler or Stalin were stopped. The autrocities continued until a war ended the mess. The fact that the government is beating up and terrorizing a religious group in violation of the first amendment does not make it right, unless that worked for Hitler and Stalin. Might makes right is not a defensible moral position unless you loved all the blood-shed in history.
“The fact that the government is beating up and terrorizing a religious group in violation of the first amendment does not make it right, ”
1) Are you really comparing what Staline and Hitler to the situation in the US.
2) The court is the arbiter in legal matters. That one does not agree with there decision is one thing. Everyone is free to criticize their ruling, but everyone has to abide by the ruling.
Absolutely. The school yard bully beats up those who can’t fight back for the pleasure of it and merely because he can. He persecutes his victims just to demonstrate who is the boss. It’s reprehensible.
Starting a fight over a cake isn’t any different. It’s using force to show who’s boss and amounts to religious persecution. The so-called “tolerant” people aren’t tolerant at all. They are hypocrites.
Sylvain is anything but tolerant. He supports bullying for bullying’s sake.
Here we had a government last year that wanted to create a secular chart for the state, which would have interdicted any government official to wear a rigious sign on its person when representing the government, including jewelry in form of a cross.
In different blogs, I stated how this law was unconstitutional and discriminated against religion. That a state is secular does in no way mean that it’s people are not religious. That someone wear religious object while representing the state does not impede the secularity of the state. Only is action can.
Having lost two friends to bullying I have a very good idea of what bullying is. And using the court to have you freedom and liberty protected is not bullying.
The bully in this case is the one that the courts decides deny the right to others.
Sylvain: Finally, you hit the target–with Hitler at least. Let’s see. Narcissistic dictator type who choses a religious group as the target of his hatred to unite his country behind. Yep, that’s what we see here.
Again, if this is about rights, why aren’t the gays hitting muslin bakeries? Or is DAV right and these people are cowards counting on Christians not to retaliate?
I fail to see how your “tolerance” of cross-wearing in any way helps justify your bullying of Christian wedding cake bakers. I am happy, however, that you do see there are times when bullying and intolerance are happening and are directed at religious groups.
We can no longer have any religious activities, except Muslim, in schools, government, etc. There is NO religious freedom in the US any more courtesy of King Obama and the gutless Congress that will not do their job and stop his unconstitutional behaviour. You can be a immoral, nasty, greedy human being and demand your way in everything, but you can’t refuse to bake a cake for someone because you actually have morals and are trying to live by them. It is sad that less than this was happening when the Revolutionary War started. It’s also sad Americans to happily threw away the freedoms they had.
Sorry—bullying by court is NO different than beating people up in the alley. Gays target these bakeries to “get even with and destroy” those who dare call them wrong. It’s no accident they end up at certain bakeries. Teens commit suicide due to cyber bullying. Bullying is bullying. Demanding your way and attacking the weak is what progressivism is all about, and that, my dearest Sylvain, is BULLYING. You can rename it all you want, but it’s still bullying.
Non-Christians denomination represents what part of the U.S. population., less than 20%. How does the dictator in this case the courts rally the country against the vast majority unless a majority of Christian don’t agree with the extremist.
What make you think that the don’t go to Muslim bakeries. Most likely they go and get a cake withou any writing on it, thus having no causes to sue.
Can you pinpoint where Obama’s action are unconstitutional? Unconstitutional would be to disregard a judgment from the SCOTUS? Can you show some instances?
Can you provide example of religious activity that were denied to Christians? These could be great cases to afirm religious right.
So in your mind the gays are the all powerful in the USA. When you think your right is infringed upon in a society of law, you have the right to exercise your freedom and sue the person that wronged you. If your lawsuit was unfounded the judge will dismiss the case and most likely have the person who launched the lawsuit pay all the court fee. In these cases the court said that the lawsuit was justified and that the plaintive had been wronged.,
There is no bullying in that.
It’s pointless trying to engage Sylvain. What he has done here is no different than what the PSI trolls do: voluminously repost what has already been said over and over; wait for a response and repeat and/or respond with reams of irrelevant chatter when caught in logical error. The CAGW trolls do this as well. Syvain continues with the practice.. One can only wonder if he thinks mindless repetition means he is right.
He has claimed previously that somehow the Indiana RFRA is a license to discriminate but can’t show how. Instead he waves his hands and says it’s in there somewhere.
He claims that RFRA is ineffective but rails against it regardless. Why? I guess because he likes to rant. Also he seems to be looking for validation while simultaneously attempting to portray himself as an authority.
He apparently lacks the ability to conduct a logical argument so things like his illogical seeking of validity while claiming authority aren’t surprising.
His operating motto is: Cognito ergo rectus sum (see the authority link). Responding to him is a waste of time.
I’m sure you have already figured this out.
Sylvain: “How does the dictator rally the country”? Try reading Saul Alinsky or a good psychology text. It’s really quite easy to brainwash/con people who believe their lives are controlled by others.
I have yet to see a Muslim baker sued, though numerous Christian ones have been.
SCOTUS nullified 13 Obama declarations to date.
So far, I would definitely say the gays are all-powerful. They can go in and shut down a Christian business but Christians cannot shut down LGBT activities. The gays have all the rights.
You live in fantasy land concerning courts and rights.
DAV: I know it’s pointless, but at the moment I’m medicated for pain and am just engaging Sylvain because he’s there. I figure if I go ahead and engage him he can at least air his views and I’m not bothered by anything he says and I don’t care if he learns.
OK you’re a glutton for punishment. Hearing the same thing over and over is getting to me.There are far move interesting reruns on TV. But, maybe he’ll come up with something novel. Maybe it will even be logical. I think it will be a long time coming though so I’m opting for the TV reruns.
I’d agree with DAV that I failed to get Sylvain to understand any kind of argument, no matter how many times or how simply it was presented to him. I’m not talking about agreeing with an argument. I’m talking about being able to understand the simplest of ground rules; first indicate you understand the premise of an argument, whether you agree with it or not. All I ever got was voluminously chaotic stream-of-consciousness.
My general rule of thumb is give up on debating someone once you’ve established they don’t pass the Turing Test.
“ELIZA has almost no intelligence whatsoever, only tricks like string substitution and canned responses based on keywords. Yet when the original ELIZA first appeared in the 60’s, some people actually mistook her for human. The illusion of intelligence works best, however, if you limit your conversation to talking about yourself and your life.”
“Can you provide example of religious activity that were denied to Christians? These could be great cases to affirm religious right.”
I see that you did not provide any example. There must be some.
“It’s really quite easy to brainwash/con people who believe their lives are controlled by others.”
Yes, the American religious right is showing everyday how it is easy to be con. How many are listening to Limbaugh or Fox claiming they are spoking the truth when they rarely ever are.
“I have yet to see a Muslim baker sued, though numerous Christian ones have been.”
Most likely because they make the cake, which prevent any reason for a lawsuit. Although how often do you deal with a Muslim business?
“SCOTUS nullified 13 Obama declarations to date.”
Can you point to a link that what enumerate them.
Also did Obama respect or refuse to abide by the court decision. How many red states had laws nullified in the past few years. Yet no one calls for the impeachment.
If Obama did refuse to abide by the court decision he would be impeach fast enough. The last two president who disregarded the constitution the most were Reagan with the Iran-Contra scandal, and Bush for lying about the Iraq war. Yet, no one on the right called for impeachment.
Other than that the Court is there to arbiter the understanding of laws and constitution. It is normal to have disagreement about the application of laws. I can only think of 2 instances where the court disagreed with Obama:
The recess appointment at the NDLR and the Hobby Lobby case, which was considered a stretch in other countries. Of course, Obama is not the one making laws. His only real power is to Veto it, which he did only 4 times, and none were reversed. Reagan had 78 veto. The last time a president issued less veto was either because he died in office or only got one terms in office.
The number of executive order by Obama is about 33 a year, less than Bush’s 36 per year, or much less than Reagan’s 48 per year. The last time a president issued less executive order was the first term by Cleveland in the 1880s.
You have a very strange conception of what a dictator or king is.
“So far, I would definitely say the gays are all-powerful. They can go in and shut down a Christian business but Christians cannot shut down LGBT activities. The gays have all the rights.
You live in fantasy land concerning courts and rights.”
Who lives in fantasy land, the one the court agree with or the one that sees a vast conspiracy. All the court says is that religious people cannot use religion to beat on people or to deny service.
When I you read that a religious person was denied services because of his religion?
When was a person fired because of its religion?
Gays don’t have any right that other people don’t have. Individuals are equals under the law. The practice of religion cannot be forced upon other. When denying services based on religion the belief is transfered to the other person.
What you want to keep is the right to discriminate. Which is exactly what the Nazi were doing.
The bakery did offer to provide icing, etc., however this is very, very similar to the “separate but equal” treatment of blacks. If the baker agrees with you, he puts the writing on, and if not, you have to. Separate but equal.
No, I will not waste my time posting links on SCOTUS and POTUS. You know what they are or if not, you’re arguing from complete ignorance and don’t bother to actually follow US news. Either way, I will not waste my time.
Who lives in a fantasy land? The one that agrees with the court. Goodness, Hitler would have loved you. So obedient to the law, irregardless of the morality of the law. The perfect little sheeple to use and dispose of.
No, the Nazi’s were not discriminating. They were taking a group of religious individuals, making them a target and using this to try and take over the world. Which is exactly what is being done to Christians.
I’m sure your GUESS about why Muslim bakeries are not sued is very, very good. I was really looking for evidence that said bakeries actually do make these cakes and have not refused to do so.
Impeached????? You have no understanding of the US government and how it works. None. Actually, there was a very short attempt at impeaching Bush.
Are you for or against letting muslim pray in school
I don’t see it has a big problem as long as there is no room reserved exclusively to Muslim. I also have no problem with school decorating for religious Holliday like Christmas or Easter. But people of other faith should be able to do so too.
About the second link:
It would be nice if there were more details on the Ireland case. Did the baker refuse to cake a cake even without the massage.
I don’t know much about Ireland law but in North America (our laws and system are very similar) the baker would not have to put the message on the cake. Most likely the court will state that the bakery owner would have to bake a cake but will accord him the right to refuse to put the message.
As for the interview, if the denial of service was total than the guy as case to take the baker to court.
Sadly for the interviewer he called and recorded someone in Florida where it is illegal to record a conversation without the accord of all who participated in the conversation.
I’ll answer the rest of your post tomorrow.
“Who lives in a fantasy land? The one that agrees with the court. Goodness, Hitler would have loved you. So obedient to the law, irregardless of the morality of the law. The perfect little sheeple to use and dispose of.”
What you are really saying is that it is okay to disregard the law. Then what is your problem with Obama. He should disregard the court decision.
“3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category, such as race or gender, rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice.”
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. (2011). Retrieved April 12 2015 from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/discrimination
What the Nazi did resemble very much to the definition of discrimination.
“I’m sure your GUESS about why Muslim bakeries are not sued is very, very good. I was really looking for evidence that said bakeries actually do make these cakes and have not refused to do so.”
Tell me if you find that one of the no’s was when he ask for simply a cake without a message.
“Crowder was met with many “no’s” and he says even many “yes’s,” However, this video is mainly focusing on the several bakeries that gave him the run-around and turned him away and told him to try this other bakery or that other bakery. The interesting thing about these bakers who said “no” is that they each seemed to do their best to be as polite as possible about it. No matter what he requested or asked for, they just told him they could not do it and most (if not all) of them directed him to other bakeries that might be able to assist him.”
I’m teaching driving to a devout Muslim and there is no problem making caking cake for gay wedding, may the message though.