Haters gonna hate: BOSS collaborates with JHS

[rfurtkamp]

Not likely. I stick to gear forums and avoid the stupid wherever possible.

Hell, I didn't post this thread because between the hatred of anything corporate and the hate of JHS, I knew it'd be a shitshow.

But sometimes trainwreck can be amusing.

That and there are more conservative folks here than a lot of folks would think - they're just smarter than me and keep their mouths shut.

[Mudfuzz]

Not likely. I stick to gear forums and avoid the stupid wherever possible.

Hell, I didn't post this thread because between the hatred of anything corporate and the hate of JHS, I knew it'd be a shitshow.

But sometimes trainwreck can be amusing.

That and there are more conservative folks here than a lot of folks would think - they're just smarter than me and keep their mouths shut.

No my point is the shitshow is everywhere now and everyone should be able to have an opinion without a


And look yeah most of us hate trump and shit but, spilled milk and shit and what are you actually going to do and shit other than complaining on the internets and shit?

[rfurtkamp]

Yea, or just avoid the scuffle.

I try to the vast majority of the time.

But I've come to accept that if I'm forced to make a choice between the binaries that I'm presented with, it won't be a good one anyone is happy with.

I miss the days when we'd just go yell obscenities at the Actual Nazis in Skokie marching.

We didn't fight them, or punch them, or impede their way.

We just laughed at them and they'd crawl back to their holes, smaller the next year en masse than the year before.

[rustywire]

I don't hate it because I know or care what it is I hate it because it has red knobs, everyone knows that all pedals that have red knobs suck, even if you change the knobs after the fact.

mfw

NSFW: show

A DAPPER KNOB SWAP IS +15% TONE BUFF PER PEDAL PLS DO NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST RED KNOBS

[Benn Roe]

Then he has no rights.

If you believe that, I'm not sure there's a productive conversation to be had. You won't catch me advocating 1st amendment erosions, but the only reasonable solution when two rights come into conflict is to protect whichever right is being trampled on by the other. Otherwise, nobody truly has any rights. To that end, there are other places to buy cakes only because great strides have been made in combatting bigotry, in no small part with the help of laws that protect against discrimination. The lack of such laws can lead, and has led, to situations where there are no sources of cake for certain groups of people (and obviously much worse). Those laws are pretty crucial to upholding the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which is of equal importance to the right to freedom of religion, regardless of where it appears in the Bill of Rights. That baker has religious freedom because congress can never pass a law that bans the wearing of crosses, the building of churches, or the training of priests, but he doesn't have the right to put his wife to death for cheating on him, regardless of what the bible says. You say you prefer social or economic pressure as a vehicle for combatting this sort of hate, but your disdain for that approach is what sparked this debate in the first place, when you called speaking out against JHS irrational.

I would imagine it's to the surprise of nobody that there are also muslim bakers out there discriminating against the queer community. Christians certainly don't have a monopoly on bigotry.

[actual]

CAKE FOR EVERYONE

[rfurtkamp]

Then he has no rights.

If you believe that, I'm not sure there's a productive conversation to be had.

Pretty much that one was obvious when it came about and all conservative opposition to Obama was based clearly on "racism."

You won't catch me advocating 1st amendment erosions, but the only reasonable solution when two rights come into conflict is to protect whichever right is being trampled on by the other. Otherwise, nobody truly has any rights. To that end, there are other places to buy cakes only because great strides have been made in combatting bigotry, in no small part with the help of laws that protect against discrimination.

Protections come and go based on need - they're still restricting the rights of folks, ostensibly for the greater good. Are we saying there's no cake to be had for those folks?
That they couldn't bake one?

What happens if there's only one church in town, and someone wants to get married there - but isn't part of or accepted by that religion? Etc.

This isn't just the poor cakeless couple unable to go forward - if there's no protections for religion beyond "you can say you believe X, but you can't act upon it where it isn't otherwise criminal"....then there's no protection for the rights of the religious.

The lack of such laws can lead, and has led, to situations where there are no sources of cake for certain groups of people (and obviously much worse). Those laws are pretty crucial to upholding the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which is of equal importance to the right to freedom of religion, regardless of where it appears in the Bill of Rights.

It can also lead, when applied overzealously to frivolous things like a wedding cake, to a situation where we're trampling someone's right of religion (and compelling participation in a ceremony they do not agree with) for..cake.

That baker has religious freedom because congress can never pass a law that bans the wearing of crosses, the building of churches, or the training of priests, but he doesn't have the right to put his wife to death for cheating on him, regardless of what the bible says.

It's a difference of harms and rights. Essential services, yes, access - requiring participation in ceremonies or events, nope. I don't see it likely that anyone is going to be real angry that, say, a black baker isn't willing to make a cake for the induction of the new KKK Grand Wizard, or someone else to have to conform to that organization's desire that the cake only be made by white people, etc.

You say you prefer social or economic pressure as a vehicle for combatting this sort of hate, but your disdain for that approach is what sparked this debate in the first place, when you called speaking out against JHS irrational.

In the sense that tying JHS to a group that they at one point in the past through their owner supported, yes, it is irrational.

No different than when the then-head of Mozilla was chased out of town on a rail for supporting traditional marriage.

But I also accept that people have the right to do irrational things.

I would imagine it's to the surprise of nobody that there are also muslim bakers out there discriminating against the queer community. Christians certainly don't have a monopoly on bigotry.

Yet the state is not using its force against those bakers with aplomb. It's selective application.

If the goose can discriminate, so can the gander.

And yes, cake for anyone who wants it. They can download the recipe and cook it however they want and bless it in the name of Jesus, Allah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Butthead, or any combination of things!

[rustywire]

Imagine if you had to sell a pedal to every pushy, complain-about-every-blemish, low-balling flipper who responded to your listing... because if you didn't cater to *requests* they could invoke a scarlet letter and ruin your reputation for life by fabricating a heinous accusation.

2more cents of rambling: cake is not a necessity nor is anyone entitled access to it as a human right.
I would never approach an artist to commission a work which betrays their perspective or identity, nor demand they take my money to do so.
Sometimes in life, if you want something done right, you've gotta do it yourself. Be the change you want to see etc.

I fully support the right of a business owner to refuse serving anyone at their sole discretion, if they aren't in the business of providing necessities and/or state-run institutions/infrastructure/transit etc. There are no shortage of consumers with bad attitudes abusing retail and service workers out of entitlement, apathy or malice... some who will go so far as to threaten their jobs in order to save a few bucks...or manufacture controversy to grandstand on a dubious political narrative.
Sometimes a brat needs to be told what they dont want to hear. "Fuck off, Veruca."

[D.o.S.]

I think what tickles me most about this thread is the idea that conservative folks (whatever that means) are the only individuals who get to be individuals. Everyone else is just "ILF"

[D.o.S.]

so unless DOD sued it's not libel.

Nope. Suit not required. People don't sue over libel all the time.

I did not know this but it looks like you're right, thanks for the clarification.

[Gone Fission]

so unless DOD sued it's not libel.

Nope. Suit not required. People don't sue over libel all the time.

I did not know this but it looks like you're right, thanks for the clarification.

No prob. It's a pretty harmless thing.

Especially compared to the idea that having an invisible friend exempts a person from generally applicable nondiscrimination laws. If the bigot baker wins, the Supreme Court will have essentially reversed Bob Jones University vs. US. Heart of Atlanta Hotel will have been wrong for the hotelier arguing the case under the commerce clause rather than the first amendment. This argument leads to a resurgence of Jim Crow on the back of a "religious revival."

[Benn Roe]

Pretty much that one was obvious when it came about and all conservative opposition to Obama was based clearly on "racism."

I never said all conservative opposition to Obama was racism. I said it was hard to conceive of the blanket obstructionism he faced from many members of congress as anything but racism. Obama had an agenda that included lots of things conservatives would naturally oppose, but he (like most democrats until recently) was a centrist.

This isn't just the poor cakeless couple unable to go forward - if there's no protections for religion beyond "you can say you believe X, but you can't act upon it where it isn't otherwise criminal"....then there's no protection for the rights of the religious.

I'm not painting a picture where a person of faith isn't free to practice any belief that isn't otherwise criminal. The point is that discrimination is illegal in most contexts, and where it isn't mostly stems from the slow slog progress marches against bigotry. We'll see where the supreme court sides on this issue soon enough, I guess.

It's a difference of harms and rights. Essential services, yes, access - requiring participation in ceremonies or events, nope. I don't see it likely that anyone is going to be real angry that, say, a black baker isn't willing to make a cake for the induction of the new KKK Grand Wizard, or someone else to have to conform to that organization's desire that the cake only be made by white people, etc.

No, you're right, I don't think many people would be upset to learn that membership in a hate group doesn't confer a legally protected class status.

In the sense that tying JHS to a group that they at one point in the past through their owner supported, yes, it is irrational.

Has he ever come out and disavowed IHOPKC? He's denied his involvement with them in vague, nebulous terms once or twice, but has he ever disavowed them and admitted his mistake? If so, then I owe him an apology. If not, it feels pretty fucking rational to me. I don't care how long ago he did what he did if he still thinks it was the right thing to do.

Yet the state is not using its force against those bakers with aplomb. It's selective application.

No, it isn't. If the supreme court finds that it's illegal, the ruling will (and should) affect all those bakers too.

I fully support the right of a business owner to refuse serving anyone at their sole discretion, if they aren't in the business of providing necessities and/or state-run institutions/infrastructure/transit etc. There are no shortage of consumers with bad attitudes abusing retail and service workers out of entitlement, apathy or malice... some who will go so far as to threaten their jobs in order to save a few bucks...or manufacture controversy to grandstand on a dubious political narrative.

I own a retail store, so I know all about that. I've had to deal with ex-employees and customers alike engaging in both the manufacture of controversy and grandstanding on dubious political narratives. None of that gives me the right to deny service to an entire class of people. I've definitely refused service to people before, but always based on their individual actions.

[retinal orbita]

I don't support hate for fellow human beings under any circumstances. I also don't buy overdrive pedals.

These are not complicated issues. If you're willing to turn a blind eye to hatred and bigotry, that is not cool. These are dark days and the need for a positive mental attitude is more important than ever.

[rustywire]

so unless DOD sued it's not libel.

Nope. Suit not required. People don't sue over libel all the time.

I did not know this but it looks like you're right, thanks for the clarification.

No prob. It's a pretty harmless thing.

Especially compared to the idea that having an invisible friend exempts a person from generally applicable nondiscrimination laws. If the bigot baker wins, the Supreme Court will have essentially reversed Bob Jones University vs. US. Heart of Atlanta Hotel will have been wrong for the hotelier arguing the case under the commerce clause rather than the first amendment. This argument leads to a resurgence of Jim Crow on the back of a "religious revival."

A hotel provides lodging, shelter. A basic human necessity. The hotelier was morally wrong and there should be legal protection against such discrimination.

*That woman* who refused to perform her job for the state (it was either KY or TN) & notarise marriage licenses of gay couples because it was against her personal ideology... no longer being able to fulfill her duties she should be vacated from that position. I'm of the mind you should save the sermons and protest and expression of religious ideology for whenever you're on your own time. Being on the clock, as an employee of the state...no. Do your job to protocol.

The baker doesn't have to decorate a cake the way a customer wants. No baker would say "the customer is entitled to whatever cake decorum they want and there should be laws to enforce their will!". Similarly, I doubt anyone would expect a muslim baker to bake a booze-themed rumcake. Is it possible to opt-out and neither condone nor condemn someone else's lifestyle without being accused of a phobia or bigotry?
Now as a possible compromise, it seems to me the baker could bake a blank slate cake and the customer can either find someone who will decorate it the way they like or do it themselves. However I cant seem to shake the suspicion... it was never about the cake.

[codetocontra]

The cake is a lie.