Law SC rules 7-2 in favor of Bakery

[Mike]

And get that strawman shit out of here about personal attacks. I've spent hours and hours researching and providing proof of claims, and NOT ONCE EVER has that lead to the other person saying ok, you were correct. So I'm not going to waste the time anymore. Take that as some sort of victory if you want. I don't give a sbit.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Look believe what you want Jack. You're making a lot of assumptions and rushing to defend someone, regardless of their behavior, because they have the same political leanings as you. Go back and actually read the exchange, and if you still think I was the one being a rude jackass then I don't know what to tell you. I made an offhand comment, we weren't even arguing, and at no point was I rude to the guy at all. I had no anti Clinton agenda whatsoever.

That's all fine. I'm just trying to help here. If you start off by making a false allegation and then both refuse to defend it with evidence and assert that anyone who disagrees with you has some kind of flaw, you're closing yourself off from reasonable discussion and being very disrespectful to a lot of people. I only bother mentioning all that because I don't think that you realize what you're communicating and wouldn't do so if you did.

I'm far more left than right leaning, which you really should know after talking to me on here for years. I'm not part of any GOP smear campaign. For fucks sake. Anyway leave me alone I'm beyond tired of talking about this. I retracted the goddamn statement like weeks ago. Find some other bone to dig up.

I get that you think the serious and false allegation you tossed out is true, but the facts remain. You can't have it both ways--either you smear anyone on the other side of political issues as a criminal or supporter of a criminal or you have reasonable, and reasonably civil exchanges.

And get that strawman shit out of here about personal attacks. I've spent hours and hours researching and providing proof of claims, and NOT ONCE EVER has that lead to the other person saying ok, you were correct. So I'm not going to waste the time anymore. Take that as some sort of victory if you want. I don't give a sbit.

And here you're just upping the ante. You can't just be a raging asshole to anyone who disagrees with you (even when they've had a long history of treating you with respect) and then whine about civility or whatever. Take responsibility for your own actions.

 

[Mike]

That's all fine. I'm just trying to help here. If you start off by making a false allegation and then both refuse to defend it with evidence and assert that anyone who disagrees with you has some kind of flaw, you're closing yourself off from reasonable discussion and being very disrespectful to a lot of people. I only bother mentioning all that because I don't think that you realize what you're communicating and wouldn't do so if you did.



I get that you think the serious and false allegation you tossed out is true, but the facts remain. You can't have it both ways--either you smear anyone on the other side of political issues as a criminal or supporter of a criminal or you have reasonable, and reasonably civil exchanges.

Well Jack, like I said if I said it with some sinister agenda would I retract it, try to focus back on the topic of the thread, and freely admit I don't have evidence to back the statement and I'm not willing to spend time researching it?


Seems pretty reasonable to me, and objectively much more reasonable than the behavior of the person you're defending.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Well Jack, like I said if I said it with some sinister agenda would I retract it, try to focus back on the topic of the thread, and freely admit I don't have evidence to back the statement and I'm not willing to spend time researching it?

Seems pretty reasonable to me, and objectively much more reasonable than the behavior of the person you're defending.

I don't think there's some sinister agenda. I think reading this site, you get exposed to some really crazy shit, and I think you genuinely believe the claim you made, but nonetheless it is false, and you did respond with requests to back it up by personally insulting anyone who doesn't agree with it. You got some blowback, which you found to be out of bounds.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

The baker claims he also refuses to make Halloween cakes. I'm sure his household is just a ton of fun.

I've never seen people turn so fast on the religious as when as kids, you'd encounter a house that 'didn't participate for religious reasons' or whatever

cmon bruh

 

[Mike]

I don't think there's some sinister agenda. I think reading this site, you get exposed to some really crazy shit, and I think you genuinely believe the claim you made, but nonetheless it is false, and you did respond with requests to back it up by personally insulting anyone who doesn't agree with it. You got some blowback, which you found to be out of bounds.

Alright I'm super done talking about this, so regardless I won't be replying anymore. But ffs I WAS NOT THE ONE BEING INSULTING. Not at any fucking point in that entire exchange we had, was I the one being insulting. Saying I'm not going to spend hours researching for an offhand comment, because that's never a productive use of time in almost a decade here, is not an insult to anyone. Calling someone a bunch of names like we're in grade school, IS OVERTLY INSULTING.


If you disagree with that, fine. I don't care. Believe whatever you want, it was never my intention to convert anyone to agreeing in the first place.

 

[Pessimystic]

Leave your prejudices at home where they belong. You're not allowed to discriminate in public spaces. Religious people aren't asking for freedom of religion, but for freedom to impose their religious beliefs on others. There's a difference.

This is a two way street.
You could also say that homosexuals are imposing their beliefs on others. Homosexuality is not exactly hiding in the shadows these days, everywhere you turn is a promotion of all things LGBTQDSFAFHJandwhateverletterrepresentingaspecialclassimissed being shoved in your face, and if you don't embrace it, you're worse than Hitler.
At any rate the court has ruled.

 

[Mike]

This is a two way street.
You could also say that homosexuals are imposing their beliefs on others. Homosexuality is not exactly hiding in the shadows these days, everywhere you turn is an allusion to all things LGBTQDSFAFHJandwhateverletterrepresentingaspecialclassimissed being shoved in your face, and if you don't embrace it, you're worse than Hitler.
At any rate the court has ruled.

You're conflating separate issues. Everyone should have equal access to goods and services. That doesn't necessarily mean everyone should be forced to accept others lifestyle choices. Those are different topics.

 

[Pessimystic]

You're conflating separate issues. Everyone should have equal access to goods and services. That doesn't necessarily mean everyone should be forced to accept others lifestyle choices. Those are different topics.

In an ideal world, these things wouldn't matter.
We don't live in such a world. If a business doesn't want my money, I'm sure I could find one that does. Anything else is acting like a bitch.

 

[Mike]

In an ideal world, these things wouldn't matter.
We don't live in such a world. If a business doesn't want my money, I'm sure I could find one that does. Anything else is acting like a bitch.

You guys say this like it's all a hypothetical when it clearly is not. We already tried it that way, which is why we ended up with the civil rights act. Because people will collude to cause mass denial of service for whatever group is on the bottom of our unofficial caste system.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Alright I'm super done talking about this, so regardless I won't be replying anymore. But ffs I WAS NOT THE ONE BEING INSULTING. Not at any fucking point in that entire exchange we had, was I the one being insulting. Saying I'm not going to spend hours researching for an offhand comment, because that's never a productive use of time in almost a decade here, is not an insult to anyone. Calling someone a bunch of names like we're in grade school, IS OVERTLY INSULTING.

If you disagree with that, fine. I don't care. Believe whatever you want, it was never my intention to convert anyone to agreeing in the first place.

Let's just review the whole thing:

His first response to you making an ugly personal attack was totally cool (I think even you'd agree). Then you responded with an outlandish claim. He was less-generous in his response to that (he first accused you of making a mistake in going for "balance," then accused you of actively trying to deceive, though he also threw you a back-handed compliment). Then you clearly strawmanned his point. He didn't respond to that, but picked up with a response to your response to Quipling, somewhat harshly attacking your repeated false accusation. Then you got kind of snippy with him. Then he accused you of stubbornness (refusing to either defend your attack or admit that it was bullshit). Then you insisted that you have been polite to him and he's been an asshole to you. Then he called you out on starting with slander (true claim, IMO) and refusing to own it. Then you said you were putting him on ignore.

The fundamental issue, as I see it, is that you really believe the nuttiness about Clinton being a criminal. People who follow this stuff more closely get annoyed seeing political discussions polluting with that kind of batshit crazy claim, especially when it's not just the TCK/Inga types making it. Whereas I think you really believe it and think that people who say they don't are just refusing to acknowledge the truth out of bias. I'd argue that your thinking on the issue inevitably makes it a personal issue.

There was a recent thread where @sub_thug was doing the same thing (in his mind, anyone not buying the "liberal media" CT must be partisan). If you find yourself thinking that the only reason someone can possibly disagree with you is some kind of personal flaw, you should consider that you're not being reasonable.

 

[sub_thug]

Let's just review the whole thing:

His first response to you making an ugly personal attack was totally cool (I think even you'd agree). Then you responded with an outlandish claim. He was less-generous in his response to that (he first accused you of making a mistake in going for "balance," then accused you of actively trying to deceive, though he also threw you a back-handed compliment). Then you clearly strawmanned his point. He didn't respond to that, but picked up with a response to your response to Quipling, somewhat harshly attacking your repeated false accusation. Then you got kind of snippy with him. Then he accused you of stubbornness (refusing to either defend your attack or admit that it was bullshit). Then you insisted that you have been polite to him and he's been an asshole to you. Then he called you out on starting with slander (true claim, IMO) and refusing to own it. Then you said you were putting him on ignore.

The fundamental issue, as I see it, is that you really believe the nuttiness about Clinton being a criminal. People who follow this stuff more closely get annoyed seeing political discussions polluting with that kind of batshit crazy claim, especially when it's not just the TCK/Inga types making it. Whereas I think you really believe it and think that people who say they don't are just refusing to acknowledge the truth out of bias. I'd argue that your thinking on the issue inevitably makes it a personal issue.

There was a recent thread where @sub_thug was doing the same thing (in his mind, anyone not buying the "liberal media" CT must be partisan). If you find yourself thinking that the only reason someone can possibly disagree with you is some kind of personal flaw, you should consider that you're not being reasonable.

Do you really believe that's what happened in that thread? Is that your honest interpretation of that discourse?

 

[HomerThompson]

Do you really believe that's what happened in that thread? Is that your honest interpretation of that discourse?

That was how it went down. You know it.

 

[Pessimystic]

You guys say this like it's all a hypothetical when it clearly is not. We already tried it that way, which is why we ended up with the civil rights act. Because people will collude to cause mass denial of service for whatever group is on the bottom of our unofficial caste system.

I'm not saying I like businesses discriminating for any reason. My position is: if they don't want my money, fine. I will go elsewhere.
If a business decides that they don't want more money, that's on them. But, it is just as wrong to force one group to participate in business that goes against their beliefs as it is for any other group to be forced to do so. How is forcing someone to do business with someone any better than prohibiting it?
This is supposed to be a free country.
Ironically, the conditions that you mentioned above that allowed businesses to discriminate based on skin color were government mandates, aka, Jim Crow laws. Nothing like that is in place now, and I see the government taking a hands off approach to these matters as the best course of action.
Again, the court has decided at any rate.

 

[Mike]

I'm not saying I like businesses discriminating for any reason. My position is: if they don't want my money, fine. I will go elsewhere.
If a business decides that they don't want more money, that's on them. But, it is just as wrong to force one group to participate in business that goes against their beliefs as it is for any other group to be forced to do so. How is forcing someone to do business with someone any better than prohibiting it?
This is supposed to be a free country.
Ironically, the conditions that you mentioned above that allowed businesses to discriminate based on skin color were government mandates, aka, Jim Crow laws. Nothing like that is in place now, and I see the government taking a hands off approach to these matters as the best course of action.
Again, the court has decided at any rate.

This one case hardly settles the entire issue. This will ultimately be decided by the supreme court, we all know this. I don't buy this forced narrative. Part of running a business is dealing with people you wouldn't associate with in your personal life. That's for everyone, not just the religious. And it gets buried when discussing this, but the civil rights act wasn't just for blacks. Every single minority group faced some degree of discrimination back then.


It's a ridiculous argument that somehow religious freedom is being infringed upon. These people don't have some elaborate survey to fill out to make sure people aren't violating any of their other religious beliefs. They serve people without finding out first if they're atheists, on a second marriage, if they were adulterers or had premarital sex. In every other business transaction, they're not at all concerned with their customers character. Flat out this is NOT about religion. It's about hiding behind religion as an excuse to discriminate, all while playing the victim. It's incredibly intellectually dishonest. You run a business open to the public, then that means ALL of the public.

 

[sub_thug]

That was how it went down. You know it.

No, that's absolutely not what happened at all. You are taking Jack's side out of respect for him and because you share beliefs, not because that's what actually occurred.

What happened is that I made a claim (that the media is biased). I then defended that claim. After providing no evidence himself, @Jack V Savage called me a conspiracy theorist, dismissed everything that I had said in a very condescending manner without so much as addressing any of the evidence or claims, and then acted liked the victim when I said, "To hell with this." The thread then went on for another several pages. Listen, I think Jack is a smart guy. He knows a lot of things, and he's a skilled debater. But that doesn't mean that he knows everything, despite many times pretending to (I challenge you to find a single moment in politics, sports, boxing, or otherwise where he has admitted that he was wrong or that he conceded that someone else knew more about a topic than he did). You can also see him continuing the conversation about @IngaVovchanchyn and I because he feels the need to get the last word in. I think the man has a big issue with pride, and it gets in the way of him being able to be objective. He's great at defending a viewpoint, but that's just it. He defends a viewpoint. He can tell you why he holds the opinions that he does, and he's pretty good at trying to demonstrate to others why they should hold the same opinion that he does. I give him a lot of credit for that. But at the end of the day, he's trying to convince others to share his opinion (you know this yourself from your back and forth with him about the primaries, unless you've totally conceded that Bernie was beaten by Hillary fairly, an inherently subjective term that is not the same thing as "won without breaking any laws or policies"). And when you don't subscribe to his viewpoint, then he accuses you of being tribal or partisan, as though his views are the only objective truth. This is the problem I have with the man.

 

[Pessimystic]

This one case hardly settles the entire issue. This will ultimately be decided by the supreme court, we all know this. I don't buy this forced narrative. Part of running a business is dealing with people you wouldn't associate with in your personal life. That's for everyone, not just the religious. And it gets buried when discussing this, but the civil rights act wasn't just for blacks. Every single minority group faced some degree of discrimination back then.


It's a ridiculous argument that somehow religious freedom is being infringed upon. These people don't have some elaborate survey to fill out to make sure people aren't violating any of their other religious beliefs. They serve people without finding out first if they're atheists, on a second marriage, if they were adulterers or had premarital sex. In every other business transaction, they're not at all concerned with their customers character. Flat out this is NOT about religion. It's about hiding behind religion as an excuse to discriminate, all while playing the victim. It's incredibly intellectually dishonest. You run a business open to the public, then that means ALL of the public.

Complain to the court about it, then. I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

The ruling is troublesome, but I think ruling in favor of the baker is less troublesome than ruling that he would have been forced to make the cake. I think there is certainly a slippery slope if the ruling is opened up and applied to other cases. I don't believe the baker should have been forced to bake a custom cake, but I don't think the baker should be able to refuse the gay couple to purchase a cake that was already made. If, theoretically, he had a rack of pre-made cakes than he should have had to sell one of them to the couple if they wanted to buy one.

Agreed.

Not that it factored in the ruling, but the accounts I have heard suggest that the baker did in fact try to sell pre-made cakes to the couple, but refused a custom cake. Imo, that was the correct way to handle the situation.

 

[Mike]

Complain to the court about it, then. I don't know what to tell you.

What do you think people are taking these cases to court for?

 

[Pessimystic]

What do you think people are taking these cases to court for?

What was the outcome of this case?