Posts by MeanMrMustard

286

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

by Simon in

seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

MeanMrMustard

If a person doesn’t want to make a cake for a gay couple, even a generic one, and the person is then compelled by law, how do you think that will play out? Perhaps the person really is that asshole we all love to hate. It seems rather plausible that the asshole will make the cake, but make it taste horrible. Nothing unsanitary, just heavy on the turmeric and crab cakes. What now? Are you going to compel the baker to make “good” cakes? Should there be a “Department of Good Cakes” regulating the making of cakes?

Just let the baker do what he/she wants with his/her property. The business will go under, and the asshole will feel every painful loss of revenue as more and more customers go somewhere else.

286

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

by Simon in

seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

MeanMrMustard

@Jehalapeno:

Narrow in the sense that it didn’t really answer the larger philosophical questions we are talking about now. It was favorable to this specific case.

286

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

by Simon in

seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

MeanMrMustard

The government is us, dude: we the people.

Do you think that if you give people a bunch of power, they turn into angels? The Colorado law that started this case is a great example. Heck, Jim Crow is another.

286

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

by Simon in

seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

MeanMrMustard

Don't agree with this ruling, a registered business open to the general public should not be able to withhold their business dealings to the public based wholly upon a person's sexual identity or religious identity.

A business open to the public should be able to do whatever it wants - whatever the property owners want. I would love the sexist, racist assholes to advertise themselves so I know where not to go.

Again, they shouldn’t descriminate. But if they do, it should not be the position of the government to compel labor by law. That is exactly slavery.

Punish the assholes by going to another store.

Don’t advocate for setting a precedent that gives the government a massive hammer to beat anyone down it doesn’t like - because the government is made up of the officials running it, and its a good bet at some point you will be on the hurting end of the power you originally thought was just peachy.

286

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

by Simon in

seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

MeanMrMustard

My vote: maximum private property rights. No compelled service, no matter what. Compelled service is, by definition, slavery.

Note: this works fine for government workers, or any worker for that matter. You agree to your employers rules when you take the job.

286

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

by Simon in

seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

MeanMrMustard

What if the couple was black? And, the baker was a white supremacist who sincerely believes that the Bible condemns the black race (for all that stuff with Noah's son Ham).

Let them do it. I would love for those people to advertise themselves.

I believe this case was about religious freedom, but to me there is a better argument to be made regarding private property rights.

170

UK justice..

by zeb in

tommie robinson has reported often about what he sees as the demise of british society by the imposition of 'sharia' norms.. https://www.infowars.com/update-tommy-robinson-gets-13-months-for-livestreaming-outside-courthouse/?utm_source=nightly+newsletter&utm_campaign=9e3ceb30f6-email_campaign_2018_05_25_03_10&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e12661a83c-9e3ceb30f6-38680565.

yesterday he was jailed for 13 months for reporting outside a court in the uk.

his was a non violent offence.. what no community service?

MeanMrMustard

@humbled:

I think it is far more serious than that. For example, if we consider Christianity - there are countless versions of Christianity, and each sect has its disagreements on just about everything you can think of - but not everything. Whether you are a Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, or even JW, there are some core fundamental beliefs. For example, the doctrine of any of the religions I listed would agree that Jesus Christ died for our sins, and was raised from the dead. This is a fundamental Christian statement. All Christians agree with it.

Likewise, for Islam, it is fundamental that Mohammad was the excellent example of conduct. It is fundamental to Islam to be political as well as religious.

I am all for those Muslims seeking to separate mosque and state. However, this isn’t about some theological disagreement (like whether there should be icons or even if the Trinity is real), this is a fundamental change.

Islam doesn’t need the equivalent of a Christian reformation. It needs a new leader. It needs an equivalent of a Jesus to come around and invalidate chunks of the current Quran. But even if that did occur, they would be Muslims any longer, rather some new religion. The world would be better for it, but there would be a bunch of Muslims that reject it, just as the Jews reject Jesus.

170

UK justice..

by zeb in

tommie robinson has reported often about what he sees as the demise of british society by the imposition of 'sharia' norms.. https://www.infowars.com/update-tommy-robinson-gets-13-months-for-livestreaming-outside-courthouse/?utm_source=nightly+newsletter&utm_campaign=9e3ceb30f6-email_campaign_2018_05_25_03_10&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e12661a83c-9e3ceb30f6-38680565.

yesterday he was jailed for 13 months for reporting outside a court in the uk.

his was a non violent offence.. what no community service?

MeanMrMustard

Mohammad is the excellent example of conduct, perfect in every way. Praise be to Allah to give us his magnificent example. Anything he did, we should imitate. Anything he rebuked, we should likewise rebuke. This is settled doctrine, and all Muslim schools of thought, although having some differences, agree on this point without exception.

The above is the position of Islam. Period. Whether a Muslim agrees or not is irrelevant. The only good Muslim is a bad Muslim.

24

How to stop school violence

by Jayk in

ban school:).

MeanMrMustard

Or just make more with a drill press from Sears....

7

Colwell’s Rule must die!

by Wonderment in

colwell, a trinitarian methodist, was apparently affected by various translators of his time and before, that were translating john 1:1 differently from the norm: "the word was god.

" you had moffatt’s version saying "the word was divine" (1922); a french bible, "a divine being" (1928); belsham, "a god" (1808); benjamin wilson: "a god" (1864); robert young: "a god" in his commentary of 1985. colwell likely knew that various french and german bibles were being published challenging the traditional rendering "god" of john 1:1 as well.. so he set out to prove them wrong.

he began by formulating a "rule" regarding predicate nouns and the greek article, whether they occurred after or before the verb.

MeanMrMustard

Orrrrr, you can just throw out John 1:1 entirely and wash your hands of it completely. Then you can get to what really matters - documenting the mating rituals of garden gnomes.