Supreme Court rules in favor of baker in same sex wedding cake case. (Part 2)

Yes, I also allowed myself to get drawn in to the petty back-and-forth over technical details. I’m not claiming to be a better person than you, we’re both at fault here.

 

How is it "petty" exactly?

 

Because the technical specifics and side details of individual cases I brought up (because you implied they never happen) and your apparently inability to accept that they could possibly be actual cases of discrimination aren’t significant to the wider questions. You were wrong to think (or claim to think) such cases didn’t happen. Just accept it and move on.

 

Let me assure you that I definitely think that they could possibly be actual cases of discrimination based on sexual orientation. Do you think that they possibly might NOT be?

I never once claimed that such cases don't happen, I just said that I never hear about them.

 

Anything is possible but there are examples I’ve either seen reported or have witnessed first-hand that I’m as confident as it is humanly possible to be about and the chance that every single example could be wrong is infinitesimally tiny.

The implication being that they didn’t exist. Why else would you either dismiss or try to pick apart any examples presented to you in response? If it was simply about you hearing about them, my telling you of examples should have resolved that question. Alternatively, you could have spent the 30 seconds looking them up yourself if you really wanted to find them.

 

Well not even I, am confident that every single example could be wrong!

You drew the wrong implication.

Dismiss? No. Pick apart? Absolutely. Are your examples beyond scrutiny or something?

I certainly didn't say that it is "SIMPLY" about hearing about them. Did you really expect me to just accept them? Do you even know me? If you provided an example where a shop keeper kicked a gay person or persons out of his shop telling them that gays are not welcome in his shop, then I wouldn't have questioned it one little bit, as the intent to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation would be glaringly obvious.

I certainly wasn't lazy. I tried to find examples but I guess my search terms were insufficient. Obviously you knew the details of those stories so you were able to find them easily. I'm guessing that you specifically sought them out,.

 

You mean you want them all to be wrong. I see no point in discussing any cases with you on this basis. You’ll just continue to dismiss anything you don’t want to believe however definitive the reported facts might be.

 

Of course I do. Don't you? Why wouldn't you want them to not be about actual anti-gay hatred?

 

We can wish it all we like, the fact remains that is that there is anti-gay hatred and discrimination all over the place, just like there is racial, religious and gender discrimination too. Trying to pretend it isn't is counter-productive.

 

So what do you mean by "you want them to all be wrong?"

 

I don’t think you want there to be valid evidence of discrimination (regardless of it actually happening). You want to maintain the image that it doesn’t exist because that would harm your argument against the need for anti-discrimination laws on the basis of sexual orientation and against the possibility that the baker could simply object to homosexuals getting married.

 

Are your examples above scrutiny though?

 

Of course not, as long as it’s honest, fair and balanced scrutiny. That doesn’t mean dismissing any example out of hand unless there is 100% certainty of specifically stated discrimination though.

 

Would you say that I have dismissed them?

 

You seem to be seeking any possible excuse to do so. You've already unconditionally dismissed any example of discrimination not directly related to a public accommodation.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ake-case-part-2.537942/page-5#post-1069444412

 

Just to confirm then - because I don't accept them as GUARANTEED examples of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but just POSSIBLE ones, this is akin to dismissing them?

 

The entire post you quoted covered that. I'm not getting in to the silly back-and-forth with you yet again. It's a waste of both or time.

 

You have been asked how I "unconditionally dismissed" your examples, and you have been unable. It was NOT covered in your post I'm afraid. Show otherwise, if you are able.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure its because you just can't handle debate on the same level as me. I have to say, you stuck it out longer than most who go against me! But I guess even you have your limit.

 

You unconditionally dismissed any example that wasn't related to public accommodation. You picked and poked at the other examples to find any excuse to dismiss them.

 

Just to confirm, you've never heard of the stereotype of the nightclub not wanting too many men inside and so refusing them entry unless they are joined by some girls? What are you, 10 years old?

 

Thank's for proving my point with added personal insult.
Yes, some bars have that policy (which is directly and indirectly discriminatory in and of itself). When there is an explicit statement from a bouncer that they're only accepting "mixed sex couples", that is discriminatory on grounds of sexual orientation (it doesn't matter whether you think it should be, it is by law). The venue owner agreed with that and openly criticised the bouncer responsible. If you'd actually read the article I linked about the case, you'd know that already.

 

Sure, but do you really think that straight guys need this sort of protection by the law? I think that they can live with it.

Yep, I did miss the "mixed couples only" remark to be honest! Okay, so this shows intent, because by using the word "couples", this shows that in his mind their sexual orientation is homosexual. I would guess that the couple were kind of in each others arms a bit which would've made it obvious that they were a couple, leading the bouncer to specifically say the word "couple." However, if it wasn't obvious that they were a couple, but could have easily appeared as just two straight guys, you have to admit that the result could easily have been the same. He just would've said, sorry guys, we can't let you in unless you're each joined by a girl. Either that, or get the hell out of here guys, you're not coming in! What a RIDICULOUS policy it is though right? I can't understand the logic. I don't think they have the same rules when it comes to females.

 

Yes, if that had been the case, it would have been a possibility.

Yes, if that had been their policy, it would be ridiculous.

Do you wish to do any more dancing around the examples I gave or will you acknowledge that just because you’ve not heard of (or chosen not to hear) examples of anti-homosexual discrimination beyond the marriage issue doesn’t mean they don’t happen?

 

Oh I am more than happy to acknowledge that! I thought that I have already made that crystal clear. Even if I didn't make that clear, there no reason why you should've thought the opposite, because I have never ONCE stated in this or the original thread that because I don't hear about examples of anti-homosexual discrimination, it means that it doesn't happen!