The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

From part of a recent discussion I had elsewhere:


A person who rooted for a black player on his favorite team, but insisted that schools must remain segregated and prevented blacks from buying in his neighborhood... was still a racist.

This is rooted in a common error: the idea that if I have one black friend, I CAN'T be a racist, because racists uniformly hate all members of that race.  Strom Thurmond, the U.S. Senator from South Carolina and 1948 Presidential candidate for the States' Rights Democratic Party (Dixiecrats), ran on an explicit platform of racial segregation.  And as a 22-year-old, he also impregnated a 16-year-old black girl who worked for his father.

If devoted racists like Strom Thurmond (not to mention countless slave owners) can bring themselves to have sex with a black woman, rooting for a black man on a ballfield is minor in comparison.  That does not somehow absolve them of their racist acts.

In light of a Black Democrat losing the last Senate seat last night to a "supposed racist", I guess it's time to keep the race card going around the table. Let's see here, Trump=racist, DeSantis=racist, Kemp=racist, Hyde-Smith=racist, and finally Kavanaugh=gang banging rapist racist. I think we see a trend here and it's more about politics than it is about anyone being racist. Anyhow, keep that race card and division alive and well. It might work out for you eventually or you might just get Trump elected again.

if the hood fits

Interesting question from Spider-Dan.  It will be interesting to see what the responses are.  I have no idea how to answer it because I've just never been able to wrap my brain around the concept of racism enough to even grasp the basic reasons for it, much less the subtler nuances that Spider-Dan put out there in regards for rooting for an individual.  I guess I was just lucky to have grown up around kids of every background and played sports from a very young age with kids of every kind of background so thinking like that was just never part of the equation of my growing up. 

Yes, absolutely.  You can no doubt be a racist and still like a black person or black people, in general.  I think these things are established.

There are different levels of racist.  There are people who legitimately hate blacks, for example.  But then there are people who maybe only blame them for the downfall of morality, but have a black friend at work who they think is a credit to them.  And then there are people who like blacks in general, as long as they stay in their lane, don't take over their neighborhoods or date their daughter.

Pardon the pun, but it's not a black and white issue.

IMO public figures are too easily labeled "racists" in the current society, just to push forward a political viewpoint; because the word racist has such a toxic connotation.  In reality racism is the belief that your race is superior to another race.

Some people are bigots, some are prejudice, and some discriminate; but that doesn't necessarily make them racists (although these terms are usually the basis in racism).

So, sure you can root for a white player and still believe your black race is superior to that of the white player, which would make you a racist.

I wholeheartedly agree with you but that isn't where Spider is going with this.

I absolutely think you can be racist regardless of who you root for. In fact I believe we all have varying degrees of racist emotions and that no one thing automatically cancels the other. It's easy to think we are not racist because its so easy to compare ourselves to someone who is worse and fool ourselves into thinking we are good. That's not hard to to do. The truth is I think many people secretly hope their family doesn't date outside their race or culture but would give mouth to mouth to save a person of a different race or nationality to save their lives. Does that make them racist or does saving the opposite cancel it out?  It's hard to say with any accuracy in my opinion.

How does Hillary's hood fit? Kind of funny how Hillary said "they all look the same" in reference to black people. Which is clearly a racist statement. However, I didn't see her getting raked over the coals, but since she is a Democrat I guess it's OK.


I disagree with your "levels of racist", it's just blurring the lines. People can have preferences in life and not be a racist. It's true that as we are all the same, but it's also true that we are all different culturally. Not better, not worse, just culturally different. If is someone chooses that they don't want to be around something they don't find appealing or don't understand, it doesn't make them a racist.

I agree. Also, if people are labeled a racist every time they utter a common everyday word (i.e. monkey or hanging). Then the term racist will be so broad and general that it won't have meaning anymore. It's already like that to some extent. And the more the left keeps incorrectly accusing and labeling people as racists for political games, the worse it will get. And even after all of these Democrats started throwing out the race card, they still lost. 

I don't know where he's going with this. I could be wrong, but it's a moot point anyhow, because judging from everyone's answers, there is no answer. The opinions are so diverse and personal that no one is going to change anyone else's mind. Not to mention all this racial bullshit gets real old rather quickly.

There are too many variables and trying to guess who's a racist and who's not seems like a bad game to play. So what's the point?

The irony of MLK's civil rights movement is they were so successful that now everyone agrees that "racism" is bad.  I mean, you have literal KKK members insisting they they aren't racist (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfntD7vLW0w)... right before they call the interviewer a n****r and threaten to "burn you out" of the country (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kkk-leader-interview-latina-journalist-death-threat-black-woman-video-a7899306.html).

No one wants to be called a racist, even if they clearly support the supremacy of the white race over others.  And so, this standard of "I can't be a racist if I have a Dak Prescott jersey" or "I can't be a racist if I think Rihanna is hot" standard is created.  It's ridiculous.

Hahaha ... I think you are confusing crazy people and racism. Most people do not fall in the extremes. Well at least I didn't used to think so.

I think everyone in this thread pretty much agrees with this post. However, I'm wondering what the point is. You're saying that someone can still be a racist if they use the excuse that "I can't be a racist because I root for Dak, I fucked Rihanna, or I have black offspring/family. By the same token though, someone could say or do something that could be interpreted as racist and that person not be a racist.

Anyhow, I think on some level, most people think that they are better than the average other person. It's called the the better-than-average effect and it's pretty much normal in most humans according to studies. If that's what you call supremacy, I'll have to disagree on that point. So, to continue, first you'll have to define EXACTLY what you consider a racist actually is.

Here lies the problem, where is the line that once you go over it you are a racist?  It's easy to call the person marching down the street in a hood advocating that blacks move back to a Africa is a racist.  Or the person that says blacks aren't as smart as whites is a racist.  But most people are somewhere in the middle.  What one person clearly would define as racist, I may consider that person prejudice, or a bigot.  When these discussions come up I'm always reminded of the old PSA commercial with the little boy talking to his grandfather and asking what prejudice meant.  When the grandpa asked why he said one boy was his black friend and another boy was his white friend, and his grandpa replied he was prejudice.

Actually that PSA was incorrect in my opinion. Prejudice is a preconceived judgment or opinion. Saying a friend/athlete/criminal is a black/white/Jewish guy is just a description of the person you're referring to.

i don’t recall that exact ad.  but that can be taken to an extreme too.

New employee:  I was told to help Dave but i don’t remember most people’s name.  Do you know who he is.

Me: He is the tall black dude.  I think he is outback on the loading dock.

new employee: Thamks (and leaves)

a supervisor who overheard the exchange: What you just said is extremely racist.  And she warned me that if it happens again I would be fired.

Later I told Dave what happened he thought the supervisor was nuts for considering my comment racist.  It was simply the most obvious way to describe him so the new employee would know which coworker was him.

If the kid has two friends and they are different races, race is probably the easiest way to identify them.  And is no more prejudice than using short vs tall, or the one wearing a blue shirt vs the one in a stiped shirt.

I prefer to avoid calling a specific person (in the current era) "a racist"; that is more of a judgment of someone's total character.  I prefer to say "That is a racist statement" or "That position is racist."

And that speaks to the original question.  We can argue all day about what threshold needs to be met for a person to qualify as A Racist, but I don't really think that's helpful when the threshold is so drastically different from person to person.  I think it's much more useful to talk about specific ideas.

So if you're talking about how blacks are inherently less intelligent than other races, or about how we need to protect white culture from the corrupting influence of immigrants, you're espousing racism.  Whether people want to say that espousing racism makes you a racist is up to the person, I suppose.

There's an easy way to avoid this kind of ambiguity on "racism," and I'll admit that I am not as consistent about following this advice as I would like.

"Racism" is really a misleading description of the problem.  The problem in America is actually white supremacy.  (In Japan, the problem would be Japanese supremacy, because white supremacy is not a problem in Japan; white people aren't in control there.)  When you replace "racism" with "white supremacy," it becomes clear why the supervisor overreacted: describing coworkers by their race does not, in itself, work to further white supremacy. 

I've been trying - with limited success - to use the term "racism" less and "white supremacy" more (in the context of American politics).

So DeSantis used the word "Monkey". Hyde-Smith said "Hanging" and both were labeled racist. Now, I guess they could have been racist or espousing racism, but maybe not. There is no way to tell and the only people who will ever truly know is them. However, in cases like that where it's not obvious you simply ask them and take them at their word. Hell, Hillary said "They all look the same" in reference to black people. Obviously a racist remark, much more than an ambiguous use of the word "monkey" or "hanging". Yet, not much was made of it. There's a common sense line and then there is an agenda line and they are very far apart from each other.


Is that really a problem though? I think we can all agree that racism is bad. However, what you call  supremacy is more of a product of where you are, whether it's White/Black/Hispanic/Asian. A more appropriate term would be majority supremacy. In my opinion, anywhere you go, if you are are the minority there will be some degree of supremacy going the other direction. Some places more than others, but it's still there. It's how humans are in most things. The votes of the majority outweigh the votes of the minority and things go their way. No different from politics, a shareholder vote, or or anything else in life. Everyone has different values, opinions, and preferences. Race and culture are no different. I'm not sure that there is any race or group of people that overall doesn't want to protect its culture.

I really need to see the Hillary video before I comment. The context is as important as content in a case like that. It could be that the words were used as a jab at people who believe that rather than as a personal belief.

This might have been just a joke in the 70s and 80s but a person would be hard pressed to find this as anything but a racist comment under today's politically correct terms.

https://youtu.be/FjuNTBuE9qE

Sure, it was a joke. A racist joke. Are racist jokes OK now? Or are racist jokes only OK depending on who said the racist joke? My point isn't actually that Hillary is a racist. It's that if Trump would have said the same thing it would have been a shit storm. We all watched what happened when DeSantis and Hyde-Smith ambiguously used normal everyday words. They both were labeled racists in the middle of elections. But yet Hillary can tell racist jokes and nothing but crickets. Now I ask again. Are racist jokes OK? You can't have it both ways.


I bet that same crowd that laughed at Hillary's joke would have went ape shit crazy if Trump said it instead. The hypocrisy is unbelievable.

I don't even think that is debatable.

Context does matter. And that joke wasn’t racist.  Hillary wasn’t claiming she couldn’t tell the difference between Holder and Booker because all black people look a like.  She was poking fun at the interviewer for getting them mixed up.  

It really is sick what to what extent Trump supporters will go to defend his horrible behavior.  Trump has made multiple blantly racist comments but that doesn’t matter. because look here is a comment that pokes fun at the interviewer for mixing up two black politians but we are going to claim that this is the moral equivalency of mexico is sending criminals, his attack on the muslin father of a MoH winner, his false claims of cheering on 9.11, his refusal to condemn David Duke and other white supremacist, etc.

i asked several black people if clintons comment was offensive.  They all said, no, she wasn’t being racist if anything she was making fun of racists.  The only people up in arms over this supposed racist comments are the same people who cheer at Trumps obviously racist comments.

It seems rather silly that we have to say this out loud, but here goes:

The reason why Hillary (and other Democrats) "get to" make jokes like that is because they spend their professional time proposing and passing policies to help minorities.  We didn't jump on her for the same reason you guys didn't jump on Sarah Palin for "kowtowing to political correctness" when she criticized people for using the "r-word" (https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2010/02/palin-goes-after-emanuel-on-retarded-slur-024754), or why there were not widespread riots across the nation when the Republican President of the United States said, "Take the guns first, go through due process second." (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376097-trump-take-the-guns-first-go-through-due-process-second)

Humans are not that stupid.  We know that Hillary wasn't trying to appeal to racists when she made that joke, and we also know that Palin doesn't actually care about political correctness (https://thinkprogress.org/palin-says-shes-fine-with-limbaugh-s-use-of-the-r-word-4bc41bdd5cba/), nor does Trump care about reducing the availability of guns.  We are capable of recognizing prior events and assigning meaning based on past actions.

You love being dramatic. First off ... I don't cheer Trump when he says stupid stuff and honestly ... I don't have issue with her saying it. The only thing I disagree with is that it isn't a racist comment by today's standards. For God's sake you libtards are attacking Rudolph the Red nose Reindeer for not being politically correct and the Huffington Post has gone so far as to say saying Merry Christmas is offensive. It's like you loose all sense of rationale thought when it comes to anything political.

Did you seriously just say that? The Clintons have put more blacks in jail than anyone. Trump has been working to get them out. BTW ... "It seems rather silly that we have to say this out loud" but Trump has awards for supporting minorities. Oddly enough I guess running as a Republican supposedly cancels out anything that helps minorities.

So let me get this straight. It's OK for Clinton to say it, but not OK for Trump to say it?

So going by your standard. Lyndon B Johnson habitually using the word "N!G@ER" was justified because he signed the Civil Rights Act?
They're not helping minorities, they're buying votes with handouts. And will keep you voting Democrat for 200 years. By my math you owe LBJ another 146 years worth of votes. The bad part about it is that you guys swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

Completely wrong.  In the context what she said was not racist.  It was poking fun at the reporter messing up.  In context many of Trump statements are extremely racist. 

Nope. It doesn’t justify his use of the word.  However, he was considerably better than most of his contemporaries.  By today’s standards Abe Lincoln was extremely racist.  However, for his day he was vastly better than most. 

By today’s standards Trump is more racist and sexist than most of his contemporaries.  Although he is less homophobic than his VP and much of the republican party.

The liberal extremes love throwing around derogatory names. How exactly is disagreeing with homosexuality being homophobic? By definition homophobic is having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people. I myself disagree with it, just as I do divorce and even some of the things I do or have done but I associate with all and treat them equally. From what I know of Mike Pence he is no different.

I talk to liberals all the time who say they wish their politicians would move past these stupid rhetoric and fight politically for change. They feel too much is being spent on the dramatic things like impeaching the president (Republicans would never support it even if justified like in the case of Bill Clinton) and not enough on working to get policy changed. Seems to me politicians and the like are more worried about being reelected than doing a job. This is the same thing I think of when I see or hear extremists labeling people for having a different opinion.

Mike Pence wants to ban homosexuals from getting married, serve in the military,  allow discrimination in hiring and housing.

You say you oppose divorce the same way the vp opposes homosexuality. That mean you support a constitutional amendment bannning divorced people from getting remarried.  You support banning all divorcees from serving in the military and believe that landlord and employers should be able to ban divorcees.

Personally I find homosexuality gross and repugnant.  I feel the same way about chewing tobacco.  But i don’t discriminate against homosexuals or people who chew.  Although i don’t want to watch you do either one.

The marriage thing I don't understand. As a heterosexual I'll never be married again, there's no point. And the older I get the more I realize this. What are the actual pros and cons of being married?

As for serving in the military, I think the best thing to to would be to let every enlisted person in the military vote on the issue. As far as housing and employment, discrimination of ANYONE shouldn't be allowed. However, I believe it would be prudent for homosexuals to employ a don't ask, don't tell philosophy.

Tom Jones of the Tampa Bay Times explains it all.   It's definitely possible because being a fanatic makes you crazy when you lose.  That former site member mentioned in another thread is depicted

http://www.tampabay.com/sports/2018/11/28/college-footballs-silly-season-begins/

Yes, that makes him significantly better than his contemporaries who also used that word but did not sign legislation that dramatically improved the lives of minorities.  Actions matter more than words.

That's how politics works: you give your constituencies policies they desire, and in exchange, they vote to keep you in office so that you may give them more policies that they desire.  However, "handouts" don't only come in the form of money; they also come in the form of power.

For example: the "handouts" that Republicans promise are tax cuts for the rich, military spending for defense contractors, anti-gay legislation and criminalization of abortion for the religious right, and persecution of minorities/immigrants for the white supremacists.  Republicans buy your vote by promising to implement these policies, and they've been doing it since almost exactly the same moment that LBJ decided to start "buying votes" of black people by passing policies that make their lives better.

Abe Lincoln bought many decades of votes for Republicans from black Americans with the "handout" of the 13th Amendment.  LBJ bought them back for the Democrats with the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.  If it takes 146 more years for Republicans to decide that they care about winning black votes, then it seems that LBJ made a smart decision.

I disagree with Christianity (and most organized religions in general).  I think it's primarily used as a vehicle for grift; all of the money that goes into building megachurches could instead be helping the lives of real people (including the taxes that are not levied on it because churches are "non-profit").  And that's before we get into Christianity as a tool of political oppression.

But I don't try to ban Christianity, or insist that we change the laws so we can ban Christianity.  I don't think that we should throw Christians in jail, or prevent them from getting married, or be allowed to refuse them service solely on the basis of their religion.

That's the difference between "disagreeing with homosexuality" and "homophobia."  No one is going to throw around derogatory names if you decide that you don't want to get a same-sex marriage.  It's when you start insisting SSM should be illegal that accusations of "homophobia" appear.

Fucking hilarious. 

Are there any other issues of the military you feel should be taken out of civilian control and/or commissioned officers and decided by a vote of enlisted personnel?

Seriously? You know that the talking heads at FOX news is slanted but yet you repeat MSNBC and CNN rhetoric as if they are legitimate stances? I know you are smarter than that so it's a choice you've made for whatever reason.

My former step sister is a married gay person. I love her and support both she and her wife. I can't say I agree with it and if I had to vote on the issue I'd vote for them not to be legally married because I disagree with it.  I also hang out with divorced people but do not agree with why many of them divorced. I've been married almost 30 years so I know how bad things can get and then rebound when you go back to putting some effort into it. With that being said there are things I do that I know is wrong but it doesn't mean I'm going to say it's ok. An easy example of this is speeding. I'm not going to vote to make speeding legal just because I do it because I don't think it works for the betterment of society.

The whole notion of being a good Christian is to love everyone but not to compromise your convictions. That's what I see in Pence's actions. We need Jesus because we will never fully be able to do that.

If your religious convictions require you to persecute other humans because they don't live your type of lifestyle...then that religion is not of God.

Not any real God...

I find this question pretty simple.

The answer is yes, I don't see how you can argue otherwise.

Not agreeing that a homosexual relationship is acceptable is now persecution?  Haha .... that's quite a stretch. I guess name calling should be a punishable offense in this new era too seeing as how now Christmas songs have been declared offensive. Time to start burning books considering they pretty much offend someone. Fahrenheit 451 here we come!!

I think that a lot of us feel that your definition of "not agreeing with" something is closer to bigotry, because it involves you deciding to deny someone else the right to do what they freely choose.  ...rather than deciding what to do for yourself. 

I would much more understand if you chose not to marry another man, attend a gay wedding, go to gay parties or bars, or whatever personal decision you're making about yourself.  It's where you advocate for the wishes of two consenting people to be illegal behavior that many of the rest of us find that your stance crosses over into persecution or bigotry.

If you had to vote on whether people should legally be able to get divorced, would you vote against it?

This seems like it should have it's own topic.

No, but actively suppressing a homosexual's right (by voting) to marriage most certainly is persecution.

But hey, if it makes you feel righteous to deny to others what you already have for yourself, then do whatever you need to do to sleep at night...

A little off topic. But besides religious reasons why do people (hetero or homo) get married anyhow? A long time ago I thought that I understood, but the older I get the less I understand it.

Well, Pondwater, there are religious reasons, as you mentioned.

My wife and I aren't religious, but we got married for social reasons, mostly.  It's just a traditional way to tell your friends and family that you are in a life-long, committed relationship.  ...as well as each other, I suppose.  It makes it more easy to operate as a family unit, the way that society functions.

And there are legal reasons -- tax implications, property rights, rights if each other get sick or hurt, stuff with kids, death benefits, etc.

You can be in a life long committed relationship without being married. A piece of paper doesn't make someone any more committed does it? The legal reasons, most of those can be taken care of with proper planning and paperwork.

As for taxes and death benefits, I'm of the opinion that married people shouldn't get "extra" tax benefits just for being married. Seems to me that government shouldn't be in the business of promoting marriage. Which is what they're doing by giving additional benefits. I'm all for monogamy, but marriage just makes no sense. Guess I'm just an oddball, haha.

You absolutely can.


I think that there's a social expectation and it's harder to just walk away from a marriage than not.  Divorce is a process that takes intent, perhaps social shame, etc.  You can just break up with a girlfriend much easier.  It is a greater level of commitment, from a social perspective.

As for the legal stuff, you can replicate some of it with contracts, but not all of it.  And much of it is stuff that you don't deal with until it happens, as its unforeseen.

I absolutely understand if you want to abolish marriage as a legal institution.  But until you do that, the same rights should be afforded to everyone, regardless of your sexual preference.

Actually, I don't want to abolish anything. Just getting different perspectives. I think everyone should have the right to enter the 50% divorce rate club. Almost 50 percent of all marriages in the United States will end in divorce or separation. Why anyone would want to get married is beyond me, but hey that's just my take on it.

So for the record, as far as I'm concerned:

As long as it's consensual, any human should be able to marry any other human, non incest of course.

Employment and housing discrimination shouldn't be allowed for anyone.

As far as the Military goes, I can't answer. I'm not in the military and probably most here aren't currently enlisted. As I've previously said, I think they should decide for themselves. If the majority of enlisted personal don't want homosexuals and/or transsexuals in the military, I think it would be prudent to listen to them.

There is nothing that makes me feel "righteous". I come from a long line of white trash so I have to remind myself that I actually deserve anything good that comes my way. The difference between me and many of you is that I used to think that way but my eyes have been opened to a different perspective. I remember vividly arguing the point that homosexuals were "born" that way and we should just accept that. I now believe it is much more complicated than that.

I think the question of genetics vs environment for sexual preference is irrelevant.

People like what they like. I don't care that you prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla ice cream. I especially don't care if your preference is genetic or based on your environment. It is furthermore none of my business, and i would be ridiculous to legislate anything concerning or driven by your ice cream preference.

Can you tell me why sexual preference is any different than ice cream preference for a government?

I don't think it's the question of genetics vs environment, but the answer of genetics AND environment.

There is no way of anyone is understanding this until they see it for their own eyes but it comes down to desensitization and opportunity. A boy usually starts out by getting excited over seeing a nipple and then one day they end up requiring a midget and an audience to get aroused.

Today it's common and popular to be bi-sexual where as 30 years ago most males would have been disgusted with the thought. The more a person peruses their form of porn and come across it ... the more acceptable it becomes until one day they decide ... why not try it? There are also the ones who were molested or "played" with boys as a child. That's where the opportunity comes from.

Although I used to think differently I no longer believe people are inborn to be child molesters but they have gotten to that point by circumstances and opportunity. Science has shown that it usually starts with their own molestation but can happen through being exposed to it over a period of time until they begin to feel it is acceptable.   

But we're not talking about whether homosexuality should be allowed.  The religious right already lost that argument, and most are now unwilling to publicly argue that homosexuality should be outlawed.  (Unless you have something you'd like to add?)

What you are saying is that you don't think the government should step in and stop gay people from having sex, or living together, or even raising kids.  You're saying that the government should only stop them from legally being married... and someone's legal marriage status has nothing to do with "desensitization."

Ultimately, given that your (plural) objections really appear to be towards homosexuality itself, your insistence on banning SSM seems like reaching for any way you think will work to strike at the LGBT community.  The ideologically consistent outcome of the points you are making is that homosexuality should be outlawed, but it would be even more difficult to advocate for that while objecting to claims of "homophobia."

I think your logic is completely flawed.

You also seem to conflate or imply some sort of correlation between child molestation and homosexuality. That's the textbook definition of homophobia. It's literally the same type of bigotry as saying that Asians can't drive or that Mexicans are lazy. If you can't see that, you should take a step back and ask yourself why you think this way. Is it based on data? Or is it based on propaganda, anecdotes, innuendo and supposition?

I accept the fact that homosexuality is perfectly acceptable in our society and so is porn. There is nothing I can do about that but if you ask me if either is good for you I can't say that it is because I do not believe that. Like I said before ... there are things I do and have done that I can't say are good.  If you ask me are you welcome in my Church, place of work or wherever ... then I'll say yes. Recently Christian singer Lauren Daigle was on Ellen as well as several other shows. Some people are upset that she would be on the show of a homosexual but they are in the minority. I am certainly not one of those. 

Only in the sense of how they are achieved. You can add serial murder, cheating on a spouse and any other offense that you can think of.

A person doesn't just go out and cheat. We all know that is wrong. The fact is good people end up cheating all the time.  They first started innocently enjoying attention at work. Next they started having lunch, inside jokes, secret texts and other things that "doesn't hurt their spouse if they don't know". Besides ... you tell yourself it is just an innocent relationship. Finally they start fantasizing about what it would be like to have sex with the other person (since sex at home is a bit boring) and then it happens. While people will say "it just happened" it was really a series of choices ... even more choices than I mentioned.

in the church it is explained this way. The devil doesn't just jump out and tell you to do horrible deeds because he knows you would run away. He does it in baby steps and keeps whispering in your ear that it isn't really that bad. Goes all the way back to the story of Adam and Eve.

Sin doesn't typically start as a major infraction. It is something small that your conciseness minimizes away. Satan didn't tell them he was introducing sin, shame and separation from God to them. He made it look like an innocent chase for knowledge.

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

The explicit problem here (and why the positions of people like you and Mike Pence are being called "homophobic") is that you haven't accepted that there is nothing you can do about it.

We aren't calling you guys homophobic for saying that you think same-sex marriage is sinful, but rather because you think the government should step in to stop it.  So when you talk about how you would "vote to ban SSM if it were on the ballot," that's why you all are accused of homophobia.  As Hoodie said, the difference is between deciding that you don't want a gay marriage vs. deciding that no one else should have them, either.

This isn't directed at you CF, more of a generalization when it comes to a lot of fellow Christians.  There is too much judgement on others, Christian and non-Christian alike.  

Matthew 7:1-2
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

The bible has a very open interpretation depending on who you speak to.  Jesus's overwhelming point was to be selfless, caring and love one another, so that's what I try to do.  I'm not going to be the type of person that condemns someone to hell because they are gay.  Whatever makes them happy, go ahead, I won't be in the way of it if it isn't something that will affect me negatively.  If end ups being morally wrong, I also will not be the person judging them for it.

Ultimately, the Old Testament damning homosexuality was because it conflicted with what humanity needed at that time...population growth.  Man+Man doesn't equal baby, so it was frowned on for the betterment of growing the population.  In the new testament, it was used to poke at the Romans, one of the better known civilizations featuring homosexuality, for their perceived immorality.  Homosexuality is used in the same sentences as greed, theft, etc., using examples of sin to better the argument that all are sinners.

I have accepted there isn't anything I can do about it. I also of the mind set if you ask me I will tell you the truth. If it's on the ballot, and I am to choose one or the other, than I am going to vote my beliefs. My not caring who someone is screwing does not superseed that fact.

I agree there is too much judging in the church. It's actually worse among church members than it is to the outside world.  There are dozens of passages about judging even in the NT. People confuse holding Christians accountable with judging.

There's plenty of references to homosexuality in the New Testament as well. The problem I have is this. The day I got saved I didn't become the best Christian in the world. God began a new work in me and has changed me throughout my life. It's like going to the ER after an accident. They fix things one at a time starting with the most urgent. That's how I see how God works. You start out as a weak Christian and grow as your relationship with Christ grows. So even if you a Christian and you are gay ... I will show you where it's wrong in the Bible if you ask .... but it is up to God to change that in you.  I never have and never will be able to change a persons heart ... including my children.

The question I'd ask any Christian that is attacking you is if they tithe at least 10% of their income. There are over 2500 versus on money and material things in the Bible. Why? Because the love of money is the number one thing that separates us from God. If that Christian hasn't enough faith to put God first in their lives then surely they shouldn't expect any others to do so.

 

You seem to not be addressing the issue that we keep bringing up -- the legality of all of this.

If you believe that homosexuality is wrong, don't be gay.  Don't go to gay events.  Don't associate with gays.  Teach your kids about the dangers of gayness.

But you take it a step further to say homosexuality is wrong and these right should be denied.  I don't like what you're doing, therefore you shouldn't be able to do it.  That's where your argument falls apart.

CF, the Bible says it is sinful to turn away from the Lord and worship a false god. Have you accepted that there is nothing you can do about other people choosing to do this? What if you had the opportunity to vote on whether false gods (i.e. other religions) should be allowed in the US?  Would you vote to enact that ban?

There is a wide gap between "I think [thing] is a bad idea" and "I think the government should stop everyone from doing [thing]."

Correct, the government shouldn't stop gay people from getting married. However, they also shouldn't make or penalize Christian businesses for not participating in gay marriages, it works both ways. I still disagree on the military though. There is no right to serve in the military. 

There is no right to get a job in the military, but that doesn't mean that the military can discriminate willy nilly.

There is no such thing as a christian business, companies aren't people, they hold no beliefs, people do. The fact that we treat corporations as people is an abomination, and needs to stop. Christians can own business, just as jews can. That doesn't mean they can discriminate against people. There is no such thing as a gay wedding cake. There's a cake, period. It has no sexual preference.  Why is it that when it comes to cake, we attribute intent to the product and the suppliers, but when it comes to guns, we don't do the same. If we take the christian baker argument at face value, wouldn't the logical corollary be that if a baker is an active participant in a gay wedding, that a gun maker is an active participant in a mass shooting?

A cake is a cake? Maybe you should tell Walmart. A few years ago they refused to make Confederate Flag and Blue Lives Matter cakes. I didn't hear the left crying because rednecks and cops were being discriminating against. Custom made products are up to the vendor to decide if they want to do business. Can you force Burger King to make  a Big Mac? After all, a burger is a burger.

If I went to a custom guitar maker and told him the specs of a guitar I wanted him to make and he told me that he couldn't make it, I would simply just go somewhere else. Just like the gay cake couple could have.

I get what you're saying but that isn't how I see it. First off ... I've never voted on anything that has to do with being gay and outside of marriage, I'm not sure how that could be any different.  I realize it's a huge argument from the left but it's just not something on the mind of most Christians. It's like the argument of keeping abortion legal by using incest and rape as the excuse. Those are so minimal in the scheme of abortions performed that its pretty irreverent to the conversation as a whole. Obviously its relevant to those in the situation.

If I could think of anything to vote on it would be that people do not have to do anything that conflicts with their religion.  A baker should never be forced to bake a "gay" cake whether it's for a gay couple or a straight person trying to make a point. I don't think a Muslim bakery should have to make a Jesus cake if they felt it inappropriate. I do think you should serve them with whatever you serve your other customers.

i think the best argument for allowing gay marriages is that they have the same right to be as miserable as straight people. LOl ... honestly ... I don't think the average Christian is putting in much thought to the Supreme Court allowing marriage. It's the secular system in which we live.

If you think a "false god" is a being, an entity or whatever you are foolishly mistaken. Anything that comes between you and God is a "false god". If you spend all your time on money following the Dolphins and God doesn't have a presence in your life then the Dolphins is your "false" god or idol.

With that said ... there is no way to outlaw false idols.

As the courts have ruled ... refusing to make a cake for gay people would be illegal. Refusing to bake a gay cake is completely protected.

Sure they can.   Got a bad back?  Bad teeth?  Blind in one eye?  Need a ramp for your wheelchair?   Like to sleep in?   Recovering alcoholic/drug addict?  Hear voices of people who aren't there?  Have imaginary friends?  All of these can be reasons to disqualify you.  

The military has one purpose.... to fight and win wars.  The reasons I listed above as well as many other things are distractions.  The military won't put up with distractions

Your analogy is very poor. Is it intentionally misleading?

All your examples refer to the content of the product itself. The discrimination isn't about the content of the cake, it's about the refusal to sell a cake to a specific person based on their sexual orientation.

if a place makes wedding cakes, they should not be able to discriminate as to who they sell it to.  If a place doesn't make swastika cakes, no-one should force them to make one.

Should the government force a baker to sell to black people?  How about an interracial couple planning a wedding?

The Jim Crow South proved that capitalism alone will not ensure equal treatment in the market, and that the economic incentives to discriminate can be just as strong as the incentives to serve everyone.  This is exactly why the Civil Rights Act was needed: in the absence of government compulsion to serve all of the public equally, persecuted classes become second-class citizens in areas with lower populations.

And so if we allow a Christian baker to refuse service to a gay couple, how can we stop a Christian hotel owner from refusing to allow a gay couple to rent a room in which they might have gay sex, or stop a Christian restaurant owner from refusing to allow a gay couple to eat a meal together in the full view of impressionable children, or a Christian landlord from refusing to rent to a gay couple who would expose an entire neighborhood to their depravity every single day?  Once you have decided to allow a business to refuse service to homosexuals, you can't keep other businesses from doing the same; bakers aren't more devout Christians than grocers or plumbers.

Saudi Arabia would beg to differ.

Consider that there is an equally wide gap between "There is no way to outlaw alcohol" and "There is no way to prevent people from getting alcohol."

That's not what you said earlier. You said a cake is a cake. Then by the same logic, there is no swastika cake. Just a cake, it has no preference. Sorry Fau, it's hard to take you serious when your hypocrisy and bias is so apparent. You can't have your cake and eat it too, LMAO.......

You don't treat them equally... The fact that we're having a discussion about how you treat them means that you don't treat them equally.

i think now you're just trying to not understand. I refuse to believe you're as stupid as your posts indicate.
A cake is a cake, The cake has no intention. I never once said a baker shouldn't be allowed to bake a swastika cake. But if a baker makes them, then they cannot discriminate who they sell them to.  If they don't make them, then they are under no obligation to make one regardless of who asks for it. How is what i said in any way contradicting what i said before?

I hate to jump to Ponds  defense but your example is flawed. A bakery does not make a cake with swastikas, can't make them. A bakery does not make a cake with a depiction of same sex couples, can't make them. It is the exact same premise and totally separate from the idea of not selling any cake to a gay couple.

If you sell a cake that says "Happy Birthday", you should be forced to not discriminate who you sell it to based on class (race, gender, preference, disability).

But you shouldn't have to make a cake that says "Happy Gay Birthday".

Is anyone in disagreement with this basic idea?  It seems like people are largely arguing in circles with the same basic position.

I read Fau as saying if you make hetero wedding cakes then homo wedding cakes should be required.

A hetero cake and a homo cake are the same cake, no?

You are misrepresenting the issue.

A bakery would indeed be well within its rights not to make a cake depicting a same-sex couple (or a swastika, or Baphomet).  That isn't in question.  What is at question is whether a bakery may refuse to make any cake for a wedding that they oppose ideologically.  Gay couples have been refused service before any details of the cake itself have even been discussed.

exactly .. i don't see the difference.. it's got flour .. and icing .. and um.. some sort of generic color pattern that matches a wedding decor.. it's not like they're asking for "gay flour" or 'trans icing'  ..

it comes down to the message of the cake which comes from the shape, as like a penis or the decorations, which can be words or props.

"i won't bake you a giant penis cake" is not discrimination if they don't habitually bake penis cakes
"i won't bake you any cake, including a generic square cake if you use it in a gay wedding" is discrimination

How does anyone know it would be in a gay wedding? How does anyone know if the customers are gay? Seems to me that if you just walk in and order and generic square cake, you'll probably get your generic square cake. But even if you don't, there are 20 more places that will make it for you.

Wedding cakes usually have figures depicting the couple,  so no. I have never been part of a wedding with a generic square cake. Is that really a thing? No message depicting the occasion? At that point just make your own fucking cake and don't spend money on a baker because it isn't worth it to me.

I am not misrepresenting at all. It is the exact issue we are discussing. I completely agree with the court ruling.

Fau's point was that if a bakery makes cakes, they should not be able to discriminate on who they sell these cakes to (which is not the same thing as discriminating on what kinds of cake they will make, a choice that we all agree they should have).

SCOTUS ruled that a baker may may indeed refuse to sell a cake to a gay couple, even if they are simply buying a cake off of the shelf.  Is this the ruling you "completely agree with"?

I wonder how a baker can tell - with certainty - whether a customer is gay or not? I mean, unless two men start making out at the cash register, how would you really know?

Gaydar

That is incorrect. They ruled they can refuse to sell a cake they do not make such as a gay wedding cake that had two men on it or something on it that made it a gay cake ...  but they cannot refuse to sell them a cake that they would sell to a straight person. I don't think I know or heard of any Christians who disagree with this.

I don't think it's unreasonable for two men to go a baker to pick out a wedding cake for their wedding to each other.  Straight people do it.  It would be a situation like that, I assume.

No they didn't

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission

Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado in July 2012 to order a wedding cake for their return celebration. Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips, who is a Christian, declined their cake request, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for same-sex marriages owing to his Christian religious beliefs, although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store. Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any details of their wedding cake.

The baker refused to make the cake, not because of what was on it - they literally hadn't discussed any details of the cake - but solely because it was for a gay couple.  So it doesn't sound like you "completely agree with" this ruling after all.

Just to be clear, here: SCOTUS' ruling was NOT about the content/appearance of the cake, but whether the baker had the right to refuse service because they disapproved of the wedding.

You need a different source. That's fake news and a cleaned up version of the truth. That's not what was brought before the courts. 

I'm almost inclined to think this is a waste of time once we get to the "FAKE NEWS" willful-denial-of-fact part of the discussion, but let's have a go.

Directly from the actual court ruling of the Colorado Court of Appeals (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-111-op-bel-colo-app.pdf):

Masterpiece asserts that its decision was solely “because of” Craig’s and Mullins’ intended conduct — entering into marriage with a same-sex partner — and the celebratory message about same-sex marriage that baking a wedding cake would convey. [...]

We recognize that a wedding cake, in some circumstances, may convey a particularized message celebrating same-sex marriage and, in such cases, First Amendment speech protections may be implicated.  However, we need not reach this issue.  We note, again, that Phillips denied Craig’s and Mullins’ request without any discussion regarding the wedding cake’s design or any possible written inscriptions.

The above is straight from the Colorado Supreme Court Court of Appeals.  That is not "fake news."

Just for the sake of argument, let us suppose that the Colorado Supreme Court Court of Appeals has accurately described the facts of the case.  Do you agree or disagree with their ruling that a baker should NOT be allowed to refuse service to a gay couple solely because the product ordered would be used in a same-sex wedding?

edit: The ruling is from the Colorado Court of Appeals, not the Colorado Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court of Colorado declined to hear an appeal on this case.

looks like you need a different source

in a nutshell that is what the sct said.  and yes, there are plenty of people in disagreement with that position.  The lawsuit was demanding that bakers be forced to do that just that.  On the other side you have many including the vp who feel Hardwick should still be the law of the land and disagree with Lawernce v Texas

Instead of being pretentious ... why not just say this in English? You know that very few, if any, know what these cases are.

making homosexuality a criminal act.

Mike Pence wants to make homosexuality a criminal act? Lol ... I'd have to see some evidence of that. Outside of Westboro Baptist and a few other extremists I can't imagine anyone thinking that.

Again: that is NOT what the lawsuit was about, nor what either the Colorado Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) decided.

No one was demanding that a baker be forced to make a cake saying "Happy Gay Marriage" or "Adam & Steve Not Adam & Eve".  The lawsuit in question was over whether a baker could refuse to bake any cake if he knew it was going to be used in a same-sex wedding.  In this case, the customer had not even discussed any details of the cake before the baker refused to make it.

There are many people in this thread who recognize the reasonable position: that you shouldn't be forced to make a cake with content you disapprove of, but that you also shouldn't be able to refuse service just because you disagree with someone's marriage.  However, they are NOT recognizing that SCOTUS ruled otherwise: you may refuse service to a customer solely because you disapprove of their marriage.

That is the current state of law in these United States.  I ask you all: do you agree with SCOTUS's ruling, or disagree with it?

From Wikipedia ...
Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado in July 2012 to order a wedding cake for their return celebration. Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips, who is a Christian, declined their cake request, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for same-sex marriages owing to his Christian religious beliefs, although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store. Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any details of their wedding cake.[2]:

They did not refuse service to gay people.

it's the same as a gay couple going to a men's warehouse and being told that they won't be sold matching suits because men's warehouse doesn't support gay weddings, but they can buy any other piece of clothing in the store.

unless the content of the wedding cake somehow violated someone's religious principles (which it never got to) then the decision is morally wrong

I get what you're saying but that isn't the case. That's an apples to oranges type of thing. Wedding cakes are for a specific purpose. I'm sure if they ordered a vanilla or chocolate birthday cake they would have made it ... as they said they were welcome to "purchase other baked goods".

Honestly to me the biggest thing is why would you want to force someone anyway? I'd never think of going to a Muslim bakery for a Hanukkah cake. It doesn't make sense unless I just want to go out of my way to be an ass.

I totally disagree.  This seems like a 1:1 comparison.  Wedding cakes are made to be eaten at weddings.  If you make cakes for this purpose, you shouldn't be able to determine who gets that cake and who doesn't.  If you only make cakes shaped like top-hats, then you shouldn't be forced to make a cake outside of that, for any purpose.  But if the product itself is the same, a seller shouldn't be able to discriminate because of the user's intended use.  This is especially true for things that are (or should be) protected classes.


This has already been fully litigated by society and you're re-treading an issue that we've gotten past 50 years ago.  "Why would a black want to eat at a place that wouldn't want to serve blacks" is the same tired argument.  There is a cost to functioning in a society.  Businesses benefit from the system we have and they have to follow the rules to make it fair for everyone who contributes to that system.  It's the entire reason that the government creates protected classes.  You might not want to be the gay guy that orders the cake from the person that doesn't want to make it because they're a bigot.  But it's important that the person is legally required to.

CF, I find it incredibly bizarre that you are citing the exact same Wikipedia passage that you decried as Fake News when I cited it.  Nevertheless:

No, they would not.  The objection that the baker made was that baking a cake with the knowledge that it would be used in a gay wedding was against his principles.  For the third time: he refused them service before any details of the cake itself were discussed.

And to be clear: the baker absolutely did refuse service.  They are not a vending machine or a factory outlet; they offer the service of baking custom cakes for weddings, and they refused that service to a gay couple solely because they disagreed with same-sex marriages.  (The fact that they offered to sell them a cake off the shelf is irrelevant. If i tell you that I will not seat your kind in my restaurant but you are free to order take-out, I have still denied you service.)

Fau's analogy is perfect.  This is no different than a tailor refusing to do alterations because the suit will be used in a gay wedding.

For exactly the same reason that blacks in the '60s wanted to force whites-only businesses to serve them.

So once again: do you agree or disagree with the ruling that a business may refuse service to a customer solely because they disapprove of their lifestyle?

I have never been to a Men's Warehouse. Do they create the suit? If not, it isn't the same thing.

They provide a service to fit and sell you the suit, plus tailor it, so, in a sense -- yes.  It is customized to your specifications.

So Phishfan, if I understand you correctly:

I walk into a bakery and order a round 3-tier chocolate wedding cake with vanilla frosting and purple trim, no writing.  As I'm paying for it, I mention that my fiance Jonathan will be the one to pick it up.  The baker then tells me that he doesn't approve of same-sex marriage, cancels my order, and returns my money.

Do you believe this outcome is morally acceptable?

Spider you are way off on what that case stands for. 

Merchants can discriminate against products not people.

It is legal to only sell cakes that say "happy birthday"  but not cakes that say "congratulations on coming out" It is not legal to refuse to sell birthday cakes to gay people.

It is legal to only sell Christmas trees but not Menorahs.  It is not legal to refuse to sell trees to Jews.

 

Hoodie, read the case.  I already linked (and quoted) the ruling from the Colorado Court of Appeals, which says that you MAY NOT discriminate against people.  That ruling was OVERTURNED by SCOTUS.

The baker refused service before any details of the cake were discussed.  Furthermore, during the trial, the baker clarified that it was the very act of baking a cake with knowledge that it would be used in a same-sex wedding that was against his principles.  (This is why he told them they could buy anything off the shelf: those were not baked with immoral intent.)

The content/appearance of the cake didn't even matter; the baker may refuse service specifically and solely because he disagrees with how the product will be used. And that is the position that SCOTUS ruled as constitutionally protected.  At the risk of repeating myself a fourth time: SCOTUS ruled that you may indeed discriminate against people. That's the point!

No. You ask him to mount those plastic couples or put a specific message that he disagrees with and he should be allowed to refuse.

edit: Reading more about the Masterpiece case, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruling was vacated by SCOTUS on the grounds that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was "hostile" towards Masterpiece Cakeshop's beliefs.  So technically, SCOTUS did not rule on whether companies are legally allowed to discriminate against gays.  It is only the effect of their ruling that... a company is legally allowed to discriminate against gays.

So as to the broader point of the current status of the law in this country, I'll concede that it's not (yet) confirmed that companies may legally discriminate against people.  That was only the outcome of this singular case.