Page 18 of 20 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 194

Thread: The Flowers and the Wedding -- Just the FACTS, please

  1. #171
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,616
    Amen (Given)
    26
    Amen (Received)
    1099
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    and the baker refuses to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding for anyone. Even if a straight person ordered the cake for a gay wedding he would refuse it. Problem solved.
    The bigotry happens when they label it a "gay wedding cake" and refuse to make it, rather than just a "wedding cake." It differentiates the wedding on the basis of the genitals of its members - which is basing the distinction in genetics.

    We've seen this before. I cannot avoid an accusation of bigotry by labeling any food eaten by a black person as "black food" and then saying "I won't sell black food to anyone." Likewise, I cannot escape bigotry by labeling a wedding cake "gay wedding cake" because it is going to a same-sex wedding ceremony, and then saying, "see, I won't sell gay wedding cakes to anyone. I'm not a bigot!"
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-10-2019 at 08:29 AM.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

  2. #172
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,864
    Amen (Given)
    5650
    Amen (Received)
    5908
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    How are they begged questions?
    How are they not? Each statement assumes the conclusion. If you had worded it as follows then you wouldn't have a problem:

    "It is immoral for a black person to have sex with a white person" is a moral stand, and it [could be but is not necessarily] a bigoted one.
    "It is immoral for a woman to be the head of a household" is a moral position, and it [could be but is not necessarily] a bigoted one.
    "It is immoral for a man to have sex with a man" is a moral position, and it [could be but is not necessarily] a bigoted one.

    Sorry, but you don't get the "bigotry" accusation for free. This would actually have to be demonstrated on a case-by-case basis.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  3. Amen RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  4. #173
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    49,845
    Amen (Given)
    4984
    Amen (Received)
    22093
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    The bigotry happens when they label it a "gay wedding cake" and refuse to make it, rather than just a "wedding cake." It differentiates the wedding on the basis of the genitals of its members - which is basing the distinction in genetics.

    We've seen this before. I cannot avoid an accusation of bigotry by labeling any food eaten by a black person as "black food" and then saying "I won't sell black food to anyone." Likewise, I cannot escape bigotry by labeling a wedding cake "gay wedding cake" because it is going to a same-sex wedding ceremony, and then saying, "see, I won't sell gay wedding cakes to anyone. I'm not a bigot!"
    And the special pleading is when you label a cake a "KKK cake" rather than a cake being used at a KKK rally.

    You are just re-characterizing things to fit your "morality" while denying others the same liberty. You don't want to make a cake for a KKK rally, so it's a "KKK cake" but you do want them to make cakes for a gay wedding so it is not a "gay wedding cake" but just a cake for a gay wedding.

    You do this all the time. You redefine words and situations to your special internal language and then when people call you on your stated opinions or claims you can deny it and say they are misunderstanding you. Debating you is like trying to nail down smoke.

    It boils down to "Carp is the good guy and his values are the bestest and you other guys are bigoted scum because you don't agree with carp" All while denying that is what you are saying.

  5. Amen One Bad Pig, mossrose, RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  6. #174
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,616
    Amen (Given)
    26
    Amen (Received)
    1099
    Quote Originally Posted by tabibito View Post
    I'm wondering how long before we bigots will be taken to task for opposing the infliction of the kind of lifestyle that has been inflicted on such children as Desmond the Amazing and Queen Lactatia. (not linking - I'll leave it to google, for those who are willing to be confronted)
    So I looked quickly. What I cannot tell from the site is if the "lifestyle" of these children is being "imposed" or "inflicted" (presumably to make money?) If that is true, then that is abhorrent. On the other hand, my eldest played "dress-up" using his mother's clothes for years and it was never imposed. He also loved being in the school play. If those two had intersected and he had ended up on stage I would have had no problem with it. And if it had made him famous, so what? As long as it did not compromise his education, and did not put him in jeopardy, I would have supported him.

    As it happened, he only took it "out of the house" a couple times, for costume events. Today, he loves crazy clothes and occasionally polishes his nails. Such is life.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

  7. #175
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,616
    Amen (Given)
    26
    Amen (Received)
    1099
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    How are they not? Each statement assumes the conclusion. If you had worded it as follows then you wouldn't have a problem:

    "It is immoral for a black person to have sex with a white person" is a moral stand, and it [could be but is not necessarily] a bigoted one.
    "It is immoral for a woman to be the head of a household" is a moral position, and it [could be but is not necessarily] a bigoted one.
    "It is immoral for a man to have sex with a man" is a moral position, and it [could be but is not necessarily] a bigoted one.

    Sorry, but you don't get the "bigotry" accusation for free. This would actually have to be demonstrated on a case-by-case basis.
    No - the statements are intrinsically bigoted because they make a judgement on an individual's actions based on their genetic membership in a class. There is no "begged question" here. All three positions meet the definition of "prejudiced/bigoted." (more the former - bigoted can also have a wider definition that has to do with narrowmindedness - I am using it specifically with respect to things like racism, sexism, etc.).
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

  8. #176
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,616
    Amen (Given)
    26
    Amen (Received)
    1099
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    And the special pleading is when you label a cake a "KKK cake" rather than a cake being used at a KKK rally.
    There is no incidence of special pleading. Membership in the KKK is ABOUT prejudice/bigotry and is not genetically determined. Someone who chooses to be a member of the KKK is choosing to affiliate themselves with a group that promotes hateful ideals. The same is not true of two people marrying.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    You are just re-characterizing things to fit your "morality" while denying others the same liberty. You don't want to make a cake for a KKK rally, so it's a "KKK cake" but you do want them to make cakes for a gay wedding so it is not a "gay wedding cake" but just a cake for a gay wedding.
    I won't make a cake for a KKK gathering because membership to the KKK is voluntary and the organization represents hateful ideals. Two people marrying are not even in the same category.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    You do this all the time. You redefine words and situations to your special internal language and then when people call you on your stated opinions or claims you can deny it and say they are misunderstanding you. Debating you is like trying to nail down smoke.

    It boils down to "Carp is the good guy and his values are the bestest and you other guys are bigoted scum because you don't agree with carp" All while denying that is what you are saying.
    This has been responded to - so I'll let my previous responses stand.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

  9. #177
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    49,845
    Amen (Given)
    4984
    Amen (Received)
    22093
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    There is no incidence of special pleading. Membership in the KKK is ABOUT prejudice/bigotry and is not genetically determined. Someone who chooses to be a member of the KKK is choosing to affiliate themselves with a group that promotes hateful ideals. The same is not true of two people marrying.
    Wow. So marriage isn't voluntary any more? And your 'genetically determined' nonsense is YOUR idiotic characterization re: motivation.

    The florist sold flowers to gay couples for other occasions as did the cake baker. Such as birthdays. So your artificial objection is moot.

    You are a hypocrite, pure and simple.

  10. Amen mossrose amen'd this post.
  11. #178
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,616
    Amen (Given)
    26
    Amen (Received)
    1099
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    Wow. So marriage isn't voluntary any more?
    Not what I said, so I have no further response.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    And your 'genetically determined' nonsense is YOUR idiotic characterization re: motivation.
    "genetically determined" is an accurate description of the position.

    1) A and B can marry or be intimate because they have differing genitals
    2) C and D cannot marry or be intimate because they have matching genitals

    This is the heart of the moral statement.
    The only difference between the two statements is the genitals of the participants
    Genitals are genetically determined. Ergo - what makes the act moral or immoral is the genetic makeup of its participants.

    The baker and florist are refusing a service because the participants are same sex
    Ergo - they are making a decision rooted in the genetics of the participants.

    While you may want to label it "ridiculous" or "idiotic," the logic seems pretty inescapable to me. But feel free to point to which part of that sequence is not true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    The florist sold flowers to gay couples for other occasions as did the cake baker. Such as birthdays. So your artificial objection is moot.
    I never said they didn't. I can ladle soup into a soup bowl for a black man at a soup kitchen while simultaneously denying them a seat in my diner. The former does not make the latter position less bigoted. Likewise, I can sell a gay man cupcakes every day of the week, and deny them a wedding cake for their wedding. The former does not make the latter a less bigoted position.
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-10-2019 at 09:17 AM.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

  12. #179
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    49,845
    Amen (Given)
    4984
    Amen (Received)
    22093
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    Not what I said, so I have no further response.



    "genetically determined" is an accurate description of the position.

    1) A and B can marry or be intimate because they have differing genitals
    2) C and D cannot marry or be intimate because they have matching genitals

    This is the heart of the moral statement.
    The only difference between the two statements is the genitals of the participants
    Genitals are genetically determined. Ergo - what makes the act moral or immoral is the genetic makeup of its participants.

    The baker and florist are refusing a service because the participants are same sex
    Ergo - they are making a decision rooted in the genetics of the participants.

    While you may want to label it "ridiculous" or "idiotic," the logic seems pretty inescapable to me. But feel free to point to which part of that sequence is not true.



    I never said they didn't. I can ladle soup into a soup bowl for a black man at a soup kitchen while simultaneously denying them a seat in my diner. The former does not make the latter position less bigoted.
    Well if they were discriminating on couples based on "genetics" or even "being gay" then why would they sell them products for other occasions? Which they did. They were against the Gay Wedding and being forced to create something that implied they were accepting of gay marriage.

  13. #180
    tWebber tabibito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    DownUnder
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,958
    Amen (Given)
    202
    Amen (Received)
    852
    Here we go - Problem Solvered.

    Marriage.jpg
    1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

  14. Amen mossrose, seer, RumTumTugger amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •