FA+
Shop
1929
Views
Views
43
Favorites
Favorites
Category
All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1190 x 956
File Size 124.8 kB
Report this content
More from AlexSpastic
Listed in Folders
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKr.....bQA&t=714s
I don't want to say the whole gay wedding cake argument was pointless. It certainly was not. I am in support of gay marriage because it is the responsible thing to do. Rights that are irresponsible that affect society I am not in favor of.
Marriage to your dog or whatnot.
However I wish to say that I am on the side of the baker. The bakery was not a monopoly and the gay couple could go elsewhere. The Free Market must have as few government restrictions as possible.
Government intervention I do not want under most circumstances.
I draw porn I do not wish to draw subjects I am uncomfortable with. If a political group that I am not supportive towards wanted me to draw something, I want the right to say no.
I also want to say that there is no point in making someone a target or enemy without just reason. Certainly you may not agree on every issue but there may be things we can all agree on and we must be able to come together to at least discuss.
I don't want to say the whole gay wedding cake argument was pointless. It certainly was not. I am in support of gay marriage because it is the responsible thing to do. Rights that are irresponsible that affect society I am not in favor of.
Marriage to your dog or whatnot.
However I wish to say that I am on the side of the baker. The bakery was not a monopoly and the gay couple could go elsewhere. The Free Market must have as few government restrictions as possible.
Government intervention I do not want under most circumstances.
I draw porn I do not wish to draw subjects I am uncomfortable with. If a political group that I am not supportive towards wanted me to draw something, I want the right to say no.
I also want to say that there is no point in making someone a target or enemy without just reason. Certainly you may not agree on every issue but there may be things we can all agree on and we must be able to come together to at least discuss.
Category All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1190 x 956px
File Size 124.8 kB
Listed in Folders
Here you are: a "restaurant" where people are being refused service based on their orientation, accused of crimes they have not committed by people who hate diversity. Let's see if it ends up on the USSC's agenda.
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10251
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10251
They sell wedding cakes. Some people wanted a wedding cake and were told to fuck off because they were the wrong kind of people. We don't stand for that in civilized societies. They had no more right to refuse service than they would have for a straight interracial couple.
When a business serves the public, it must expect to serve all customers within reason. There was a time when gay couples were considered unreasonable. That time is over.
When a business serves the public, it must expect to serve all customers within reason. There was a time when gay couples were considered unreasonable. That time is over.
So banning interracial couples is fine, right? Great, glad we got that sorted out, behaviors don't count.
What's your religious belief? Doesn't matter, it's banned. Beliefs are a behavior and apparently those aren't rights. Convert or starve, heathen.
> fetishes
Y'know what, forget the sarcasm. Just plain go fuck yourself.
What's your religious belief? Doesn't matter, it's banned. Beliefs are a behavior and apparently those aren't rights. Convert or starve, heathen.
> fetishes
Y'know what, forget the sarcasm. Just plain go fuck yourself.
You lost the argument a while ago. I’d say be the bigger person and just let it go (cause I am certain you are not going to actually think upon these arguments with any genuineness or critical thinking), but you strike me as one of those people who, as children, would brag about how you “always win, never lose” and then toss the game aside in frustration when you were losing just because you can’t handle not being number one.
Self-reply since Sudokuwhatever replied and then blocked me like a wilting flower:
If what you got from that stream of hot garbage was that this guy had a salient point, I pity you. That pity is tempered by the fact you made this some platform to criticize... my childhood? What the fuck.
This idiot thinks racism ended in the 50s and gay rights weren't a thing until Obergefell v Hodges. Maybe don't mistake volume and aggression for relevance.
If what you got from that stream of hot garbage was that this guy had a salient point, I pity you. That pity is tempered by the fact you made this some platform to criticize... my childhood? What the fuck.
This idiot thinks racism ended in the 50s and gay rights weren't a thing until Obergefell v Hodges. Maybe don't mistake volume and aggression for relevance.
"Firmly held religious beliefs" is an elastic concept and has been used for every crime in the known world, including fifteen centuries of theft, rape, torture, slavery, murder, genocide; and Pat Boone's career.
And while the use of the supernatural is prima facie evidence of the failure to find a legitimate reason to hold one's beliefs and practice one's ideology, I also side with the supernatural fantasists for the same reason I advocate the rights of rational people. If no human being is materially, provably harmed by their actions, let 'em do what they please.
And while the use of the supernatural is prima facie evidence of the failure to find a legitimate reason to hold one's beliefs and practice one's ideology, I also side with the supernatural fantasists for the same reason I advocate the rights of rational people. If no human being is materially, provably harmed by their actions, let 'em do what they please.
I don't side with the baker because I take the utilitarian view on cases like this where the outcome might stand to have relevance for large numbers of people and for society as a whole. That is, the question the outcome should depend on is, what is best for society?
In evaluating that, I don't think it's in society's best interests to decide that businesses open to the public should be allowed to discriminate against protected classes.
Saying businesses should be able to discriminate because people can just take their business elsewhere to someone else who won't discriminate is an utopia fallacy because it unrealistically presupposes that this is some sort of perfect world where there will always conveniently be a competitor business in the local area ready and willing to take on the customers that some hypothetical discriminatory business turns away. This is both not the case and even if it was, there are certain situations where services are time-critical in which the initial discrimination and refusal of service can be substantially harmful in itself (things like your house flooding because a waterpipe burst and you need a plumber now, or your car broke down in the middle of the night in the middle of nowhere and you're stranded if someone won't tow you).
The argument "I do not wish to draw subjects I am uncomfortable with" doesn't really get impacted by this case because that wouldn't be discrimination against people for what they are, it would be declining specific objectionable subject matter, which is something else entirely. Ie., you're not telling someone, "I don't have a problem with the picture, but I won't draw it because you're gay" but rather, "I won't draw this because the image itself makes me uncomfortable."
In evaluating that, I don't think it's in society's best interests to decide that businesses open to the public should be allowed to discriminate against protected classes.
Saying businesses should be able to discriminate because people can just take their business elsewhere to someone else who won't discriminate is an utopia fallacy because it unrealistically presupposes that this is some sort of perfect world where there will always conveniently be a competitor business in the local area ready and willing to take on the customers that some hypothetical discriminatory business turns away. This is both not the case and even if it was, there are certain situations where services are time-critical in which the initial discrimination and refusal of service can be substantially harmful in itself (things like your house flooding because a waterpipe burst and you need a plumber now, or your car broke down in the middle of the night in the middle of nowhere and you're stranded if someone won't tow you).
The argument "I do not wish to draw subjects I am uncomfortable with" doesn't really get impacted by this case because that wouldn't be discrimination against people for what they are, it would be declining specific objectionable subject matter, which is something else entirely. Ie., you're not telling someone, "I don't have a problem with the picture, but I won't draw it because you're gay" but rather, "I won't draw this because the image itself makes me uncomfortable."
I keep hearing different things, such as the baker was willing to make the cake but didn't want to decorate it with slogans, because he doesn't do slogans and hasn't for others, or maybe this was the first one he objected to, or offered to have a different baker make one... etc. etc. etc. Slogans is certainly a lot closer to Alex's objection.
But I have no idea what the real story is and what's "fake news" and trying to figure it out feels like I'm fighting off brainwashing as I have to deep dive different echo chambers.
I think "Don't piss off the people who make your food" or handle your food, is _generally_ where you want to land and that applies to all across the board. Especially those who think disagreeing with someone secures the moral high ground and absolves all sins; there's a couple people on FA I wouldn't trust to pass me a coke. I think they'd fuck with it just to prove a point and go off and be smug in their own little world. You can't force people to like or respect you.
And it sucks. There are cabbies who won't transport dogs or alcohol, or barbers who don't want to touch women in their barbershop, and shopkeeps who don't want to sell pork or alcohol. Your point about the market's invisible hand is spot on, there aren't always alternatives. The Clerk's conversation about the Death Star contractors comes to mind. I'm not sure what the solution is.
But I have no idea what the real story is and what's "fake news" and trying to figure it out feels like I'm fighting off brainwashing as I have to deep dive different echo chambers.
I think "Don't piss off the people who make your food" or handle your food, is _generally_ where you want to land and that applies to all across the board. Especially those who think disagreeing with someone secures the moral high ground and absolves all sins; there's a couple people on FA I wouldn't trust to pass me a coke. I think they'd fuck with it just to prove a point and go off and be smug in their own little world. You can't force people to like or respect you.
And it sucks. There are cabbies who won't transport dogs or alcohol, or barbers who don't want to touch women in their barbershop, and shopkeeps who don't want to sell pork or alcohol. Your point about the market's invisible hand is spot on, there aren't always alternatives. The Clerk's conversation about the Death Star contractors comes to mind. I'm not sure what the solution is.
Yeah, yeah, I'm sure you think that's very clever. Throw down the old "But that's Evil™ Socialissssmmmmm!!!" card, plaintive whining voice and all, when you disagree with someone.
But that's nonsense and it doesn't work, because this isn't a socialist view. I already said that this was a utilitarian issue. Let's learn you the difference real quick, since you may not understand: Socialism is a philosophy concerned with power dynamics framed in economic terms. This is nothing like that. It has nothing to do with wealth redistribution or collectivism or any of the other whatever that socialism is interested in. This is, instead, a philosophically utilitarian view (rule utilitarian, specifically) and I arrived at it because there's a strong utilitarian argument for it. It is about what is likely to do the most good for the most people, not about who should own the means of production.
>We are in the USA which has a Constitution based on INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.
Crying "But mah INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY" doesn't give you the right to trample the individual liberties of other people by discriminating against them. If it did, things like the civil rights movement forcing segregation to end back in the '60s would be terrible violations of the rights of racists to exercise their racism. And indeed, this was the argument that Southern states tried to use to keep Jim Crow laws in place as they shrilly screamed, "States' rights! States' rights!" That turned out to be less than convincing, both legally and morally.
>If we were to go by what was best for society, tobacco, alcohol, and all addictive substances would be banned.
No they wouldn't, because fact-based evidence shows that the war on drugs is a horrible failure. Less overall harm (the goal that would be sought in utilitarian terms) is done through decriminalization, accurate information, and management to mitigate the issues these things create than is done by current cultural and political practices of demonizing victims and locking people up for years at a time over their choice to indulge in a bit of chemical recreation. But that's a tangent. It will suffice for the topic at hand to simply note that you've tried use this issue to stuff words in my mouth and you could not have been more wrong. Nice try, though.
>Old people with dementia would be euthanized, as they cannot be healed and are a drain on resources.
Again, dead wrong (see what I did there?). Euthanizing people for being unproductive would violate the principles of rule utilitarianism because it would create a societal atmosphere of fear that anyone could end up being euthanized. This would be a pretty terrible situation to live in and it would make our society way worse if everyone was afraid like that all the time.
>Tell me, who makes the decisions on this 'greater good' your sort espouse?
"My sort?"
I'm just one individual with my own opinions. I'm not part of a "sort" in the politically ideological sense you mean. I know you'd love to make me into some sort of strawman "sort" to attack with the standard vilifications of whatever is associated in your mind with whatever "sort" I end up being, but that's just lazy on your part. Here's a thought: try addressing what I actually say, not what you assume about me. I know, it might take actual effort and consideration on your part, and stereotypes are easier. But I think you might find it more rewarding and interesting, ultimately.
Might start by googling 'Rule utilitarianism'.
But that's nonsense and it doesn't work, because this isn't a socialist view. I already said that this was a utilitarian issue. Let's learn you the difference real quick, since you may not understand: Socialism is a philosophy concerned with power dynamics framed in economic terms. This is nothing like that. It has nothing to do with wealth redistribution or collectivism or any of the other whatever that socialism is interested in. This is, instead, a philosophically utilitarian view (rule utilitarian, specifically) and I arrived at it because there's a strong utilitarian argument for it. It is about what is likely to do the most good for the most people, not about who should own the means of production.
>We are in the USA which has a Constitution based on INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.
Crying "But mah INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY" doesn't give you the right to trample the individual liberties of other people by discriminating against them. If it did, things like the civil rights movement forcing segregation to end back in the '60s would be terrible violations of the rights of racists to exercise their racism. And indeed, this was the argument that Southern states tried to use to keep Jim Crow laws in place as they shrilly screamed, "States' rights! States' rights!" That turned out to be less than convincing, both legally and morally.
>If we were to go by what was best for society, tobacco, alcohol, and all addictive substances would be banned.
No they wouldn't, because fact-based evidence shows that the war on drugs is a horrible failure. Less overall harm (the goal that would be sought in utilitarian terms) is done through decriminalization, accurate information, and management to mitigate the issues these things create than is done by current cultural and political practices of demonizing victims and locking people up for years at a time over their choice to indulge in a bit of chemical recreation. But that's a tangent. It will suffice for the topic at hand to simply note that you've tried use this issue to stuff words in my mouth and you could not have been more wrong. Nice try, though.
>Old people with dementia would be euthanized, as they cannot be healed and are a drain on resources.
Again, dead wrong (see what I did there?). Euthanizing people for being unproductive would violate the principles of rule utilitarianism because it would create a societal atmosphere of fear that anyone could end up being euthanized. This would be a pretty terrible situation to live in and it would make our society way worse if everyone was afraid like that all the time.
>Tell me, who makes the decisions on this 'greater good' your sort espouse?
"My sort?"
I'm just one individual with my own opinions. I'm not part of a "sort" in the politically ideological sense you mean. I know you'd love to make me into some sort of strawman "sort" to attack with the standard vilifications of whatever is associated in your mind with whatever "sort" I end up being, but that's just lazy on your part. Here's a thought: try addressing what I actually say, not what you assume about me. I know, it might take actual effort and consideration on your part, and stereotypes are easier. But I think you might find it more rewarding and interesting, ultimately.
Might start by googling 'Rule utilitarianism'.
Libertarian here. I support the baker's right to refuse service based on his religious views. People can go elsewhere for their cakes. It's a free and open market, I'm pretty sure there are other bakers that would take their money. Besides, it's not hard to bake and decorate your own wedding cake. Just takes time. I think people should consider all the alternatives before they sue someone.
Forcing someone to bake a cake for you is bad form. It makes you look bad.
Forcing someone to bake a cake for you is bad form. It makes you look bad.
I support the baker, your business, your rules. Trying to seize someones business because they follow their religions teachings is tyranny, if you do not like it go shop somewhere else. Quit trying to force your views down other peoples throats while hiding behind "civility, ethics, morals" or anti-bigotry or some such nonsense. No one will ever get along with everyone, just the way it is so quit trying to force people to get along at GUNPOINT which is what people are trying to do by bringing in government, government is FORCE OF ARMS.
Leave each other alone, maybe if you did we would have half as many problems.
Leave each other alone, maybe if you did we would have half as many problems.
See, what people seem to be missing here, is that the baker initially agreed to make the cake, everyone had plans, dates were set, they were ready to put in the deposit, and all that.
It was only afterwards that when the couple let it slip they were gay (I believe that the Baker asked what his future wife's opinion of the cake should be) that things went south. The problem wasn't so much that the Baker didn't want to make the cake, it was once they found out that they were going to be baking for a gay wedding that they pulled the religion card and wanted out of the order.
So in this case, I'm going to side with the couple. They ordered a cake in good faith, and had everything was going smoothly until the baker's personal bigotry raised it's ugly head. He was all right working for a straight couple for the exact same cake, but the gay couple... No dice.
The argument against commissions is different, you can say up front "no vore" but you can't say "no vore for gays, only straights". That's where the problem is, the double standard.
It was only afterwards that when the couple let it slip they were gay (I believe that the Baker asked what his future wife's opinion of the cake should be) that things went south. The problem wasn't so much that the Baker didn't want to make the cake, it was once they found out that they were going to be baking for a gay wedding that they pulled the religion card and wanted out of the order.
So in this case, I'm going to side with the couple. They ordered a cake in good faith, and had everything was going smoothly until the baker's personal bigotry raised it's ugly head. He was all right working for a straight couple for the exact same cake, but the gay couple... No dice.
The argument against commissions is different, you can say up front "no vore" but you can't say "no vore for gays, only straights". That's where the problem is, the double standard.
Still their store and now that they know the whole truth assuming your story is correct: It is still their store, their rules. They can refund the purchasers, now if they REFUSE to refund them that is another matter: Theft.
It is their right to believe whatever they want whether or not YOU like it, they can refuse service to anyone even if YOU do not like it. You have NO RIGHT to FORCE someone at GUNPOINT (you are bringing in government and that is force of ARMS) to do something they do NOT want to do. If the bakery wishes to cancel so be it. Businesses do this all the time for many reasons, their is it goes against their religion and ethos and you most certainly are not god over them to order them to go against their beliefs. Refusing to do something because of your religion is NOT a double standard, it shows FAITH in your BELIEFS, that you will not surrender them because people like you call them down for it.
You do not own the bakery, you have no power over them except in the free market to choose NOT to do business with them, get over it. If you demand they be punished by government then just remember that it could just as easily be your ass tomorrow being branded because your beliefs are no longer "politically correct." When you DEMAND people be punished by government for upholding their beliefs (ESPECIALLY after they learn the truth) you open a can of worms that can NEVER be closed: It means ANYONE can be DESTROYED just because 51% say the 49% are no towing THEIR line then vice versa when the 51% becomes the 49%.
If you want to start the crusades all over again go ahead and try to force your beliefs down everyone's throats, it will not end well, history proves that because right NOW at this INSTANT you are starting up the old bonfires and witch-burnings of the dark ages. You use threat of government and destruction of life and liberty to accomplish your goals.
Should you still believe you have authority over those people and can pretend to be god and order them to go against what they believe, your a lost cause because your NOT, you just have an OPINION.
Here is what you and others should do: Put your high and mighty attitude and money where your mouth is, QUIT your job, MOVE to where the bakery is, OPEN a bakery across the road and sell cakes to everyone including gays and advertise as such. I do not want to hear one more word out of your lazy mouth until you buck up, suck it up and do this because it is NOT YOUR BAKERY! You have NO RIGHT to threaten the business because you do not agree with their religion but you DO and ABSOLUTELY have the right to go into COMPETITION with them and see if enough people support YOU over THEM in the marketplace.
Pack your bags, go there, become a baker and put them out of business with your own bakery if you are so certain you can order people around.
It is their right to believe whatever they want whether or not YOU like it, they can refuse service to anyone even if YOU do not like it. You have NO RIGHT to FORCE someone at GUNPOINT (you are bringing in government and that is force of ARMS) to do something they do NOT want to do. If the bakery wishes to cancel so be it. Businesses do this all the time for many reasons, their is it goes against their religion and ethos and you most certainly are not god over them to order them to go against their beliefs. Refusing to do something because of your religion is NOT a double standard, it shows FAITH in your BELIEFS, that you will not surrender them because people like you call them down for it.
You do not own the bakery, you have no power over them except in the free market to choose NOT to do business with them, get over it. If you demand they be punished by government then just remember that it could just as easily be your ass tomorrow being branded because your beliefs are no longer "politically correct." When you DEMAND people be punished by government for upholding their beliefs (ESPECIALLY after they learn the truth) you open a can of worms that can NEVER be closed: It means ANYONE can be DESTROYED just because 51% say the 49% are no towing THEIR line then vice versa when the 51% becomes the 49%.
If you want to start the crusades all over again go ahead and try to force your beliefs down everyone's throats, it will not end well, history proves that because right NOW at this INSTANT you are starting up the old bonfires and witch-burnings of the dark ages. You use threat of government and destruction of life and liberty to accomplish your goals.
Should you still believe you have authority over those people and can pretend to be god and order them to go against what they believe, your a lost cause because your NOT, you just have an OPINION.
Here is what you and others should do: Put your high and mighty attitude and money where your mouth is, QUIT your job, MOVE to where the bakery is, OPEN a bakery across the road and sell cakes to everyone including gays and advertise as such. I do not want to hear one more word out of your lazy mouth until you buck up, suck it up and do this because it is NOT YOUR BAKERY! You have NO RIGHT to threaten the business because you do not agree with their religion but you DO and ABSOLUTELY have the right to go into COMPETITION with them and see if enough people support YOU over THEM in the marketplace.
Pack your bags, go there, become a baker and put them out of business with your own bakery if you are so certain you can order people around.
Correct, one day their beliefs will no longer be "politically correct" then it will be THEIR turn to march to the gulags THEY built. Until everyone leaves everyone else alone the cycle will never end and that means accepting that people just do not like each other all the time if at all. So be it, let them be.
Comments