Thank you. This is the distinction that nobody seems to make in any of their various hyperbolies about this issue.We're KKK by birth not choice.
Choice.
Thank you. This is the distinction that nobody seems to make in any of their various hyperbolies about this issue.We're KKK by birth not choice.
The only time I wasn't sure about hodj was the whole "gays getting refused service at the hospital" thing. Admittedly I haven't gone back to search through all that crap to see what the first mention of it was, but I thought whoever it was (Furry?) brought that up not as suggesting they could refuse it, but as a hypothetical versus a shrink refusing service to a potential gay client. I thought the point being made was that in that situation (I believe the wording was along the lines of) "the gay wasn't on the operating table"...which I took to mean you'd expect that to be an absolute emergency situation where a patient could be bleeding out, etc, and that it would be wrong to refuse service versus the idea that someone trying to see a shrink wouldn't always qualify as an "emergency" situation.Hodj, I've read the whole thread over the course of today as I was cooking my Easter Dinner. I have to say you were pretty spot on for basically the whole argument. I'm sorry you just had enough free time to debate the few retards that engaged you.
The whole point to that stupid derail is that law, and specifically this law, is not designed to specifically protect one type of profession or business owner. It's a law that is meant to specifically to protect a broad range of people. Why people get caught up in the what ifs or should be is fucking stupid.The only time I wasn't sure about hodj was the whole "gays getting refused service at the hospital" thing. Admittedly I haven't gone back to search through all that crap to see what the first mention of it was, but I thought whoever it was (Furry?) brought that up not as suggesting they could refuse it, but as a hypothetical versus a shrink refusing service to a potential gay client. I thought the point being made was that in that situation (I believe the wording was along the lines of) "the gay wasn't on the operating table"...which I took to mean you'd expect that to be an absolute emergency situation where a patient could be bleeding out, etc, and that it would be wrong to refuse service versus the idea that someone trying to see a shrink wouldn't always qualify as an "emergency" situation.
Hodj pointed out that shrinks have to follow their code and ethics which means they should not be allowed to refuse service...but on a strictly moral level I think there could be situations where it might actually be in the patient's best interest to NOT be seeing a shrink who has such bias in their feelings towards the patient. It's all well and good to say you are going to try to uphold the ideal of treating a patient objectively in that situation, but human nature will far too often mean the patient might be receiving advice/care that isn't always going to be the best they could get.
Right, I just wasn't sure if anyone else was actually even suggesting a doctor refuse service to a gay person if they were claiming it was against their religion, or just using that as a hypothetical example versus the shrink one.The whole point to that stupid derail is that law, and specifically this law, is not designed to specifically protect one type of profession or business owner. It's a law that is meant to specifically to protect a broad range of people. Why people get caught up in the what ifs or should be is fucking stupid.
In before derail argument about how the entire US military would turn against their fellow citizens and unlike Ukraine there'd be an M1 Abrams and an F35 for every rifle so any resistance would be futile.Like I said in another thread about gun ownership a few weeks back, I don't see how anyone can watch the Ukrainian Maiden sniper shootings during the Ukraine revolution and not reach a conclusion that yes, even in this day and age, the right to bear arms should remain uninfringeable.
Fucking police snipers sitting in towers shooting down Ukrainian citizens armed with billy clubs and alumunimum shields was just an abomination in my eyes.
Wasn't me. I said my opinion on the subject, but I didn't bring it up. I also didn't say anything to the sort. I believe medicine is a socialized industry, so socialized expectations of compelled service are more acceptable than in non-socialized industries. The military and government are other socialized industries. Baking cakes and artistry are NOT socialized industries.The only time I wasn't sure about hodj was the whole "gays getting refused service at the hospital" thing. Admittedly I haven't gone back to search through all that crap to see what the first mention of it was, but I thought whoever it was (Furry?) brought that up not as suggesting they could refuse it, but as a hypothetical versus a shrink refusing service to a potential gay client.
Everything in life is a choice. Fucking guys, fucking girls, being a furry, worshiping sky wizards, being a nazi. The biggest difference is how accepted your choices are by other people. You can either hate people for their choices, or accept them. People who try to control the choice of others through government are the worst sort of people, though.Thank you. This is the distinction that nobody seems to make in any of their various hyperbolies about this issue.
Choice.
Michael Jackson proved being black was a choice, right?Everything in life is a choice. Fucking guys, fucking girls, being a furry, worshiping sky wizards, being a nazi. The biggest difference is how accepted your choices are by other people. You can either hate people for their choices, or accept them. People who try to control the choice of others through government are the worst sort of people, though.
He became a white ape of his own free will.Michael Jackson proved being black was a choice, right?
actually something similar has has been in the newsYeah, that cartoon is pretty fucking stupid.
The KKK is a hate-group that used to lynch blacks. The group doing the hating is the person trying to buy the cake in the cartoon.
In the actual thing we are talking about, the gay person tries to buy a cake from a group that hates him, so the group doing the hating is the bakery.
It is the opposite of what happened in this story and anyone looking at it should be offended at its stupidity.
This cake stupidity ... it's like watching a 4 year old throw a temper tantrum when you tell them to share their toys. It's fuckin' infantile.actually something similar has has been in the news
Denvers Azucar Bakery wins right to refuse to make anti-gay cake - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com
Taste the double standard: Colorado bakeries can refuse anti-gay cakes, but not gay wedding cakes | Twitchy
Longwood bakery takes heat for refusing to make anti-gay cake - Orlando Sentinel
Next you're going to tell me there's a difference between a gun shop refusing to sell a gun to a gay man who wants to get married and a straight man who says he's going to murder his wife and kids? What's the difference they're both trying to destroy the American family!This cake stupidity ... it's like watching a 4 year old throw a temper tantrum when you tell them to share their toys. It's fuckin' infantile.
Selling cake to everyone but gays != not selling cake with any given message to anyone
Is sexual orientation a choice?Everything in life is a choice. Fucking guys, fucking girls, being a furry, worshiping sky wizards, being a nazi. The biggest difference is how accepted your choices are by other people. You can either hate people for their choices, or accept them. People who try to control the choice of others through government are the worst sort of people, though.