Page 21 of 152 FirstFirst ... 1119202122233171121 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 1515

Thread: Should bakers be forced to make gender transition celebration cakes?

  1. Top | #201
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    7,301
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    18,275
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    I don't buy this desperate idiocy that the message on the cake is thought of by anyone as some expression of the baker.
    Well, the Supreme Court disagrees with you, as do I.
    Not the first time a tiny few people have been wrong about something.

    Is the sign painter also considered the author?

    Absurd!
    If a sign painter did not want to write the words "Death to Niggers" on a sign, he ought have the right to refuse to do so.

    I'm sorry you don't think so and that you would prefer the State bully and compel him into doing so.

  2. Top | #202
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    3,338
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    10,926
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche
    Nobody is harmed by that.

    If nobody is harmed there cannot be any immorality.
    I disagree on both counts, but neither is the point anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche
    It is the point in a secular society with a separation between religious delusion and state.

    People can have religious delusions but they can't use them to discriminate in business.
    It is not the point in the context of my reply to Gospel.
    The issue is whether the government should force people to engage in speech they disagree with, even if they disagree with it irrationally.

  3. Top | #203
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,388
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    39,941
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche
    Nobody is harmed by that.

    If nobody is harmed there cannot be any immorality.
    I disagree on both counts, but neither is the point anyway.
    Who is harmed and how?

  4. Top | #204
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,388
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    39,941
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post

    Not the first time a tiny few people have been wrong about something.

    Is the sign painter also considered the author?

    Absurd!
    If a sign painter did not want to write the words "Death to Niggers" on a sign, he ought have the right to refuse to do so.

    I'm sorry you don't think so and that you would prefer the State bully and compel him into doing so.
    That is a threat. That would be a rational justification not to write it.

    You need a reason to discriminate. But that reason can't be some irrational delusion.

  5. Top | #205
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    7,301
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    18,275
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post

    Not the first time a tiny few people have been wrong about something.

    Is the sign painter also considered the author?

    Absurd!
    If a sign painter did not want to write the words "Death to Niggers" on a sign, he ought have the right to refuse to do so.

    I'm sorry you don't think so and that you would prefer the State bully and compel him into doing so.
    That is a threat. That would be a rational justification not to write it.

    You need a reason to discriminate. But that reason can't be some irrational delusion.
    Wait. You just said that the sign writer can't rationally be considered the author of the sign he writes.

    But now, you are retracting that? A sign writer shouldn't be required to write death threats?

    Okay. What about "Niggers suck cocks in Hell?"

    That isn't a death threat. It doesn't even describe reality. Should a sign writer be compelled by the State to write it?

  6. Top | #206
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,388
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    39,941
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post

    That is a threat. That would be a rational justification not to write it.

    You need a reason to discriminate. But that reason can't be some irrational delusion.
    Wait. You just said that the sign writer can't rationally be considered the author of the sign he writes.
    He can know the sign is a threat.

    Not being the author does not mean not knowing what is being said.

    Clearly offensive messages could be discriminated against. But not because the painter is the author. But because the painter has made a reasonable judgement. Not a judgement based on nothing but delusion.

  7. Top | #207
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    7,301
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    18,275
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Clearly offensive messages could be discriminated against.

    But not because the painter is the author. But because the painter has made a reasonable judgement. Not a judgement based on nothing but delusion.
    What "reasonable judgment"? I did not say the painter was reasonable. I said the painter didn't want to paint the message. You didn't make any enquiries about the painter's 'reasonableness'.

    As far as I can tell, your definition of 'reasonable' is 'any viewpoint untermensche agrees with'.

  8. Top | #208
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    7,301
    Archived
    10,974
    Total Posts
    18,275
    Rep Power
    60
    For people keeping score, untermensche approves of the State forcing a signwriter to write "Niggers suck cocks in Hell".

  9. Top | #209
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,388
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    39,941
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Clearly offensive messages could be discriminated against.

    But not because the painter is the author. But because the painter has made a reasonable judgement. Not a judgement based on nothing but delusion.
    What "reasonable judgment"? I did not say the painter was reasonable. I said the painter didn't want to paint the message. You didn't make any enquiries about the painter's 'reasonableness'.

    As far as I can tell, your definition of 'reasonable' is 'any viewpoint untermensche agrees with'.
    What is reasonable may in some cases be unknown but not in all cases.

    Clearly offensive language is not some borderline case.

  10. Top | #210
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    23,388
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    39,941
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    For people keeping score, untermensche approves of the State forcing a signwriter to write "Niggers suck cocks in Hell".
    You lying about shit is not an argument.

    If a sign painter advertises to the general public and makes signs celebrating things for one person they are required to make signs celebrating things for everyone.

    Unless some reasonable objection exists.

    Reasonable people can discuss what things are clearly objectionable.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •