Former President Donald J. Trump

[Goat Boy]

You're purposely pretending not to get the question yet snee did, and you agreed with him. I asked both of you both the same question, so how can you agree to a question you don't understand?

Anyway, i'm for bed.

Chat to you tomorrow TMH.

I completely understand the question you THINK you are asking. If the two situations were similar, I would absolutely, unequivocally state that there should be consistency between the two, and whether the customer is a gay couple or a Trump fan is completely irrelevant. The problem is they are not equivalent.

One is a business owner refusing to serve someone based on their sexuality. There is no debate about that being what it is, the business owner has directly admitted that it is so. There are legal protections about that. As a result of this case those protections are being reexamined. But there are legal protections regarding prejudice based on sexuality. The question here is - is there a religious exemption that enables a business owner to refuse service to people if it goes against their religious beliefs? That is being decided in court.

Of the two situations you mentioned, there is no specific legal case to point to. In one, we have to take the columnist's word for it that the woman baked her own cake because she wasn't able to find a local baker 'willing and able' to make one. Interesting choice of words. So did she have to bake the cake herself (which she seemed perfectly happy to do) because she couldn't find a baker ABLE to make a cake in the amount of time she needed it done? Or were there bakers that refused to do so? The answer: WE DON'T KNOW. We have not been given that information. Trump fans are not afforded the same protections as gay people, nor should they be. It is not a civil rights issue.

In the other story, we only have the store's word about what happened. Again, the person wanting the cake did not involve the court system. She complained to Facebook. While it's in doubt whether or not a baker can refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple, there is no doubt that, as an employee of Albertson's, the baker has NO LEGAL PROTECTION WHATSOEVER. If Albertson's were to fire her for refusing to bake the cake (again, we don't know what happened, because we haven't been told), she would not then be able to sue Albertson's for doing so. It is her job to do so.

There is no court case to point to in either of the cases you mention. Neither customer has filed any form of official complaint, at least as far as we know. Therefore, what the legal policy is on such matters is irrelevant. Because there is no legal judgement that needs making.

Again I repeat - do you understand the difference?

Do you understand, Markus?

[naughty boy]

Thanks for backing me Harv, but it's finished now.

I think I know you long enough from here, to know that you weren't.

I'm not even trying to be funny or get too serious, but take a week or something man. Don't even check out the place without signing in.

[Dr Markus]

You're purposely pretending not to get the question yet snee did, and you agreed with him. I asked both of you both the same question, so how can you agree to a question you don't understand?

Anyway, i'm for bed.

Chat to you tomorrow TMH.

I completely understand the question you THINK you are asking. If the two situations were similar, I would absolutely, unequivocally state that there should be consistency between the two, and whether the customer is a gay couple or a Trump fan is completely irrelevant. The problem is they are not equivalent.

One is a business owner refusing to serve someone based on their sexuality. There is no debate about that being what it is, the business owner has directly admitted that it is so. There are legal protections about that. As a result of this case those protections are being reexamined. But there are legal protections regarding prejudice based on sexuality. The question here is - is there a religious exemption that enables a business owner to refuse service to people if it goes against their religious beliefs? That is being decided in court.

Of the two situations you mentioned, there is no specific legal case to point to. In one, we have to take the columnist's word for it that the woman baked her own cake because she wasn't able to find a local baker 'willing and able' to make one. Interesting choice of words. So did she have to bake the cake herself (which she seemed perfectly happy to do) because she couldn't find a baker ABLE to make a cake in the amount of time she needed it done? Or were there bakers that refused to do so? The answer: WE DON'T KNOW. We have not been given that information. Trump fans are not afforded the same protections as gay people, nor should they be. It is not a civil rights issue.

In the other story, we only have the store's word about what happened. Again, the person wanting the cake did not involve the court system. She complained to Facebook. While it's in doubt whether or not a baker can refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple, there is no doubt that, as an employee of Albertson's, the baker has NO LEGAL PROTECTION WHATSOEVER. If Albertson's were to fire her for refusing to bake the cake (again, we don't know what happened, because we haven't been told), she would not then be able to sue Albertson's for doing so. It is her job to do so.

There is no court case to point to in either of the cases you mention. Neither customer has filed any form of official complaint, at least as far as we know. Therefore, what the legal policy is on such matters is irrelevant. Because there is no legal judgement that needs making.

Again I repeat - do you understand the difference?

Do you understand, Markus?

[Dr Markus]

I think I know you long enough from here, to know that you weren't.

I'm not even trying to be funny or get too serious, but take a week or something man. Don't even check out the place without signing in.

[Minnie the Minx]

I think I know you long enough from here, to know that you weren't.

I'm not even trying to be funny or get too serious, but take a week or something man. Don't even check out the place without signing in.

Markus isn't one to be deluded by the belief that this place carries any weight in real life! And he reaffirmed this by that compact, snappy signature!

[The Modernist]

Markus I can't believe you've managed to get 2 or 3 pages out of a baker refusing to make a cake!!
Why exactly is that important?

[Dr Markus]

[Sneelock]

Personally, I think there should be special police forces created to stand over any renegade bakers to make sure they are forced to bake a cake for anyone that wants one. Particularly the gay religious Trump fans.

finally, somebody is talking some sense!

[toomanyhatz]

The really remarkable thing is, there is not even a specific baker refusing to make a cake that anyone can point to. Again - false equivalency.

The part that I think IS important is that this is how bias confirmation spreads. An article tells Markus what to think and he goes right along with it, without questioning the veracity of the sources in the slightest. And Markus is a reasonably amiable guy, and not a Trump supporter as far as I know. So if one can't convince HIM that he's barking up the wrong tree, that tells me there's basically no hope whatsoever of reaching the Trumpers on any level.

Hence the mess we're in.

[Dr Markus]

Markus approves the above message.

[Belle Lettre]

FML

[Goat Boy]

Look what you've done, Markus! You've made Hatz despair.

[Dr Markus]

I'm sure hell get over it, he's a big boy.

[toomanyhatz]

I don't despair.

[Sneelock]

Lloyds of London will be loaded when we go.

[BARON CORNY DOG]

The part that I think IS important is that this is how bias confirmation spreads. An article tells Markus what to think and he goes right along with it, without questioning the veracity of the sources in the slightest.

I suspect it doesn't tell him what to think as much as it reinforces what he already thinks.

[toomanyhatz]

The part that I think IS important is that this is how bias confirmation spreads. An article tells Markus what to think and he goes right along with it, without questioning the veracity of the sources in the slightest.

I suspect it doesn't tell him what to think as much as it reinforces what he already thinks.

Well yes. But my point was the article gives only the barest facts then tells the reader what they are meant to conclude from that limited information. I don't doubt that there's confirmation bias there too, just not to the degree of...well, let's say Jimbo, just for the sake of argument . I honestly think there's at least a small element of not understanding how information works in there too.

[Davey the Fat Boy]

Simplifying the cake idiocy a little more...

If a baker refuses to make a cake for a gay wedding, they are refusing because they don't like the customer. They would be perfectly within their rights to refuse a specific design that offended them...just as long as they are willing to make a cake they'd make for anyone else for that couple.

It's the same with the Trump cake. As long as they'd refuse to make one for anyone - it isn't discrimination.

[...]

Simplifying the cake idiocy a little more...

If a baker refuses to make a cake for a gay wedding, they are refusing because they don't like the customer. They would be perfectly within their rights to refuse a specific design that offended them...just as long as they are willing to make a cake they'd make for anyone else for that couple.

It's the same with the Trump cake. As long as they'd refuse to make one for anyone - it isn't discrimination.

It might almost be seen as having one's cake and eating it.

[Jimbo]