Ten oz

I think that through whataboutism arguments, countless false equivalencies, Russian trolls, and analytics drive social media messaging the majority of people have been intimidated into not choosing sides. Taking a stance against hate groups in 2018 feels like a partisan political thing do an average people don't want to be partisan. I suspect many Police officers and average Joe's simply don't want to be accused of political activism or choosing sides. They unwittingly give hate speech the full respect of standard political advocacy because they cannot distinguish the difference in our current times.

Your question is sort of like wondering to oneself "what was I doing before I existed". It is a conflicting thought. Before I existed I did not exist and therefor couldn't have been doing anything. If you accept space time didn't exist, that time didn't exist, prior to the big bang than you accept time wasn't. The word "before" relates to time or at least a linear order on events. Prior to the big bang there was no time and thus a word like "before" has no relevant meaning. Big Bang theory is about the Big Bang. The theory doesn't address a universe without the Big Bang. Likewise for me to question what I am doing there must be an I, me. While much existed before I existed it confuses time to asked what I was doing during time prior to my existence. Rather than asking what came before the Big Bang a better question would be, as @LaurieAG alluded, to ask the less paradoxical "what is beyond our observable Universe".

In the U.S. drug overdoses killed over 70,000 people a in 2017. That is a 5 fold increase from the 90's. Illicit drugs specifically killed about 40,000 people in 2017. I think making illicit drugs legal would help reduce the death. People would have access to more reliable sources of their drug of choice and would be able to use those drugs in safer environments. My concern is that legalizing the drugs doesn't address the increase in use (neither does keeping them illegal).

Here is the U.S. a combination of both sides do the same thing and it doesn't really impact many people has been used to down play any numbers of extremely serious problems. We know from multiple intelligence reports and legal indictments that Russian intelligence has actively sought to influence public opinion toward BLM and other SJW groups while actively promoting White Nationalism and the Trump administration. Saying these protests and the associated violence may be a good thing and not representative of the majority doesn't ring true in my opinion. Trump is President in part because of all this stuff. Trump is about to seat his second Supreme Court justice. A Justice he has selected to please the most extreme factions of his supporters. All this stuff 100% impacts the majority regardless of how reflective of the majorities beliefs it all seems to be. Also BLM, LGBTQ, and other SJW groups do not promote violence or discrimination against anyone. The are equality for all proponents. White Supremacist/Nationalist groups are proponents of discrimination and believe in using violence to achieve dominance. The groups (SJW vs Nazis) are not equivalents of each other and for the convenience of appearing nonpartisan should never be treated as such.

Baker was being targeted. Baker was being targeted. Baker has the right to refuse if being targeted. Baker was being targeted. Cannot trust the legal system Baker was being targeted. Baker was being targeted. Baker was being targeted. *Colorado is not in or bordering the bible belt. This thread is titled "Supreme Courts rules in Favor of Colorado Baker .....". Everyone here knows what the verdict was. Falling back on the a Supreme Courts Religious Freedom verdict in no way supports what you have been arguing for pages. At no point have you made a Religious Freedom argument. Rather you have repeatedly insisted that the Baker had the right to refuse service on grounds they were being targeted for political activism. What one specifically argues matters. Ironically you selected to highlight the Kennedy's ruling which states as much. Kennedy's opinion also cited the three exemptions the commission previously granted for the non-discrimination law arising from the William Jack complaints. The opinion also noted differences in handling previous exemptions as indicative of Commission hostility towards religious belief, rather than maintaining neutrality.[27] Kennedy's opinion noted that he may have been inclined to rule in favor of the Commission if they had remained religiously neutral in their evaluation.[28]

Than we agree. Their is no evidence the couple singled the baker out in an attempt to make a political statement. Between that and correcting your false false claim Colorado is a conservative bible belt state we have made a lot progress here.

"Hard" and "soft" are relative decriptions that have no scientific definition outside of perhaps describing the texture of physical objects.

Let's be clear here. You are the one stating that you think they single out this specific baker to make a political statement. I am asking you what your proof is. Asking me for proof that they didn't doesn't support your assertion. You are the one stating they singled out this specific baker it is you who needs evidence to logically support the assertion. My assertion is that you do not have that evidence. Attempting to turn the burden of evidence toward me only serves to prove my point. How you would have gone about it is irrelevant. No one has any obligation to do what you would do nor is the way you would do something inherently superior to the way anyone else does things. I am an atheist, a liberal, a hetrosexual, a pescatarian (newly-ish), a native Californian, etc, etc. Anyone of the things I am potentially could be bothersome to some people based on their beliefs. I do not feel the need to carry a biography around shopping with me though. I don't feel I owe anyone an explanation for who I am or what I plan to do with the products I purchase.

The statement is self explanatory. John said the distinction is not based on science. Which type of scientific research would show it isn't scientific? You are asking John to prove a negative. Lots of thing are unhealthy. Fast food is linked to any number of serious health problems like heart disease. Fast food can be described as a "soft" or a "hard" health risk. It is all relative to the individual, quantity, and view of the person making the assessment.

How would they know how religious the baker was? Do you research the political and religious officiation of every business you purchase products from? "Hey, quick question before I order my Latte, how does the owner of this establishment feel about people like me"

Colorado is not in the Bible Belt. Colorado does not even border the Bible Belt. As a matter of fact out of 56 states and U.S. territories Colorado ranks #48 for religiosity. Colorado is one of the least religious states in the whole country. Your anecdotal evidence is wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_religiosity You say fishing yet cannot provide proof they reached out to other bakers. You are basically arguing they somehow knew in advance this one baker would refuse them. How would they have possibly known that? Colorado is neither a religious or even a politically conservative State. Colorado voted for Obama twice and Hillary Clinton got double the votes there as did Trump. I think you are confusing Colorado with someplace else.

Growing up I played a few different sports and as an adult continue to do a little personal training for sports so I am very fond of sports analogies. If a person were to practice in isolation every component of a sport, then slow combine the components before ever participating in the sport, and then as a final step walk out on to a field they wouldn't be anymore ready to compete than those who had not practiced. A baby steps or tiered steps approach to most sports simply does work. The speed of the game, the opposition, the fatigue, the intimidation, and etc cannot be learned in isolation. One must get out there, fail over and over, and then improve accordingly. Same goes for fitness overall. Going to the gym everyday and doing that which one is able to do comfortably will not stimulate much change. One must overload their muscles or cardiovascular system to improve. In sports and fitness one fails a thousand times over before they succeed. It doesn't matter how naturally gifted one is believed to be. Musa Nyatama has lost countless games in his life. Unfortunately in academia failure is view as a bad thing. Failing is not viewed as productive. In my opinion kids need to be challenged at levels where failure is guaranteed but also acceptable. Similar to sports. Musa Nyatama isn't expect to make zero mistakes. Real life is to dynamic and changing. Likewise I think kids should be solving puzzles, riddles, playing games, and etc where losing is part of it.

I am sure many of the other passengers on the bus with Rosa Parks were just interested in getting home in an uneventful manner the day she refused to give up her seat. Rosa Park had no anti-discrimination laws protecting her. She was just tired from a long day and did want to move. By your logic she should have just moved. Rosa was inconveniencing everyone that day to push her own political agenda. You are implying motivations which you can't prove exist. Up to the point the gay couple were refused service how would they have known the baker would refuse them? All the baker had to do is sell a cake (for profit) and the couples grand political conspiracy would have been foiled. You haven't shown any proof they shopped numerous Christian bakers searching for the one who refuse them service. The whole issue of the wedding being in another state isn't evidence they single out the baker. The couple were from Colorado. It is absolutely normal for people to purchase things local to them prior to traveling. You think the couples with island weddings like in Hawaii wait until they are in Hawaii to buy dresses, rings, cakes, etc?

I think suicide goes against the natural evolutionary instinct to live however animals do sometimes kill themselves. Whales beaching themselves come to mind. I think suicidal thoughts and behaviors is a health problem. Perhaps a hormonal imbalance or something mutated in ones genes. I think who attempt or commit suicide have more going on than just stress or a sense of feeling overwhelmed. I don't entirely understand it.

In my opinion when people object to the comparison it means they are not well read on the Civil Rights movement. There were prominent Gay Civil Rights activists like James Baldwin and Bayard Rustin. The Civil Rights movement wasn't purely a Black Equality movement but rather a Equality for All movement which included gays, feminists, and etc. Shirley Chisholm was a Feminist Civil Rights Activist who also championed gay rights. When Martin Luther King was assassinated in Memphis he was their marching for Union workers and not Civil Rights (Black equality) specifically. When Muhammad Ali was arrested and his sports titles stripped is was for his opposition to the Vietnam War which was also an issue taken up by Civil Rights Activists. Basic human rights, equality for everyone, a fair treatment under the law, and etc for all people (not just black people) was the message of the Civil Rights movement. That ALL people deserve dignity.

If I operated a bakery that specialized in customized products I absolutely would. I would happily accept money from all paying customers. It would be bad for my business not to,. Nope, all 50 states.

Trying to buy a cake for a wedding is not equal to a Christian wearing an anti gay-marriage slogan t-shirt. Gay marriage is not anti Christian. Your analogy is not an apples to apples comparison. Christian bakers are not being asked to bake or tolerate anti Christian slogans. Gay marriage legal. Gay couples are free to marry in the U.S.. A gay couple getting married is no more a political statement than is a black person selecting where they sit on a bus. It is settled law and not some sort of ongoing protest.

Nope, a gay wedding cake is not a anti Christian slogan. Many gay people are Christian and many Christian denominations accept gay couples.

Churches are tax exempt organizations under law. With that comes specific guidelines. A Bakery does not meet the same legal standard as a church. If you are arguing Churches should lose their legal exemptions and be treated as any other business I agree completely however that would only increase the number of law suits. Again, any businesses that offends, mistreats, or otherwise upsets customers is going to have legal problems and will most likely fail. Capitalism is secular. No one is forced to open a business. If a Christian chooses to open a business than they are willfully entering into a nonsecular environment. Your club analogy is another bad one. A gay wedding cake (to the bride & bride or groom and groom) is not an anti Christian slogan. Being gay is not inherently anti Christian. Straight couple are allowed in "gay clubs". I have never heard of a "gay club" which discriminated against straight people, have you?

In the link you provided there are zero examples of anything "provocative" the bakery was asked to make. They refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, were taken to court, and then chose to close citing the legal troubles. If you are going to continuing to state that LGBTQ activists are seeking out Christian bakers and request "provocative" products from as a way of hurting their businesses you'll need at least one example. I think it is ridiculous that grocery stores often have multiple wet floor signs out creating obstacles to walk around yet they do it because so many have been sued after someone slipped and fell. Running a business comes with many challenges. Christian companies aren't exempt from any of those challenges. If a non-religious bakery refused to bake someone a cake because they disapproved of the person for some secular reason they too could be sued. Christian businesses are not being held to any different standard. Businesses that offend, mistreat, or otherwise upset customers are often sued and seldom survive.

People purchasing their products "too frequently" is not a logical complaint for a business lodge. The more cakes a baker sells the better their business is doing. The notion that "activists" are attacking Christian bakers by giving them business is absurd. It is a problem any business could only wish to have. I think it is ridiculous that a baker would bother to consider this. Can you imagine calling to order pizza and being asked what you intend to use the Pizza for prior to the pizzeria agreeing to sell it to you ? A newspaper's advertising space becomes part of the product they are selling to all their customers and appears in every single one of the papers they sell. It isn't and apples to apples comparison. No one is demanding something specific be included to every item sold at a bakery to all customers.

How many times have you had to explain your lifestyle or world view to a baker? It is ridiculous. No one should have to justify themselves to a stranger in order to receive customer service at retail store.

Can you provide real life examples where this was the case? Adjusted for inflation average workers in the U.S. haven't had a pay increase in 40yrs meanwhile in China workers are making triple what they were just a decade ago. In Qatar all citizens receive a check from the govt as part of profit sharing on the oil. In Qatar the median income is great than it is in the U.S.. Despite the rapid wage growth in China or the high incomes of Qatar neither have equitable govts were the poor get ahead or all citizens enjoy equality. Economic success does not automatically equal freedom.

Democrats are not monolithic. Even when Obama had a Democratic congress for 2yrs he struggled to get his agenda pushed through. Looking back it is a travesty action wasn't taken on Immigration. What Obama did get passed during that time both the left and right wings within the Democratic party failed to vigorously defend. Just look at the ACA. It is popular enough that Republican are afraid to repeal it yet Democrats never owned it allowing instead for it to just be labelled "Obamacare" and hung around Obama's neck alone. I think if Democrats had all the power for several years the party would splinter and we'd be back to 2 party rule only both parties would be sane. I rather see full democratic control where the majority evolved actually believe in govt than split control where one side exists purely to sabotage the other. The Republican party has done nothing for a decade other than just cry wolf. During Obama's years they screamed at the tops of their lungs about Obamacare, road around on their high horses about deficits and spending, gave their most heart felt commentary on folks being under employed, cried about the fidelity of law enforcement (blue lives matter you know), and never missed a chance to bring up black on black violence in Chicago. Today they give 2 sh*ts about any of it. They have no repeal and replace for Obamacare and don't bother talking about healthcare at all anymore, spending & deficits have skyrocketed, the same economy is being celebrated Great Gatsby style, Law Enforcement are now executors of witch hunts, and 75 people were shot this past weekend in Chicago and the GOP could careless. The GOP are totally disingenuous about everything. Debate with them isn't about competing views but rather an aggressive string of lies ad hominem lies desired to create much division as possible. Just a couple years ago Republicans insisted Obama was weak on Assad, weak on Putin, Weak on Kim Jung-un, and Islamic terror was the greatest challenge the world faced. Today they have empowered Assad, Putin, Jung-un, and are no longer that interested in Mid East terrorism (3 NATO troops were just killed in a suicide attack this past weekend). Everything Republicans say is just a distraction. It is like they are not a political party at all but rather a group of wealthy investment bankers masquerading as a political party so they can have tax cuts. They invent any position as needed so they can get in to power and get more tax cuts. As that applies to this thread Republicans in the U.S. are an example of what happens when economics are the primary focus of a govt rather than quality of life. Most Mid East theocracies like Qatar and Kuwait have great economies with high per capita incomes than does the U.S. but so what they are oppress theocracies. Simply being wealthy isn't proof a govt is functioning for everyone.

It seems that in the U.S. the only thing many people care about is the economy. Healthcare, education, infrastructure, environment, and etc are not things which currently matter. Rather anything which is argued to potentially have a positive impact on the economy is treated as the govt's priority. In my opinion govts don't exist to ensure private companies maximize profit. That is why corporations exist not govts.