This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Mad Max
Pages: 1 ... 333435 3637 ... 251
1021
« on: July 09, 2015, 12:01:53 PM »
If they weren't gay, they would not have been denied service.
And if they were just hosting a party, they wouldn't have been refused. What exactly is your point?
Well if they were hosting a gay pride party or something, I would assume they would have been refused on the same grounds.
1022
« on: July 09, 2015, 11:50:58 AM »
Is their faith wrong? I think so. Are their values stupid? Sure. But you don't change stupid values by violating their freedom to hold them. But in the state of Oregon, their anti-discrimination laws prevent you from denying a service to a customer because they are gay, which is what happened here. If this was a straight couple, this wouldn't have been a problem in the slightest.
I wonder how many cakes this bakery provided to adulterers and the like, since that's also a no-no in the Christian faith.
Well maybe if someone came in requesting a cake for their adultery party, they might refuse that, too.
It's not about the couple, it's about the event.
But it's the couple's event. it's their gay wedding. If they weren't gay, they would not have been denied service.
1023
« on: July 09, 2015, 11:44:29 AM »
they should be sure they aren't endorsing any other unions of people who don't follow the word of Christ as strictly as they do.
I'm also fairly certain they'd adhere to the litany of phrases in the Bible about not judging one's fellow neighbour, and prying into somebody's sex life on the basis that they might be an adulterer would probably come off as rather judgemental.
But this is such a stupid fucking argument to have; whether or not the bakers are morons, as I think they are, and whether or not they have hypocritical business practices as you think there's still no justification for violating their freedom to hold and abide by these values. I mean, come on man, for fuck's sake it's not a difficult idea to grasp.
How the fuck would a bakery even determine if somebody was an adulterer? That's just a non-starter in terms of an argument; how do you even reach the conclusion that such a thing is feasible?
You're right, it's fucking dumb, because this whole thing is fucking dumb. If Jesus was all about loving thy neighbor and all that jazz, "I refuse to provide this service to you because you're gay" isn't exactly loving. They aren't being Christians, they're being assholes.
1024
« on: July 09, 2015, 11:38:38 AM »
If this was a straight couple, this wouldn't have been a problem in the slightest. . . . Who's denying that? That's the entire issue here.
I wonder how many cakes this bakery provided to adulterers and the like, since that's also a no-no in the Christian faith. Right, because the bakery is going to be aware of who is an adulterer when they ask for a cake. That's a fucking specious analogy.
Well if they're going to be so thorough in their Christian faith as to deny service to a customer because it's a gay wedding and they don't want to appear to approve of gay weddings, they should be sure they aren't endorsing any other unions of people who don't follow the word of Christ as strictly as they do.
1025
« on: July 09, 2015, 11:31:14 AM »
Is their faith wrong? I think so. Are their values stupid? Sure. But you don't change stupid values by violating their freedom to hold them. But in the state of Oregon, their anti-discrimination laws prevent you from denying a service to a customer because they are gay, which is what happened here. If this was a straight couple, this wouldn't have been a problem in the slightest. I wonder how many cakes this bakery provided to adulterers and the like, since that's also a no-no in the Christian faith.
1026
« on: July 09, 2015, 11:19:27 AM »
That's not justice, that's punitive damage.
The American system of awarding triple and punitive damages is hands down one of the worst judicial policies that still exist in the
That aside, is there any place where you can access these judgements? This makes it very unclear whether this is 135k purely emotional damages, or whether this includes the likes of legal fees and process costs.
It's typically unusual for the losing side to have to pay the other's legal fees, and when that's done it's specifically stated. In this case, the judge ruled that their emotional damages for the incident alone (not years of stress due to court, etc) was worth $135k. That's insane.
Do you have a link to the actual judgement?
I'm not sure what you mean. Lower courts don't have to come out with a lengthy explanation of the reasoning for their verdict.
I can only assume that there still exists a formal and written ruling, no?
I explored the OR courts database, but you need a login and password to get to anything.
1027
« on: July 09, 2015, 11:14:22 AM »
But they weren't being forced to participate in the wedding. They were just baking a cake for the reception - exactly what they did for plenty of customers before.
I'm confused about how that is not participating in the wedding. It's a wedding cake for the wedding reception. And threat of $135k in damages seems pretty forceful.
I don't see how providing a cake for the reception means you're participating in the wedding. You're not being made to perform the wedding. You're not standing up there with the brides. You're not even in attendance at the wedding. A cake you made is on the table at the reception. The cake doesn't even have your business's name on it, much less your own name. If you're at the point where you care what your customers do with your product that effects you in no way, perhaps you shouldn't be in that line of business.
1028
« on: July 09, 2015, 11:01:05 AM »
local businesses like photographers and florists refused to work with them, and they lost their business two years ago.
To be fair these are the best way to tell these businesses to stop being fundies or fuck off.
Is it, though? Do these guys really deserve a nationwide mob-mentality against them, the loss of their business and reputation, and crippling debt for refusing to serve them? We're talking 2007, when the majority of the country opposed gay marriage, including big democrats like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Yes there was a law on the books about discrimination based on sexual orientation, but that isn't what happened. They refused to make a cake for a gay wedding, not because the couple was gay. That may be splitting hairs, but they wouldn't have made the cake regardless of who ordered it; a third-party wedding planner could have placed the order and they'd still refuse, or the couple could have made an order for ostensibly any other event and they wouldn't be refused. That's their issue here. They didn't discriminate based on sexual orientation, they discriminated against participation in an event which conflicts with their religious belief (one that was mainstream and not at all fundamentalist). Hell, for my wedding I tried to get catering from my favorite local restaurant owned by a gay couple, and they refused to do it because they weren't comfortable doing it in a Christian church. Do they deserve to have their lives ruined because I had to go find another caterer?
I didn't express support for government intervention in the matter, nor for vandalism and other crimes. I just support businesses choosing to not extend their services to businesses whom they disagree based on their principles, which in this case, happened when a business refused to extend their services over something irrational or petty.
And it is bullshit to frame this issue as religious people being forced to participate in things that are against their religious beliefs, no one is forcing them to be a catering business. When you open an establishment, the public expects that you should extend service to customers as long as they are paying and willing, and not according to some questionable moral beliefs.
Let's not ignore the fact that providing baked goods to gays isn't in direct conflict with the Christian faith. It's not like making a Muslim eat pork. Nothing happens to a Christian if you provide your business's service to gays.
Well I addressed that in my post. They didn't want to participate in a gay marriage. They didn't refuse to serve the customers because they were gay.
But they weren't being forced to participate in the wedding. They were just baking a cake for the reception - exactly what they did for plenty of customers before.
1029
« on: July 09, 2015, 10:56:42 AM »
local businesses like photographers and florists refused to work with them, and they lost their business two years ago.
To be fair these are the best way to tell these businesses to stop being fundies or fuck off.
Is it, though? Do these guys really deserve a nationwide mob-mentality against them, the loss of their business and reputation, and crippling debt for refusing to serve them? We're talking 2007, when the majority of the country opposed gay marriage, including big democrats like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Yes there was a law on the books about discrimination based on sexual orientation, but that isn't what happened. They refused to make a cake for a gay wedding, not because the couple was gay. That may be splitting hairs, but they wouldn't have made the cake regardless of who ordered it; a third-party wedding planner could have placed the order and they'd still refuse, or the couple could have made an order for ostensibly any other event and they wouldn't be refused. That's their issue here. They didn't discriminate based on sexual orientation, they discriminated against participation in an event which conflicts with their religious belief (one that was mainstream and not at all fundamentalist). Hell, for my wedding I tried to get catering from my favorite local restaurant owned by a gay couple, and they refused to do it because they weren't comfortable doing it in a Christian church. Do they deserve to have their lives ruined because I had to go find another caterer?
I didn't express support for government intervention in the matter, nor for vandalism and other crimes. I just support businesses choosing to not extend their services to businesses whom they disagree based on their principles, which in this case, happened when a business refused to extend their services over something irrational or petty.
And it is bullshit to frame this issue as religious people being forced to participate in things that are against their religious beliefs, no one is forcing them to be a catering business. When you open an establishment, the public expects that you should extend service to customers as long as they are paying and willing, and not according to some questionable moral beliefs.
Let's not ignore the fact that providing baked goods to gays isn't in direct conflict with the Christian faith. It's not like making a Muslim eat pork. Nothing happens to a Christian if you provide your business's service to gays.
1030
« on: July 09, 2015, 10:40:03 AM »
I don't want to come across as a Destiny hater, but the way the new Destiny fans took a shit all over the functionality of the site certainly was a nail in the coffin for me. Literally every section became about Destiny, #offtopic was the only one that was only kinda immune.
That, plus the fact that b.next brought the ability to make a new account with the same name while removing punishment for ban evasion, rendering bans virtually meaning less, certainly detracted from the quality of the site. At least previously there were small hurdles to go over in order to make a new account to get around a ban.
1031
« on: July 09, 2015, 10:16:32 AM »
ITT: Max engages in argument from authority despite that he was blubbering over the fact gay marriage was illegal a few months ago.
Well unless the details of the ruling are publicly available, which it doesn't seem since OP hasn't linked it, all we can do is speculate as to why the number is what it is, which is ultimately pointless. That's why i'm saying the judge must have had his reasons. I don't see how that's in conflict with my distaste for same sex marriage being illegal.
1032
« on: July 09, 2015, 01:37:19 AM »
That's way too steep of a fine. By a long shot.
The judge didn't think so.
His ruling should be over ruled, or the case should be thrown back into arbitration. It's way to harsh, for something so petty.
Hey man, I'm just saying that he clearly thought that number was acceptable for whatever reason. I don't know how much of that $135k was damages, legal fees, etc.
1033
« on: July 09, 2015, 01:30:51 AM »
That's way too steep of a fine. By a long shot.
The judge didn't think so.
1034
« on: July 09, 2015, 01:18:31 AM »
Serious answer though, if they're from before '96 they're worth a fortune.
Some reach into the thousands range regardless of condition.
I might have some from 94. Most are 97 I think.
1035
« on: July 09, 2015, 01:17:47 AM »
Break the law - pay the price. Sucks, but it is what it is.
I'd agree if the court had said it was for punitive damages, which are intended as a punishment. The damages were strictly emotional, meaning the two women supposedly suffered $135,000 in emotional pain, yet the bakery owners lost their business and reputation.
I really don't know how one determines cost of intangible damages. If that's what the judge found to be fair, I guess that's what is fair. Burning down a house or totaling a car? Yeah, we can measure that. No idea how emotional distress and such works.
But apparently the owners thought fighting for their "right" to discriminate against customers was worth the risk, so I hardly feel bad for their loss.
Except no laws were broken and they have a right to refuse customers. You're terrible human being for wishing them ill.
A 2007 Oregon law protects the rights of LGBT people in employment, housing and public accommodations. It provides an exemption for religious organisations, but the agency ruled that exemption does not allow private businesses to discriminate against potential customers.
RTFA.
Dumb laws that shouldn't be laws don't have to be followed. You probably break a few every day.
Ok Camnator.
1036
« on: July 09, 2015, 01:03:03 AM »
Break the law - pay the price. Sucks, but it is what it is.
I'd agree if the court had said it was for punitive damages, which are intended as a punishment. The damages were strictly emotional, meaning the two women supposedly suffered $135,000 in emotional pain, yet the bakery owners lost their business and reputation.
I really don't know how one determines cost of intangible damages. If that's what the judge found to be fair, I guess that's what is fair. Burning down a house or totaling a car? Yeah, we can measure that. No idea how emotional distress and such works.
But apparently the owners thought fighting for their "right" to discriminate against customers was worth the risk, so I hardly feel bad for their loss.
Except no laws were broken and they have a right to refuse customers. You're terrible human being for wishing them ill.
A 2007 Oregon law protects the rights of LGBT people in employment, housing and public accommodations. It provides an exemption for religious organisations, but the agency ruled that exemption does not allow private businesses to discriminate against potential customers. RTFA.
1037
« on: July 09, 2015, 12:17:34 AM »
You're probably not feeling anything because you're in shock. It might take a few hours, or days to sink in. Differs for people.
I'm sorry to hear that.
The worst part of dealing with death is that you eventually get used to it.
1038
« on: July 09, 2015, 12:17:09 AM »
Accident? or suicide?
1039
« on: July 09, 2015, 12:14:37 AM »
is meta so far the only person not to get sanders
if so, that's hilarious
But Sanders is the worst! He knows nothing! somethingsomethingsomething
On the contrary, it reinforces Meta's point that he's a populist.
Populist, socialist, or otherwise, Meta also said that he's [one of] the worst candidates of the lot.
1040
« on: July 09, 2015, 12:13:09 AM »
Break the law - pay the price. Sucks, but it is what it is.
I'd agree if the court had said it was for punitive damages, which are intended as a punishment. The damages were strictly emotional, meaning the two women supposedly suffered $135,000 in emotional pain, yet the bakery owners lost their business and reputation.
I really don't know how one determines cost of intangible damages. If that's what the judge found to be fair, I guess that's what is fair. Burning down a house or totaling a car? Yeah, we can measure that. No idea how emotional distress and such works. But apparently the owners thought fighting for their "right" to discriminate against customers was worth the risk, so I hardly feel bad for their loss.
1041
« on: July 08, 2015, 11:58:13 PM »
is meta so far the only person not to get sanders
if so, that's hilarious
But Sanders is the worst! He knows nothing! somethingsomethingsomething
1042
« on: July 08, 2015, 11:51:38 PM »
Break the law - pay the price. Sucks, but it is what it is.
I'm curious about how they arrived at that number, though.
1043
« on: July 08, 2015, 11:49:14 PM »
found a bunch in my parents' garage last weekend from when I was a kid. Should I just give them away? or should I bother trying to find out if they're worth any money?
1044
« on: July 08, 2015, 04:19:33 PM »
Character-wise, I'd much rather have Sanders elected over Clinton. He's got very little leadership experience, but Clinton has none. And the president isn't as powerful in moving legislation through Congress as we make it out to be, so he can't really do a vast amount of damage. Being a consistent voter, as opposed to someone like Obama who has flipped on a laundry list of major points, we'll know what we're getting which is better than the obscenely corrupt political machine of the Clintons.
And the best part is that he'll be easy to beat. Yeah he's got an impressively obnoxious viral advertising campaign going on, but he'll get torn to shreds when those ads actually matter for something.
I belive Bernie actually balanced out a city's budget when he was elected as Mayor, so I'd say that's a plus. Yeah Nation>City, but having knowledge of economics helps.
His knowledge of economics literally boils down to raising taxes on every entity making more than an arbitrary amount he's come up with in his head.
Aren't all tax brackets arbitrary?
1045
« on: July 07, 2015, 07:55:05 PM »
lol
1046
« on: July 07, 2015, 05:25:58 PM »
1047
« on: July 07, 2015, 05:25:32 PM »
ugh, socialism
Another voter successfully educated by the GOP smear machine, I see.
"Being taxed 100% is slavery but being taxed 75% isn't." - DemSoc logic
literally no.
1048
« on: July 07, 2015, 02:04:19 PM »
I'm considering an EV. Probably going to lease a Leaf in the near future.
Currently my A3 averages about 19mpg on a tank.
Ugh, a leaf
It's basically the best deal on an EV at the moment that doesn't look like total shit.
1049
« on: July 07, 2015, 01:01:57 PM »
ugh, socialism
Another voter successfully educated by the GOP smear machine, I see.
Holy shit, you are a massive hypocrite. You practically tore the shit out of Challenger yesterday for taking a swipe at you simply because he didn't agree with you, and now you're essentially accusing another user of being brainwashed by the Republicans simply because they don't think socialism is a good idea.
Methinks you're taking this place a bit too seriously.
1050
« on: July 07, 2015, 12:53:16 PM »
I'm considering an EV. Probably going to lease a Leaf in the near future.
Currently my A3 averages about 19mpg on a tank.
Pages: 1 ... 333435 3637 ... 251
|
Show Posts