Opinion on racism.

Woodruff · Post by **Woodruff** » Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:06 pm

2dimes wrote:I personally think it's wrong to label yourself a Christian then refuse to make a wedding cake for people just because they are marrying someone of the same gender. However I think it is even worse to legaly require a baker to make it.

So then you're ok with someone refusing to provide services to an individual for reasons that have nothing at all to do with that service itself? Because that's essentially what you've said here.

2dimes wrote:Why shouldn't they have a right to be wrong and refuse to make a cake? Is there no where else on the planet to get a cake made? Has cake suddenly become an inalienable right?

Maybe they should just drink from their own water fountains too. Right?

jonesthecurl · Post by **jonesthecurl** » Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:07 pm

Does he bake fairy cakes?

2dimes · Post by **2dimes** » Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:20 pm

Yes I am ok with you refusing to provide "services" to an individual for reasons that have nothing at all to do with that service itself. Just because I disagree doesn't give me the right to force you to treat a third person properly.

What advantage is there to me forcing you to do the right thing. Just because you make the cake to prevent punishment, will not stop you from being wrong.

I would prefer to be able to trust the ingredients of the cake another baker made, thank you.

Woodruff · Post by **Woodruff** » Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:25 pm

2dimes wrote:Yes I am ok with you refusing to provide "services" to an individual for reasons that have nothing at all to do with that service itself.

Let's expand on that thought then:
Someone can refuse service to someone for being female?
Someone can refuse service to someone for missing an arm?
Someone can refuse service to someone because they've served in the military?
Someone can refuse service to someone for being a different race?
You're ok with all of those? Because the law most definitely is not, and for very good reason.

2dimes wrote:What advantage is there to me forcing you to do the right thing.

What if the only other person who provides that service doesn't do so very well?
What if the only other person who provides that service doesn't do so in a very safe environment?

2dimes wrote:I would prefer to be able to trust the ingredients of the cake another baker made, thank you.

What if there isn't another baker available?
More importantly, what if there isn't another baker available because they all hold the same view regarding that particular group of people?

I asked you another relevant question in the last post, that you seem to have overlooked for some reason.

2dimes · Post by **2dimes** » Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:32 pm

Woodruff wrote:Maybe they should just drink from their own water fountains too.

Maybe.

Woodruff wrote:Right?

No.

2dimes · Post by **2dimes** » Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:45 pm

Woodruff wrote:
2dimes wrote:Yes I am ok with you refusing to provide "services" to an individual for reasons that have nothing at all to do with that service itself.
Let's expand on that thought then:
Someone can refuse service to someone for being female?
Someone can refuse service to someone for missing an arm?
Someone can refuse service to someone because they've served in the military?
Someone can refuse service to someone for being a different race?
You're ok with all of those? Because the law most definitely is not, and for very good reason.

You're kind of a scum but hey, I don't even need to know why you refused me service. I don't care and will go to another shop. I guess living in a city has me spoiled.

Woodruff wrote:
2dimes wrote:What advantage is there to me forcing you to do the right thing.
What if the only other person who provides that service doesn't do so very well?

I get a cake that is not as good.

Woodruff wrote: What if the only other person who provides that service doesn't do so in a very safe environment?

If possible I force them to close that shop.

Woodruff wrote:
2dimes wrote:I would prefer to be able to trust the ingredients of the cake another baker made, thank you.
What if there isn't another baker available?

There is.

Woodruff wrote:
More importantly, what if there isn't another baker available because they all hold the same view regarding that particular group of people?

I asked you another relevant question in the last post, that you seem to have overlooked for some reason.

Best of luck with your law.

jonesthecurl · Post by **jonesthecurl** » Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:50 pm

The advert that just popped up for me was "single muslim.com".

Woodruff · Post by **Woodruff** » Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:33 pm

2dimes wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
2dimes wrote:Yes I am ok with you refusing to provide "services" to an individual for reasons that have nothing at all to do with that service itself.
Let's expand on that thought then:
Someone can refuse service to someone for being female?
Someone can refuse service to someone for missing an arm?
Someone can refuse service to someone because they've served in the military?
Someone can refuse service to someone for being a different race?
You're ok with all of those? Because the law most definitely is not, and for very good reason.
You're kind of a scum but hey, I don't even need to know why you refused me service. I don't care and will go to another shop. I guess living in a city has me spoiled.

You managed to avoid answering these questions...were you just going to avoid them, or would you like to answer them?

2dimes · Post by **2dimes** » Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:50 pm

You don't understand, "Just because I disagree doesn't give me the right to force you to treat a third person properly." and "I don't even need to know why you refused me service." ?

I guess you could just make up some answers.

Woodruff · Post by **Woodruff** » Thu Jun 13, 2013 10:16 pm

2dimes wrote:You don't understand, "Just because I disagree doesn't give me the right to force you to treat a third person properly." and "I don't even need to know why you refused me service." ?

I guess you could just make up some answers.

I suspect I understand better than you think I do. I'm simply attempting to get you to say it outright. Which you're frantically peddling away from. Good move on your part.

2dimes · Post by **2dimes** » Thu Jun 13, 2013 10:26 pm

I don't believe I should be allowed to force you to provide service to someone who is female.
I don't believe I should be allowed to force you to provide service to someone who is missing an arm.
I don't believe I should be allowed to force you to provide service to someone who is in the military.
I don't believe I should be allowed to force you to provide service to someone who is a different race.

2dimes · Post by **2dimes** » Thu Jun 13, 2013 11:03 pm

Phatscotty wrote: We should all have noticed by now that Obama teases Christians and mocks the bible and "clingers", but goes out of his way to kiss Islam and be sure to talk about it positively. Is that out of respect? or fear? Look at Hillary too.

I just watched this video.

I'm not a fan of Mrs. Clinton. I think that speech was excellent. I don't see any fault. I am not familiar with the video she is referring to, so maybe that is what I'm missing. To me that looked respectful in a way I would hope anyone would have chose to act.

BigBallinStalin · Post by **BigBallinStalin** » Fri Jun 14, 2013 1:17 am

2dimes wrote:I don't believe I should be allowed to force you to provide service to someone who is female.
I don't believe I should be allowed to force you to provide service to someone who is missing an arm.
I don't believe I should be allowed to force you to provide service to someone who is in the military.
I don't believe I should be allowed to force you to provide service to someone who is a different race.

Someone missing an arm is simply going to bleed all over the restaurant. As the owner refuses to provide him service, the rejected customer will fling his stump in a rage, thereby spraying the cleanly customers with blood. This is no way to run a restaurant, sir, I'm leaving. Without paying!

thegreekdog · Post by **thegreekdog** » Fri Jun 14, 2013 7:29 am

Woodruff, I think you are making the classic mistake. You're confusing personal views with personal views on what the government should be allowed to do.

You specifically typed "

Woodruff wrote:You're ok with all of those?

Of course 2dimes is not okay with all of those. I'm not either. That's ultimately not the question though, is it? The question is whether the government should legislate whether it's okay or not. So, use a different argument.

Edited because two users with the number 2 in their names confuses me.

2dimes · Post by **2dimes** » Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:47 am

Thank you greekdog!

I hope notyou2 is not offended with you mixing us up, because he's awesome! And I'm happy for you to call me by his s/n, even though you shouldn't, he's rational. I'm not sure how you made that error. I suspect because we both have 2 in them.

I actually like Woody even though I am probably giving him a rash in this case.

Woodruff wrote:
2dimes wrote:You don't understand, "Just because I disagree doesn't give me the right to force you to treat a third person properly." and "I don't even need to know why you refused me service." ?

I guess you could just make up some answers.
I suspect I understand better than you think I do. I'm simply attempting to get you to say it outright. Which you're frantically peddling away from. Good move on your part.

OH RILLY? I suspect you read my answer. I wrote "I think it's wrong to... then refuse to bake a cake for the wedding." Unlike you I can go back and read it. I'll quote it if you continue to have trouble finding it.

thegreekdog · Post by **thegreekdog** » Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:50 am

f*ck... sorry.

2dimes · Post by **2dimes** » Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:53 am

No, seriously. I'm excited that you're paying enough attention and your filter allowed you to mix us up. notyou2 is a great guy.

Woodruff · Post by **Woodruff** » Fri Jun 14, 2013 11:37 am

thegreekdog wrote:Woodruff, I think you are making the classic mistake. You're confusing personal views with personal views on what the government should be allowed to do.

You specifically typed "
Woodruff wrote:You're ok with all of those?
Of course 2dimes is not okay with all of those. I'm not either. That's ultimately not the question though, is it? The question is whether the government should legislate whether it's okay or not. So, use a different argument.

Sure, I'll buy that...it was lazy typing on my part. I really did mean "you're ok with the government allowing those"? So we can move on that premise.

I am not ok with "separate but equal" policy by our government. Are you?

thegreekdog · Post by **thegreekdog** » Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:10 pm

Woodruff wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:Woodruff, I think you are making the classic mistake. You're confusing personal views with personal views on what the government should be allowed to do.

You specifically typed "
Woodruff wrote:You're ok with all of those?
Of course 2dimes is not okay with all of those. I'm not either. That's ultimately not the question though, is it? The question is whether the government should legislate whether it's okay or not. So, use a different argument.
Sure, I'll buy that...it was lazy typing on my part. I really did mean "you're ok with the government allowing those"? So we can move on that premise.

I am not ok with "separate but equal" policy by our government. Are you?

I'm not okay with any government policy mandating how private businesses should behave... so no, I'm not okay with "separate but equal."

2dimes · Post by **2dimes** » Fri Jun 14, 2013 4:28 pm

Ok Wood. How about this? I think you should be nice to phatscotty.

Even more importantly you should not be flipping out and saying.

Woodruff wrote: Yeah, you fucking Christians are so damned persecuted. You make me fucking sick, you disgusting hypocrite.

What did luns101, Isaiah40 and Crazy Anglican do to deserve that?

Still, just because you're blanket hate statement wielding bigoted jerk, I don't think there should be any government imposed penalty for it. Do you?

Woodruff · Post by **Woodruff** » Fri Jun 14, 2013 4:32 pm

2dimes wrote:Ok Wood. How about this? I think you should be nice to phatscotty. Even more importantly you should not be flipping out and saying.
Woodruff wrote: Yeah, you fucking Christians are so damned persecuted. You make me fucking sick, you disgusting hypocrite.
What did luns101, Isaiah40 and Crazy Anglican do to deserve that?

Nothing. That was not directed at them. Nor at gringo1daddy or tzor.

It was specifically directed at a moron who wants to pretend that Christians are persecuted in the United States. My wording was pretty clear, particularly given that last word.

2dimes wrote:Still just because you're a jerk, I don't think there should be any government imposed penalty for it. Do you?

You see, my "services of being a jerk" are provided equally to all of those who are need of it. I do not hold back my jerkitude from homosexuals nor blacks nor females nor one-armed males nor Christians. It is provide to all who need it. So your analogy is a little off.

AslanTheKing · Post by **AslanTheKing** » Fri Jun 14, 2013 4:34 pm

why are u guys so obsessed because of a wedding cake?
gay or not, the cake doesnt care, and me neither

make your own cake, look a youtube, they show u how to make it
and be happy
gay or not
(but u guys are not happy)

2dimes · Post by **2dimes** » Fri Jun 14, 2013 4:46 pm

Stop being reasonable Asian. This is the Internet!

Do you think Woody should make a cake for Phatscotty? Further do you think he should be executed if he tries to refuse?

As for the anti Christian... It was kind of obvious you directed your rant at him specifically but much like your diversion of lumping in a bunch of other people for Oregon Moron Baker, taste your medicine!

Phatscotty · Post by **Phatscotty** » Fri Jun 14, 2013 6:57 pm

If they didn't, I would get the ACLU to sue them and the government to fine them until they did. I would get the government to force them to smile as they made the cake, and if they didn't put any tender love into mixing the ingredients, I would get the government to force them to start over, and force them to pay for all new ingredients. Then the cake will undergo rigorous inspection and regulation, of which they are forced to pay for, and if it wasn't acceptable to my standards, I would force them to pay my a bunch of money based on damages to my ego and the damages of them not accepting every choice I make in my life, and force them to build me my own bakery.

If they did, I would cakefart it anyways.

ooge · Post by **ooge** » Fri Jun 14, 2013 9:29 pm

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/larry-flynt- ... nd-racist/ This would be Free speech advocate Larry Fynt's view on Racism.

Opinion on racism.

Do you think it's racist to suggest Muslims are violently opposed to homosexuality?

Re:

Re: Opinion on racism.

Re:

Re: Opinion on racism.

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: Opinion on racism.

Re: Opinion on racism.

Re: Opinion on racism.

Re: Opinion on racism.

Re:

Re: Opinion on racism.

Re: Opinion on racism.

Re: Opinion on racism.