Originally posted by EmperordmbWhy? He jumped to a conclusion I made no hints at. He assumed that me, being generally quite left, held a specific position (despite it being the type of position I've argued against before), so that seems like his own issue, there. Also, he could have just asked me in the first place. It seems silly to enter into a conversation without making your opposition's opinions clear first, and even sillier to put words into someone else's mouth.
tbf Scribble if you prefaced everything with the statement that he shouldn't be forced to do it I doubt it would've turned into this lengthy back and forth.
My post was literally just:
Originally posted by Scribble
Love thy neighbour, unless they're gay, I guess
If he made all of those assumptions just from that, then it's certainly not my fault, is it?
Originally posted by Scribble
Why? He jumped to a conclusion I made no hints at. He assumed that me, being generally quite left, held a specific position (despite it being the type of position I've argued against before), so that seems like his own issue, there.
Originally posted by Scribble
Also, he could have just asked me in the first place. It seems silly to enter into a conversation without making your opposition's opinions clear first, and even sillier to put words into someone else's mouth.
Originally posted by EmperordmbI don't answer loaded questions. Your posing of the question was the first time it has been asked in a non-loaded manner, which is why I answered you.
He did ask you twice and you didn't respond, so I asked very clearly because the back and forth was getting warn out and I wanted to resolve it.
Originally posted by Surtur
If the baker feels it would be very insulting to make him do this...should he be forced to do it? Yes or no.
Originally posted by Surtur
If the baker says making the cake would be very insulting, should he be forced to make it? Yes or no.
Originally posted by Surtur
Should the guy be forced to make the cake if he finds it very insulting? Yes or no.
Originally posted by EmperordmbI was making my point clear, by trying to get away from Surtur's focus on feelings and emotions, when I was making a point about religious doctrine, not feelings or emotions. I would have happily answered if Surt hadn't been ignoring most of the point I was trying to make in the first place.
I mean, if these are loaded questions you could've still just clarified your position and called him out for loaded questions and it would've put an end to this back and forth a few posts earlier. It doesn't strike me as reasonable to obfuscate your actual position which would end the controversy of your discussion just because you don't like the way you were being asked about it.
"Should the guy be forced to make the cake if he finds it very insulting?" – the 'insult' had very little to do with what I was saying, so why bother answering when he was wilfully ignoring my own point?
If he'd asked "Do you think he should have been forced to make the cake for any reason at all?", then it would have been very different. As it was, I wanted to get him to at least acknowledge my point first. It's a two-sided thing, a conversation.
I was listening to Ben Shapiro discuss this, he gave more details. Apparently this wasn't about the guy not wanting to sell a cake to people who would use it at a gay wedding. He was willing. It was about what the couple specifically wanted him to put on the cake. Either a pro gay message or two guys or something I dunno. But apparently it was about something they wanted him specifically to put on there.
Originally posted by Scribble
I don't answer loaded questions. Your posing of the question was the first time it has been asked in a non-loaded manner, which is why I answered you.
Look at all the retarded whataboutery in this thread.
Let's get something straight: the baker did not refuse to make a "gay" wedding cake; he refused to sell a regular wedding cake to gay customers.
This is not an issue of compelling speech from the baker. It is an issue of compelling a private business owner to sell all the products he provides to all of the public in accordance to the law.
Now maybe all you alt-right ****boys can stop white knighting for the poor, Christian baker, who thinks his magical fairytale beliefs exempt him from whatever laws he does not want to follow.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Look at all the retarded whataboutery in this thread.Let's get something straight: the baker did not refuse to make a "gay" wedding cake; he refused to sell a regular wedding cake to gay customers.
This is not an issue of compelling speech from the baker. It is an issue of compelling a private business owner to sell all the products he provides to all of the public in accordance to the law.
Now maybe all you alt-right ****boys can stop white knighting for the poor, Christian baker, who thinks his magical fairytale beliefs exempt him from whatever laws he does not want to follow.
So Ben Shapiro is lying? By all means, show me the source.
And nobody in this thread is alt right, try again.
Originally posted by Adam_PoEWhile I completely understand your point, and agree with you, the cake sadly becomes a "gay cake" in the context of the argument, despite it actually just being a general wedding cake.
Look at all the retarded whataboutery in this thread.Let's get something straight: the baker did not refuse to make a "gay" wedding cake; he refused to sell a regular wedding cake to gay customers.
This is not an issue of compelling speech from the baker. It is an issue of compelling a private business owner to sell all the products he provides to all of the public in accordance to the law.
Now maybe all you alt-right ****boys can stop white knighting for the poor, Christian baker, who thinks his magical fairytale beliefs exempt him from whatever laws he does not want to follow.
Originally posted by SurturWell of course they wanted him to put something specific on it, it's a wedding cake. Two men, two women, it's a wedding cake either way.
I was listening to Ben Shapiro discuss this, he gave more details. Apparently this wasn't about the guy not wanting to sell a cake to people who would use it at a gay wedding. He was willing. It was about what the couple specifically wanted him to put on the cake. Either a pro gay message or two guys or something I dunno. But apparently it was about something they wanted him specifically to put on there.
Okay, but from what was said...it wasn't that he was against just selling a cake, it was that he was against what they wanted him to put on it. From the way it was described...it sounds like they wanted more then "congratulations" or something on it. But this is being presented the way Adam just claimed: that the guy just plain did not want to sell *any* cake that would be used in a gay wedding. If that is not the case that is a big detail to distort IMO. Not saying I am sure it is true.
And we also see the way people over react and doom their own arguments. "You're alt right" might as well be "you're a nazi" lol.
Originally posted by Surtur
Okay, but from what was said...it wasn't that he was against just selling a cake, it was that he was against what they wanted him to put on it. From the way it was described...it sounds like they wanted more then "congratulations" or something on it. But this is being presented the way Adam just claimed: that the guy just plain did not want to sell *any* cake that would be used in a gay wedding. If that is not the case that is a big detail to distort IMO. Not saying I am sure it is true.And we also see the way people over react and doom their own arguments. "You're alt right" might as well be "you're a nazi" lol.
And yeah it's pretty pathetic the way "alt-right" is being thrown around lol
Like I said, the baker was a moron. if he didn't want to make the cake he should have just said no, as a private business can refuse service to anyone they want.
His problem(other than being a bigot) was being retarded enough to admit his reason for refusing service. as there are laws against discriminating against protected classes.