Conquer Club

Well, it's kind of like how you aren't supposed to say the 'N' word unless you're black. You're not allowed to say the 'M' word unless you're a heterosexual Christian. That's our word, so stop the bigoting.

You've already proven in another thread that sex outside of the heterosexual marriage union is classified as rape, so stop with the double standard.

DoomYoshi wrote:Well, it's kind of like how you aren't supposed to say the 'N' word unless you're black. You're not allowed to say the 'M' word unless you're a heterosexual Christian. That's our word, so stop the bigoting.

You've already proven in another thread that sex outside of the heterosexual marriage union is classified as rape, so stop with the double standard.

You think that me, of all people, has "proven" that that heterosexual marriage is the only right way to have sex?

You might need to have a bit of a rethink, DY.

Symmetry wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:Well, it's kind of like how you aren't supposed to say the 'N' word unless you're black. You're not allowed to say the 'M' word unless you're a heterosexual Christian. That's our word, so stop the bigoting.

You've already proven in another thread that sex outside of the heterosexual marriage union is classified as rape, so stop with the double standard.

You think that me, of all people, has "proven" that that heterosexual marriage is the only right way to have sex?

You might need to have a bit of a rethink, DY.

Isn't that your point in the Jefferson rehash? That sex out of wedlock is an abominable sin?

DoomYoshi wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:Well, it's kind of like how you aren't supposed to say the 'N' word unless you're black. You're not allowed to say the 'M' word unless you're a heterosexual Christian. That's our word, so stop the bigoting.

You've already proven in another thread that sex outside of the heterosexual marriage union is classified as rape, so stop with the double standard.

You think that me, of all people, has "proven" that that heterosexual marriage is the only right way to have sex?

You might need to have a bit of a rethink, DY.

Isn't that your point in the Jefferson rehash? That sex out of wedlock is an abominable sin?

No.

mrswdk wrote:Update!!

So far in this thread a bakery refusing to serve a customer because they are gay has been compared to:

- A business having a dress code for customers
- A religious school teaching religion
- A Yankee fan taunting a Red Sox fan
- A black person refusing to work for the KKK
- A magnet factory refusing to hire someone with lots of piercings
- A bartender refusing to serve a pregnant woman
- MENSA refusing to admit people with low IQs

I think a good analogy to add to this list would be a sushi restaurant refusing to make a cheeseburger on request. What do you guys think?

Also add: ''A human being seeking freedom from group-oppression''.

mrswdk wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Update!!

So far in this thread a bakery refusing to serve a customer because they are gay has been compared to:

- A business having a dress code for customers
- A religious school teaching religion
- A Yankee fan taunting a Red Sox fan
- A black person refusing to work for the KKK
- A magnet factory refusing to hire someone with lots of piercings
- A bartender refusing to serve a pregnant woman
- MENSA refusing to admit people with low IQs

I think a good analogy to add to this list would be a sushi restaurant refusing to make a cheeseburger on request. What do you guys think?

I like it. Your brain might have a right hemisphere after all.

2dimes wrote:No. You can't refuse a cake because the customer is a liberal.

Why not? If someone wants you to make a cake with a message that you refuse to put on a cake, there is nothing that forces you to decorate that cake.

People confuse the right of accommodation with the right of commission. No you can't go to Howard Roark and demand he build you a Greek Style temple. (Never mind that he's fictional.) And you can't go to a song writer and demand they compose a song that's against their beliefs either. Designing a cake is not the same as getting a cake from the counter.

mrswdk wrote:I think a good analogy to add to this list would be a sushi restaurant refusing to make a cheeseburger on request. What do you guys think?

Well, there is no cheese here but ... Sushi Burger

Agreed!

I also think a baker refusing to bake for a gay wedding is like a station refusing to let its passengers on the tracks.

You guys are like blinkers that are out of blinker fluid.

tzor wrote:

2dimes wrote:No. You can't refuse a cake because the customer is a liberal.

Why not? If someone wants you to make a cake with a message that you refuse to put on a cake, there is nothing that forces you to decorate that cake.

People confuse the right of accommodation with the right of commission. No you can't go to Howard Roark and demand he build you a Greek Style temple. (Never mind that he's fictional.) And you can't go to a song writer and demand they compose a song that's against their beliefs either. Designing a cake is not the same as getting a cake from the counter.

We were discussing cakes, I'm not sure about how far to go in regards to forcing customization. I think it is reasonable to expect the bakery to provide a cake equal to one in the display case, or one the same as one they made for another customer. My preference is laws that require that everyone has equal access to the products.

If your fictional guy is building Greek style temples, I think he should build one for anyone willing to pay but I agree that he should not be forced to build something that he does not usually build just because another builder builds whatever it is.

I never suggested that we should be forcing bakeries to make custom cakes. That part can be optional. If you need a special cake the bakery does not make you might have to find another source, I think it is reasonable for you to refuse to write the liberal message. Just you can not, refuse to sell and make the cake or intentionally make a substandard one.

2dimes wrote:

tzor wrote:

2dimes wrote:No. You can't refuse a cake because the customer is a liberal.

Why not? If someone wants you to make a cake with a message that you refuse to put on a cake, there is nothing that forces you to decorate that cake.

People confuse the right of accommodation with the right of commission. No you can't go to Howard Roark and demand he build you a Greek Style temple. (Never mind that he's fictional.) And you can't go to a song writer and demand they compose a song that's against their beliefs either. Designing a cake is not the same as getting a cake from the counter.

We were discussing cakes, I'm not sure about how far to go in regards to forcing customization. I think it is reasonable to expect the bakery to provide a cake equal to one in the display case, or one the same as one they made for another customer. My preference is laws that require that everyone has equal access to the products.

If your fictional guy is building Greek style temples, I think he should build one for anyone willing to pay but I agree that he should not be forced to build something that he does not usually build just because another builder builds whatever it is.

I never suggested that we should be forcing bakeries to make custom cakes. That part can be optional. If you need a special cake the bakery does not make you might have to find another source, I think it is reasonable for you to refuse to write the liberal message. Just you can not, refuse to sell and make the cake or intentionally make a substandard one.

I made your favorite 2cents! Dark Chocolate-Fudge Cake. Try not to deep throat it.....save some for your significant other.

mrswdk wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Update!!

So far in this thread a bakery refusing to serve a customer because they are gay has been compared to:

- A business having a dress code for customers
- A religious school teaching religion
- A Yankee fan taunting a Red Sox fan
- A black person refusing to work for the KKK
- A magnet factory refusing to hire someone with lots of piercings
- A bartender refusing to serve a pregnant woman
- MENSA refusing to admit people with low IQs

I think a good analogy to add to this list would be a sushi restaurant refusing to make a cheeseburger on request. What do you guys think?

So cute. Yet you haven't offered an argument. Don't be a symmetry.

What's the difference between a private organization (mensa) excluding average iq people, and another private organization (bakery) excluding some other group of people, in this case gays. Intelligence is largely determined by genetics, so to exclude based on iq is no different than excluding based on race or dick preference.

-TG

Leaving aside your controversial/fraudulent claim that intelligence is mostly genetic... I don't know what people do at Mensa meetings but presumably being reasonably intelligent is a prerequisite to being able to do it well. Same as having a certain ability in a subject is necessary to study a degree in it, being fit and strong is necessary to be an NFL player etc. You don't need to be heterosexual to buy a cake though.

Telling black people they can't audition to play a Gestapo because none of the Gestapo were black = not discrimination
Telling black people they can't work for you as an analyst because you don't want to hire a black = discrimination

Ya seen?

mrswdk wrote:Freedom of religion does not mean someone can do literally anything they want as long as they cite religious beliefs. Would it be okay for people in America to carry out human sacrifices if that was part of their religion?

Have you ever been to a temple of the god Abortion?

DirtyDishSoap wrote:

Symmetry wrote:To be clear- as far as I know, the bakery did not refuse to serve the customer because they were gay. They refused to make a gay wedding cake.

If they refused customers based on their sexual orientation, to me that should be unlawful. Refusing to make a wedding cake, however obnoxious the refusal is, is a political stance.

Using religion to justify that stance is pretty shaky. Many Christians support gay marriage. It's not really a key tenet of being Christian.

Eh, depends on the cake. The baker has a right to refuse to make a cake if he/she finds it unreasonable. If you came to a bakery asking to make a cake with the depiction of Michael Jackson taking a 8 inch wiener up his ass on top of it, and making the flavor coconut, I think a bakery would have the right to refuse to do business.

When we boil down to it, service can be refused to everyone provided it's blanket. No shoes, no shirt, no service is a prime example.

Yeah. Coconut, yuk.

DoomYoshi wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Freedom of religion does not mean someone can do literally anything they want as long as they cite religious beliefs. Would it be okay for people in America to carry out human sacrifices if that was part of their religion?

That's what the Mexicans used to do until the Missionaries beat it out of them.

WARNING: Actual Live Reinactment!


I suppose the moral of this story is that when a Good religion persecutes a Bad religion (or other evil/deleterious social movement), that's a GOOD THING!

mrswdk wrote:I also think a baker refusing to bake for a gay wedding is like a station refusing to let its passengers on the tracks.

So "work" is the same as "access?"

There is a generally accepted term for forced labor ... slavery.

Baking a cake is "work" ... getting a cake I have already baked is "access."

tzor wrote:

mrswdk wrote:I also think a baker refusing to bake for a gay wedding is like a station refusing to let its passengers on the tracks.

So "work" is the same as "access?"

There is a generally accepted term for forced labor ... slavery.

Baking a cake is "work" ... getting a cake I have already baked is "access."

This was actually one of the things that led to the fall of the Roman Empire. As the Empire tried to provide free bread to native-born Italians, and the flow of plunder from conquered territories slowed down, succeeding Emperors tried to save money by reducing the price of bread by law. Eventually, it got to the point that the price of bread wasn't worth the work and bakers began quitting, at which point they were legislated back to work and guarded by soldiers who prevented them from quitting. The position of "baker", which had been a highly-respected middle-class business in the early days of the Empire, gradually became less and less desirable until finally it became a type of slave. In the end, it cost more to seek out and capture bakers and return them to servitude than it would have cost to just pay them decently in the first place. The law under which baker were forced to not abandon their posts was gradually expanded to other professions, until most artisans were not much more than slaves, and this contributed heavily towards the stagnation of the economy.

Dukasaur wrote:

tzor wrote:

mrswdk wrote:I also think a baker refusing to bake for a gay wedding is like a station refusing to let its passengers on the tracks.

So "work" is the same as "access?"

There is a generally accepted term for forced labor ... slavery.

Baking a cake is "work" ... getting a cake I have already baked is "access."

This was actually one of the things that led to the fall of the Roman Empire. As the Empire tried to provide free bread to native-born Italians, and the flow of plunder from conquered territories slowed down, succeeding Emperors tried to save money by reducing the price of bread by law. Eventually, it got to the point that the price of bread wasn't worth the work and bakers began quitting, at which point they were legislated back to work and guarded by soldiers who prevented them from quitting. The position of "baker", which had been a highly-respected middle-class business in the early days of the Empire, gradually became less and less desirable until finally it became a type of slave. In the end, it cost more to seek out and capture bakers and return them to servitude than it would have cost to just pay them decently in the first place. The law under which baker were forced to not abandon their posts was gradually expanded to other professions, until most artisans were not much more than slaves, and this contributed heavily towards the stagnation of the economy.

Indeed. Decadent childless gays have more disposable income. They should be made to pay more for their wedding cakes.

mrswdk wrote:Update!!

So far in this thread a bakery refusing to serve a customer because the customer is gay has been compared to:

- A business having a dress code for customers
- A religious school teaching religion
- A Yankee fan taunting a Red Sox fan
- A black person refusing to work for the KKK
- A magnet factory refusing to hire someone with lots of piercings
- A bartender refusing to serve a pregnant woman
- MENSA refusing to admit people with low IQs
- Roman slaves trying to escape their servitude

Also just to note that TG never replied to my post which is the classic online forum method of signalling that he agrees with everything I said. Winning ^_^

mrswdk wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Update!!

So far in this thread a bakery refusing to serve a customer because the customer is gay has been compared to:

- A business having a dress code for customers
- A religious school teaching religion
- A Yankee fan taunting a Red Sox fan
- A black person refusing to work for the KKK
- A magnet factory refusing to hire someone with lots of piercings
- A bartender refusing to serve a pregnant woman
- MENSA refusing to admit people with low IQs
- Roman slaves trying to escape their servitude

Also just to note that TG never replied to my post which is the classic online forum method of signalling that he agrees with everything I said. Winning ^_^

Hardly la. Just busy.

mrswdk wrote:Leaving aside your controversial/fraudulent claim that intelligence is mostly genetic... I don't know what people do at Mensa meetings but presumably being reasonably intelligent is a prerequisite to being able to do it well. Same as having a certain ability in a subject is necessary to study a degree in it, being fit and strong is necessary to be an NFL player etc. You don't need to be heterosexual to buy a cake though.

Telling black people they can't audition to play a Gestapo because none of the Gestapo were black = not discrimination
Telling black people they can't work for you as an analyst because you don't want to hire a black = discrimination

Ya seen?

They don't do anything at mensa, just congratulate themselves on how smart they are. Its some purpose is for like-minded people to associate.

How about women-only gyms? Must they be forced to accept men? You don't need to be a woman to stretch out on a yoga mat.

-TG

Dukasaur wrote:

tzor wrote:

mrswdk wrote:I also think a baker refusing to bake for a gay wedding is like a station refusing to let its passengers on the tracks.

So "work" is the same as "access?"

There is a generally accepted term for forced labor ... slavery.

Baking a cake is "work" ... getting a cake I have already baked is "access."

This was actually one of the things that led to the fall of the Roman Empire. As the Empire tried to provide free bread to native-born Italians, and the flow of plunder from conquered territories slowed down, succeeding Emperors tried to save money by reducing the price of bread by law. Eventually, it got to the point that the price of bread wasn't worth the work and bakers began quitting, at which point they were legislated back to work and guarded by soldiers who prevented them from quitting. The position of "baker", which had been a highly-respected middle-class business in the early days of the Empire, gradually became less and less desirable until finally it became a type of slave. In the end, it cost more to seek out and capture bakers and return them to servitude than it would have cost to just pay them decently in the first place. The law under which baker were forced to not abandon their posts was gradually expanded to other professions, until most artisans were not much more than slaves, and this contributed heavily towards the stagnation of the economy.

That's kinda interesting to hear- what's your source for that? It's not exactly something that most classicists or historians I know have ever put forward. But then they (well, mainly the classicists) tend towards "Great Men" theories (in general, not exclusively).

It's not my time, but social history is kind of more my field.

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Update!!

So far in this thread a bakery refusing to serve a customer because the customer is gay has been compared to:

- A business having a dress code for customers
- A religious school teaching religion
- A Yankee fan taunting a Red Sox fan
- A black person refusing to work for the KKK
- A magnet factory refusing to hire someone with lots of piercings
- A bartender refusing to serve a pregnant woman
- MENSA refusing to admit people with low IQs
- Roman slaves trying to escape their servitude

Also just to note that TG never replied to my post which is the classic online forum method of signalling that he agrees with everything I said. Winning ^_^

Hardly la. Just busy.

mrswdk wrote:Leaving aside your controversial/fraudulent claim that intelligence is mostly genetic... I don't know what people do at Mensa meetings but presumably being reasonably intelligent is a prerequisite to being able to do it well. Same as having a certain ability in a subject is necessary to study a degree in it, being fit and strong is necessary to be an NFL player etc. You don't need to be heterosexual to buy a cake though.

Telling black people they can't audition to play a Gestapo because none of the Gestapo were black = not discrimination
Telling black people they can't work for you as an analyst because you don't want to hire a black = discrimination

Ya seen?

They don't do anything at mensa, just congratulate themselves on how smart they are. Its some purpose is for like-minded people to associate.

How about women-only gyms? Must they be forced to accept men? You don't need to be a woman to stretch out on a yoga mat.

-TG

My experience of Mensa was that there were a bunch of clubs in which you could meet other Mensa people who shared your interests, you could meet up if you were in an area where there were enough members to bother with, and (In London) there were some actually quite interesting meetings where people would debate various topics. Often we would have celebrity guests to start the debates off. But my overwhelming take-away impression was that having a high IQ didn't stop anybody from being an arsehole, having bloody stupid opinions, or being unable to apply logic to matters that were personal to them. Oh, and Issac Asimov was a toilet-head.