The RPG Maker Resource Kit
RMRK General => General Chat => Topic started by: bluntsword on April 03, 2015, 06:16:53 PM
-
Full disclosure: I am a Christian Minister.
So I obviously have interest in this issue.
But before you call me a blind follower or hater of all people, know that I have an older brother who is gay and am friends with several who find my beliefs offensive or just weird.
Having said that, let's watch a video together, shall we?
Thoughts? Feelings? Overtly emotional rage wall of texts?
I found this video insightful to be honest.
-
Made it 1:30 in. False equivalences out the ass.
These gay people aren't walking in asking to have chocolate dildos put on their cakes.
Screw homophones.
Screw the people who passed this bill.
EDIT:
If a couple of breeders walked in and wanted a picture of a penis entering a vagina do you think they would make that cake?
No. (Unless they were some specialist sex cake company.)
He uses the example of the lyrics that use the word nigger, they wouldn't do that cake as they would be offended or something stupid.
Now on the other hand a real example would be two blacks walking into a cake shop and saying, we'd like to buy a cake.
But then the shop owner saying "Sorry I can't make a cake of two blacks."
But if they say "Sorry I can't make a cake of two gays," oh that's fine whatever.
EDIT 2:
After you make the cake die in a pit.
shit this is all so stupid just make the god damn cake you pieces of shit
-
I kinda feel like I need to apologize Boe.
-
Huh? For what? You ain't done nothing.
-
I like dialogue and conversations. I'm not a big fan of causing undo anger. So if anger was unduly caused, I'm sorry.
If not, I apologize for my apology.
At which point, I sound Canadian.
-
It's all good man.
-
if a business can't throw out someone for wearing a burka in their shop, why should businesses be able to refuse service to a same sex couple because they disagree with their life choices?
-
The thing is, he's basically arguing that since no one steps in and tells muslims to serve everyone, it's unfair to christians.
In my opinion, the muslim bakeries are the ones that need to serve gays. We shouldn't be giving everyone the right to be assholes just because one group is allowed it.
The whole "being forced to do something against their religion" thing is kinda bullshit, no offense. It's pretty common in the muslim community to treat women like second class citizens. Would it be right of them to refuse to serve a woman because of their religion?
Once you go the route of denying people service based on your personal opinions, what's to stop racists from denying blacks or hispanics? It's all the same mentality.
-
Made it 1:30 in. False equivalences out the ass.
These gay people aren't walking in asking to have chocolate dildos put on their cakes.
Also this. So. Much.
It doesn't violate anyone's rights to write a couple of names on a cake.
-
seriously, this boils down to a "Christian" making a video complaining essentially "WHY DO THEY GET TO TELL GAYS TO GO ELSEWHERE, WHEN I CAN'T"
Baww why can't i discriminate like those damn brown people.
I think the world is ending because I agree with a youtube comment.
"Your argument here is a non-starter. I remember black and white water fountains, too. So what? This is the exact same issue as Jim Crow and Segregation: denial of full civil and legal rights to a certain group of citizens. Simple as that. And you're using all of the EXACT same arguments as the segregationists did in a sad attempt to justify your bigotry. "Around the corner from the religious persons bakery is another that will be THRILLED to take the money of the gay couple" - that's just "separate but equal" repackaged for suckers"
-
For the record, everyone's entitled to their opinions, and we still love you bluntsword. ;8
-
The idea of forcing someone to make a cake sounds weird to me, but the idea of people refusing to make cakes for discriminating reasons bothers me just as much. .___.
-
The idea of forcing someone to make a cake sounds weird to me, but the idea of people refusing to make cakes for discriminating reasons bothers me just as much. .___.
This is more or less where I'm sitting on this issue. On one hand, private businesses should have the right to refuse service, and by forcing their hand you're stripping them of that right. On the other, that inadvertently gives them the right to discriminate.
It's...touchy. Obviously, I don't think anyone should be discriminated against, for any reason. But at the same time, the thought of revoking the rights of private business doesn't sit well with me.
-
The idea of forcing someone to make a cake sounds weird to me
are you really being forced if you're in the profession of making cakes for people and they're offering to pay you the same price as everyone else for making the same cake? should it be any different if two straight men walked in together and asked for a wedding cake?
i'm annoyed that there are people who think a person's sexuality should affect anyone else, or anything else about that person, really. if your job is to make a cake for people who want you to make cakes for them, it doesn't matter that your customer's lips touch the lips of someone of the same gender.
we shouldn't allow bigotry just because there are people over there who aren't bigots who will make your cake. that's stupid and also dumb.
if some people walk in to the place where you make cakes for people who want cakes then the only reason you have to deny those people their cake is if they're being a dick to you. cakes don't have a concept of sexuality and won't care if they're being made for gay people.
-
The idea of forcing someone to make a cake sounds weird to me
are you really being forced if you're in the profession of making cakes for people and they're offering to pay you the same price as everyone else for making the same cake?
I don't think it's anyone's place to define and dictate someone else's profession or business. They followed their own aspirations, started their own business and they own (or rent) the property their business is located at. It's theirs. If they want to refuse to create a gay cake because they think they're going to burn in hell for eternity otherwise, whatever. They're standing by their convictions, and consumers can stand by theirs by not doing business there. I think it should be a voluntary exchange for both parties.
That said, of course it's stupid to discriminate against gays. Religion is a sham.
-
I think it would be a very dangerous idea if I were to comment on this topic very much being that I am transgender, and with a woman, a Wiccan HPS, and very much against ANY type of segregation, based on sexual orientation, religious or political views, or anything even similar. On top if that, I myself am a small business owner, so, I'm sure you can all imagine my disgust and contempt towards these issues.
-
The idea of forcing someone to make a cake sounds weird to me
we shouldn't allow bigotry just because there are people over there who aren't bigots who will make your cake. that's stupid and also dumb.
I agree that discrimination against gay people (or anyone) is stupid, and that the baker should have just baked the cake. The question is: is it really our place to tell this guy what to do with his own business? If he wants to be a bigot, isn't that his right? And we have the right to think he's a jerk for it.
-
I think if you're already offering a service, and the person utilizing said service hasn't specifically done anything legally wrong (i.e. being belligerent, asking for something obscene on the cake etc.) and you deny them service, that's discrimination.
If he wants to be a bigot, isn't that his right?
Nobody's saying they have to change their opinions. They just can't let them affect their business practices.
Once your "rights" start infringing on other people's rights, then you can't have that "right" anymore.
-
I'll just leave this here:
Discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit. This includes treatment of an individual or group based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or social category, "in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated". It involves the group's initial reaction or interaction, influencing the individual's actual behavior towards the group or the group leader, restricting members of one group from opportunities or privileges that are available to another group, leading to the exclusion of the individual or entities based on logical or irrational decision making.
-
Another thing to consider is that it's not a black and white issue. For that sort of scenario, I imagine you'd have to ascertain if malicious intent is present. The owners of the bakery in Indiana stated that they had no problems serving any customers, only designing cakes that had content that made them uncomfortable (including alcohol references). They even made it clear that they mean no disrespect by any of it.
That being said, there's bound to be good and bad apples in every tree. B(
-
Well, I suppose that's fair as long as they're not refusing their business completely. I guess it wouldn't be so different to a bakery not wanting to make a divorce cake or something.
-
Wait...divorce cakes are a thing ??
OH. What graphical google images. o_o
-
The owners of the bakery in Indiana stated that they had no problems serving any customers, only designing cakes that had content that made them uncomfortable (including alcohol references). They even made it clear that they mean no disrespect by any of it.
No disrespect, but I'm unable to represent your sexuality on a goddamn cake because the physicality of it makes me uncomfortable to the point where I have to deny you service.
Is this the exact same as someone saying that they'll gladly serve a black couple unless they request black figurines?
-
I think the most interesting aspect of this thread is that no one is batting an eye at the blatant gay slur and mannerisms that this guy adapted for his role in the video. That seems more offensive than anything else.
-
what the hell is even a "gay cake"?
edit:
holy shit why did i think it would be ok to look at the comments?
do that many people actually agree with him?
where are we heading as a race, as a people
nowhere good
-
No disrespect, but I'm unable to represent your sexuality on a goddamn cake because the physicality of it makes me uncomfortable to the point where I have to deny you service.
It's "uncomfortable" for them in a sense that it disagrees with their religion. Of course that's going to seem weird to all of you (and me), because we don't find the idea of Gay Marriage to be uncomfortable at all. I wish they weren't uncomfortable with it, either, honestly. I think the only reason it's an issue is because a belief that the term "marriage" has a specific religious definition or something complicated like that.
But uhhh... I'm not really here to defend the religious perspective because I don't agree with it, either. ;( I'm pretty much of the same opinion as irock on this one.
-
Once your "rights" start infringing on other people's rights, then you can't have that "right" anymore.
This statement holds no water. You have a right to free speech and to carry a weapon, but it's well established that property rights trump those.
This "right to have your cakes made for you at the specific establishment of your choosing" doesn't exist. I don't understand wanting to coerce people into defying their religious beliefs on their own property over dessert.
-
Once your "rights" start infringing on other people's rights, then you can't have that "right" anymore.
This statement holds no water. You have a right to free speech and to carry a weapon, but it's well established that property rights trump those.
I'm not understanding your point here. Using your right to free speech on someone else's property is infringing on their right of having a private residence. It's the same thing.
This "right to have your cakes made for you at the specific establishment of your choosing" doesn't exist. I don't understand wanting to coerce people into defying their religious beliefs on their own property over dessert.
We're talking about the right to be treated like everyone else. I already conceded earlier that they can deny them a cake with gay overtones or something, but if it's just a regular wedding cake and it just happens to be for a gay couple, it's discrimination.
-
We're talking about the right to be treated like everyone else. I already conceded earlier that they can deny them a cake with gay overtones or something, but if it's just a regular wedding cake and it just happens to be for a gay couple, it's discrimination.
We have a winner here, the bakery has the right to refuse service to anyone but it's contestable discrimination if they deny them a plain cake anyone else would get just because the people in question are gay
god bless america
-
We're talking about the right to be treated like everyone else. I already conceded earlier that they can deny them a cake with gay overtones or something, but if it's just a regular wedding cake and it just happens to be for a gay couple, it's discrimination.
This. This is perfect. Sums it up quite well; couldn't have said that better myself.
-
Once your "rights" start infringing on other people's rights, then you can't have that "right" anymore.
This statement holds no water. You have a right to free speech and to carry a weapon, but it's well established that property rights trump those.
I'm not understanding your point here. Using your right to free speech on someone else's property is infringing on their right of having a private residence. It's the same thing.
This "right to have your cakes made for you at the specific establishment of your choosing" doesn't exist. I don't understand wanting to coerce people into defying their religious beliefs on their own property over dessert.
We're talking about the right to be treated like everyone else. I already conceded earlier that they can deny them a cake with gay overtones or something, but if it's just a regular wedding cake and it just happens to be for a gay couple, it's discrimination.
Nobody is arguing that it isn't discrimination. Some people are just arguing that coercion isn't the right solution to discrimination from privately operating individuals and their businesses.
On the rare occasion that a business discriminates against gay people, consumers can take matters into their own hands. Leave bad reviews on Yelp. Contact the press. Tell people in your network about it. Hold a protest. No business wants that because it can financially cripple them.
I think we ought to think of all the possible solutions before resorting to beuracrats and their costumed men with badges and guns.
-
On the rare occasion that a business discriminates against gay people, consumers can take matters into their own hands. Leave bad reviews on Yelp. Contact the press. Tell people in your network about it. Hold a protest. No business wants that because it can financially cripple them.
I understand exactly what you're saying and why, but allowing bigots to let their bigotry ruin their business isn't good enough. They shouldn't have the ability to employ their bigotry in the first place. The ability to fight back does not nullify discrimination.
-
allowing bigots to let their bigotry ruin their business isn't good enough.
Not good enough? Wat?
Completely ruining someone's business could cause major financial issues for them (and possibly their entire family). Unless they've lucrative enough to have tons of money stored away (which isn't most family-owned businesses), there's a good chance that their family is going to go through some deep trouble. Many of them have to file for bankruptcy. Some might have to throw away all their hard work and pick up a job at the nearest McDonalds to support their kids. This is the worst case scenario, but this kind of stuff actually happens all the time.
Maybe some people are bigoted enough to deserve that, but it would sure take a lot for me to wish such hardships upon anyone and their family. Even if they've got a pretty rude opinion and are a huge jerk. ;9
-
But the problem is, that wouldn't even come close to destroying their business.
(I found the best numbers I could.)
Ok, so there were 10,000 gay couples who get married 2014 (in the entire US)
Now let's say there are only 50 bakeries (somehow) in the whole of america
That's 200 couples / bakery
now on the other hand we have the 2,189,000 breeder weddings
again there are only 50 bakeries
that's 43,780 couples / bakery
if all the gay couples chose not to buy cakes at those bakeries, they'd lose around 0.5% of their business
unless the bakery is doing VERY poorly already, that wouldn't take their entire business down
-
It's not only gay people that would stop shopping at those bakeries - anyone else who is offended wouldn't, as well. Which is a really good chunk of the population - I've known more straight people that are fervent about Gay Rights than gay people. Or even anyone that visits the business's Yelp page, sees immensely negative reviews, and goes elsewhere. They could also close their doors because of backlash - which could come in the form of threats, prank orders, protests, etc.
That's the price they already have to pay for being a bigot. My point was to say, assuming their business does get ruined by their own (shitty) opinions, here are the consequences - which can potentially be dire enough as it is. Adding some other form of punishment on top of that just seems way too severe. These are very tangible consequences for intangible ideas and words.
-
it's easy for people to say they support something but when it comes down to it will they actually back that?
-
it's easy for people to say they support something but when it comes down to it will they actually back that?
Why wouldn't they? I know there can be a disconnect between someone's opinions and their actions (such as being critical of Chinese factory working conditions yet still buying products manufactured in China) but avoiding the occasional anti-gay business isn't even an inconvenience.
-
unless more stores than you think are anti gay
how do i know that every store within 20 miles of my home doesn't want all the gays dead?
do you know?
-
how'd the moon get there
come on
tide goes in
tide goes out
you can't explain that
come on
-
makes sense im sorry
-
Glad we can converse without haterade.
May I offer an interesting article I found on the topic?
Bake for them two (http://tenthousandplaces.org/2015/04/01/bake-for-them-two/)
-
allowing bigots to let their bigotry ruin their business isn't good enough.
Not good enough? Wat?
I wasn't saying that torrential financial trouble isn't punishment enough, of course that will have a gigantic impact. I was saying that letting them employ bigotry isn't good enough even if it will ruin their business.
To be fair I could have phrased it better.
-
allowing bigots to let their bigotry ruin their business isn't good enough.
Not good enough? Wat?
I wasn't saying that torrential financial trouble isn't punishment enough, of course that will have a gigantic impact. I was saying that letting them employ bigotry isn't good enough even if it will ruin their business.
Why not? It's a non-coercive solution that strongly discourages the bigotry. I don't understand why you want politicians (the best people on earth) bureaucrats (the second best people on earth) and police officers (the third best people on earth) involved when it's not necessary.
-
FUCK THE POLICE COMIN' STRAIGHT FROM THE UNDERGROUND
-
Glad we can converse without haterade.
May I offer an interesting article I found on the topic?
Bake for them two (http://tenthousandplaces.org/2015/04/01/bake-for-them-two/)
I'm glad I read that, if only to have learned the origin of the phrase "going the extra mile."
-
Bake for them two (http://tenthousandplaces.org/2015/04/01/bake-for-them-two/)
Huh, that's an interesting perspective. She's right that people are only turning away from Christianity as a result of those that choose to misjudge and condemn others.
Sadly, I encounter mostly holier-than-thou Christians, but there are a few good, bluntsword-like Christians out there. :-)
-
allowing bigots to let their bigotry ruin their business isn't good enough.
Not good enough? Wat?
I wasn't saying that torrential financial trouble isn't punishment enough, of course that will have a gigantic impact. I was saying that letting them employ bigotry isn't good enough even if it will ruin their business.
To be fair I could have phrased it better.
The only issue is that making it illegal won't actually prevent such bigotry any more than fearing financial ruin will. If someone is going to be a bigot, then they are going to be a bigot. The only difference is the method of consequence. So, the question then becomes "which solution has less potential drawbacks?" Considering they will both stop bigotry. Short of mind control, you can't actual prevent such things from happening. Preemptively stopping it would be nice, but unfortunately not realistic.
-
There's something I've been thinking about.
Isn't this a law that allows people to be sexist? Not only is the basic "No gay cakes" sexist, doesn't this also allow them to deny a woman trying to buy a cake because it's against their beliefs for women to handle money? What if they decide that they can't make her cake because she's not wearing one of those head things?
sex·ism
ˈsekˌsizəm/Submit
noun
Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination on the basis of sex.
"A man can not marry a man." Why? "Because he's a man, but a woman can marry that man."
"A woman can not marry a woman." Why? "Because she's a woman, but a man can marry that woman."
-
Yeah I see it as a huge Venn diagram of stuff. I get the why behind it (even if I don't support it - at least in this form), but it opens up a whole bad can of worms. It all boils down to multiple sets of morals and how to balance them. Any law on the matter would say one set is superior to the other, which is one reason why I support just letting (true) Capitalism run its course. If people actually dislike it to the point that they actually do something about it (rather than all talk no action), then a boycott would do wonders. Legislation on the other hand will usually bring out more religious debate from what I have seen in my limited 23 years :/
I also just think that even if the government comes up with the perfect law with the perfect intentions, they'd still manage to fuck it up somehow. I'm not really impressed with the U.S. Gov as a unit.
-
ughhhhh
this thread
i can't
i'm having trouble breathing
so yeah i don't feel safe right now?
-
We need a doctor.
Is there a doctor in the house?
I repeat: Is there a doctor in the house?
-
(https://rmrk.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn-www.i-am-bored.com%2Fmedia%2Fevery-doctor-who.jpg&hash=82f6fe63584b8d9ccc7fe3029f0e495dbb61f697)