What's new

Bake My Cake

I got to "so-called universities" if that helps, babe.

When I chose the U for my extended college career, my explicit reason which I announced at the time was: "I will always be a rebel, so I should pick a university worth rebelling against."

Those were the days, my friend. We thought they would never end.

Today I heard a bit of humor on the radio. I'll call the skit bubbleheads. I know you have your own inverted reality and you're entitled to it, but here's how it looks from the outside

The Left has created it's own bubble. Inside the bubble, anything goes so long as the right people are down with it. It can change any second, it can flip, it can flop, it can spin like crazy, but it's all good

anything anyone says or does outside that bubble is harmful to the bubble community, like Silk and Diamond:

https://conservativefiringline.com/facebook-diamond-silk-content-brand-dangerous-community/
 
I read something. My mind worked for a minute, then it stopped.


I think there is something in there that I agree with? Maybe the discrimination part? Sorry, it was far too long winded for me. Maybe try breaking your arguments down a bit, use bullet points, etc. We ain't professors here. (well one brow is, but yeah)
 
The title of this thread sounds kind of kinky.
I was going to tell him to bake his own damn cake! What does he think this is, some kind of communistic bake each others cakes forum?
 
The title of this thread sounds kind of kinky.

no, I'm not announcing a marriage. I'm looking at the people who have bakeshops who really don't want to serve the entire contemporary community. And transposing the legal implications of the recent court rulings that in fact order business that are open to the public to be open to the whole public.

There's some insanely influential dude in Washington today, speaking to a large group of folks many of whom owe him for campaign contributions, trying to blow off the public outrage from the fact that a Trump campaign service provider may have mined Facebook to help target political ads or campaigns more effectively..... you know, exactly what Obama did in 2008 to the highest praise of our media and pundits, who applauded him as a true political genius and the exemplar of a new age in political strategy......

But if Trump does it, it's gotta be a crime.
 
no, I'm not announcing a marriage. I'm looking at the people who have bakeshops who really don't want to serve the entire contemporary community. And transposing the legal implications of the recent court rulings that in fact order business that are open to the public to be open to the whole public.

There's some insanely influential dude in Washington today, speaking to a large group of folks many of whom owe him for campaign contributions, trying to blow off the public outrage from the fact that a Trump campaign service provider may have mined Facebook to help target political ads or campaigns more effectively..... you know, exactly what Obama did in 2008 to the highest praise of our media and pundits, who applauded him as a true political genius and the exemplar of a new age in political strategy......

But if Trump does it, it's gotta be a crime.
It's funny how hard it is for people to see the important details that make a difference in these issues.

I thought you were like smart and ****? You can break down the difference even in private and understand some of the important differences... sometimes called "nuance" but I know that's a bad word in some people's opinion. Better to color the world with the fat crayons and give **** all concern for the lines, amiright?
 
I was going to tell him to bake his own damn cake! What does he think this is, some kind of communistic bake each others cakes forum?

I'd give OB some points if he did a ten page multiquote dissecting the political error and implications of your total failure to understand the nuances of your anti-LGBT rights position deriving from your lack of appreciation for the subtleties of attitudes that are insensitive to special targeted groups who need more public understanding, enforced with the tip of some jack-booted thugs if not ACLU lawyers.

The legal point of our courts on the issue is that "open to the public" means open to the entire public.

I would add, of course....purely my own concern and I'm sure none of your own... that a public web site or business that disenfranchises people for opinions, may be testing new legal waters.
 
Well, in response to LogGrad, who has common sense, I will confess that this is all in fun. I love the irony of the subject.
 
I'd like to share some out-of-the-bubble things I've heard on talk radio.

Sean Hannity had Diamond and Silk on air today discussing their experience with Facebook. They take it pretty serious that they've been censored without recourse through the company channels. That leaves only legal channels.

But I also heard some folks stating that there is a plan to compete with Facebook afoot, to give a large piece of the market an alternative. Same with You-Tube. The new service might be called "Real Tube" and might actually maintain a policy of honoring 1st Amendment personal rights.

Meathead Zucker has already had millions of liberals cancel their accounts because a Trump contractor may have used data mined from FB to help Trump just the same way Obama did it to win in 2008 and 2012. Now conservatives are dumping FB accounts over not just privacy concerns but bias and discrimination they have experienced.

I think you can make a buck shorting social media giants right now.
 
I'd give OB some points if he did a ten page multiquote dissecting the political error and implications of your total failure to understand the nuances of your anti-LGBT rights position deriving from your lack of appreciation for the subtleties of attitudes that are insensitive to special targeted groups who need more public understanding, enforced with the tip of some jack-booted thugs if not ACLU lawyers.

The legal point of our courts on the issue is that "open to the public" means open to the entire public.

I would add, of course....purely my own concern and I'm sure none of your own... that a public web site or business that disenfranchises people for opinions, may be testing new legal waters.
Babe, I support the right of a business to refuse to do things that they are not comfortable doing. I believe that a business owner actually owns their business.

I'd like to think that we lived in a world where the rules of the game meant that if a cake baker wanted to deny their services to LGBTQ+ people that on the one hand they could refuse service, and on the other hand it would mean they lost business to another baker who was happy to bake cakes for LGBTQ+ people. I believe in the concepts of libertarianism. Firmly and fully. I just realize that I don't live in a libertarian world. As such the laws need to regulate the game that actually exists, not the fantasy I hope for.

Businesses deciding to refuse service to a certain segment of the population, banding together in such an effort according to their mythology, or at least their personalized interpretation of their mythology, creates a coercive effect on the economy. It skews the normal market forces that would otherwise drive business owners to the best business decision. I'm not sure of your brand of libertarianism, but mine always said it was essentially protect your own interests and expect others to do the same, the only thing that was out of bounds was lying, cheating, stealing and coercion.

The coercion bit is what made me realize just how incompatible bastardized versions of libertarianism are in our current society. That's why I stopped beating the drum. Solve for coercion and you'll have me fully back on board, babe.
 
Back
Top