In space and/or on an airless rock, water is far more valuable than gold.
But to be fair, neither substance is valuable in space, unless you are engaged in some sort of automated manufacturing which requires gold or water (the latter being perhaps more commonly required in significant quantities for manufacturing).
This lunar ice deep in lava tubes on the moon was predicted back in 1966 in the science fiction novel "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" by Robert A. Heinlein.
What Heinlein didn't predict (and perhaps could not have done so) was the advancement in robotics that ruled the presence of humans on the moon already obsolete.
Of course in Heinlein's story, the Moon was a penal colony. Considering the authoritarian direction most nations seem to be drifting towards, maybe this is another Heinlein "prediction" that will come to pass.
Authoritarian nations generally seem to exploit those prisoners for their labour, rather than stick them somewhere where their labour would have not value.
The mad rush to privatize things that shouldn't be privatized coupled with our bad habit of looking the other way on regulation means nuclear power is risky.
Risky as an investment, which is what killed/is killing it.
If it were a bit simpler to implement and the fuel going in did not require some much processing, then Nuclear might be an ongoing option. As it is, solar is cheaper, and the inclusion of a few major hydro storage sites means a significant risk for investing in traditional, big centralised infrastructural approaches to providing power. There's a good chance that these will be a losing proposition. You might make operational money for the first ten years and then technology will overtake you and you will never we recoup the initial investment.
Actually, NYC should sue dinos as they are the ultimate source of oil.
WRONG
This is all stupid, wasting tax-payer money suing people over "climate change" that may or may not be related to the human parasites on Earth advancing from waving wooden clubs around to driving SUV's. Why not sue humanity then as we are all participating, even now.
You and your buddies have had 20 years (or more) to produce evidence for your bullshit assertions about climate. You've failed to produce even a little scrap of evidence. What did you think was going to happen, that we would just carry on being polite? Time for you, and your deceiving little pals, and those who fund your little club of deception and lies, to start paying for the damage you've caused. And I don't mean 'pay' in a metaphorical sense.
Think of this as an exact repeat of what happened to big tobacco.
To be sued, there would have to be some sort wrongdoing or neglect that causes harm.
Car Drivers contribute to the harm, but will also pay for that harm, as economies collapse and bill for for mitigating further climate change and the bill for adapting the inevitable change all become due. So we will pay anyway. But will Oil Companies pay their share? And what constitutes that share?
Let's be clear: organisations and entities that actively seek or have sought to delay action on climate change have cost the rest of us dearly. In the case of oil companies, they knew the effects and cost of climate change form the beginning, but sought to mislead by creating the denialist movement, and sponsoring the likes of Judith Currie and Anthony Watts to be their mouthpiece. These originating entities, their mouthpieces (who at this point, are being deliberately misleading), and anyone else who profits from lying about climate should certainly be considered more culpable than someone who drives around minding their own business.
Nope, they did not. The baker refused to bake a cake for a homosexual person that they would bake for a heterosexual person.
Do you have any proof that the baker would have baked a cake for a same sex wedding, had they been asked by a hetero person? Because the baker said he would not have done so, and nobody seemed to dispute that at the time.
Not even close. Because that blessing is not available to any customers. All customers are being treated equally.
And in the case of these bakers, all customers are treated equally, because the bakers would not bake a cake for a same sex wedding for any of them.
Are you under the delusion that homosexual weddings require special gay-themed cakes?
No delusion: in the Colorado case, the bakers offered to sell them an un themed cake instead of baking them a custom one, and they refused it.
Yep, the service for a same-sex wedding, which was based on the sexuality of the participants.
Ugh. I just threw up a little in my mouth. of course same sex marriage is not restricted to homosexuals, two heterosexuals of the same gender can get married.
Two homosexuals of different genders could also decide to get married. To unilaterally impose a view of marriage on a multicultural society, with a vast array of different views on marriage and what it means, is astoundingly hypocritical of the courts in this case, if they did say what you claim.
More importantly: a heterosexual friend of the couple could of gone to the shop and asked for a cake to be baked appropriate for a same sex wedding. Do you think the baker or his staff would have made that cake?
That's why the courts in both cases pointed out the fallacy of the assertion that the refusal had nothing to do with the sexuality of the persons being married.
And you agree?
If a heterosexual friend of the couple went to the shop and asked for a cake to be baked appropriate for a same sex wedding. Do you think the baker or his staff would have made that cake?
And the courts in both cases consider that the actions of the bakery violated the laws of the respective states.
If laws are unjust, then change them.
The former, aka, services in a Vegan shop, and the latter, this idea of a same-sex wedding shop, are quite different and easily distinguishable. The one would be legal, the other not.
And yet, as someone else pointed out, this is almost exactly what happened in another instance, without that shop being handed a $135000 fine. Are bakers obliged to make a cake to their customers specifications, or not?
You really should stop trying to make such bad arguments though, they aren't helping you.
I don't need help. I'm not American, and (as I noted above) I optimistically believe that if something like this happened in my country, we would not force bakers out of business for staying true to their conscience.
When people made the argument against same sex marriage by saying that this kind of thing could happen, I didn't believe them. When I heard this reported, I naively assumed that the vast majority would see the problem, and a change of the law would follow. But it seems that supporters of the law are far more religious than the religious bakers in question.
Yep, the character of a cake is different from the character of the customer. Not a difficult difference to recognize.
Yet that seems to be a struggle for some, an issue made worse by the travesty of justice that these 3 court cases represent - the courts finding, essentially, is that the character of the cake is the same as the character of the customer. If that happened in my country, we would be looking for a way to change that law to achieve a balance that doesn't require a baker to close his business on account of not providing a particular type of cake when the state, or someone else, demands it.
Since the bakers in Masterpiece, Sweetcakes, and the Florist in Arlene's, refused to provide ANY cakes without consideration of the character of said cake, they inevitably made it about the customer.
An assertion that stands in contradiction to what has been reported and the testimony of the people who were there at the time, that testimony being that they were prepared to sell cakes to the customers in question, just not a particular type of cake that they had never made before, and would not have provided regardless of the race, gender, or sexual preference of the customer.
Over time we can see, are things occurring more frequently? Are they truly worse than average?
Under what circumstances would such events not grow more frequent due to climate change? How is it possible to increase the concentration of CO2 (a greenhouse gas) from 260 up to 402 PPM (and counting) and there not to be an increase in these sorts of events?
Nope. They admitted they would bake cakes for anyone not having a same-sex marriage. That means they were expressly denying service based on the sexuality.
That seems to imply rather that they did NOT discriminate based on the sexuality of the person requesting a service, There is no evidence that they would have baked a cake for a same sex wedding, even if they were asked by a heterosexual person. So they did not discriminate based on the sexuality of the person asking, but rather refused to perform a particular service when asked.
In fact, your equivocating "It's only their belief in not baking same-sex wedding cakes" was expressly discussed in at least one of the orders [aclu.org] themselves:
There is no dispute that Respondents are “persons” and that Masterpiece Cakeshop is a “place of public accommodation” within the meaning of the law.There is also no dispute that Respondents refused to provide a cake to Complainants for their 2See 1, ch. 61, Laws of 1895, providing that “all persons” shall be entitled to the “equal enjoyment” of “places of public accommodation and amusement.” Respondents, however,argue that the refusaldoes not violate 24-34-601(2) because it was due to theiro bjection to same-sex weddings, not because of Complainants’ sexual orientation. Respondents deny that they hold any animus toward homosexuals or gay couples, and would willingly provide other types of baked goods to Complainants or any other gay customer. On the other hand, Respondents would refuse to provide a wedding cake to a heterosexual customer if it was for a same-sex wedding. The ALJ rejects Respondents’argument as a distinction without a difference.The salient feature distinguishing same-sex weddings from heterosexual ones is the sexual orientation of its participants.Only same-sex couples engage in same-sex weddings.Therefore, it makes little sense to argue that refusal to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not “because of” their sexual orientation.
And here, you are quoting from material relating to a different case.
And yet here you are, advocating that people be discriminated against by the state.
I already stated that sometimes asserting those rights will occasionally inconvenience people. Did you miss it?
I'd consider having to walk next door to buy a wedding cake for a same sex wedding an inconvenience, rather than some sort of forelock tug toward embedded discrimination based on sexual preference. If I walked into a cake shop to buy a cake for my wedding and someone refused to sell it to me because the cake required eggs and they were a vegan shop, or because the shop specialized in same sex weddings and didn't make cakes for heterosexual weddings, I supposed I would be cheesed off, but nowhere near cheesed off enough to send that business bankrupt. That's absurd. Maybe it's not ideal, but hey, there's lot's of compromise associated with living in a society with different world-views and trying to get along.
The same sex wedding is not part of the service, the service is "baking a cake". A service they clearly WOULD provide to others, otherwise the place wouldn't be a bakery.
So, in your mind, wedding couples merely walk into bakeries and select pre-baked cakes off the shelf - there is no market for cakes that are specifically made to order for weddings, according to specifications?
The same sex wedding is not part of the service, the service is "baking a cake". A service they clearly WOULD provide to others, otherwise the place wouldn't be a bakery.
This being the case, the couple would have been happy with a generic cake for their wedding, without any customisations - correct? Or, a boilerplate wedding cake, with a female bride and male groom atop the cake - that's correct, right? Because that is you argument, the cake doesn't matter, only the people that eat it.
Also, your argument is, that if the gay couple had come in and one had said: we'd like a cake for my mum's birthday, that the baker would have refused to serve them, on account of them being (perhaps) gay?
Because if the evidence suggests otherwise, that if was specifically a wedding cake, for a same sex wedding, that the bakers refused to sell, then your argument is bunk.
Why the rant about CO2? I said nothing about CO2. Why even bring it up in a discussion about weather vs climate? It's un-related. Talk about "do you even science" - do you even read?
Here is you: Over time we can see, are things occurring more frequently? Are they truly worse than average? Then maybe we can point to climactic change being at issue, but we certainly do not have data points like that yet for freezes (or really any other large scale disasters, since recent years before the last one have been quiet for hurricanes).
Yes - oh wait, that's not a good metaphor, since the baker served everyone regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or religion.
Nope. They indicated in the fact [oregon.gov] that they did not serve people who wanted a cake for their same-sex wedding.
Even the link that you provided (and every other link I can find) says that they did not refuse service to the couple on the grounds that they were gay, but rather they would not provide the couple with a specifically requested service (baking a cake for a same sex wedding) - a service they would not provide to anyone regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation.
People fought and died to defend the right not to be denied the right to buy goods and services because of other people's discrimination. That implies, sometimes, that asserting those rights will occasionally inconvenience people, even if they believe their religion somehow gives them the right to treat others however they want, even declare them to be abominations.
And yet here you are, advocating that people be discriminated against by the state.
There is no evidence that this happened. He was asked to provide a specific service he'd never provided before, and refused to do it.
Except the stipulation of facts indicated that the cakes for weddings were provided to other customer, and no specific services were identified as objectionable in particular.
Show specifically from the statement of facts where it says the bakers provided specially themed cakes for same sex weddings in the past.
While I watch as about a foot of global warming slowly melts after the second longest deep freeze on record slowly lifts, I will also point out that if last year was colder than. 2012 and 2014, an equally valid guess is that those two years were a peak.
Well, when you a better strategy than randomly guessing the outcomes of climate change, maybe let us know. Until then, we'll look to people who can actually produce evidence.
Wait a few more decades for a few more solar cycles to elapse and then you can do some dispassionate analysis.
Thanks for the offer, but I don't think I will.
Your assertion, to put it plainly, is that solar cycles, changing in the way it always has, is now magically (because of fairies?) causing the troposphere and ocean and land surface to warm, but not the upper atmosphere, which for magical reasons (fairies?) is cooling, and meanwhile the warming that should result from adding CO2 to the atmosphere (per Arrhenius et al) is magically being dispersed by fairies.
Is there a way to test for these fairies? Oh right, magic.
Strangely enough, it's from the humanities that we can take a lesson here: the historians have understood for quite a while that anything more recent than a few decades ago cannot be evaluated objectively.
Sure. Quantum mechanics and the Laws of Thermodynamics don't exist: because humanities.
As we all know, weather (or seasons) is/are not climate. You can't say any one particularly bad freeze is really due to climate change, because the possibility of a bad freeze was always there and as I noted, there have been worse instances in the past of all of the disasters we have seen this year.
Bro, Do you even science?
What should happen if we increase the concentration of CO2 (a greenhouse gas) from 260 up to 402 PPM (and counting)? Are you seriously suggesting that there should be no effect at all?
Five seconds to check the article and you would have seen this:
More notable than the high frequency of these events is the cumulative cost, which exceeds $300 billion in 2017 — a new U.S. annual record. The cumulative damage of these 16 U.S. events during 2017 is $306.2 billion, which shatters the previous U.S. annual record cost of $214.8 billion (CPI-adjusted), established in 2005 due to the impacts of Hurricanes Dennis, Katrina, Rita and Wilma.
But I guess Slashdot has become a place to celebrate the new ignorance.
Forcing a halal butcher, or a vegetarian butcher (yes, they exist), to sell pork is _entirely_ different than forcing a cake maker to...make a cake...and sell it to gay people just as they would to straight people, or black people, etc. We've been through this before.
He would have happily supplied a gay person a cake themed for a heterosexual wedding, and even offered appropriate cakes to the gay man seeking to buy a cake. Exactly the service he provided to heterosexual customers. He was a baker who baked standard cakes, and also made custom cakes suitable for a hetero wedding. Like all bakers, there's a range of goods he didn't bake for a range of reasons.
Separate-but-equal "you are free to take your business elsewhere" is not going to fly here.
Mmm. How will you react when it happens to you?
For example, if a proprietor in a predominantly gay district who specializes in erotic and gay themed cakes for gay weddings is approached by a Christian couple who want a verse of the bible inscribed on their cake, and he refuses, will the same fine be leveraged?
Yeah! How DARE those negros want to eat at that lunch counter!!! Woolworth's should be able to choose to take on a client!
Oh wait....
Yes - oh wait, that's not a good metaphor, since the baker served everyone regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or religion.So a more appropriate analogy would be an atheist milk bar owner who makes burgers for everyone, but when asked, refused to pronounce a blessing to Allah over a burger when serving a burger to a customer who wanted that service. If the following transaction happens:
Customer: 'Is this meat halal?'
Owner: No, our meat is not halal.
Customer: Can you make a halal burger for me?
Owner: No, we don't have any meat that is halal.
What obligation does the owner have to find halal meat for making a burger in this case? Wouldn't the best plan be for the Muslim to take his custom to a place that advertises and makes halal burgers?
How about going to a halal butcher with a pig and demand that they butcher it for you, religious beliefs be damned?
If that butcher would not butcher a pig for anyone, then there's no problem.
Then what is the problem in this case?
There is no evidence that the baker would have sold a gay wedding themed cake to anybody, If a heterosexual, white male went to his shop and asked for a wedding cake themed appropriately for a gay wedding, the baker would have refused to make a cake styled in that fashion. Freedom of religion is not passe, it is not somehow a 'lesser right'. It is a fundamental right, enumerated in the UN DHR (and in the US constitution). People fought and died to defend that right. That implies that sometimes, protecting that right will occasionally inconvenience people.
The problem arises when some services are offered to customers and forbidden to others based only on those customer's protected class.
There is no evidence that this happened. He was asked to provide a specific service he'd never provided before, and refused to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
Citation needed
Hardly - it is common knowledge, but here you are anyway.
In space and/or on an airless rock, water is far more valuable than gold.
But to be fair, neither substance is valuable in space, unless you are engaged in some sort of automated manufacturing which requires gold or water (the latter being perhaps more commonly required in significant quantities for manufacturing).
This lunar ice deep in lava tubes on the moon was predicted back in 1966 in the science fiction novel "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" by Robert A. Heinlein.
What Heinlein didn't predict (and perhaps could not have done so) was the advancement in robotics that ruled the presence of humans on the moon already obsolete.
Of course in Heinlein's story, the Moon was a penal colony. Considering the authoritarian direction most nations seem to be drifting towards, maybe this is another Heinlein "prediction" that will come to pass.
Authoritarian nations generally seem to exploit those prisoners for their labour, rather than stick them somewhere where their labour would have not value.
The mad rush to privatize things that shouldn't be privatized coupled with our bad habit of looking the other way on regulation means nuclear power is risky.
Risky as an investment, which is what killed/is killing it.
If it were a bit simpler to implement and the fuel going in did not require some much processing, then Nuclear might be an ongoing option. As it is, solar is cheaper, and the inclusion of a few major hydro storage sites means a significant risk for investing in traditional, big centralised infrastructural approaches to providing power. There's a good chance that these will be a losing proposition. You might make operational money for the first ten years and then technology will overtake you and you will never we recoup the initial investment.
- Sam Malone.
Actually, NYC should sue dinos as they are the ultimate source of oil.
WRONG
This is all stupid, wasting tax-payer money suing people over "climate change" that may or may not be related to the human parasites on Earth advancing from waving wooden clubs around to driving SUV's. Why not sue humanity then as we are all participating, even now.
You and your buddies have had 20 years (or more) to produce evidence for your bullshit assertions about climate. You've failed to produce even a little scrap of evidence. What did you think was going to happen, that we would just carry on being polite? Time for you, and your deceiving little pals, and those who fund your little club of deception and lies, to start paying for the damage you've caused. And I don't mean 'pay' in a metaphorical sense.
Think of this as an exact repeat of what happened to big tobacco.
Car Drivers contribute to the harm, but will also pay for that harm, as economies collapse and bill for for mitigating further climate change and the bill for adapting the inevitable change all become due. So we will pay anyway. But will Oil Companies pay their share? And what constitutes that share?
Let's be clear: organisations and entities that actively seek or have sought to delay action on climate change have cost the rest of us dearly. In the case of oil companies, they knew the effects and cost of climate change form the beginning, but sought to mislead by creating the denialist movement, and sponsoring the likes of Judith Currie and Anthony Watts to be their mouthpiece. These originating entities, their mouthpieces (who at this point, are being deliberately misleading), and anyone else who profits from lying about climate should certainly be considered more culpable than someone who drives around minding their own business.
Nope, they did not. The baker refused to bake a cake for a homosexual person that they would bake for a heterosexual person.
Do you have any proof that the baker would have baked a cake for a same sex wedding, had they been asked by a hetero person? Because the baker said he would not have done so, and nobody seemed to dispute that at the time.
Not even close. Because that blessing is not available to any customers. All customers are being treated equally.
And in the case of these bakers, all customers are treated equally, because the bakers would not bake a cake for a same sex wedding for any of them.
Are you under the delusion that homosexual weddings require special gay-themed cakes?
No delusion: in the Colorado case, the bakers offered to sell them an un themed cake instead of baking them a custom one, and they refused it.
No, insisting on proof of a negative statement
Sounds like you tried to phrase your assertion in such a way that you wouldn't have to provide proof, but you got called on it anyway. Tough cheese.
Yep, the service for a same-sex wedding, which was based on the sexuality of the participants.
Ugh. I just threw up a little in my mouth. of course same sex marriage is not restricted to homosexuals, two heterosexuals of the same gender can get married.
Two homosexuals of different genders could also decide to get married. To unilaterally impose a view of marriage on a multicultural society, with a vast array of different views on marriage and what it means, is astoundingly hypocritical of the courts in this case, if they did say what you claim.
More importantly: a heterosexual friend of the couple could of gone to the shop and asked for a cake to be baked appropriate for a same sex wedding. Do you think the baker or his staff would have made that cake?
That's why the courts in both cases pointed out the fallacy of the assertion that the refusal had nothing to do with the sexuality of the persons being married.
And you agree?
If a heterosexual friend of the couple went to the shop and asked for a cake to be baked appropriate for a same sex wedding. Do you think the baker or his staff would have made that cake?
And the courts in both cases consider that the actions of the bakery violated the laws of the respective states.
If laws are unjust, then change them.
The former, aka, services in a Vegan shop, and the latter, this idea of a same-sex wedding shop, are quite different and easily distinguishable. The one would be legal, the other not.
And yet, as someone else pointed out, this is almost exactly what happened in another instance, without that shop being handed a $135000 fine. Are bakers obliged to make a cake to their customers specifications, or not?
You really should stop trying to make such bad arguments though, they aren't helping you.
I don't need help. I'm not American, and (as I noted above) I optimistically believe that if something like this happened in my country, we would not force bakers out of business for staying true to their conscience.
When people made the argument against same sex marriage by saying that this kind of thing could happen, I didn't believe them. When I heard this reported, I naively assumed that the vast majority would see the problem, and a change of the law would follow. But it seems that supporters of the law are far more religious than the religious bakers in question.
Yep, the character of a cake is different from the character of the customer. Not a difficult difference to recognize.
Yet that seems to be a struggle for some, an issue made worse by the travesty of justice that these 3 court cases represent - the courts finding, essentially, is that the character of the cake is the same as the character of the customer. If that happened in my country, we would be looking for a way to change that law to achieve a balance that doesn't require a baker to close his business on account of not providing a particular type of cake when the state, or someone else, demands it.
Since the bakers in Masterpiece, Sweetcakes, and the Florist in Arlene's, refused to provide ANY cakes without consideration of the character of said cake, they inevitably made it about the customer.
An assertion that stands in contradiction to what has been reported and the testimony of the people who were there at the time, that testimony being that they were prepared to sell cakes to the customers in question, just not a particular type of cake that they had never made before, and would not have provided regardless of the race, gender, or sexual preference of the customer.
Sounds like different laws for different people.
Over time we can see, are things occurring more frequently? Are they truly worse than average?
Under what circumstances would such events not grow more frequent due to climate change? How is it possible to increase the concentration of CO2 (a greenhouse gas) from 260 up to 402 PPM (and counting) and there not to be an increase in these sorts of events?
Nope. They admitted they would bake cakes for anyone not having a same-sex marriage. That means they were expressly denying service based on the sexuality.
That seems to imply rather that they did NOT discriminate based on the sexuality of the person requesting a service, There is no evidence that they would have baked a cake for a same sex wedding, even if they were asked by a heterosexual person. So they did not discriminate based on the sexuality of the person asking, but rather refused to perform a particular service when asked.
In fact, your equivocating "It's only their belief in not baking same-sex wedding cakes" was expressly discussed in at least one of the orders [aclu.org] themselves: There is no dispute that Respondents are “persons” and that Masterpiece Cakeshop is a “place of public accommodation” within the meaning of the law.There is also no dispute that Respondents refused to provide a cake to Complainants for their 2See 1, ch. 61, Laws of 1895, providing that “all persons” shall be entitled to the “equal enjoyment” of “places of public accommodation and amusement.” Respondents, however,argue that the refusaldoes not violate 24-34-601(2) because it was due to theiro bjection to same-sex weddings, not because of Complainants’ sexual orientation. Respondents deny that they hold any animus toward homosexuals or gay couples, and would willingly provide other types of baked goods to Complainants or any other gay customer. On the other hand, Respondents would refuse to provide a wedding cake to a heterosexual customer if it was for a same-sex wedding. The ALJ rejects Respondents’argument as a distinction without a difference.The salient feature distinguishing same-sex weddings from heterosexual ones is the sexual orientation of its participants.Only same-sex couples engage in same-sex weddings.Therefore, it makes little sense to argue that refusal to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not “because of” their sexual orientation.
And here, you are quoting from material relating to a different case.
And yet here you are, advocating that people be discriminated against by the state.
I already stated that sometimes asserting those rights will occasionally inconvenience people. Did you miss it?
I'd consider having to walk next door to buy a wedding cake for a same sex wedding an inconvenience, rather than some sort of forelock tug toward embedded discrimination based on sexual preference. If I walked into a cake shop to buy a cake for my wedding and someone refused to sell it to me because the cake required eggs and they were a vegan shop, or because the shop specialized in same sex weddings and didn't make cakes for heterosexual weddings, I supposed I would be cheesed off, but nowhere near cheesed off enough to send that business bankrupt. That's absurd. Maybe it's not ideal, but hey, there's lot's of compromise associated with living in a society with different world-views and trying to get along.
Fascinating.
You are proving him right.
Only in a world where facts don't matter.
The same sex wedding is not part of the service, the service is "baking a cake". A service they clearly WOULD provide to others, otherwise the place wouldn't be a bakery.
So, in your mind, wedding couples merely walk into bakeries and select pre-baked cakes off the shelf - there is no market for cakes that are specifically made to order for weddings, according to specifications?
The same sex wedding is not part of the service, the service is "baking a cake". A service they clearly WOULD provide to others, otherwise the place wouldn't be a bakery.
This being the case, the couple would have been happy with a generic cake for their wedding, without any customisations - correct? Or, a boilerplate wedding cake, with a female bride and male groom atop the cake - that's correct, right? Because that is you argument, the cake doesn't matter, only the people that eat it. Also, your argument is, that if the gay couple had come in and one had said: we'd like a cake for my mum's birthday, that the baker would have refused to serve them, on account of them being (perhaps) gay?
Because if the evidence suggests otherwise, that if was specifically a wedding cake, for a same sex wedding, that the bakers refused to sell, then your argument is bunk.
Why the rant about CO2? I said nothing about CO2. Why even bring it up in a discussion about weather vs climate? It's un-related. Talk about "do you even science" - do you even read?
Here is you: Over time we can see, are things occurring more frequently? Are they truly worse than average? Then maybe we can point to climactic change being at issue, but we certainly do not have data points like that yet for freezes (or really any other large scale disasters, since recent years before the last one have been quiet for hurricanes).
Yes, what happens? Please give us hard numbers, and hard numbers about what would have happened without any human influence too.
Your ignorance is not my problem.
Also if you don't mind, just for kicks, calculate the atmospheric water vapor heating potential in the atmosphere and compare with the same for CO2.
Do it yourself.
Yes - oh wait, that's not a good metaphor, since the baker served everyone regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or religion.
Nope. They indicated in the fact [oregon.gov] that they did not serve people who wanted a cake for their same-sex wedding.
Even the link that you provided (and every other link I can find) says that they did not refuse service to the couple on the grounds that they were gay, but rather they would not provide the couple with a specifically requested service (baking a cake for a same sex wedding) - a service they would not provide to anyone regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation.
People fought and died to defend the right not to be denied the right to buy goods and services because of other people's discrimination. That implies, sometimes, that asserting those rights will occasionally inconvenience people, even if they believe their religion somehow gives them the right to treat others however they want, even declare them to be abominations.
And yet here you are, advocating that people be discriminated against by the state.
There is no evidence that this happened. He was asked to provide a specific service he'd never provided before, and refused to do it.
Except the stipulation of facts indicated that the cakes for weddings were provided to other customer, and no specific services were identified as objectionable in particular.
Show specifically from the statement of facts where it says the bakers provided specially themed cakes for same sex weddings in the past.
While I watch as about a foot of global warming slowly melts after the second longest deep freeze on record slowly lifts, I will also point out that if last year was colder than. 2012 and 2014, an equally valid guess is that those two years were a peak.
Well, when you a better strategy than randomly guessing the outcomes of climate change, maybe let us know. Until then, we'll look to people who can actually produce evidence.
Wait a few more decades for a few more solar cycles to elapse and then you can do some dispassionate analysis.
Thanks for the offer, but I don't think I will.
Your assertion, to put it plainly, is that solar cycles, changing in the way it always has, is now magically (because of fairies?) causing the troposphere and ocean and land surface to warm, but not the upper atmosphere, which for magical reasons (fairies?) is cooling, and meanwhile the warming that should result from adding CO2 to the atmosphere (per Arrhenius et al) is magically being dispersed by fairies.
Is there a way to test for these fairies? Oh right, magic.
Strangely enough, it's from the humanities that we can take a lesson here: the historians have understood for quite a while that anything more recent than a few decades ago cannot be evaluated objectively.
Sure. Quantum mechanics and the Laws of Thermodynamics don't exist: because humanities.
As we all know, weather (or seasons) is/are not climate. You can't say any one particularly bad freeze is really due to climate change, because the possibility of a bad freeze was always there and as I noted, there have been worse instances in the past of all of the disasters we have seen this year.
Bro, Do you even science?
What should happen if we increase the concentration of CO2 (a greenhouse gas) from 260 up to 402 PPM (and counting)? Are you seriously suggesting that there should be no effect at all?
More notable than the high frequency of these events is the cumulative cost, which exceeds $300 billion in 2017 — a new U.S. annual record. The cumulative damage of these 16 U.S. events during 2017 is $306.2 billion, which shatters the previous U.S. annual record cost of $214.8 billion (CPI-adjusted), established in 2005 due to the impacts of Hurricanes Dennis, Katrina, Rita and Wilma.
But I guess Slashdot has become a place to celebrate the new ignorance.
Forcing a halal butcher, or a vegetarian butcher (yes, they exist), to sell pork is _entirely_ different than forcing a cake maker to...make a cake...and sell it to gay people just as they would to straight people, or black people, etc. We've been through this before.
He would have happily supplied a gay person a cake themed for a heterosexual wedding, and even offered appropriate cakes to the gay man seeking to buy a cake. Exactly the service he provided to heterosexual customers. He was a baker who baked standard cakes, and also made custom cakes suitable for a hetero wedding. Like all bakers, there's a range of goods he didn't bake for a range of reasons.
Separate-but-equal "you are free to take your business elsewhere" is not going to fly here.
Mmm. How will you react when it happens to you?
For example, if a proprietor in a predominantly gay district who specializes in erotic and gay themed cakes for gay weddings is approached by a Christian couple who want a verse of the bible inscribed on their cake, and he refuses, will the same fine be leveraged?
Yeah! How DARE those negros want to eat at that lunch counter!!! Woolworth's should be able to choose to take on a client!
Oh wait....
Yes - oh wait, that's not a good metaphor, since the baker served everyone regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or religion.So a more appropriate analogy would be an atheist milk bar owner who makes burgers for everyone, but when asked, refused to pronounce a blessing to Allah over a burger when serving a burger to a customer who wanted that service. If the following transaction happens:
Customer: 'Is this meat halal?'
Owner: No, our meat is not halal.
Customer: Can you make a halal burger for me?
Owner: No, we don't have any meat that is halal.
What obligation does the owner have to find halal meat for making a burger in this case? Wouldn't the best plan be for the Muslim to take his custom to a place that advertises and makes halal burgers?
How about going to a halal butcher with a pig and demand that they butcher it for you, religious beliefs be damned?
If that butcher would not butcher a pig for anyone, then there's no problem.
Then what is the problem in this case?
There is no evidence that the baker would have sold a gay wedding themed cake to anybody, If a heterosexual, white male went to his shop and asked for a wedding cake themed appropriately for a gay wedding, the baker would have refused to make a cake styled in that fashion. Freedom of religion is not passe, it is not somehow a 'lesser right'. It is a fundamental right, enumerated in the UN DHR (and in the US constitution). People fought and died to defend that right. That implies that sometimes, protecting that right will occasionally inconvenience people.
The problem arises when some services are offered to customers and forbidden to others based only on those customer's protected class.
There is no evidence that this happened. He was asked to provide a specific service he'd never provided before, and refused to do it.
indeed: scammers like Watts and Monkton and Trump are hardly notable for their coherent arguments.
This one. Dunno why you couldn't look it up yourself, do you need a link to Google?