Bakers refuse Gay wedding cake - update: Supreme Court rules in favour of Bakers

[Dis86]

One thought that pervades through all of this (not really bothering to read much of the thread...):
A) Why are people so eager to get on a high horse/legal trip over something that, ultimately, is trivial and causes no real hardship to the 'victims'?
Yeah, attempt to trash someone's entire livelihood because they annoyed you a bit. Nice one.
B) Couldn't they just find a different cake shop?


EDIT I realise this is, in fact, two thoughts.

Because, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, age, race, beliefs, some people are just idiots.

 

[Destination]

so...the outcome of the trouble the bakers were in was.......

We'll have to wait and see.
Tiss marching season, much more madness going on, to be caring about what people did do 'teh ghey cake'.

 

[Sliver]

To be expected from a God hater

How can I hate something I believe doesn't exist ? I don't hate unicorns, fairies, hobbits, dragons, elves, leprechauns etc. So how could I hate a god ?

You can not hate a fantasy. There are plenty of things in reality which I hate, you know what reality is kedge right ? The REAL world, where we all actually live, where there are no unicorns, fairies or gods.

 

[RDM]

He didn't say "fare just as well". He said "need".

If they fare just as well with same sex parents then it seems that they don't actually need a mother and a father surely?

 

[Frightful Boar]

Its preferable above all else that the person(s) tasked with raising a child are both loving and capable...what sex or sexuality they are is completely irrelevant.

Nonsense. Every country puts biological parents above loving and capable, unless they are very much the opposite. Unless you think know better than the whole world of course, which wouldn't surprise me.

I like this statement.

Unfortunately the few people I know raised by same sex couples are all freakin nut jobs.

Yup.

 

[kedge]

Regardless how you see yourself, by definition, if you believe Christ is the path to salvation, you are a Christian....the fact that you go on to justify yourself using an interpretation of Christian Scripture only shows that you are therefore a Christian. That you deny being a Christian implies that you deny Christ...you cannot have it both ways.

You have never been forthcoming or honest about your beliefs or associations, to me that simply implies that you know that such beliefs and associations would open you up to criticism...by denying your association, you are denying yourself, and that self-denial is frankly why I pity you...You don't have the integrity to stand up and accept who you are or what you follow, instead obfuscate and hide behind denial and the irrelevant quotation of scripture. You hope for salvation?...well first you had better stop denying the very precept of that salvation...don't you think?

Like i said, guide yourself with your blindeness

 

[kedge]

The REAL world, where we all actually live, where there are no unicorns, fairies or gods.

And what a debauched world we all live in.

 

[kedge]

Couldn't they just find a different cake shop?.

Because there are those that want to stir up trouble, like the fools from queerspace.

 

[Castiel]

Nonsense. Every country puts biological parents above loving and capable, unless they are very much the opposite. Unless you think know better than the whole world of course, which wouldn't surprise me.

And I take it from your definition of "the whole world" what you mean is "you"...


Ultimately it is best for the child that their parents or guardians are capable and loving...do you really think that abusive and violent parents are actually better for a child simply because they are their biological parents?...I know first hand at least two countries social services who do not agree with you, or your whole world.

 

[Sliver]

And what a debauched world we all live in.

Wow. You've finally said something which I can in part agree with you. Yes, this world is very messed up. It always has been and no doubt always will. But there are enough good people out there, both religious and secular, to make it work.

 

[Castiel]

Like i said, guide yourself with your blindeness

"The simple believes everything, but the prudent gives thought to his steps."

And you know where that comes from...

 

[Frightful Boar]

And I take it from your definition of "the whole world" what you mean is "you"...


Ultimately it is best for the child that their parents or guardians are capable and loving...do you really think that abusive and violent parents are actually better for a child simply because they are their biological parents?...I know first hand at least two countries social services who do not agree with you, or your whole world.

Mr Argumentative strikes again.

Show me one country where they only let people have kids who are tried and tested "capable" parents.

 

[Castiel]

Mr Argumentative strikes again.

Show me one country where they only let people have kids who are tried and tested "capable" parents.

So here we have the classic ad hominem opening, followed by another classic fallacy...The Strawman.

As I did not say, nor imply that anyone only allows children to be raised by people "tested" competent, you are simply creating your own argument to have with yourself.

So I ask again, are you suggesting that abusive and violent parent(s) are better than a loving capable parent(s) simply based on the fact that they are the biological parent(s)?

 

[SPG]

Funny, a chap at work was brought up by in his own words "Two lezzers" no different to anyone else i work with. Much better to be brought up by people who love you and care for you.

He can pull the ladies as well so in that respect its a advantage

 

[Frightful Boar]

So here we have the classic ad hominem opening, followed by another classic fallacy...The Strawman.

As I did not say, nor imply that anyone only allows children to be raised by people "tested" competent, you are simply creating your own argument to have with yourself.

So I ask again, are you suggesting that abusive and violent parent(s) are better than a loving capable parent(s) simply based on the fact that they are the biological parent(s)?

I'm stating as I did previously that the preference is that a child be with its biological parents.

Instead of using all your superior internet arguing tactics, why don't you just simply tell me why that's not right, seeing as every country adheres to this.

You said you knew a couple of countries that didn't, so let's see the proof. Or were you just making that up?

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

"The simple believes everything, but the prudent gives thought to his steps."

And you know where that comes from...

He may not, which is as hilarious as it is terrifying.

 

[Castiel]

I'm stating as I did previously that the preference is that a child be with its biological parents.

What you stated was that is is preferable above all else that a child is raised by a Mother and Father, your latter statement clarifies this as being the biological Mother and Father.

This is a fallacious position, as it is the welfare and wellbeing of the Child which is paramount, the status of their parents is secondary to that.

Instead of using all your superior internet arguing tactics, why don't you just simply tell me why that's not right, seeing as every country adheres to this.

You said you knew a couple of countries that didn't, so let's see the proof. Or were you just making that up?

Both the United States and the United Kingdom have social services who remove abused and neglected children from their biological parents and place them into the care of others, either foster, guardian or adoptive who are deemed better for the welfare of the child. This illustrates that it is the welfare and wellbeing of the Child that is preferable above all else, not the biological status of the parents themselves, which is simply another consideration when deciding the best decisions regarding the welfare of a child.

And it's not superior arguing tactics, simply superior logic and objectivity.

Now perhaps you can answer the question...

Are you suggesting that abusive and violent parent(s) are better than a loving capable parent(s) simply based on the fact that they are the biological parent(s)?

 

[Frightful Boar]

He may not, which is as hilarious as it is terrifying.

You're probably the only person who finds that hilarious or terrifying. Are you a drunk 8 year old girl?

 

[Frightful Boar]

What you stated was that is is preferable above all else that a child is raised by a Mother and Father, your latter statement clarifies this as being the biological Mother and Father.

This is a fallacious position, as it is the welfare and wellbeing of the Child which is paramount, the status of their parents is secondary to that.



Both the United States and the United Kingdom have social services who remove abused and neglected children from their biological parents and place them into the care of others, either foster, guardian or adoptive who are deemed better for the welfare of the child. This illustrate that it is the welfare and wellbeing of the Child that is preferable, not the biological status of the parents themselves.

And it's not superior arguing tactics, simply superior logic and objectivity.

Now perhaps you can answer the question...

Are you suggesting that abusive and violent parent(s) are better than a loving capable parent(s) simply based on the fact that they are the biological parent(s)?

You totally made that up!!!

I didn't say raised at all. But it is the preference.

The preference is that a child be with its biological parents, as I stated here:

"Nonsense. Every country puts biological parents above loving and capable, unless they are very much the opposite."

Why exactly are you arguing with me, you've just said the same thing.

Your last question is stupid, I never even hinted at that, in fact I would have thought my position clear on that by my quoted statement.

I think you're confusing yourself with the meaning of the word preference. I would prefer I never have to work. But I still go to work. Getting it now? Biological parents are the preference, but not always the most suitable. It could be your argumentative drive or your lack of comprehension that's stopping you from admitting this but I know you have enough logical intelligence to understand it.

 

[Castiel]

You totally made that up!!!

I didn't say raised at all.

But you did....

While neither are true, it's preferable above all else that it be a mother and a father raising their child, when it comes to adoption I can see how it might be viewed as positive if they're adopted by anyone who can pass the requirements set. Most children are brainwashed into believing nonsense anyway, not that much different if they're given unusual sexual mores (if that even happened).

It is in fact the welfare of the child that is preferable above all else, the biological status of the parent is a consideration, but not the paramount one..the welfare of the child is....which you stated was nonsense and are now agreeing with...

I think it was your lack of comprehension that created the problem you seem to have with my reply to the above quoted post by you, along with your inherent need to justify your prejudices.