Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
1139 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 462
Inactive user


  Reply # 2054508 11-Jul-2018 19:02
Send private message

freitasm:

 

"Religious grounds"... Pfffft. Jesus would've baked the cake:

 

Reality is that Jesus would've been sent to prison in our days because whatever he said goes against most of the things these people do.

 

 

Bring back the support and conceptual belief of Jesus.


13430 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2428

Trusted

  Reply # 2054512 11-Jul-2018 19:16
Send private message

Reciprocity:
tdgeek:

 

 

 

Go to bus drivers, can they choose? The guy at PBTech? City Council?  

 



Or the Halal “home kill” butcher who arrives at a client and is asked to butcher a pig instead of a sheep?

 

You need to read the thread. Its not about the cake nor about your pig/sheep. Its about the person who wants the cake/sheep/pig


7393 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3863


  Reply # 2054547 11-Jul-2018 20:01
Send private message

tdgeek:

 

Reciprocity:
tdgeek:

 

 

 

Go to bus drivers, can they choose? The guy at PBTech? City Council?  

 



Or the Halal “home kill” butcher who arrives at a client and is asked to butcher a pig instead of a sheep?

 

You need to read the thread. Its not about the cake nor about your pig/sheep. Its about the person who wants the cake/sheep/pig

 

 

And muslims I know don't have a problem with killing pigs anyway - when they're pests.  Put it another way, rats are pests, we kill them, but probably have a cultural aversion to eating them (I do anyway).



Glurp
8245 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3793

Subscriber

  Reply # 2054552 11-Jul-2018 20:03
One person supports this post
Send private message

Reciprocity:

Or the Halal “home kill” butcher who arrives at a client and is asked to butcher a pig instead of a sheep?

 

Maybe this thread should be locked as well. That comment manages to troll, insult and be stupid all at the same time.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


1275 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 972

Subscriber

  Reply # 2054577 11-Jul-2018 20:45
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

The baker in this case has a couple of things in her favour...

 

1. She was honest in her actions, she could have accepted the order and just not fulfilled it or fulfilled it badly.

 

2. Her refusal was timely and politely stated without any attack on the couple.

 

Having said that I believe that she was wrong in her decision based on the information at hand and I am sure that there will be a cost to her be it in lost business, legal sanctions or both. I feel as I said in my earlier post the key here is tolerance and understanding by all parties.

 

 

There should be no tolerance for bigotry and blatant law-breaking. I hope that business is destroyed and a heavy fine levied by the Human Rights Review Tribunal. Anyone attempting to pretend that the world owes the baker some kind of tolerance for her bigoted and illegal stance is aiding and abetting quite disgraceful behaviour. Your ever-present obsession with so called "courtesy" and politeness, which frequently (as here) has no regard for the content and moral nature of the issues at hand, is singularly unhelpful. As a society, blatant bigotry over people's sexual orientation, which in many cases cannot be controlled by the person concerned and is in no way indicative of the worth and moral nature of the individual, ought not to be tolerated by any person capable of reasoning and a degree of reflection greater than that of your average household pet. Being a jackass (or worse) to people whilst pretending to be nice in form doesn't improve/change the moral nature of the behaviour concerned.

 

 

 

 

 

 


13142 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6164

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 2054592 11-Jul-2018 21:02
One person supports this post
Send private message

dejadeadnz:

 

MikeB4:

 

The baker in this case has a couple of things in her favour...

 

1. She was honest in her actions, she could have accepted the order and just not fulfilled it or fulfilled it badly.

 

2. Her refusal was timely and politely stated without any attack on the couple.

 

Having said that I believe that she was wrong in her decision based on the information at hand and I am sure that there will be a cost to her be it in lost business, legal sanctions or both. I feel as I said in my earlier post the key here is tolerance and understanding by all parties.

 

 

There should be no tolerance for bigotry and blatant law-breaking. I hope that business is destroyed and a heavy fine levied by the Human Rights Review Tribunal. Anyone attempting to pretend that the world owes the baker some kind of tolerance for her bigoted and illegal stance is aiding and abetting quite disgraceful behaviour. Your ever-present obsession with so called "courtesy" and politeness, which frequently (as here) has no regard for the content and moral nature of the issues at hand, is singularly unhelpful. As a society, blatant bigotry over people's sexual orientation, which in many cases cannot be controlled by the person concerned and is in no way indicative of the worth and moral nature of the individual, ought not to be tolerated by any person capable of reasoning and a degree of reflection greater than that of your average household pet. Being a jackass (or worse) to people whilst pretending to be nice in form doesn't improve/change the moral nature of the behaviour concerned.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why are all your posts filled with attacks on other members? I doubt I could find a single post directed at me on these forums that follows the FUG requirement of "Be Polite" I suggest you ignore my posts and stop your constant trolling and attacks on everything I write. 

 

 





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


1275 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 972

Subscriber

  Reply # 2054595 11-Jul-2018 21:10
Send private message

Which part of what I said is wrong? As a normative ethical position, why should we judge someone as being "better" merely because the form via which they expressed their nastiness appeared to be polite? Remember, the burden of proof is on you here. Plenty of extremely nasty individuals in human history (think guys like Stalin and Himmler) have also espoused notions of decency or been in front of (for example) cameras patting kids and smiling etc. Are they better people for this? If so, why?

 

One could quite equally remind you of the FUG. Whilst IMO consider your argumentation skills are quite poor, I've never accused you of trolling. If you can't stand the idea of having to defend your highly controversial views that are regularly espoused on a public forum and are mostly very thinly backed up with evidence or arguments, one might generously suggest that you perhaps consider stating less of those views because, dare I say it, repeatedly doing so yet refusing to acknowledge any requests for evidence comes far closer to trolling than someone marshalling evidence against your "arguments".

 

 

 

 


13142 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6164

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 2054637 11-Jul-2018 22:12
Send private message

dejadeadnz:

 

Which part of what I said is wrong? As a normative ethical position, why should we judge someone as being "better" merely because the form via which they expressed their nastiness appeared to be polite? Remember, the burden of proof is on you here. Plenty of extremely nasty individuals in human history (think guys like Stalin and Himmler) have also espoused notions of decency or been in front of (for example) cameras patting kids and smiling etc. Are they better people for this? If so, why?

 

One could quite equally remind you of the FUG. Whilst IMO consider your argumentation skills are quite poor, I've never accused you of trolling. If you can't stand the idea of having to defend your highly controversial views that are regularly espoused on a public forum and are mostly very thinly backed up with evidence or arguments, one might generously suggest that you perhaps consider stating less of those views because, dare I say it, repeatedly doing so yet refusing to acknowledge any requests for evidence comes far closer to trolling than someone marshalling evidence against your "arguments".

 

 

 

 

 

 

@dejadeadnz please point to me where in this thread I stated "highly controversial views" ?





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


7393 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3863


  Reply # 2054657 11-Jul-2018 22:41
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

@dejadeadnz please point to me where in this thread I stated "highly controversial views" ?

 

 

I'll point out that your comment along the lines of "at least she was polite about it" is daft. (apologies if it was sarcasm)

 

When a bigot speaks, it's probably more appropriate that crude offensive language accompanies their crude offensive thoughts, lest idiots be persuaded that the person speaking those words had some redeeming attributes or worthiness - that they most clearly don't.


1275 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 972

Subscriber

Reply # 2054686 11-Jul-2018 23:28
One person supports this post
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

@dejadeadnz please point to me where in this thread I stated "highly controversial views" ?

 

 

It's becoming pretty obvious who is the troll here. Let's have a look at another ridiculous comment of yours:

 

MikeB4:  I feel as I said in my earlier post the key here is tolerance and understanding by all parties.

 

Here's the problem with what you're doing: you're disgracefully trivialising a serious and very real issue for individuals who are already marginalised and frequently unreasonably treated. You're doing this by making an unreasonable demand of them and those who reject their unreasonable treatment by this bigot and others like her. Why should a society of purported equals have to tolerate an individual who is acting unlawfully? If people are indeed equals, how can one group of people be expected to tolerate another group/individual not playing by the rules that the latter have as much of a chance to influence?

 

At a more fundamental level, how can doing something that is impossible to defend by reference to reason be sufficiently transformed in its moral quality (i.e. it unreasonableness and wrongness) to being better just through the form that the conduct took? There's another very serious issue to reflect on: it's not even clear that the superficial niceness reflects any kind of conscious decision-making on the part of the woman. Bigots like this woman, like many people who purport to be guided by religious values, often reflexively behave rather superficially nicely or even obsequiously -- just like how they reflexively reject any kind of sexual behaviour that their tradition or favourite fiction book does not approve of.  Given that the person can't even be bothered to be moral and reasonable, I would not immediately conclude that the person's form of expression of her stupidity reflects any kind of heartfelt and underlying decency.

 

The fact that you constantly give primacy to such superficiality is quite revealing. Playing nice, for it to have any meaning, needs to go beyond mere formalities. Using the "play nice" card to engage in false equivalence to attack people who are rightly intolerant of bigots make you a not very nice person at all in my books. 

 

 

 

 


13142 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6164

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 2054696 12-Jul-2018 06:14
Send private message

Fred99:

MikeB4:


@dejadeadnz please point to me where in this thread I stated "highly controversial views" ?



I'll point out that your comment along the lines of "at least she was polite about it" is daft. (apologies if it was sarcasm)


When a bigot speaks, it's probably more appropriate that crude offensive language accompanies their crude offensive thoughts, lest idiots be persuaded that the person speaking those words had some redeeming attributes or worthiness - that they most clearly don't.



I thought my meaning was clear, it was said along the lines of a rapist saying I am really sorry about all of this but I could have killed you so all is good.




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


1275 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 972

Subscriber

  Reply # 2054709 12-Jul-2018 07:50
Send private message

Nice try at backpedaling but I doubt anyone who can read will fall for this. Your obvious attempts at false equivalence, coupled with describing this issue as a storm in a teacup - which combined together with your previously ongoing attempts at pretending that you were saying nothing nasty - says it all.

For some of us, reality and intellectual honesty remain precious.



712 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 565


  Reply # 2054827 12-Jul-2018 10:19
3 people support this post
Send private message

dejadeadnz:

 

There should be no tolerance for bigotry 

 

(snip)

 

As a society, blatant bigotry over people's sexual orientation, which in many cases cannot be controlled by the person concerned and is in no way indicative of the worth and moral nature of the individual, ought not to be tolerated (snip)

 

 

That's a valid viewpoint. 

 

However, the right to hold bigoted viewpoints and express bigoted sentiment is expressly provided under Section 2 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act which states that we all have the rights to:

 

13) Freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

 

14) Freedom of expression.

 

Now, "expression" is subject to some restrictions, but we as a society certainly do afford the baker the right to be intolerant of "same sex weddings" and to say so without penalty.  (Providing she does so in such a way that does not meet the threshold of hate speech - so yes, in a sense, being polite and considerate is a factor here)

 

Let's consider what "Kath" said:

 

 

Hi Maureen and Sasha

 

Thank you for your inquiry regarding a wedding cake for the 19th January.  I do not wish to offend either of you and I thank you for letting me know that it is a same sex wedding.  Even though as individuals you are both fabulous and amazing people, I must follow the integrity of my heart and beliefs.  Our government has legalised same sex marriages, but it is not my belief that this is correct, therefore I will not support it and cannot make your wedding cake for you.

 

Kind Regards,
Kath

 

 

The bolded piece is what (in my layman's opinion) makes this message potentially unlawful.

 

If instead she had written:

 

 

Hi Maureen and Sasha

 

Thank you for your inquiry regarding a wedding cake for the 19th January.  I do not wish to offend either of you and I thank you for letting me know that it is a same sex wedding.  Even though as individuals you are both fabulous and amazing people, I must follow the integrity of my heart and beliefs.  Our government has legalised same sex marriages, but it is not my belief that this is correct, therefore I will not support it and this will likely effect the quality of my work.  You may be better served seeking an alternative baker for your wedding cake.

 

Kind Regards,
Kath

 

 

...she would be just as bigoted, but far less likely to be in breach of the law.


Glurp
8245 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3793

Subscriber

  Reply # 2054856 12-Jul-2018 10:35
Send private message

6FIEND:therefore I will not support it and cannot make your wedding cake for you.

 

...she would be just as bigoted, but far less likely to be in breach of the law.

 

 

That revision could be taken as an implied threat of sabotage if forced to bake the cake. I don't know if that crosses a legal threshold.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 




712 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 565


  Reply # 2054979 12-Jul-2018 13:06
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

That revision could be taken as an implied threat of sabotage if forced to bake the cake. I don't know if that crosses a legal threshold.

 

 

Perhaps...

 

Channelling "Kath" again, it might have been more along the lines of "My heart wouldn't be in it, so I can't guarantee that you'd receive my best work."

 

It certainly demonstrates the importance of choosing one's words wisely!

 

Though I did find it amusing to consider the hypothetical sabotage that a bigoted baker might engage in in this circumstance.  (Eg. Instead of using one measure of sugar and one measure of flour, using two measures of sugar to "try" and achieve the same outcome.)


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.