The Oregon Bakery part lll

[Value Buy]

This is for Steff and a cheap wedding...

All on a budget of $2!
And a cake to boot!
living.msn.com/love-relationships/the-heart-beat-blog-post?post=e66784f9-c420-4d3b-972b-6570260b2160

[Deleted]

So the second one got locked too? Why?

[Value Buy]

I have finished reading both threads.
Took a little bit of time.
Some comments from me.

The viciousness of anti religious people show no bounds here.
And they complain of the piousness of Christians, but their venom show absolutely no limits.

People who say the bakery has no right to break state laws and yet claim here at P&M they personally break laws concerning drug use because the laws are unjust should not throw stones and are rather hypocritical.
If a baker does not believe in same sex marriage and does not bake the cake, they are breaking , in their eyes an unjust law, but actually are following the deeds of fellow posters here.
If you break a law, you break a law.

The Chick a filet joke should have stood. Due to current federal guidelines, same sex marriage is ok, therefore some old off color jokes that were considered off limits in their day (before same sex marriage) are now an everyday allowed act in marriage, and are just part of everyday living in some relationships.
Obviously, the Federal Government permits these acts, so there is nothing illicit or wrong in posting them. 
Yes, I know I am not a mod, but sometimes things just have to be pointed out, imo

Steff, if you bought a wedding cake from Kroger, I believe you bought a union made cake, where workers were making more than minimum wage, so do not worry about that concern.


That said, I believe they broke the law of the land, or at least the state.
I also believe they were morally correct to admit why they would not do the cake. They just have to accept the consequences.

Buttercream icing is my downfall.

Let's keep up the good fight here!

[Deleted]

No one said they didn't have the right to break the law. They just had to live with the consequences. 

I saw nothing I would consider vicious or venomous...

[Deleted]

The other threads were locked by the OP, I believe. Nifty! 

[Value Buy]

Sept 5, 2013 8:45:56 GMT -5 @beerwench said:

The other threads were locked by the OP, I believe. Nifty! 

I assure you I will not lock this one.
A mod might, but me, never!

This was simply a super thread cast over two different threads.

[Deleted]

most of the arguments were one sided.....

no one was having their mind changed...or even wanted to think the other side may have a valid point

the first thread had a few good arguments, then people went off the tracks

and i closed it.....and i dont care if they liked it or not

read through 2nd one.....was there one new thing or idea in it?    

i wanted a good debate of........

does ones religious right that is guaranteed by the 1st amendment get trumped by a state law against discrimination

i guess i will wait to see what the higher courts say......

i know what MOST of the board thinks....

[billisonboard]

Sept 5, 2013 8:37:56 GMT -5 oped said:

So the second one got locked too? Why?

I was bored

[Value Buy]

Sept 5, 2013 8:53:27 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

The Chick a filet joke should have stood. Due to current federal guidelines, same sex marriage is ok, therefore some old off color jokes that were considered off limits in their day (before same sex marriage) are now an everyday allowed act in marriage, and are just part of everyday living in some relationships.
Obviously, the Federal Government permits these acts, so there is nothing illicit or wrong in posting them.

The joke was NOT pulled do to sensitivity of gay issues.  It was pulled because it is not PG-13, and therefore is against the Code of Conduct set up by ProBoards.  If we violate that this whole board can be shut down for good.  This does not offend our sensibilities, it offends our hosts sensibilities.  Therefore, any post that is not suitable for PG-13 audiences will continue to be pulled.

deminmaine- Moderator.

Let's keep up the good fight here!

It looks like Proboards better look at this particular issue then.
It is now allowed by the Federal Government.
If it is good enough for the Feds, it should be good enough for us.
Either that, or repeal the law, and go back to being an illegal act.
End of subject for me on the joke, as I understand what you are saying..

[billisonboard]

Would someone please private message me the joke.  I missed it.

[Tennesseer]

Sept 5, 2013 8:57:27 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

most of the arguments were one sided.....

no one was having their mind changed...or even wanted to think the other side may have a valid point

the first thread had a few good arguments, then people went off the tracks

and i closed it.....and i dont care if they liked it or not

read through 2nd one.....was there one new thing or idea in it?    

i wanted a good debate of........

does ones religious right that is guaranteed by the 1st amendment get trumped by a state law against discrimination

i guess i will wait to see what the higher courts say......

i know what MOST of the board thinks....

Very similiar to your Race 2013 America thread.

[Tennesseer]

Sept 5, 2013 9:00:21 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Sept 5, 2013 8:53:27 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

The joke was NOT pulled do to sensitivity of gay issues.  It was pulled because it is not PG-13, and therefore is against the Code of Conduct set up by ProBoards.  If we violate that this whole board can be shut down for good.  This does not offend our sensibilities, it offends our hosts sensibilities.  Therefore, any post that is not suitable for PG-13 audiences will continue to be pulled.

deminmaine- Moderator.

It looks like Proboards better look at this particular issue then.
It is now allowed by the Federal Government.
If it is good enough for the Feds, it should be good enough for us.
Either that, or repeal the law, and go back to being an illegal act.
End of subject for me on the joke, as I understand what you are saying..

Real easy. Start you own web message board using a different host site.

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 5, 2013 9:02:48 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Would someone please private message me the joke.  I missed it.

It involves the polysemy of the word 'cock'. Since you're not 10 and your IQ is over 80, you're not likely to find it funny.

[Deleted]

Hey now! he could be a 13 year old trapped in a slightly older body like the rest of us, yanno.... 

[kittensaver]

Well I for one don't expect to change anyone's mind with my (considerable) opinions. I engage in these threads because I like to understand how other people think and feel - even if I don't agree with them.

I would rather be "open" to the world - even if I don't agree with it - than live hunkered down in a narrow, insular world where everyone is "like me." I think there is great value to being a "citizen of the world" and understanding how really tiny the "reality" between one's two ears can be. Clearly other people make other decisions - and it is their right to do so.

Personally, I find human beings and their endless variations to be interesting and sometimes fascinating. Rarely do I find another person boring.

[Shooby]

Living with the consequences may include a loss of business but it certainly should include death threats and other threats of harm or violence.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 5, 2013 8:38:02 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

I have finished reading both threads.
Took a little bit of time.
Some comments from me.

The viciousness of anti religious people show no bounds here.

forgive me for saying so, but i think this assertion is totally insane.

rather than just repeating the claim, please state SPECIFICALLY what you mean.

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 5, 2013 10:00:00 GMT -5 @beerwench said:

Hey now! he could be a 13 year old trapped in a slightly older body like the rest of us, yanno.... 

I just don't get the humour. I've heard variations on that particular pun well over a hundred times. Maybe it's still new and exciting for Gen X-ers and older. I don't know.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 5, 2013 8:38:02 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

i had to go back and take this point by point.

People who say the bakery has no right to break state laws and yet claim here at P&M they personally break laws concerning drug use because the laws are unjust should not throw stones and are rather hypocritical.

bullshit.  my position is totally consistent.  i have stated that drug laws are majority rule, and i have to abide by them, or suffer the consequences.  i choose NOT to abide them, and i am prepared to pay for that.  so should the cake lady.  it is 100% stone cold consistent.  so you can go fly your hypocrisy flag somewhere else, OK?

If a baker does not believe in same sex marriage and does not bake the cake, they are breaking , in their eyes an unjust law, but actually are following the deeds of fellow posters here.

TRUE.  and i have no problem with them doing it, if they are willing to suffer the consequences.

If you break a law, you break a law.

The Chick a filet joke should have stood. Due to current federal guidelines, same sex marriage is ok, therefore some old off color jokes that were considered off limits in their day (before same sex marriage) are now an everyday allowed act in marriage, and are just part of everyday living in some relationships.
Obviously, the Federal Government permits these acts, so there is nothing illicit or wrong in posting them. 
Yes, I know I am not a mod, but sometimes things just have to be pointed out, imo

Steff, if you bought a wedding cake from Kroger, I believe you bought a union made cake, where workers were making more than minimum wage, so do not worry about that concern.

That said, I believe they broke the law of the land, or at least the state.
I also believe they were morally correct to admit why they would not do the cake. They just have to accept the consequences.

Buttercream icing is my downfall.

Let's keep up the good fight here!

i don't see any light between our positions.  for you to attack MY position as hypocritical is absurd.

[Deleted]

Sept 5, 2013 11:33:56 GMT -4 Virgil Sentinel said:

beerwench EE Ambassador Avatar
Sept 5, 2013 11:00:00 GMT -4 beerwench EE Ambassador said:
Hey now! he could be a 13 year old trapped in a slightly older body like the rest of us, yanno....

I just don't get the humour. I've heard variations on that particular pun well over a hundred times. Maybe it's still new and exciting for Gen X-ers and older. I don't know.

If you played a Nirvana record backwards you'd hear "bodily functions are funny in omne tempus". FACT! 

[djAdvocate]

Sept 5, 2013 8:57:27 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

most of the arguments were one sided.....

no one was having their mind changed...or even wanted to think the other side may have a valid point.

i don't know about valid, but i saw you position, and those of others.

as to nobody having their minds changed, i am not sure that is the goal here.  if it is, you are going to have a frustrating experience.  i think the goal is to hammer out our convictions with one another and look for inconsistencies and flaws.  i think these threads served that purpose very well.

there is a secondary purpose to argumentation, and that is to find out how unpopular your position is.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Living with the consequences may include a loss of business but it certainly should include death threats and other threats of harm or violence

I absolutely agree.  Unfortunately there are an endless amount of nutballs out there and social media gives them ample opportunity to be asshats in a way they couldn't be if they had to say it in person.  That's the downside to our lives being so open nowadays.

[kittensaver]

Sept 5, 2013 10:27:04 GMT -5 Shooby said:

Living with the consequences may include a loss of business but it certainly should include death threats and other threats of harm or violence.

Well just like no one can tell the baker to "violate their conscience," no one can tell anonymous chumps what to do and not to do. In a CIVIL, non-religious arena, both have broken the law. And if found out, they too will need to live with the consequences of their actions.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 5, 2013 8:57:27 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

i wanted a good debate of........

does ones religious right that is guaranteed by the 1st amendment get trumped by a state law against discrimination

and i believe that the answer is YES.

there are limits to every right.  you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre.  you can't incite a riot.  you can't practice a religion that uses banned substances (without approval).  you can't practice a religion that uses animal sacrifices.  and you can't make discrimination part of your religious business plan.

that is the world we live in.  those are the rules we play by.  you can choose to join it, you can openly violate it and take your chances, or you can opt out.  i think BOTH threads covered those options nicely. 

[Value Buy]

Sept 5, 2013 10:31:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 5, 2013 8:38:02 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

I have finished reading both threads.
Took a little bit of time.
Some comments from me.

The viciousness of anti religious people show no bounds here.

forgive me for saying so, but i think this assertion is totally insane.

rather than just repeating the claim, please state SPECIFICALLY what you mean.

dj, I will not get in a pissing match over religion. The anti-religious zealots who post here are obvious, and hold Christians to a much higher standard than they do for themselves in slamming organized religion. That is their right, but their holier than thou thesis is very apparent and self serving, imo.
 Let's discuss the morality of obeying laws and whether anyone has a right to ignore laws they feel are "wrong" therefore not applicable to said person, and why in this case the bakery is doing the exact same thing.
And yes, it is a different circumstance (discrimination in the eyes of the law) but still, just the same precept as some here do with drug laws.
Double standards are very apparent on this board on both participating sides of the arguments.
After all, refusing to bake a cake is not harming anyone.

dj, when posting this, I did not see post 19 from you
I guess you answered my observation there.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 5, 2013 9:42:33 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sept 5, 2013 9:02:48 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Would someone please private message me the joke.  I missed it.

Since you're not 10 and your IQ is over 80, you're not likely to find it funny.

if you thought that was all that made this joke funny, then you must fall into one of those categories.

[Deleted]

Honestly, I don't hold Christians to a higher standard than myself. I hold them up to 1) the standards I set for myself and 2) the standards they PROFESS to adopt through their tenets
as followers of Christ.

[Deleted]

I'm not anti-religion. I just don't choose it for myself. And being a zealot sound like ALOT of work! 

[djAdvocate]

Sept 5, 2013 10:46:39 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Sept 5, 2013 10:31:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

forgive me for saying so, but i think this assertion is totally insane.

rather than just repeating the claim, please state SPECIFICALLY what you mean.

dj, I will not get in a pissing match over religion.

i am not asking you to.  i am asking you to point out how the thread was in any way vicious.

The anti-religious zealots who post here are obvious, and hold Christians to a much higher standard than they do for themselves in slamming organized religion. That is their right, but their holier than thou thesis is very apparent and self serving, imo.
 Let's discuss the morality of obeying laws and whether anyone has a right to ignore laws they feel are "wrong" therefore not applicable to said person, and why in this case the bakery is doing the exact same thing.

i already asserted the validity of that position.  so did many of the "anti-religious", as you described them.  i think you are missing the big picture here, VB.

And yes, it is a different circumstance (discrimination in the eyes of the law) but still, just the same precept as some here do with drug laws.  Double standards are very apparent on this board on both participating sides of the arguments.

there are no double standards HERE.  i even suggested they should take it through the courts- something i have never suggested for drug users. 

After all, refusing to bake a cake is not harming anyone.

dj, when posting this, I did not see post 19 from you
I guess you answered my observation there.

yes, i did.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

I was thinking about this last night (I need a life! lol).  The couple were apparently fairly regular customers of the bakers. 

I think where the bakers went wrong is they went with personal reasons rather than business and assumed since the couple were such good regular customers they'd understand.  That backfired on them.

If they had been thinking from a business perspective the smart thing would have been to go ahead and turn down the business but don't word it in a way that can get you sued.

What I can say to people in my personal life is quite different from what I can say in my professional life.  I have to watch my words carefully so I don't end up getting myself canned.   I can still stand for my "principals" if I desire but I'd also really like to keep my job so I do a political dance I wouldn't be if I was talking to DH, a friend or even on here.