Phi for All

That incident sounds fairly isolated, and it's hard to trust "There was no racist intent". I don't know the context, but I've heard backhanded compliments before. "Nice dreadlocks!" doesn't necessarily mean the white person felt any admiration. I'm convinced it's partly all the labeling we do that makes us so susceptible to manipulation emotionally. Left, right, black, white, latino, Democrat, Republican, liberals, conservatives, we use these labels as if these groups do everything in lockstep. I'm very conservative about a lot of things, but politically my solutions tend towards spending tax dollars more effectively, so I identify as a liberal (and I think MOST people are a blend of stances like me). Instead of using the variety of economic tools we have available to us, we label public and state ownership as Socialism and Communism, implying that any attempt to use these tools is an attempt to use ONLY those tools. The media loves these words because they come pre-loaded with our prejudices and opinions, and they grab our attention with a minimum of effort. So it doesn't matter if you call them the "ultra", it's extremism, and these are the folks on all the outer boundaries of the spectrum who suddenly have the mic on the world stage. Their fringe fears and extremist solutions have been pulled out of deep storage where they belonged, and now they're parading around in the spotlight, thankful that US leadership has suddenly embraced crazy and their ideas have become relevant for the first time since they were finally run out of town on a rail by the civil rights movement.

When this case first came out, there was a LOT of fake news attached to it that faded very slowly. Initially, bloggers complained that the cake was "probably" pornographic, and a strawman with icing was created. The cake was perfectly normal, just with two grooms on top. The baker doesn't turn away gay people who want to buy anything else, he just won't justify their "unnatural" wedding with one of the cakes he makes available to the rest of the public. Iirc, the bloggers also went on at great length about "complainers", and how there were other bakeries to choose from. This is a conservative tactic, to reduce the very people who are rocking the boat to insignificance without actually dealing with the issue at hand. Attacking the person, not the idea.

I'm always shocked when someone claims they've been working on their ToE off and on for the last 15 years. A year or two in some college introductory courses could have saved them so much time!

This is what bugs me most. Discussion should correct this if members actually read what others write. When I want to be generous, I look at it like the person did all this work wrapping a really nice box of peanut brittle for grandma. Then he came here to rave about what a great job he did and what an awesome grandson he is. Then we point out that grandma is allergic to peanuts, and he keeps going on about how it's all homemade, using organic ingredients, and 33% less sugar.

I think only the words AFTER the misconception is spotted and corrected should count. Being wrong, or being misled by pop-sci articles, isn't a crime. Ignoring corrections to bulldoze your way through a sermon on your pet theory, that's cracked. Willful ignorance should be punishable by incarceration at a local community college.

If you really mean "all" fairness, you should rethink the whole "I'm offended" routine. There's nothing wrong with calling out intolerance, nothing wrong with wanting better when people's lives are affected, and nothing wrong with saying "This is wrong!". To call it "complaining" demeans the intent, which is to stop discrimination when you find it.

Many Christians interpret parts of the Bible as forbidding interracial marriages. Do you think it would be OK for this baker (any baker) to refuse to make a cake for a black man and a white woman who were getting married, based on this interpretation (or any interpretation) of his religion?

60 years ago, he would have been able to refuse black customers because of his religion. Do you think we should allow that now?

Except they don't. Care to give a reasonable example?

There was no filmed demonstration, presumably because it didn't work. We had a thread some time ago on perpetual motion and he was mentioned. Somewhere on the web there's some correspondence where Costa admits his current machine failed, but swore a bigger one would work, only he wasn't being allowed to build it (which didn't make sense to me). I like the crowbar bit. Very PT Barnum.

In this case, it WAS more. It involved being turned away as a customer for cake because of lifestyle. Prejudice is what you're talking about. Discrimination is when prejudice becomes public action, and that's what the SCOTUS should have been paying attention to.

It was my understanding that the wheel stalls when this is attempted. Otherwise, Mr Costa would be demonstrating THAT.

You keep repeating this. How many businesses do you know that require a customer to be more than reasonable and capable of paying? I think you're making a straw man argument. It's not about "liking". This wasn't even about printing something objectionable. This was discriminating against a gay couple who wanted a wedding cake from a local bakery.

Before the civil rights movement, it was OK to discriminate against lots of folks. It's not illegal for you to refuse my business because of my hair now, and probably won't be for some time, but we are working on making it illegal to discriminate against LGBTQ folks. It has nothing to do with liking them, and everything to do with them being people. AFAIC, when a religion causes discrimination, the religion is incompatible with a democratic society. In a society where church and state are deliberately kept separate, the state and the general public are the only real participants in this dilemma.

Pretty sweet, Daedelus! Thank you for this!

! Moderator Note Hijack and replies split to here. Please don't offer more pet "theories" to explain someone else's pet "theory".

! Moderator Note Nobody can post once it's in the Trash, so you got your wish.

This is clearly a case where publicly-funded efforts meet privately-funded investments, and in the US the private businesses almost always win, or at least get much more consideration than public efforts. It dilutes the power of public funding. To those extremists who plot for as much private ownership as possible, this is a real game changer. The religious trappings are just for show, obviously. The next step, of course, is to allow private ownership of the streets and sidewalks near your business. That way you can lobby to deny access to those you don't want to serve.

Now you've redefined what "evidence" means, further rejecting opportunities to cure ignorance. I can't figure out whether you REALLY need to be here to learn, or you should go someplace else with your woo. I'm just going to ignore you from now on.

I'm so amazed at the double standards at work. The GOP seems to be claiming that the Justice Dept has been pro-Democrat all this time they've been in control of Congress and now the WH. The bureau found nothing actionable on multiple issues with Clinton, and got multiple indictments on a single issue with Trump, but conservatives say the FBI are all a bunch of closet liberals supporting Democratic agendas. Riiiiiiight. Seeing as how the GOP is supposed to be the Law & Order party, I'm guessing we may see a play for a supposedly independent PRIVATE justice system.

Part of me feels like he's grabbing handfuls of candy from the piñata while spinning us around blindfolded. Another part thinks he's building an insanity plea. Yet another part thinks he's just struggling more the closer Mueller reels him into the boat.

OK, this tells me you've mistaken an attack on poor behavior for an attack against a person. Reason is a good tool here, and can show that the two are completely different.

If you aren't going to try to learn from discussion, why do you bother? The difference has been explained to you repeatedly, and you simply keep using your own misconception. There is ZERO scientific evidence for your higher power. Your belief in it is faith. Every bit of your belief in it is based on simple acceptance, AND THAT IS NOT THE WAY TRUST IS DEFINED! By doing so, you have removed all the importance of the distinction. When you're in a discussion, you need to think beyond your "personal level". Otherwise you're just blogging/soapboxing/preaching.

You don't understand that it's important to distinguish meaningfully between the very different ways we believe. Your definitions blend it all into a blithering mass of sameness and ignorance. If you'd read the thread before replying, you'd be less ignorant. What you call "giving yourself to it" sounds like "whatever you say, I'm good with". There's no trust in a stance like that, it's merely blind acceptance. Trust is built on evidence, history, predictability.

Hopefully.