Quantcast
US Supreme Court: Christian baker does not have to bake 'the gay cake'

Forums - Politics Discussion - US Supreme Court: Christian baker does not have to bake 'the gay cake'

HylianSwordsman said:
TH3-D0S3R said:

As someone who believes in a sort of greater force (a being and not necessarily the textbook Christian God) and agrees with proper Christian principles, most atheists I've seen don't even ponder the thought. For the most part they just live their lives without giving two shits about any religion, let alone one specific one. I enjoy talking to these guys, because their reasoning comes through research which is fascinating to me. I grew up in a Christian household, and I wont consider myself agnostic, but I am around Jesus Freaks on the daily, so I talk to people like this whenever I can.

I don't think Christianity will die outright like some people tend to think here, mostly because if it can get through Roman persecution, it wont just die out. However, I can say this:

You're not a true atheist if you're fed up about Christianity and other religions and constantly saying how bad these are and how they're gonna die soon. If you feel you are in a group and do it out of spite, I just see you as a denialist under an atheist charade. True atheists for the most part act on their own and don't force their biases on others, which is something that is immensely respectable. 

You're absolutely right that most non-religious people don't ponder the thought. See my response. Christianity won't die out either, you're right, but it will get very, very small, unless something major changes pretty soon. We're at 70% overall, but when you reduce it to just white Christians it goes down to 43%, a minority, and yes, the white part does matter because the actual traditions and beliefs of the denominations are different, due to each denomination developing out of communities that were vastly one race or ethnicity. Under current trends, by 2050, all of Christianity will be a minority in America, and the particularly conservative ones will be a very tiny minority, probably in the teens, or even single digits.

As for non-religious people, they aren't just atheists, and most people who don't believe in God or a god wouldn't even use the term or identify with it, nor the term agnostic. They are, as you say, mostly people who don't give two shits. And as people who don't give two shits, they also won't care if an atheist turns away a Christian, particularly in a future society where non-religion is the norm and Christians are seen as weirdos that still believe in Sky Santa. I'm a Christian myself, and while I don't force my beliefs or biases on others as I'm not an evangelical that feels the need to "witness" to everyone all the time, when the subject does come up and I'm with non-religious folk, I get made fun of a lot, even if they still respect me and hang out with me afterwards. And I'm talking about the "don't give two shits" type. A future full of them would be one where a Christian would feel very awkward expressing his religion in front of them.

As for not being a true atheist if you're "fed up about Christianity and other religions", I challenge you to say that to Richard Dawkins' face. And film it. I want to see his reaction.

Strongly agree with this statement. I grew up in a strong Christian household, and quite honestly I hate the concept of church. I go to a Christian college, and everyone around me feels the need to preach, which to me is stupid considering everyone just basically agrees with the messages they constantly preach. I've just learned to keep my beliefs to myself and just sorta block out the 'Jesus Freaks' as I call them.

As for a decrease in religion, I slightly disagree considering the black population and Latino population are heavily religious. Minus another Great Awakening, I predict it'll drop between the 55-65% range. When it comes to religious followers I ignore race and just look at the percents to see where the religion itself is at.

As for Richard Dawkins, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html . Sure this was a few years back, but the need for him to constantly acknowledge and throw shade towards religion is pathetic to me. People like Dawkins are the reason more religious people don't open up to his ideas.



Around the Network
The Radical Left/Communist Me Too movement reaction over this decision was priceless. Court judges face bullying and intimidation since the emergence of the Me Too Radical Left Movement. Me Too Movement is just another face of Communism.

It's so ignorant lol. What is a protest going to do? If all the democrats went outside during the vote to shit their diapers on the steps, this new scotus justice would still get seated lol. They don't have the votes so what's the point? Just to make a facebook post and feel like you are a part of something?



Dark_Lord_2008 said:
The Radical Left/Communist Me Too movement reaction over this decision was priceless. Court judges face bullying and intimidation since the emergence of the Me Too Radical Left Movement. Me Too Movement is just another face of Communism.

Whinging about the Left when the Far Right is just as bad is extremely disingenuous, they are as bad as each other, don't try and take the higher ground when none actually exists.


massimus said:

It's so ignorant lol. What is a protest going to do? If all the democrats went outside during the vote to shit their diapers on the steps, this new scotus justice would still get seated lol. They don't have the votes so what's the point? Just to make a facebook post and feel like you are a part of something?

Protesting is generally considered a democratic right in the free world, it leverages ones freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of movement.
You don't have to like what they are protesting about, but you should support their right to protesting.

TH3-D0S3R said:

As for Richard Dawkins, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html . Sure this was a few years back, but the need for him to constantly acknowledge and throw shade towards religion is pathetic to me. People like Dawkins are the reason more religious people don't open up to his ideas.

If you have actually paid heed to what Richard Dawkins has said in the past... He doesn't actually care what the religious think, he isn't doing it for them.



---:::}}} Part of the PC Gaming Master Race. {{{:::---

They do have the right to “peacefully” assemble, im not saying turn the firing squads on them lol. I just said it was ignorant.

Around the Network
massimus said:

It's so ignorant lol. What is a protest going to do? If all the democrats went outside during the vote to shit their diapers on the steps, this new scotus justice would still get seated lol. They don't have the votes so what's the point? Just to make a facebook post and feel like you are a part of something?

Protesting used to be a lot more effective before the parties became so polarized. Take the right for women to vote. Obviously they didn't have the votes, they couldn't vote. Now protests on both sides usually do little if anything. But occasionally something happens. It definitely won't this time though. I think ignorant is a bit strong a word though. They're not trying to be rude, they just don't know what else to do while they wait for the next chance to vote. The Tea Party knew they had to vote, and did so, and were successful in making a difference in the make up of congress in order to get their way, but did that stop them from protesting? Of course not. Part of protesting is just to give people something to do to keep their energy up for the cause. So yeah, basically it is to feel like they're part of something, so they stay involved when it's time to vote. That's about all it does. Keeps people involved and passionate so they're still revved up to vote.

That's just in the US though. Depending on the country, protests can be more effective. There was one in Romania less than a year ago where the government tried to pass a bill that would effectively make corruption legal, and the protests against it were so strong that they withdrew the bill and the guy behind it resigned.



HylianSwordsman said:
massimus said:

It's so ignorant lol. What is a protest going to do? If all the democrats went outside during the vote to shit their diapers on the steps, this new scotus justice would still get seated lol. They don't have the votes so what's the point? Just to make a facebook post and feel like you are a part of something?

Protesting used to be a lot more effective before the parties became so polarized. Take the right for women to vote. Obviously they didn't have the votes, they couldn't vote. Now protests on both sides usually do little if anything. But occasionally something happens. It definitely won't this time though. I think ignorant is a bit strong a word though. They're not trying to be rude, they just don't know what else to do while they wait for the next chance to vote. The Tea Party knew they had to vote, and did so, and were successful in making a difference in the make up of congress in order to get their way, but did that stop them from protesting? Of course not. Part of protesting is just to give people something to do to keep their energy up for the cause. So yeah, basically it is to feel like they're part of something, so they stay involved when it's time to vote. That's about all it does. Keeps people involved and passionate so they're still revved up to vote.

That's just in the US though. Depending on the country, protests can be more effective. There was one in Romania less than a year ago where the government tried to pass a bill that would effectively make corruption legal, and the protests against it were so strong that they withdrew the bill and the guy behind it resigned.

There used to be shit worth protesting about lol. The parties have always been polarized with serious shit like slavery, segregation so I don’t think that’s it. The shit people protest now is ignorant. I believe you are right when you say that organizations are just trying to keep people riled up for voter turnout. Solid policy will always prevail over hate and anger though, the anger doesn’t last. If their platform is built on nothing but hate then they will keep losing no matter how much they protest.



Aeolus451 said:
OhNoYouDont said:

While it doesn't establish that the argument is false, it does indeed mean the argument in its current form is invalid and thus any conclusion drawn from said statement is at the very least dubious if not outright false. 

You're jumping into a weird position by countering in this manner by dealing with the distinction between the following:

"Argument contains a logical fallacy, therefore it's false."

"Argument contains a logical fallacy, therefore I am not accepting its inferences."

In the grand scheme of things, these differences are obsolete. The onus is on the claim maker to establish their conclusion. By failing to do so, whether or not the flawed argument's conclusion is true or false is entirely irrelevant. Garbage in, garbage out.

Not exactly. A particular part could be unsound but the rest of it is fine. That doesn't mean the thing is invalid just because of a single logical flaw. 

 The distinction I'm drawing is....

"Argument contains a logical fallacy, therefore it's false"

 It's self-defeating.The statement hinges on logical fallacies but is an argument from fallacy.

 

 "Argument contains a logical fallacy because of (long winded explanation) and because I disagree with these other points, therefore I am not accepting its inferences."

 That's completely fine.

 

The concept of logical fallacies were created to understand mistakes in reasoning. People really just use it to win arguments these days. It gets really old when people use "that's a fallacy" all the time or use it as a crutch .

I think I'm mostly in agreement with your underlying points. I agree that saying "this is guilty of X fallacy" without offering an explanation of how it falls into that fallacy is certainly not an appropriate rebuttal. I do also agree that if you're making various points to support some contention, merely because one point fails does not render your other points obsolete (or false by association).

The difference in my statement is that I'm talking about when you're making a deductive argument and one of your premises is false. Under this particular scenario, the rest of the argument becomes irrelevant since it fails the test of soundness. This is because in order for a deductive argument to be valid and sound leading to a true conclusion, all of its premises must be true.



OhNoYouDont said:
Aeolus451 said:

Not exactly. A particular part could be unsound but the rest of it is fine. That doesn't mean the thing is invalid just because of a single logical flaw. 

 The distinction I'm drawing is....

"Argument contains a logical fallacy, therefore it's false"

 It's self-defeating.The statement hinges on logical fallacies but is an argument from fallacy.

 

 "Argument contains a logical fallacy because of (long winded explanation) and because I disagree with these other points, therefore I am not accepting its inferences."

 That's completely fine.

 

The concept of logical fallacies were created to understand mistakes in reasoning. People really just use it to win arguments these days. It gets really old when people use "that's a fallacy" all the time or use it as a crutch .

I think I'm mostly in agreement with your underlying points. I agree that saying "this is guilty of X fallacy" without offering an explanation of how it falls into that fallacy is certainly not an appropriate rebuttal. I do also agree that if you're making various points to support some contention, merely because one point fails does not render your other points obsolete (or false by association).

The difference in my statement is that I'm talking about when you're making a deductive argument and one of your premises is false. Under this particular scenario, the rest of the argument becomes irrelevant since it fails the test of soundness. This is because in order for a deductive argument to be valid and sound leading to a true conclusion, all of its premises must be true.

That's true of deductive arguments but not of inductive arguments. 



My personal opinion on the matter is that if a company is a utility or publicly traded then it must not discriminate on who it serves. If it is a completely private business, like I assume most bakeries are since I've never heard about anyone freaking out over cake stocks, then they can serve or not serve whomever they please. Do I personally agree with them refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple? No. I find that to be shitty of them. Though the gay couple should have just taken their business to someone who will do it for them. The baker who refused loses out on money from that couple and gets an image as a bigot.