Send a Message
to EdmondWA

Comments

8,635

Joined

Nov 17, 2009

EdmondWA Profile

Forums Owned

Recent Posts

Gay/Lesbian

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

Religious freedom does not mean that a merchant can break non-discrimination laws. All merchants must still follow commerce laws, regardless of their religion. Religious freedom only means that the government can't tell them which religion they must belong toThat would have been illegal tooLike all the Abrahamic religions, most Muslims believe it's perfectly fine to go around saying that gay people are committing some sort of "crime", and that divine justice is called for. But since divine justice never shows up of its own accord, believers feel that God calls upon them to do his work for him. And while fundamentalist Muslims are the ones who take it as far as open killing, Christians provide them a perceived justification, by agreeing that homosexuality calls for punishment. If a Muslim baker had chased gay customers into the street, then Christians would be in the difficult position of either agreeing with him, or insisting that he must serve them anyway. If Christianity would CHANGE, and join the modern world in not condemning people for consenting behavior, then Islam would stand alone in this condemnation, and feel more pressure from the rest of the world to make changes themselves. It's harder to be the only ones picking on innocent people for no good reason, but it's easier when your neighbors are patting you on the back, saying, "I feel the same way".  (6 hrs ago | post #42218)

Gay/Lesbian

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

Aren't you able to discuss this without twisting what I say? At NO point have I said that they don't offer customized cakes. Obviously they do. I'm saying that "customized " does not mean "anything goes". Bakers have DISCRETION to decided what the customization may entail. Do you know what that word means? If someone comes in and wants the cake to say "F*** the Jews" or "The President should die", they can say "no" to that. Masterpiece Cakeshop was not asked for ANY special customization. They were only asked for a standard wedding cake which they already offered. You're never going to understand this if you can't follow the basics. Customization IS offered, but at the baker's discretion. If customization isn't even requested (which, in Masterpiece's case, it wasn't), then there aren't really any grounds for denial. And when Jack Phillips asked for a customization outside of Azucar's discretion, they STILL extended him an accommodation by offering to give him the tools he'd need to do it himself. He wasn't turned away. There's no bias at all. It's little wonder that these cases keep failing, if these are the strongest arguments that you can suggest. The lawyers themselves appear to have nothing better.  (7 hrs ago | post #42217)

Gay/Lesbian

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

It wasn't for something they didn't "want". It was something they didn't even OFFER. Azucar offers cakes shaped like Bibles. Jack asked for one, and it was made available to him. They didn't ask where he was going to eat it, or at what event. If they had, and then refused on those grounds, then yes, I would want them prosecuted. Azucar does NOT offer to print any message that is requested. They have discretion to reject any writing or images they deem hateful, offensive, vulgar, or whatever. Masterpiece has that same discretion. However, their customers did not ASK for any such messages. Or any at all, to my knowledge. But a wedding cake is a wedding cake is a wedding cake. Doesn't matter if it's served at an opposite-sex wedding, or a same-sex wedding, or an interracial wedding, or a school play ABOUT a wedding. You can tell what it is just by looking at it: tiered, frosting to look like lace and flowers, etc. You don't need to know where it will be eaten to know it's a wedding cake. Telling customers that you'll only sell it to them depending on the event is discriminatory, and the legal decision reflects thatBiased for justice and for law. Good company to be in. It's a lot better than being biased against someone simply because you don't like their weddingYou SOUND frustrated, complaining about "rights" which the courts have already said don't exist. You're not pointing to ANY facts. You're only pointing to your opinion that bakers should get to interrogate customers about their intended use of products after they leave the store with them. The facts are that the courts found Masterpiece to be in violation of the law, and Azucar to be in compliance with it. Why aren't you pointing to THOSE facts? Those DO count as facts, you know. Now, if the courts had ruled the complete opposite, that Masterpiece could happily turn away anyone for throwing a party they don't approve of, and that Azucar must print any horrible message requested by Neo-Nazis or endangered animal hunters, and I were impotently complaining that this "shouldn't be" (as you are now), THEN you could call me frustrated. But I'm quite satisfied with these just decisions.  (17 hrs ago | post #42209)

Gay/Lesbian

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

What should Azucar be prosecuted for? Being willing to make a cake? Offering free tools so the customer can write his own messages? Any bakery, Azucar and Masterpiece included, can refuse to print specific messages or imagery on the cakes. But only Masterpiece declined to sell a cake - which should have been available to all customers - to gay customers. Azucar WAS brought before the Colorado Civil Rights Division, who found that they did NOTHING wrong. The owner of Masterpiece remains free to hold whatever beliefs they want. The only thing that was "imposed " upon them was commerce law. Which really wasn't an imposition, since they agreed to follow commerce law when they applied for their business license. You're going to continue to be frustrated by these legal decisions for as long as you continue to misunderstand the law.  (17 hrs ago | post #42206)

Gay/Lesbian

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

Do you figure that gay people cast off all illusions of family and companionship in a hedonistic fit of glee once they choose to be gay? Is that what you think? Every person has dreams of finding that "one" who they can share their lives with. No modern "invention " was required for gay people to share that dream. There's no excuse for denying it to them simply because you think their choice of partner is icky. Not putting gay people in jail is a "virtual modern western invention" too. Do you pine for the good old days when sodomy was a crime?  (20 hrs ago | post #42200)

Gay/Lesbian

Protester blames Christians for gay nightclub shootings

No, we don't want to absolve Islam. What we'd like is for it to be recognized that ALL religions have problems, and they all need to adjust how they view the LGBT community. If Islam stood alone in condemnation of gay people, it would be harder for them to justify their shoddy treatment. But they don't stand alone. All the Abrahamic religions are in agreement that being gay is some sort of crime, so they provide each other with support for looking down on gays. And I don't "blame" Christians. There's a lot more involved in analyzing the basic mindset for a crime than simply assigning blame. It's irresponsible to focus only on one person, when he's part of a larger culture of hostility. The shooter is dead, so there won't be any trial for his crime. But that doesn't mean that the problem is solved. We don't just shrug and say, "Well, all better now!" We need to continue to look at some of the root causes for his attitude. There are Christian pastors out there who are celebrating this crime, and complaining that he didn't kill more people. Each of these pastors has a congregation. Those people all have families and communities who agree with them. There's a widespread network of hatred which, while it might not always lead to violence, certainly contributes to making life hell for gay people. Neither Christianity nor Islam can be absolved. They BOTH need a serious change.  (Yesterday | post #42)

Gay/Lesbian

Protester blames Christians for gay nightclub shootings

Frankie thinks religion plays absolutely zero part in fostering hostility against the LGBT community. Apparently, you can slander anyone you want, for as long as you want, as harshly and falsely as you want, and if someone finally acts on it, your hands are somehow sparkling clean.  (Thursday | post #27)

Gay/Lesbian

Protester blames Christians for gay nightclub shootings

You can drop the "homosexual " part. Per the FBI: "In seeking to verify the reports, federal agents have culled Mateen’s electronic devices, including a laptop computer and cellphone, as well as electronic communications of those who made the claims, law enforcement officials said. So far, they have found no photographs, no text messages, no smartphone apps, no gay pornography and no cell-tower location data to suggest that Mateen — who was twice married to women and had a young son — conducted a secret gay life, the officials said." He was just another gay-hating Abrahamist, reveling in a gay-hating culture. If the more rational parts of that mega-sect can make a change within, then the more radical parts will find themselves embarrassingly isolated. But as it stands, the rest of God's Chosen Few are propping up the hate by trying to justify throwing us out of public businesses, throwing their kids into the streets, denying us government services, and generally slandering us at every opportunity. Those who throw fuel onto the fire can't claim innocence when it explodes.  (Thursday | post #25)

Gay/Lesbian

Protester blames Christians for gay nightclub shootings

He's a lot closer to the truth than any "scripture " ever has been.  (Thursday | post #23)

Gay/Lesbian

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

None of which explain why gay couples cannot have their marriages recognized by their government. Conjugality isn't even a requirement, let alone a "logical truthDefinitions expand, to include expanding practices. Welcome to how the world worksNot anymoreAnd then the modern nation state got its act together, and began keeping records. I don't understand why you're so interested in returning to a pre-writing civilizationIt DID present itself long before now. But it was banned by people addicted to Leviticus (or, to their own tiny preferential portions of itThe state has every vested interest in anything secular, and no reason for any interest in anything "holy". Holy is in the eye of the beholder, and changes for every person. It's a useless wordRecords keeping. To facilitate recognition of who owns what, which also helps facilitate inheritance to children. But since many gay people HAVE children, gay couples have every reason to demand these same records. Even straight couples without children need this same recognition.  (Thursday | post #42183)

Gay/Lesbian

Protester blames Christians for gay nightclub shootings

Even some Christians disagree with you, apologist. https://www.thesta r.com/opinion/comm entary/2016/06/22/ all-christians-nee d-to-accept-lgbtq- community-coren.ht ml  (Thursday | post #20)

Gay/Lesbian

Protester blames Christians for gay nightclub shootings

And maybe they would've shot each other in the dark and confusion. Maybe this kind of speculation is pointless, since there's no way to know how it would have turned out if circumstances were differentBe stupid if you want to, but you clearly have no concept of what Democrats and liberals believe. Sensible gun control laws do not involve eliminating everyone's right to self defense. But I know, scaring people into thinking that we're coming for their guns is the most effective way to prevent sensible gun control laws. It's "trendy" right now for ammosexuals to pretend that everything more potent than a slingshot is just minutes away from being banned, criminalized, forcibly collected and melted down into cannabis planters for single mothers on welfare. Don't be afraid to jump on that bandwagon, it's plenty crowded. We believe in the ENTIRE Second Amendment, not just the second half of it.  (Thursday | post #19)

Gay/Lesbian

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

Liberty in commerce doesn't include turning customers away. All Americans have the right to walk into any open business and expect service. It doesn't matter what the merchants believe about marriage. They've agreed to follow commerce law in order to collect government-issued currency in exchange for their product. You've got public businesses confused with private clubs. THEY can turn away anyone they want. The courts' bias is toward justice. I'm happy to share that bias. This tiny handful of merchants who think they can turn paying customers away for no good reason DON'T seem to understand this. There aren't enough of them to stop it from happening. The vast majority of merchants get it. "Cases move forward", your signature motto, is only a simplistic explanation of how case law works. It doesn't cover the fact that these particular cases are failing. Some cases do that, too.  (Wednesday Jun 22 | post #42161)

Gay/Lesbian

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

Those times and places are expanding rapidly, aren't theyIf that were true, then a license also wouldn't make a marriage for a man and a woman, either. If you're discounting the need for a license, then just what DOES make a marriage, according to you? Can two people simply DECIDE that they're married, without pursuing a license, and then reap all the benefits of marriageThere has to be good arguments AGAINST it, in order to validate banning itThe only thing that was imposed on the nation were the bans. Those weren't (desperately) thrown into place until gay people began demanding marriages en masse. Now those bans are all gone. None of the people who were against our marriages had any good arguments.  (Wednesday Jun 22 | post #42160)

Q & A with EdmondWA

Headline:

Unconvinced

Hometown:

Seattle, WA

I Belong To:

My Husband

Read This Book:

The Wind Through The Keyhole

I Believe In:

measureable, testable, confirmable, repeatable, demonstrable, falsifiable evidence.