Conquer Club

Symmetry wrote:

2dimes wrote:I don't know if "in mind" would be accurate. I tend to remember when I come back here.

Fair enough, 2D. I mostly don't remember what he's having a tantrum about either. Figuring out what he's angry about is difficult.

Dukasaur wrote:After a colour change, smart editors always allow a line of white space for the eye to reset before resuming text.

Thorthoth wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

2dimes wrote:I don't know if "in mind" would be accurate. I tend to remember when I come back here.

Fair enough, 2D. I mostly don't remember what he's having a tantrum about either. Figuring out what he's angry about is difficult.

I'm not angry, I'm invigorated by declaring the correct viewpoint in these otherwise lame forum debates.
On the other hand, it is you Symbo, who is seething with ill-concealed passive-aggressive rage.

Symmetry wrote:I've read and argued for and against this. I guess for me the issues divide into-

1) Is this really a religious issue? Plenty of religious folks follow the same faith without it being an issue, after all. It's not a key tenet.
2) Is it a political issue? Are they arguing that it's a political opinion that they oppose, however offensive?

With 1, I'm wary of people who mask bigotry under the cloak of religion. I doubt they'd be happy to bake a gay wedding cake if they had some sort of crisis of faith, and likewise, I doubt that baking a gay wedding cake would be something that broke their faith.

With 2- I have more sympathy. I don't agree with their opinion, but it is a political stance.

mrswdk wrote:One they quite rightly got arrested for. Can't break the law just because you disagree with it.

Thorthoth wrote:

mrswdk wrote:One they quite rightly got arrested for. Can't break the law just because you disagree with it.

mrswdk wrote:

Thorthoth wrote:

mrswdk wrote:One they quite rightly got arrested for. Can't break the law just because you disagree with it.

mrswdk wrote:One they quite rightly got arrested for. Can't break the law just because you disagree with it.

show

mrswdk wrote:Yeah, those darned dictators. What kind of whack job both creates a law and consistently enforces it?

show

Woodruff wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I've read and argued for and against this. I guess for me the issues divide into-

1) Is this really a religious issue? Plenty of religious folks follow the same faith without it being an issue, after all. It's not a key tenet.
2) Is it a political issue? Are they arguing that it's a political opinion that they oppose, however offensive?

With 1, I'm wary of people who mask bigotry under the cloak of religion. I doubt they'd be happy to bake a gay wedding cake if they had some sort of crisis of faith, and likewise, I doubt that baking a gay wedding cake would be something that broke their faith.

With 2- I have more sympathy. I don't agree with their opinion, but it is a political stance.

Regarding #2...blacks drinking at their own water fountain was a political stance as well...

mrswdk wrote:So you support a baker’s right to discriminate against gay people through their actions, but you don’t support CCers’ right to discriminate against gay people through their words?

You've spun yourself into quite a web here.

Symmetry wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I've read and argued for and against this. I guess for me the issues divide into-

1) Is this really a religious issue? Plenty of religious folks follow the same faith without it being an issue, after all. It's not a key tenet.
2) Is it a political issue? Are they arguing that it's a political opinion that they oppose, however offensive?

With 1, I'm wary of people who mask bigotry under the cloak of religion. I doubt they'd be happy to bake a gay wedding cake if they had some sort of crisis of faith, and likewise, I doubt that baking a gay wedding cake would be something that broke their faith.

With 2- I have more sympathy. I don't agree with their opinion, but it is a political stance.

Regarding #2...blacks drinking at their own water fountain was a political stance as well...

I don't agree with it, I just have more sympathy with the way the argument is framed. For me, the difference between this and the "water-fountain" would be that there is no definitive segregation. If they're willing to make cakes for gay folk, but not for gay weddings, then that's a political issue.

If they won't make cakes for gay people at all, then I think you've got a fair comparison with water fountains.

Woodruff wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I've read and argued for and against this. I guess for me the issues divide into-

1) Is this really a religious issue? Plenty of religious folks follow the same faith without it being an issue, after all. It's not a key tenet.
2) Is it a political issue? Are they arguing that it's a political opinion that they oppose, however offensive?

With 1, I'm wary of people who mask bigotry under the cloak of religion. I doubt they'd be happy to bake a gay wedding cake if they had some sort of crisis of faith, and likewise, I doubt that baking a gay wedding cake would be something that broke their faith.

With 2- I have more sympathy. I don't agree with their opinion, but it is a political stance.

Regarding #2...blacks drinking at their own water fountain was a political stance as well...

I don't agree with it, I just have more sympathy with the way the argument is framed. For me, the difference between this and the "water-fountain" would be that there is no definitive segregation. If they're willing to make cakes for gay folk, but not for gay weddings, then that's a political issue.

If they won't make cakes for gay people at all, then I think you've got a fair comparison with water fountains.

n
Except in some areas, the service provider may be the only one available. What then? For example, should some ISP decide that
they're not going to serve homosexuals, and that ISP is the only one in the area. Still not problematic for you? What if it's a grocery
store instead of an ISP?

Symmetry wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I've read and argued for and against this. I guess for me the issues divide into-

1) Is this really a religious issue? Plenty of religious folks follow the same faith without it being an issue, after all. It's not a key tenet.
2) Is it a political issue? Are they arguing that it's a political opinion that they oppose, however offensive?

With 1, I'm wary of people who mask bigotry under the cloak of religion. I doubt they'd be happy to bake a gay wedding cake if they had some sort of crisis of faith, and likewise, I doubt that baking a gay wedding cake would be something that broke their faith.

With 2- I have more sympathy. I don't agree with their opinion, but it is a political stance.

Regarding #2...blacks drinking at their own water fountain was a political stance as well...

I don't agree with it, I just have more sympathy with the way the argument is framed. For me, the difference between this and the "water-fountain" would be that there is no definitive segregation. If they're willing to make cakes for gay folk, but not for gay weddings, then that's a political issue.

If they won't make cakes for gay people at all, then I think you've got a fair comparison with water fountains.

n
Except in some areas, the service provider may be the only one available. What then? For example, should some ISP decide that
they're not going to serve homosexuals, and that ISP is the only one in the area. Still not problematic for you? What if it's a grocery
store instead of an ISP?

It's still problematic, but I probably need to reiterate my point for you. You used an example of a business that would refuse to serve homosexuals. I oppose that. Making cakes for gay weddings? I'm inclined to think it's a political issue.

Woodruff wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I've read and argued for and against this. I guess for me the issues divide into-

1) Is this really a religious issue? Plenty of religious folks follow the same faith without it being an issue, after all. It's not a key tenet.
2) Is it a political issue? Are they arguing that it's a political opinion that they oppose, however offensive?

With 1, I'm wary of people who mask bigotry under the cloak of religion. I doubt they'd be happy to bake a gay wedding cake if they had some sort of crisis of faith, and likewise, I doubt that baking a gay wedding cake would be something that broke their faith.

With 2- I have more sympathy. I don't agree with their opinion, but it is a political stance.

Regarding #2...blacks drinking at their own water fountain was a political stance as well...

I don't agree with it, I just have more sympathy with the way the argument is framed. For me, the difference between this and the "water-fountain" would be that there is no definitive segregation. If they're willing to make cakes for gay folk, but not for gay weddings, then that's a political issue.

If they won't make cakes for gay people at all, then I think you've got a fair comparison with water fountains.

n
Except in some areas, the service provider may be the only one available. What then? For example, should some ISP decide that
they're not going to serve homosexuals, and that ISP is the only one in the area. Still not problematic for you? What if it's a grocery
store instead of an ISP?

It's still problematic, but I probably need to reiterate my point for you. You used an example of a business that would refuse to serve homosexuals. I oppose that. Making cakes for gay weddings? I'm inclined to think it's a political issue.

Refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding isn't refusing to serve homosexuals?

Symmetry wrote:Not exactly, no. It's refusing to make a cake about a political issue. If they refused to make any cake for gay people, then that's clear cut discrimination.

2dimes wrote:saxitoxin pretty much won the forum with this and should post the celebratory dancing bear gif again.




So much perfection. ~swoon~

Thorthoth wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Not exactly, no. It's refusing to make a cake about a political issue. If they refused to make any cake for gay people, then that's clear cut discrimination.

So what? Stop implying a pejorative. We all discriminate constantly. It's the intelligent thing to do. If anything it is lack of discrimination that should be more often censured. Your manipulative and self-serving idiocy must be constantly corrected, Sym.

Symmetry wrote:

Thorthoth wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Not exactly, no. It's refusing to make a cake about a political issue. If they refused to make any cake for gay people, then that's clear cut discrimination.

So what? Stop implying a pejorative. We all discriminate constantly. It's the intelligent thing to do. If anything it is lack of discrimination that should be more often censured. Your manipulative and self-serving idiocy must be constantly corrected, Sym.

Your dislike of me has once again buried your reason. I have no idea what point you're trying to make beyond being basically bitchy.

If my reading is correct, however, and you're conflating two definitions of the word "discriminate" as if they are the same, then that might well have been the most banal insult I've ever received. If so, congrats, I guess.