rickyp wrote:Please, this would be a wonderful person to meet. The first question is how he got his PHD without studying and understanding evolutionary biology.

That is a faulty supposition.

Of course, what you mean to say is: "Without BELIEVING human beings evolved from lower forms of life."

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:Please, this would be a wonderful person to meet. The first question is how he got his PHD without studying and understanding evolutionary biology.

That is a faulty supposition.

Of course, what you mean to say is: "Without BELIEVING human beings evolved from lower forms of life."

So does he accept that other forms of life evolved, or is his evolutionary biology PhD based completely on what he thinks are lies?

I would also welcome you bringing him to the table.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:Please, this would be a wonderful person to meet. The first question is how he got his PHD without studying and understanding evolutionary biology.

That is a faulty supposition.

Of course, what you mean to say is: "Without BELIEVING human beings evolved from lower forms of life."

So does he accept that other forms of life evolved, or is his evolutionary biology PhD based completely on what he thinks are lies?

I would also welcome you bringing him to the table.

No, no you really wouldn't. I've seen you in action.

I found this article--which analogies textual changes to biblical manuscripts to evolutionarily processes--to be interesting.http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/Evolution.html

http://www.onenewsnow.com/culture/2014/12/18/different-standards-for-gay-bakers-and-christian-bakers

Is this more of the tolerance of another person's viewpoint? Perhaps the LGBT community is not practicing the same tolerance they desire of the anti-gay community.

Is this the intolerance that the LGBT community is fighting against when the position is reversed?

Brad...the one thing we all agreed on is that bakers should not have to make cakes with speech that goes against their values. Christian bakers are free to refuse to bale cakes that have messages supporting gay marriage on them. So your example is not apposite I 'm afraid.

Unless you believe that the message of gay marriage is against the values of the baker.

I note that you did not answer the question as to the tolerance of the LGBT community. Are they being tolerant of other's opinions?

bbauska

I note that you did not answer the question as to the tolerance of the LGBT community. Are they being tolerant of other's opinions?

You the difference bbauska?
The "Christians" who want a cake with hate speech on it are deliberately seeking to provoke a reaction. That's the only purpose.
The gay couple just want a cake for their wedding...

If there are places where gays are deliberately provoking "Christian" bakers who have advertised their bigotry ... then I suppose there is a comparison. Although the |Christians" have set themselves up for the provocation if they are advertising their bigotry.
However lets compare if the issue wasn't the sex of the couples but their color.
If black or mixed race couples were deliberately baiting bakers who had advertised "No Coloreds" in their window.... we might be calling those actions of a freedom rider..
If white "Christians" had demanded of black bakers that they write racial epithets on a cake we'd call them, KKK?

Like it or not, discrimination against gays and lesbians is no longer acceptable in the public square, which includes those who offer their businesses to the public at large.

The problem is you consider it "Hate speech" to say that gay marriage is wrong. That is not hate speech. That is a different view. If we can't have and discuss different views, then that IS the definition of intolerance.
[url]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intolerance[/url]
lack of tolerance; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect opinions or beliefs contrary to one's own.

The did not have a saying espousing the killing of all who do not believe as they do like an ISIS terrorist. They just asked for "Gay Marriage is wrong" to be on a cake.

Is that an intolerant response that the bakers gave to caller? (You also failed to answer)

The link that you posted compared those in the gay community as being like fascists and other dictators and may lead to genocide. Wow--that's out there. I am assuming you don't agree with that viewpoint.

I'm not exactly sure what your point on tolerance is. Christians are free to make their views known but that does not mean they will not be vigorously challenged. As far as I know, no one is damaging church property because of sermons against gay marriage, or interrupting sermons, or persecuting Christians because of their anti-gay views. Now, as Ricky said, if you're going to be intentionally provocative you're going to get a negative response . That study was ridiculous.

freeman3 wrote:The link that you posted compared those in the gay community as being like fascists and other dictators and may lead to genocide. Wow--that's out there. I am assuming you don't agree with that viewpoint.

I'm not exactly sure what your point on tolerance is. Christians are free to make their views known but that does not mean they will not be vigorously challenged. As far as I know, no one is damaging church property because of sermons against gay marriage, or interrupting sermons, or persecuting Christians because of their anti-gay views. Now, as Ricky said, if you're going to be intentionally provocative you're going to get a negative response . That study was ridiculous.

Are you saying that asking for a "Gay Marriage is Wrong" cake is hate speech as well?

Is it hate speech if I say gay marriage is wrong? I'm sure you know this already, but gay marriage is wrong in my opinion. Being gay is fine. But my opinion is that gay marriage is wrong. I have explained why in the previous forums.

Am I engaging in hate speech?

We have talked about the service of gay weddings. You and others seem to think that is not acceptable to be able to choose to follow what you believe in in that case. I am trying to see if you think the gay bakeries in the Shoebat study are able to choose to follow what they believe.

Florist/Baker/Photographer does not believe in Gay marriage must serve customer regardless of belief.

Baker(s) do believe in Gay marriage does not have to serve customer regardless of belief.

I see that as the dichotomy. Is it being provocative? Yes, no doubt. Does the bakery get to make a decision on what is provocative or not? Do the business that do not believe in gay marriage get that same luxury of choosing what is provocative?

Yes, I do not agree with the hyperbole of the Shoebat study. But the data is there. 13 bakeries were denying service based upon their viewpoint of gay marriage.

Here is what I think, Brad:

(1) While persons conducting business should not discriminate they also should not be required to participate in the political speech of a customer that they do not agree with. There might be some difficult issues with say print shops--because getting stuff printed may be impossible otherwise--but in general this is my point of view;

(2) Christians have a right to get their viewpoints out there regarding gays and gay marriage and essentially what is called the marketplace of ideas will decide if their ideas are acceptable to the culture or not. This is not a matter of freedom of speech but what speech the culture finds acceptable. Racist speech is legal but not acceptable; speech that is derogatory towards women is legal but not acceptable. Certain language regarding gays that used to be acceptable probably no longer is. I don't think speech against gay marriage falls into that category of unacceptable speech.

Thank you. I think we agree on that.

bbauska

Are you saying that asking for a "Gay Marriage is Wrong" cake is hate speech as well?

when you walk into a bakery that you know is operated by gays and ask them to make that cake in order to provoke a response yes. Its intimidation. Or at least an attempt at it...
The fact is, that gay marriage is now legal. So its not "wrong" except in the eyes of a minority of Americans who happen to be Christians mostly. And old. Mostly.

If the KKK burns a cross in a field they own, its hateful and vile. But when they burn it on a black man's font yard that's an attempt to intimidate and or provoke a violent response. And that's an act of hate.

If the people who want to provoke a response at the Gay bakeries want to organize a march, write an opinion piece on the Internet or a newspaper, or make some other kind of demonstration or argument that's fair. And though misguided and bigoted, in my view, should be tolerated. But to directly provoke a response is hateful.

Now i see the parallels if a Gay couple deliberately asks for a GAY cake (whatever that is...with both nuts and raisins I guess) in an establishment that has established that the will not serve the gay community that's also provocation. To an extent I feel thats unnecessary.. There are probably other bakeries, and it would be my instinct to find another bakery.
However, the comparison with freedom riders demanding service at a lunch counter that would only serve whites comes to mind.
Without exercising their rights they don't have the right. Without forcing the acceptance by the bigots at the lunch counter they would not expand their freedom.
The difference is that the cake baiters at the gay bakery are protesting something that is legal and constitutional and hoping for nothing more than a provoked response.
The gay cake adherents at the Christian bakery are exercising their right to be treated equally.And hoping that their actions increase the acceptance of their rights.

Nice diatribe, RickyP, (Still no answer on whether the bakeries are being intolerant on the Shoebat study, but ok...)

Burning a cross in your own property is something you can do, and stupid as that is, you can do that and be dealt with via the marketplace of your community. That is something Freeman and I were agreeing on. That IS hate speech, and although you shouldn't be censured by the government for your stupidity on your own property, you can and should be censured by the public if it is against the societal norms of your community.

Burn that cross on another's property, we have a different issue. It SHOULD be dealt with via laws in place already (tresspassing, harrassment, hate speech et. al.).

Did you listen to the phone call requests at all? How were the "customers" provoking? The bakers were the one's who were responding way over the line.

You "nuts and raisins" jibe was insensitive, rude and insightful into your way of thinking.

The Freedom riders never fought with the white service providers did they? Are you comparing pacifism and ow the bakers are responding? Not much of a comparison.

I have said it before, so please try to get this inside your cranial cavity and dwell on my words.
To prohibit service to a person based upon their sexual orientation is WRONG.
To prohibit service to a person based upon a political stance is fine.
Serving a LGBT person is right.
Being forced to serve a gathering that is against your objections is wrong.

Would I do it? No, I would not. Should people have the right to choose what political stance to affiliate themselves with? I would hope that would be something that would be agreeable.