Double standard on gay tolerance / intolerance

[fskimospy]

You know what I don't like? The expression: "Have your cake and eat it, too." So, why they fuck can't I eat the cake that I have? Is there something wrong about possessing a cake and eating it? Are they just for decoration, or are we supposed to wait for some fascist dickhole to show up and take all our cakes so that they can eat them?

This has never made any sense to me.

It means you can't both eat a cake and still possess that same cake. ie: both eating a cake and having a cake to eat are things people want/like, but you have to make a choice between the two because they are mutually exclusive.

 

[Subyman]

So is asking someone to write "oppose gay marriage" on a cake hate speech then? Also I certainly don't remember the left defending the gay baker's refusal on the grounds of turning away all political speech on cakes either, they defended his right to refuse this particular political speech. How about speech that's just in questionable taste, like "Hitler did nothing wrong"? Or calling Mohammed a pedophile, or any other number of things a business would find objectionable?

Basically the left wants their cake and to eat it too. They're fine with limiting speech from people they dislike (Westboro Baptist Church, anyone opposed to gay marriage, any conservative trying to speak at a public college, etc) and use their heckler's veto to shout them down. But they'll try to crucify any misguided soul who expresses anything less than an enthusiastic embrace of their pet minority groups. I'm not advocating for the right for those people to be discriminatory towards gays or anyone else, I'd just like the left to be intellectually consistent and they aren't.

IMO Catering a cake saying "Fred and Steve's Wedding" is not something you could object to from a business stand point. Its just a wedding. But if it had the political statement like you showed ("oppose gay marriage") then they could object to that. The same as they could object to other unprotected speech such as curse words.

I think we are straying from the point though. You can't deny service because of who someone is. You can deny service for anything you want unless its a protected class. I think it comes down to what the public deems is "obscene" and what some individuals personally find obscene. Gay marriage is not obscene in the fed's eyes, but may be for some people. Just like blacks may be seen as obscene to some.

 

[werepossum]

You know what I don't like? The expression: "Have your cake and eat it, too." So, why they fuck can't I eat the cake that I have? Is there something wrong about possessing a cake and eating it? Are they just for decoration, or are we supposed to wait for some fascist dickhole to show up and take all our cakes so that they can eat them?

This has never made any sense to me.

lol Originally the saying was "Eat your cake and have it too", which to me is a bit more clear. You must have your cake before you eat it, which is why it doesn't make sense to say "You can't have your cake and eat it too", whereas if you eat your cake, you can no longer have it from that point forth. (Assuming you subscribe to a linear time continuum. Or at least your cake subscribes to a linear time continuum.) Logically however they are the same, two mutually exclusive options, but I admit it bugs me too.

None of this changes the fact that the cake is a lie.

 

[zinfamous]

lol Originally the saying was "Eat your cake and have it too", which to me is a bit more clear. You must have your cake before you eat it, which is why it doesn't make sense to say "You can't have your cake and eat it too", whereas if you eat your cake, you can no longer have it from that point forth. (Assuming you subscribe to a linear time continuum. Or at least your cake subscribes to a linear time continuum.) Logically however they are the same, two mutually exclusive options, but I admit it bugs me too.

None of this changes the fact that the cake is a lie.

oh. so the expression has been perverted over the years to a confusing and meaningless version.

Well, I could care less about that.

whatever--I'd rather pie, anyway.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

oh. so the expression has been perverted over the years to a confusing and meaningless version.

Well, I could care less about that.

whatever--I'd rather pie, anyway.

Well no. People just recite it wrong, like alot of modern song lyrics.

The correct phrase is still regularly.

 

[smackababy]

oh. so the expression has been perverted over the years to a confusing and meaningless version.

Well, I could care less about that.

whatever--I'd rather pie, anyway.

I feel like this is a troll post, but I'll bite anyway. You could care less? How much less, exactly? If you have the ability to care less about something, why would you state it?

As far as the cake saying, it makes perfect sense you just didn't understand. One cannot maintain possession of a cake AND consume it.

 

[glenn1]

IMO Catering a cake saying "Fred and Steve's Wedding" is not something you could object to from a business stand point. Its just a wedding. But if it had the political statement like you showed ("oppose gay marriage") then they could object to that. The same as they could object to other unprotected speech such as curse words.

I think we are straying from the point though. You can't deny service because of who someone is. You can deny service for anything you want unless its a protected class. I think it comes down to what the public deems is "obscene" and what some individuals personally find obscene. Gay marriage is not obscene in the fed's eyes, but may be for some people. Just like blacks may be seen as obscene to some.

So you could theoretically decline to make a cake that says "support gay marriage," but that option completely depends on whether the person asking you to do so was a member of a protected class? That doesn't even make sense and is terrible public policy on its face.

 

[zinfamous]

I feel like this is a troll post, but I'll bite anyway. You could care less? How much less, exactly? If you have the ability to care less about something, why would you state it?

As far as the cake saying, it makes perfect sense you just didn't understand. One cannot maintain possession of a cake AND consume it.

irregardless of your attempt to correct me, I still believe that you are wrong.

 

[zinfamous]

as far as cake goes--I guess it's the use of the term "have." Have doesn't outright imply that the possession is indefinite, or eternal. Maybe with a term like "keep," it would be more clear.

Everyone has a cake, or a pie, until they eat it. "Have" has still fulfilled the general meaning of the term. No one keeps a cake or pie. You can no longer "have" something. But you can't no longer "keep" something.

...just saying.

 

[WHAMPOM]

I feel like this is a troll post, but I'll bite anyway. You could care less? How much less, exactly? If you have the ability to care less about something, why would you state it?

As far as the cake saying, it makes perfect sense you just didn't understand. One cannot maintain possession of a cake AND consume it.

Take a photo and eat the damn cake?


Or "You are what you eat" is an actual scientific proven fact. Which proves by my logic the only way to "have" a cake is to eat it. Besides who has a cake without the intention of eating it? Your Gramma's petrified piece of Wedding Cake sitting forgotten in a closet.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Aww! Poor cake lady for refuseing to bake a Wedding cake she was in business to do, you would have thought she was asked to donate the cake and give the Bride away. Poor Hobby Lobby too. Had to go to court so they could dictate their religious dogma onto employees' needed health care.

Seems to be a lot of "you cannot have the same rights I have or as much rights."

 

[dank69]

irregardless of your attempt to correct me, I still believe that you are wrong.

For all intensive purposes, you could of been obviouser.

 

[realibrad]

For all intensive purposes, you could of been obviouser.

Your right.

 

[inachu]

As a straight man I used to hang out in lesbian only bars.

I would not hit on any woman and the butch manly females would give me the most evil eye on earth as they have their arms around their bubble gum girly girl.

I knew it would be no chance so I did not even try. I went there for no stress drinking at the bar. The lesbian bartender understood me very well and always liked our talks.

This was back in 80's in Arkansas at Susan B Anthony Lesbian bar in Little Rock across from the King Fish Dance Club.

I wonder if it is still there. Many of those lesbians were super cool.

 

[smackababy]

as far as cake goes--I guess it's the use of the term "have." Have doesn't outright imply that the possession is indefinite, or eternal. Maybe with a term like "keep," it would be more clear.

Everyone has a cake, or a pie, until they eat it. "Have" has still fulfilled the general meaning of the term. No one keeps a cake or pie. You can no longer "have" something. But you can't no longer "keep" something.

...just saying.

Have: 1. possess, own, or hold.

If you "eat it too", you only hold it in your bowels for half a day. You no longer "have" it.

 

[zinfamous]

Have: 1. possess, own, or hold.

If you "eat it too", you only hold it in your bowels for half a day. You no longer "have" it.

exactly. you no longer have it. now the toilet has it, I guess. You only have something until you no longer have it.

If I keep something, that means I always possess it.

serious discussion.

 

[smackababy]

exactly. you no longer have it. now the toilet has it, I guess. You only have something until you no longer have it.

If I keep something, that means I always possess it.

serious discussion.

You cannot have something after you've consumed it. Therefore, the saying "you cannot have your cake and eat it too" remains factual and nonnonsensical.

 

[zinfamous]

You cannot have something after you've consumed it. Therefore, the saying "you cannot have your cake and eat it too" remains factual and nonnonsensical.

If it were, as seems to be the actual phrasing: "eat your cake and have it, too," then I would agree with you.

however, one can not eat cake without first having cake. Therefore, you absolutely can have your cake and eat it, too; as it is the only way to complete that transaction in any sensible manner.

Again, have is a transitory state. Permanence is not necessarily implied with "have." "Keep" is, well, for "keeps"

You definitely can't keep a cake and eat it, too. That statement works either way you phrase it.

 

[smackababy]

If it were, as seems to be the actual phrasing: "eat your cake and have it, too," then I would agree with you.

however, one can not eat cake without first having cake. Therefore, you absolutely can have your cake and eat it, too; as it is the only way to complete that transaction in any sensible manner.

Again, have is a transitory state. Permanence is not necessarily implied with "have." "Keep" is, well, for "keeps"

You definitely can't keep a cake and eat it, too. That statement works either way you phrase it.

One can not exist in a state of eated cake and haved cake, so the word order is insignificant.

 

[glenn1]

One can not exist in a state of eated cake and haved cake, so the word order is insignificant.

Schrödinger's cake?

 

[dank69]

One can not exist in a state of eated cake and haved cake, so the word order is insignificant.

I ate half of my cake. What now, bitch?

 

[rudeguy]

I can't stress this enough; other countries can go to hell.

Let's bomb them!

:awe:

 

[zinfamous]

Schrödinger's cake?

this

 

[artvscommerce]

i must admit; i'm quite fascinated by your extreme fascination with everything "gay"

 

[zinfamous]

i must admit; i'm quite fascinated by your extreme fascination with everything "gay"

Texastugger loves tugging the cock.