RE: An American dialogue

RE: An American dialogue (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: An American dialogue (12/18/2017 7:17:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Probably not really fun. Spitefully satisfying, maybe.... I do own a few shares of Disney stock, so really I'm just protecting my investment. Bullshit. Oh. I do. But yeah, it's not like I flipped out over a couple bucks of revenue for the company over an Eeyore cake. Sorry. I wasn't clear. I don't question your owning shares of Disney. I call bullshit on your claim that you were just "protecting [your] investment."

bounty44 -> RE: An American dialogue (12/19/2017 4:38:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Ah, I see you're devolving back into old habits. Sad. The pursuit of happiness is far too abstract a concept to ever be put into law. Nevermind how often that has been denied to many of us outright by law. you didn't ask about "law", you asked about "rights." quote: The pursuit of happiness is defined as a fundamental right mentioned in the Declaration of Independence to freely pursue joy and live life in a way that makes you happy, as long as you don't do anything illegal or violate the rights of others. The pursuit of happiness is the right that you have to live your life in a way that brings you joy. http://www.yourdictionary.com/pursuit-of-happiness quote: in 1776 the common meaning may have been "prosperity, thriving, wellbeing".[9][10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_Happiness oh, and every time I think theres a chance youre not like the rest of the smug pompous ass comrades, you cure me of the notion. more "death of lofty goals"

bounty44 -> RE: An American dialogue (12/19/2017 4:48:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV How many choir boys would consider the Catholic Church a favorable environment for children? But, out of curiosity, who is claiming to be Catholic in this case? youre an ass.

bounty44 -> RE: An American dialogue (12/19/2017 4:51:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV And I have brought a handful of the cakes they advertise on their website to the owners of the intellectual properties that have been used without a license. Disney & Mattel have both responded quickly to my emails, still waiting on a couple others. This should be fun. let me correct my exclamation that shows in the post immediately above this one. youre a despicable ass.

BoscoX -> RE: An American dialogue (12/19/2017 6:32:03 AM)
"Mindless howler troll" Fits right in with the OP. Either march in lockstep with the communists or be crushed under their boots When they scream about middle ground, that means kill yourself - because all they want is for anyone who disagrees to die

JVoV -> RE: An American dialogue (12/19/2017 6:43:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Ah, I see you're devolving back into old habits. Sad. The pursuit of happiness is far too abstract a concept to ever be put into law. Nevermind how often that has been denied to many of us outright by law. you didn't ask about "law", you asked about "rights." quote: The pursuit of happiness is defined as a fundamental right mentioned in the Declaration of Independence to freely pursue joy and live life in a way that makes you happy, as long as you don't do anything illegal or violate the rights of others. The pursuit of happiness is the right that you have to live your life in a way that brings you joy. http://www.yourdictionary.com/pursuit-of-happiness quote: in 1776 the common meaning may have been "prosperity, thriving, wellbeing".[9][10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_Happiness oh, and every time I think theres a chance youre not like the rest of the smug pompous ass comrades, you cure me of the notion. more "death of lofty goals" The abstract of the pursuit of happiness cannot be defined as a single right, but only by equal rights and equal opportunity. In order to protect the pursuit of happiness, and to prevent one person's pursuit from endangering another person's, government must pass laws. Environmental quality protection could be considered necessary for the pursuit of happiness. Nobody dreams of fishing for tires when they start saving for that cabin on the river.

JVoV -> RE: An American dialogue (12/19/2017 7:12:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV And I have brought a handful of the cakes they advertise on their website to the owners of the intellectual properties that have been used without a license. Disney & Mattel have both responded quickly to my emails, still waiting on a couple others. This should be fun. let me correct my exclamation that shows in the post immediately above this one. youre a despicable ass. Oh. Do you not believe in copyright and trademark laws? Licensed products usually give credit to the true copyright owner. A professional bakery has no right to use trademarked characters without acquiring a license from the trademark owner to do so. This can be different from a home baker, of course, making a cake for their child's birthday or another family event. The difference is profit, along with a professional association between the baker and the owners of the trademarked characters. But Masterpiece Cakeshop is profiting from the beloved characters of Eeyore, Cinderella, and Barbie. I think the true owners of those intellectual properties have every right to know. Do Disney or Mattel deserve to get caught up in this case by association, when they've never agreed to such association with Masterpiece Cakeshop? Quite frankly, I'm surprised no one has brought the issue to these companies before, considering this case started in 2013.

BoscoX -> RE: An American dialogue (12/19/2017 7:29:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV And I have brought a handful of the cakes they advertise on their website to the owners of the intellectual properties that have been used without a license. Disney & Mattel have both responded quickly to my emails, still waiting on a couple others. This should be fun. let me correct my exclamation that shows in the post immediately above this one. youre a despicable ass. Oh. Do you not believe in copyright and trademark laws? Licensed products usually give credit to the true copyright owner. A professional bakery has no right to use trademarked characters without acquiring a license from the trademark owner to do so. This can be different from a home baker, of course, making a cake for their child's birthday or another family event. The difference is profit, along with a professional association between the baker and the owners of the trademarked characters. But Masterpiece Cakeshop is profiting from the beloved characters of Eeyore, Cinderella, and Barbie. I think the true owners of those intellectual properties have every right to know. Do Disney or Mattel deserve to get caught up in this case by association, when they've never agreed to such association with Masterpiece Cakeshop? Quite frankly, I'm surprised no one has brought the issue to these companies before, considering this case started in 2013. In our society there are so many laws that practically everyone violates some law or rule on almost a daily basis That there are laws for goose steppers like you to use to persecute your political foes is totally beside the point

MasterDrakk -> RE: An American dialogue (12/19/2017 8:21:49 AM)
You are well known for demonizing law and the constitution. Its the demented howling imbecile rightist platform.

DesideriScuri -> RE: An American dialogue (12/30/2017 6:33:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV The abstract of the pursuit of happiness cannot be defined as a single right, but only by equal rights and equal opportunity. In order to protect the pursuit of happiness, and to prevent one person's pursuit from endangering another person's, government must pass laws. https://appellatesquawk.wordpress.com/2017/12/27/the-case-of-masterpiece-cakeshop/ quote: In Obergefell v. Hodges, where the Supreme Court recognized same-sex marriage as a fundamental right, the Court also expressly recognized the First Amendment right not to “condone” it on religious or other grounds. Just as objectors can’t bar same-sex couples from getting married, the advocates of same-sex marriage can’t invoke the power of the State to penalize people who express objections, wrongheaded though they may be. Discrimination against persons is terrible, but that’s not what this case is about. Phillips, like the Jehovah’s Witness who went to jail rather than drive with a license plate saying “Live Free or Die,” is upholding the right of all of us, of whatever gender, color or religion, not to be compelled to express a message we oppose. [Bold Mine] Found this an interesting piece, and it might be part of Masterpiece Cakeshop's defense. If it's determined that custom decorating a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding is tantamount to participating in the event and, more importantly, condoning it, then the State can't force Masterpiece Cakeshop to participate in the celebration by forcing Mr Phillips to custom decorate wedding cakes for same-sex marriage celebrations, when condoning it is opposed to Mr. Phillip's religious beliefs. I heard that Mr Phillips offered to sell the couple a cake, icing and icing bags for them to take to another decorator. IF (and I haven't found any proof that's true yet) that's the case, then the only thing Mr Phillips refused to sell to the couple was his ability to decorate; his artistic talent. Again, that's anecdotal and may or may not be true.

DesideriScuri -> RE: An American dialogue (12/30/2017 7:09:48 AM)
FR, Man oh man!! There is good reading out there!! https://verdict.justia.com/2017/12/12/liberty-equality-sometimes-require-tragic-choices-just-not-masterpiece-cakeshop https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/268678/gays-and-wedding-cakes-bruce-bawer

JVoV -> RE: An American dialogue (12/30/2017 12:31:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri FR, Man oh man!! There is good reading out there!! https://verdict.justia.com/2017/12/12/liberty-equality-sometimes-require-tragic-choices-just-not-masterpiece-cakeshop https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/268678/gays-and-wedding-cakes-bruce-bawer The first article was pretty good. The second misses the point that the actions took place before marriage became a universal right. That second article is also condescending as hell, don't you think? We gays should be grateful we can get married and just leave good Christian folk alone now? No. A bakery cannot discriminate against a couple asking for a wedding cake because of race, gender, sexual orientation, or religious affiliation of one or both members of the couple. Although, I do fully admit that the author of the first article seriously lost all credibility at the mention of "Vegan Treats". Who the fuck wants vegan cake?

DesideriScuri -> RE: An American dialogue (12/30/2017 5:39:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri FR, Man oh man!! There is good reading out there!! https://verdict.justia.com/2017/12/12/liberty-equality-sometimes-require-tragic-choices-just-not-masterpiece-cakeshop https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/268678/gays-and-wedding-cakes-bruce-bawer The first article was pretty good. The second misses the point that the actions took place before marriage became a universal right. That second article is also condescending as hell, don't you think? We gays should be grateful we can get married and just leave good Christian folk alone now? No. A bakery cannot discriminate against a couple asking for a wedding cake because of race, gender, sexual orientation, or religious affiliation of one or both members of the couple. Although, I do fully admit that the author of the first article seriously lost all credibility at the mention of "Vegan Treats". Who the fuck wants vegan cake? Uh, a vegan? The first article was a very good article. The second article wasn't really all that condescending, imo. You're talking about a gay man who championed gay marriage rights before they were popular with the gay Left (as he describes). Mr Phillips actually has no problem selling homosexuals any of his baked goods. He just won't design one celebrating something his religious beliefs find offensive. The gay couple could easily have bought a cake from Mr Phillips. They (and nobody else) just couldn't get him to custom create one celebrating a homosexual wedding.

JVoV -> RE: An American dialogue (12/31/2017 10:19:00 AM)
I agree with you 100%. But since he cannot in good faith provide his cake decorating services to customers equally, then his business should not provide any wedding cakes at all. As it looks on their website, they're getting around this specific legality by making tiered cakes that certainly resemble traditional wedding cakes, but selling them as custom "specialty" cakes. Isn't that clever of them? This bakery doesn't care about rules, or laws. Flagrant copyright & trademark violations show that.

DesideriScuri -> RE: An American dialogue (12/31/2017 2:12:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV I agree with you 100%. But since he cannot in good faith provide his cake decorating services to customers equally, then his business should not provide any wedding cakes at all. As it looks on their website, they're getting around this specific legality by making tiered cakes that certainly resemble traditional wedding cakes, but selling them as custom "specialty" cakes. Isn't that clever of them? This bakery doesn't care about rules, or laws. Flagrant copyright & trademark violations show that. He can provide his cake decorating services to customers equally. He doesn't decorate cakes celebrating Halloween, divorce, or homosexual weddings, and won't sell them to anybody, gay or straight. You see heterosexual wedding cakes and homosexual wedding cakes as the same. According to his beliefs, they are not the same. I don't know what "specialty cake" pictures you saw that looked like traditional wedding cakes. Unless you're talking about the pic collection on the homepage or the intro video, also on the front page. Go to the Wedding cake page, there are pics of prior work and, at the top of the frame, a message: "Masterpiece Cakeshop is not currently accepting requests to create custom wedding cakes. Please check back in the future." None of the specialty cakes really look anything like a traditional wedding cake. There is one that looks like a hatbox in teal, white and black (lots of fondant and coloring dyes there) that could be a satellite of a main wedding cake, but that's about it. Pictures of prior work demonstrate his craftsmanship and artistry, so it shouldn't be unusual to think they'd still have pictures of prior wedding cakes.

JVoV -> RE: An American dialogue (12/31/2017 6:31:22 PM)
He has decorated and sold wedding cakes, and wishes to continue doing so, for heterosexual couples. Just not gay couples. He doesn't approve of same sex marriage because he does not approve of homosexuality. The Colorado Civil Rights law is in place for exactly this reason. In the Specialty gallery, pic #6 could very easily be mistaken as a wedding cake.

DesideriScuri -> RE: An American dialogue (12/31/2017 8:02:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV He has decorated and sold wedding cakes, and wishes to continue doing so, for heterosexual couples. Just not gay couples. He doesn't approve of same sex marriage because he does not approve of homosexuality. The Colorado Civil Rights law is in place for exactly this reason. You are correct that he has custom decorated and sold cakes celebrating heterosexual weddings, and wishes to continue to do so. He does not wish to custom decorate and sell cakes celebrating homosexual weddings. His religious beliefs oppose homosexuality and homosexual weddings, so he doesn't want to custom decorate a cake celebrating a homosexual wedding, because it would violate his religious beliefs. He does not have a problem selling any of his pastries to homosexuals or heterosexuals. He does have a problem customizing a cake celebrating Halloween, divorce, and homosexual weddings. All because those things are offensive in his belief system. quote: In the Specialty gallery, pic #6 could very easily be mistaken as a wedding cake. Easily mistaken? I guess we don't have the same idea of what a "traditional wedding cake" is. But, yes, I suppose that could have been used to celebrate a wedding.

Lucylastic -> RE: An American dialogue (12/31/2017 8:20:25 PM)
Oregon Bakery That Wouldn’t Bake a Cake for Same Sex Couple Loses Final Appeal The now shuttered Sweet Cakes by Melissa, which refused service to and doxxed the gay couple will pay damages equalling $135,000 https://pdx.eater.com/2017/12/29/16830772/oregon-bakery-loses-appeal-gay-wedding-cake This week, the Oregon Court of Appeals confirmed Melissa and Aaron Klein must pay damages equalling $135,000 for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple in 2013, to O reports. The Oregon Court of Appeals upheld a ruling that the Kleins’ now-shuttered Gresham bakery, Sweet Cakes by Melisa, violated the Oregon Equality Act, when it denied Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer’s cake order based on sexual orientation. The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries originally ruled against the Kleins in 2015, and this week’s ruling upheld that decision. Upon the 2015 ruling, the Kleins briefly refused to pay the damages demanded by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries. That same year, the Kleins did pay the fine in full, plus interest, but soon after filed an appeal. Before the Oregon Court of Appeals’s decision, the Kleins argued they had acted within their rights when they denied the cake order, seeking a religious exemption from the Oregon Equality Act. They also argued the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries had violated their free speech protections. But on December 28, 2017, Judge Chris Garret of the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled the Kleins’ free speech rights had not been violated by the the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, because its ruling "requires their compliance with a neutral law.” The Court also decided the Kleins provided no evidence to support their claim the State of Oregon had targeted them based on their religious beliefs. Appeals court upholds fine against Christian bakers who refused to make same-sex wedding cake [Oregonian]

DesideriScuri -> RE: An American dialogue (1/1/2018 1:23:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Oregon Bakery That Wouldn’t Bake a Cake for Same Sex Couple Loses Final Appeal The now shuttered Sweet Cakes by Melissa, which refused service to and doxxed the gay couple will pay damages equalling $135,000 https://pdx.eater.com/2017/12/29/16830772/oregon-bakery-loses-appeal-gay-wedding-cake This week, the Oregon Court of Appeals confirmed Melissa and Aaron Klein must pay damages equalling $135,000 for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple in 2013, to O reports. The Oregon Court of Appeals upheld a ruling that the Kleins’ now-shuttered Gresham bakery, Sweet Cakes by Melisa, violated the Oregon Equality Act, when it denied Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer’s cake order based on sexual orientation. The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries originally ruled against the Kleins in 2015, and this week’s ruling upheld that decision. Upon the 2015 ruling, the Kleins briefly refused to pay the damages demanded by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries. That same year, the Kleins did pay the fine in full, plus interest, but soon after filed an appeal. Before the Oregon Court of Appeals’s decision, the Kleins argued they had acted within their rights when they denied the cake order, seeking a religious exemption from the Oregon Equality Act. They also argued the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries had violated their free speech protections. But on December 28, 2017, Judge Chris Garret of the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled the Kleins’ free speech rights had not been violated by the the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, because its ruling "requires their compliance with a neutral law.” The Court also decided the Kleins provided no evidence to support their claim the State of Oregon had targeted them based on their religious beliefs. Appeals court upholds fine against Christian bakers who refused to make same-sex wedding cake [Oregonian] And that can change upon the decision by the SCOTUS in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, no?

LadyPact -> RE: An American dialogue (1/3/2018 12:27:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri FR, Man oh man!! There is good reading out there!! https://verdict.justia.com/2017/12/12/liberty-equality-sometimes-require-tragic-choices-just-not-masterpiece-cakeshop https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/268678/gays-and-wedding-cakes-bruce-bawer I wanted to say thank you for posting these two articles. I do admit to liking the first more than the second. Probably because I found the first more focused on points of law and very much in tune with many of the areas that have been discussed on this thread. (To me, that means at least some of our thoughts and ideas are on something of the right track when trying to talk about it here amongst ourselves.) The second? I don't know if I would have used the term condescending as JVoV did, but I do think it applies. I came away more from it with this uneasy feel that there was definitely a 'chip on the shoulder' mentality from the author, and in this instance, I think it influenced his piece. Yes, I understand that it IS an opinion piece, but whatever is back there (from the author's past about the subject of marriage equality) might be almost considered baggage. This might have something to do with my personal opinion of authors who are quick to use terms as "the right" or "the left" with the implication that they are automatic derogatory terms and attach their own prejudices to them and my personal dislike of the tactic. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Mr Phillips actually has no problem selling homosexuals any of his baked goods. He just won't design one celebrating something his religious beliefs find offensive. The gay couple could easily have bought a cake from Mr Phillips. They (and nobody else) just couldn't get him to custom create one celebrating a homosexual wedding. (Bold mine.) I don't honestly know if this is the case. The man's been in business 20 some odd years, yes? In all that time, there weren't any same sex couples who purchased cakes for celebrating adopting children, housewarming parties, (aka the couple bought their home together) or anniversaries? Any kind of occasion where any same gendered couple obviously lived together and would be assumed to be engaged in a romantic/sexual relationship. It just seems weird to me that nothing ever came up until it was a wedding, which makes me wonder if it's not about the 'homosexual sex is a sin," and rather the ceremony. I still wonder things like had Phillips ever denied decorating a wedding cake in cases of het couples that lived together prior to getting married because that's also supposed to be the definition of living in sin. quote: Go to the Wedding cake page, there are pics of prior work and, at the top of the frame, a message: "Masterpiece Cakeshop is not currently accepting requests to create custom wedding cakes. Please check back in the future." After thinking about this more since the last time we were interacting about this point, I have to give credit where it's due. This was a very strategic suggestion that must have been made to Phillips by the team arguing the case for him. Phillips is likely losing business during the interim of not selling wedding cakes at all. At the same time, it keeps him free of any additional discrimination complaints until the case is decided. It's a smart move. One other thing I'd like to say. I realize that my posts on this thread make it exceedingly obvious how I would prefer the case to be decided. However, even aside from that, I find the case fascinating on just the legal aspects and the questions it has raised.

Page: << < prev 20 21 [22] 23 24 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.2714844