Left Hypocrisy on Serve / No Serve; Don't Tell Me 'Both Sides Do It'

a reply to: UKTruth
well as far as the muslim store owner not selling pork...
more than likely, he doesn't sell pork, so he doesn't have it on hand to sell...
should he be force to stock pork, or does he have the freedom to decide what merchandise he has in his store?

as far as the bakeries... as well as your allegations of hypocrisy...

I already gave my opinion, it seems that the conservatives can dish it out, but when the crap comes back on them, they just can't take it!!
while yous are griping about cakes, probably another hospital is in the process of negotiating a deal with some catholic organization and when they settle there will be another hospital in the country that will be legally allowed to place their "religious beliefs" above the health and well being of their female patients. heck, I think some judge in texas has already shot down obama's attempt to stop that one...
so, no, I don't take your cries of hypocrisy seriously. sorry!!!

a reply to: UKTruth

Nope.

ANY baker can refuse to decorate a cake in any specific way, no matter who the customer is.

NO baker should refuse to sell a generic cake to someone because they are gay or black.

That's because decorations are specific and no one can decide what is an offensive decoration except the person having to do it.

A generic cake, however, is not specific, hence the term "generic".

That sounds totally fair and consistent to me.

So you can go the typical "putrid" right route and call me names if that helps you with the loss in your argument. You aren't the first, and you certainly won't be the last.

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry
a reply to: ElGoobero

They are the 'do as we say, not as we do' crowd.

The level of hypocrisy and the fact they've become the very things they claim to stand against and despise are nothing short of idiotic....Trust, but verify...and their verification fails the vast majority of the time in reality...it only stands if you let *them* dictate to you what their version of the 'facts' are.

Not sure who you are referring to but it does sound like those far right Fundamental Christians.

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry
a reply to: ElGoobero

They are the 'do as we say, not as we do' crowd.

The level of hypocrisy and the fact they've become the very things they claim to stand against and despise are nothing short of idiotic....Trust, but verify...and their verification fails the vast majority of the time in reality...it only stands if you let *them* dictate to you what their version of the 'facts' are.

"Trust, but verify" is kind of dumb.

Either trust or verify.

Why do both?

If you trust in part, you're not really verifying. If you verify in full, you're not trusting.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Talking right and left a like, however the left seems to have mastered it through politically correctness and selectively condemning people who don't agree with them, but they insist that they include and like everyone...and they don't.

Bakers vs. Wedding party

Presidential inauguration vs. entertainers

those are just two, but there's a bucket of stuff like that to chose from.

The thing that's pathetic is that we pick people to represent us, and from both sides of the isle, due to career politicians, corruption that follows it, they think that we pick them to rule us not represent us. They are those who are tossing labels around, putting us into 'groups', 'classes' and the like....when more people recognize this, we can unite as human beings rather than the labels and the like they've 'given' us all...

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry
a reply to: ElGoobero

They are the 'do as we say, not as we do' crowd.

The level of hypocrisy and the fact they've become the very things they claim to stand against and despise are nothing short of idiotic....Trust, but verify...and their verification fails the vast majority of the time in reality...it only stands if you let *them* dictate to you what their version of the 'facts' are.

"Trust, but verify" is kind of dumb.

Either trust or verify.

Why do both?

If you trust in part, you're not really verifying. If you verify in full, you're not trusting.

Make the agreement, but verify what you're told before accepting it on paper or officially.

Think of it like a credit report and application...the application you're saying you have x,y,z credit...the looking up (verification of it) the 'report' is the verification....see.

The deal moves forward from there...if you trust and don't verify, you're a fool. You can't just go around being a bull in a china shop, deals are rarely made that way, and the ones that are are bad deals.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: everyone

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: UKTruth

Why does it matter that they were being bigoted?

Tell that to all the Trump supporters you guys accused of being bigots all that time for just voting for him.


You people are so fake it makes me cringe.

The thing is their total hypocrisy is being exposed daily and it's joyous to watch. We've got front row seats to the entire scam being ripped apart day by day.

This i agree with and everybody got to see it

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: UKTruth

Nope.

ANY baker can refuse to decorate a cake in any specific way, no matter who the customer is.

NO baker should refuse to sell a generic cake to someone because they are gay or black.

That's because decorations are specific and no one can decide what is an offensive decoration except the person having to do it.

A generic cake, however, is not specific, hence the term "generic".

That sounds totally fair and consistent to me.

So you can go the typical "putrid" right route and call me names if that helps you with the loss in your argument. You aren't the first, and you certainly won't be the last.

All instances are examples of discrimination.

Same, same, (same)

Morally very clear. As is your hypocrisy.
I noticed you are using 'can'. Are you still hiding behind the legal elements of this to try and save face?

a reply to: BlackboxInquiry

You are aware that the conservatives invented political correctness?

a reply to: UKTruth

While we agree that it's morally wrong for anyone to discriminate even with the cake decorations, you are basically trying to argue that they have no right to refuse cake decorations. You have no basis for that.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: BlackboxInquiry

You are aware that the conservatives invented political correctness?

Like fighting for equal rights, like civil rights and the like?

Or the 'labels' given to everyone like 'african-american' or 'economically-challenged' person?

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: UKTruth

While we agree that it's morally wrong for anyone to discriminate even with the cake decorations, you are basically trying to argue that they have no right to refuse cake decorations. You have no basis for that.

No I am not. We've already established the basis.
I already agree they have the right to refuse legally.
Once again - the discussion is a moral one.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: BlackboxInquiry

You are aware that the conservatives invented political correctness?

We are aware that the democratic party created the KKK and gold water.
And "proud goldwater girls" -hillary clinton.

a reply to: UKTruth

Well then I guess we agree. And kaylaluv seems to agree too.

Discrimination in any form is wrong and ugly, regardless of the law.

a reply to: UKTruth

Nope. It may be the law, but I happen to agree with it, because I think it's fair and consistent.

The law applies equally to everyone regardless of their religion and I agree with that too.

Imagine, a law applying equally to everyone. No hypocrisy there.

a reply to: BlackboxInquiry

That's just a guideline on how to be polite. Was your mother wrong to teach you how to be polite?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: UKTruth

Nope. It may be the law, but I happen to agree with it, because I think it's fair and consistent.

The law applies equally to everyone regardless of their religion and I agree with that too.

Imagine, a law applying equally to everyone. No hypocrisy there.

I know you agree with it morally , which is why you are a hypocrite. The worst kind.
Stop talking about legal aspects - we dropped that pages ago. You are trying to pivot instead of admitting you were wrong OR coming right out and admitting you are a hypocrite.

Here's another couple for you that your failed logic makes OK.

A painter and decorator gets a call for some work. He rocks up at the house and a Muslim answers the door. He walks in and is asked to paint a wall white. The bigoted decorator hates Muslims, so he says 'Sorry I can't do it'.
As he leaves, the next door neighbour pops their head out the door and asks if he can paint her wall blue. "No problem" says the painter and he does a cracking job. The neighbour asks "Why did you not do the house next door?". "Well, Mrs" he says, "I am offended by the colour white you see". "oh", says she. "for a minute I thought you were a bigoted piece of trash, but now I see you are just fine, after all it's not for me to say what you are offended by".

Here's another scenario you MUST also think ok... back to the bakers.
The Muslim baker hangs a sign up that says "No bespoke service for gay men wanting two men's names on the cakes (generic cakes only), gay women OK and I'll write anything you want". You see he is not offended by lesbians.

a reply to: UKTruth

Now who's making up silly scenarios that would never happen? Okay, I'll bite. If the painter agrees to paint a wall white for a non-Muslim but won't paint a wall white for a Muslim, then he's not offering the exact same service for one person that he was willing to offer to everyone else, is he? However if he never agrees to paint a wall white for whomever wants it, he's okay in my book.

You're really stretching, robot boy.

As for the Muslim baker in the other silly scenario that would never happen, as long as he's consistent and doesn't agree to decorate two men's names on a cake for non-gay men either, he's okay in my book.

a reply to: UKTruth

ya know what the best solution to all this bickering is???
a sign saying,
we'll bake the cake, we'll frost the cake....
YOU CAN DECORATE YOUR OWN DANGED CAKE!!

solves the whole issue, doesn't it, and it would probably make everyone equally unhappy since the reason we go to bakers for special cakes is because they are much prettier than we ourselves can make!

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry
a reply to: ElGoobero

They are the 'do as we say, not as we do' crowd.

The level of hypocrisy and the fact they've become the very things they claim to stand against and despise are nothing short of idiotic....Trust, but verify...and their verification fails the vast majority of the time in reality...it only stands if you let *them* dictate to you what their version of the 'facts' are.

"Trust, but verify" is kind of dumb.

Either trust or verify.

Why do both?

If you trust in part, you're not really verifying. If you verify in full, you're not trusting.

Make the agreement, but verify what you're told before accepting it on paper or officially.

Think of it like a credit report and application...the application you're saying you have x,y,z credit...the looking up (verification of it) the 'report' is the verification....see.

The deal moves forward from there...if you trust and don't verify, you're a fool. You can't just go around being a bull in a china shop, deals are rarely made that way, and the ones that are are bad deals.

Haha - as if an application is ever trusted.

It's a silly Russian proverb. That's where Reagan got it from.

By your own admission, if you don't verify then you're foolish. If you verify, then you don't trust.

If you always intend to verify, then you never really trusted in the first place.

Ergo, either trust or verify. You really can't do both.