| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/19/2014 04:50:47 PM · #6426 |
| To be fair, Tom does have a good point with the photographer as participant concept. A couple decades ago I photographed the Indy 500 for a corporate sponsor, and ever since my business card has said "Participant in the 1996 Indy 500." I think that's only fair. |
|
|
|
12/19/2014 05:29:34 PM · #6427 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
To be fair, Tom does have a good point with the photographer as participant concept. A couple decades ago I photographed the Indy 500 for a corporate sponsor, and ever since my business card has said "Participant in the 1996 Indy 500." I think that's only fair. |
No offence, but all that tells me is that we have a different interpretation of just what a participant is.
Drivers are participants, as are pit crews and judges. Others would (from my perspective) fall in the category of spectators and service providers.
During my tenure in the RCMPolice I was called upon on many occasions to work at a variety of Canadian power boat regattas, but have never considered myself a participant for doing so.
Ray |
|
|
|
12/19/2014 05:48:41 PM · #6428 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Good grief, I guess my marriage is null and void... we didn`t have wedding cake.
No one is suggesting that the cake in not an unmportant part of the wedding. |
So first you're using sarcasism to state a wedding cake isn't needed and not important. Then you turn around and say the exact opposite (a wedding cake is important).
I'm confused. Is the wedding an integral part of the ceremony or not? A gift given from the couple to their guests for the celebration of the wedding?
If it is, then the maker of the work of art (the wedding cake) becomes personally connected to it. I would think photographers like us would understand what goes into the creation of these things.
It seems a wedding cake is no big deal to you (since you didn't have one and don't care), so I can see how you wouldn't understand. It is important to some people. People who make them. People who sue others in court over them.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2014 05:52:32 PM · #6429 |
Hey, I got my wedding cake from a grocery store. A rather nice grocery store, and a rather nice cake.
It was a cake. It was no more art than any of the other prepared foods available at the store. Are a cake shop's cakes more arty? Are their cupcakes, or pastries? Or is is JUST the wedding cakes that qualify as art?
Because if it extends beyond "wedding cake" to "any food I prepare with a level of craft that I personally like to think has risen to art" you've just discovered a great way to keep those pesky gays out of gastropubs and elegant restaurants, hopefully starving them all to death. |
|
|
|
12/19/2014 06:02:49 PM · #6430 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Hey, I got my wedding cake from a grocery store. A rather nice grocery store, and a rather nice cake.
It was a cake. It was no more art than any of the other prepared foods available at the store. Are a cake shop's cakes more arty? Are their cupcakes, or pastries? Or is is JUST the wedding cakes that qualify as art?
Because if it extends beyond "wedding cake" to "any food I prepare with a level of craft that I personally like to think has risen to art" you've just discovered a great way to keep those pesky gays out of gastropubs and elegant restaurants, hopefully starving them all to death. |
We bought our flowers/center pieces from the local store (Vons). We had friends cater our wedding and make our cake. A sheet cake with a swan on top complete with a taxidermy swan head so it looked real.
But really? Starving people to death? That's just mean.
(I had to look up what a "gastropub" was.) |
|
|
|
12/19/2014 06:04:38 PM · #6431 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Good grief, I guess my marriage is null and void... we didn`t have wedding cake.
No one is suggesting that the cake in not an unmportant part of the wedding. |
So first you're using sarcasism to state a wedding cake isn't needed and not important. Then you turn around and say the exact opposite (a wedding cake is important).
I'm confused. Is the wedding an integral part of the ceremony or not? A gift given from the couple to their guests for the celebration of the wedding?
If it is, then the maker of the work of art (the wedding cake) becomes personally connected to it. I would think photographers like us would understand what goes into the creation of these things.
It seems a wedding cake is no big deal to you (since you didn't have one and don't care), so I can see how you wouldn't understand. It is important to some people. People who make them. People who sue others in court over them. |
A tad short in your rebuttal. Try addressing the points I did raise.
I never said a cake was not important (for others) but it most certainly was not a big issue of consideration for either my spouse, myselfl or the invited guests.
I will definitely agree with one point you raised... you indeed are confused.
Go back, re-read what I wrote and tell me where I am wrong and please give me a concrete example.
I have built homes for people, an exercise that I believe takes a great deal more effort than baking a cake and truth be told, I have no personal connection to any of these homes. I was paid to do something and did it... end of story.
Ray |
|
|
|
12/19/2014 06:07:20 PM · #6432 |
| What if the couple had just ordered a three-tiered white-frosted cake for a "party" they were having ... |
|
|
|
12/19/2014 07:14:48 PM · #6433 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Go back, re-read what I wrote and tell me where I am wrong and please give me a concrete example. |
Don't hold your breath Ray. You lost me at:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I hate to say this, but you have tied your argument with a slip knot and you can rest assured that most of society is pulling on that end which will unbind the shackles that you and those who think like you would continue to impose on a segment of society whose lifestyles you don't agree with. |
Come on. Shackles I and others continue to impose?
I'm sorry I even engaged your argument. You relate your police work to a marriage. They are not even in the same ball park.
Don't wait for a response from me. I'm giving up on your arguments. |
|
|
|
12/19/2014 07:21:06 PM · #6434 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Don't wait for a response from me. I'm giving up on your arguments. |
Figured so... No valid counter hence no retort.
I never equated my work to marriage, but rather to those functions of the baker. Rather sad that you could not decipher that message. Then again, considering the contents of your counters I am not the least bit surprised that you would have reached that conclusion.
All factors considered, I guess that you response is a bit better than say "Whatever`.
Have a Merry Christmas.
Ray |
|
|
|
12/19/2014 10:23:02 PM · #6435 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
You relate your police work to a marriage. They are not even in the same ball park. |
You equated baking and photography work to marriage. Same difference. |
|
|
|
12/19/2014 11:10:49 PM · #6436 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Nullix:
You relate your police work to a marriage. They are not even in the same ball park. |
You equated baking and photography work to marriage. Same difference. |
If you see police at a wedding, something's wrong. It's not the same if you have a photographer and a baker there. |
|
|
|
12/20/2014 02:10:42 AM · #6437 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
If you see police at a wedding, something's wrong. It's not the same if you have a photographer and a baker there. |
Dang, now police can't get married in your little world either! Photographers and bakers provide services for weddings. Not Baptist weddings, not interracial weddings, not Italian weddings, not interfaith weddings or gay weddings, but weddings, period. The label is irrelevant to the business, and using them to discriminate is a direct contradiction of the very beliefs you claim to hold so dear. |
|
|
|
12/20/2014 06:09:50 AM · #6438 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
If you see police at a wedding, something's wrong. It's not the same if you have a photographer and a baker there. |
I really ought to send you some photos of my wedding just so you could see how absurd your comment is.
Ray |
|
|
|
12/20/2014 10:13:39 AM · #6439 |
Because the Huffington Post is an authority on Christian views? Or trying to sell news?
Originally posted by article:
Christian faith demands that they refuse service to people they believe to be sinners. |
There's the incorrect assumption.
Due to original sin, Christians believe we are all sinners. That would give license to discriminate all.
We don't want to discriminate the person, we want to discriminate the act. With Christians, we separate the person from their actions. You're not gay. You're a person attracted to people of the same sex.
That's why a Christian baker can sell a cake to a person, but have a problem if its used in an action that's against their religion.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2014 04:18:12 PM · #6440 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
We don't want to discriminate the person, we want to discriminate the act. With Christians, we separate the person from their actions. |
Then clearly you're not a Christian since you're arguing for discrimination against the person separate from any gay act. A cake isn't "used" in the religious fiction of homosexual sin any more than a burrito is used to commit the crime of armed robbery. Not that it matters much since yesterday's 7-2 Supreme Court refusal to block gay marriage in Florida is a clear signal that your feigned belief is on a fast track to the same historic dustbin as similar excuses for bigotry toward interfaith and interracial marriages. You're a dinosaur clinging to imaginary reptilian superiority after the asteroid already hit. You just haven't succumbed to the fallout yet. |
|
|
|
12/20/2014 10:28:46 PM · #6441 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Come on. Shackles I and others continue to impose? |
You may want to peruse a dictionary sometimes and look up the term and you may find this "Metaphorically, a fetter may be anything that restricts or restrains in any way, hence the word "unfettered".
When people such as yourself engage in activities that would restrict those of others then you are effectively "shackling" them. No one is asking the baker to become an active participant in the event... all he need do is bake the cake and he is done.
Out of curiosity, do you have any protestant friends that got divorced and then remarried. Assuming that you do, and bearing in mind that the marriage ceremony contains the following phrase: "What God hath joined together let no man put asunder", just how do you consider that the vows are sacrosanct and cannot be interfered with by the courts.
Sad thing is that your rantings are based solely on your personal biases and cannot be supported by either legal interpretations nor church dogma.
Ray
|
|
|
|
12/21/2014 03:38:11 AM · #6442 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Sad thing is that your rantings are based solely on your personal biases and cannot be supported by either legal interpretations nor church dogma. |
Since you're the expert, can you show me where I'm deviating fro church dogma? |
|
|
|
12/21/2014 04:58:34 AM · #6443 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Sad thing is that your rantings are based solely on your personal biases and cannot be supported by either legal interpretations nor church dogma. |
Since you're the expert, can you show me where I'm deviating fro church dogma? |
Read my post again... I am sure you will find it in there.
Ray |
|
|
|
12/21/2014 10:54:30 AM · #6444 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Out of curiosity, do you have any protestant friends that got divorced and then remarried. Assuming that you do, and bearing in mind that the marriage ceremony contains the following phrase: "What God hath joined together let no man put asunder", just how do you consider that the vows are sacrosanct and cannot be interfered with by the courts.
Sad thing is that your rantings are based solely on your personal biases and cannot be supported by either legal interpretations nor church dogma.
Ray |
Then you truly don't understand the Christian church nor the Christian religion.
There's a reason they are called Protestants. They are "protesting" church dogma. How do you think the Protestant Church of England was started? King Henry VIII wanted to devorce his wife and the Church wouldn't let him. So King Henry started the Church of England.
You are also very presumptuous that I would agree with devorce and remarriage.
You seem to have many bad assumptions (along with bad arguments.) |
|
|
|
12/21/2014 11:11:22 AM · #6445 |
back in my church going days the pastor once told the congregation to write the word Jesus. then on top of it write very single christian denomination you can think of. at the end of the exercise we were to try and decipher what the original word was.
I wonder if Jesus knew that we humans would fuck up his message. |
|
|
|
12/21/2014 03:12:18 PM · #6446 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Since you're the expert, can you show me where I'm deviating fro church dogma? |
Here's an interesting thought for you anti-gay folks....
Matthew 7:1-3
7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Just sayin.....
|
|
|
|
12/21/2014 03:22:28 PM · #6447 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Out of curiosity, do you have any protestant friends that got divorced and then remarried. Assuming that you do, and bearing in mind that the marriage ceremony contains the following phrase: "What God hath joined together let no man put asunder", just how do you consider that the vows are sacrosanct and cannot be interfered with by the courts.
Sad thing is that your rantings are based solely on your personal biases and cannot be supported by either legal interpretations nor church dogma.
Ray |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Then you truly don't understand the Christian church nor the Christian religion. |
With all the contradictions and changes, it's no wonder. That's why so many of us view it with scorn.
We meet one rabid anti-gay person one day with his rigid sense of outrage, then the next day we meet a woman who is naught BUT kind and forgiving and does not hold gays in contempt. And they both call themselves Christians. So which one is the Christian?
Originally posted by Nullix:
There's a reason they are called Protestants. They are "protesting" church dogma. How do you think the Protestant Church of England was started? King Henry VIII wanted to devorce his wife and the Church wouldn't let him. So King Henry started the Church of England. |
Yeah......don't like the rules, but still want to beat others over the head with YOUR God.....start a new denomination.
Originally posted by Nullix:
You are also very presumptuous that I would agree with devorce and remarriage.
You seem to have many bad assumptions (along with bad arguments.) |
It's DIVORCE and as someone whose family actually gets along more harmoniously since we don't live together, who are you, or your religion to tell me I'm wrong?
Oh, WAIT!!!! I forgot! You're a CHRISTIAN!
Live YOUR way, or it's wrong!
Got it........but no thanks. |
|
|
|
12/21/2014 03:40:48 PM · #6448 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
It's DIVORCE and as someone whose family actually gets along more harmoniously since we don't live together, who are you, or your religion to tell me I'm wrong?
Oh, WAIT!!!! I forgot! You're a CHRISTIAN!
Live YOUR way, or it's wrong!
Got it........but no thanks. |
No, I was working with Ray's invalid assumptions.
I have no problem with you having a better relationship with your family by separating. If it makes things better, you would be the best person to make those decisions. That's a difficult decision for a father and a husband to make.
However, Please don't sue me or force me to participate in your remarriage if that's something against my conscience. |
|
|
|
12/21/2014 04:19:09 PM · #6449 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Out of curiosity, do you have any protestant friends that got divorced and then remarried. Assuming that you do, and bearing in mind that the marriage ceremony contains the following phrase: "What God hath joined together let no man put asunder", just how do you consider that the vows are sacrosanct and cannot be interfered with by the courts.
Sad thing is that your rantings are based solely on your personal biases and cannot be supported by either legal interpretations nor church dogma.
Ray |
Then you truly don't understand the Christian church nor the Christian religion.
There's a reason they are called Protestants. They are "protesting" church dogma. How do you think the Protestant Church of England was started? King Henry VIII wanted to devorce his wife and the Church wouldn't let him. So King Henry started the Church of England.
You are also very presumptuous that I would agree with devorce and remarriage.
You seem to have many bad assumptions (along with bad arguments.) |
You are sadly mistaken, since the those traits lay exclusively in your camp.
In case you missed it, do you agree that a divorced person should not be able to re-marry in some Christian churches. In case you don't know it, that too is a rule that prevails in certain Christian religions... or is yours the only TRUE Christian religion.
I never said anything about your personal beliefs, what I did ask is, "just how do you consider that the vows are sacrosanct and cannot be interfered with by the courts"... there is a difference.
In passing, you might want to peruse the contents of Corinthians 7:1 and see what it says there about seperation and divorce... or is that one of those rules that don't apply any more.
Have to run... I didn't travel all the way to Australia to discuss legal issues with someone who cannot support one single counter with a legal argument. I am off to enjoy the sites.
Have a great day.
Ray
Message edited by author 2014-12-21 16:24:02. |
|
|
|
12/22/2014 12:43:57 PM · #6450 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
That's why a Christian baker can sell a cake to a person, but have a problem if its used in an action that's against their religion. |
Okay let me simplify things a bit.
Nullix just established a baseline for acceptable discrimination: "something being used in an action that's against their religion." That's a lot more concrete than the hand-wavy "but it's art!" baseline offered earlier.
I brought up grocery stores intentionally in an earlier post. They provide lots of calories and nutrients, when it comes down to it. Some calories and nutrients are more appealing than others, but food is food. You're buying sustenance, and some of that sustenance is going to be used to sustain super gay stuff, like two dudes spooning on the couch while watching Drag Race, or setting up an xmas tree in a house with two dudes' names on the mortgage. I mean, a case could be made that every last calorie or nutrient you cram into someone gay is being used for actions that are against Christianity. We know that gays should and deserve to be stoned to death... every resource spent sustaining their non-dead-and-still-avoiding-hell state is effectively contravening The Bible.
Ergo, if the litmus is "something being used in an action that's against their religion" I'm going to double right down on the "starve to death" angle not being "mean" but a logical consequence of this baseline. Calories and nutrients fall under the category of things, and they are undeniably used to power every last act committed by homosexuals. It would be within the religious grocery store manager's rhetorical right to keep Safeway's food safe... from the gays. They know full well that some or all of that food is going towards gay acts (the line dividing sin and sinner is kind of subjective, you know) like mistletoe smooching, or stuffing matching hand-knit monogrammed stockings with tiny gifts to hang by the chimney with care.
Now, I don't want to presume about the private lives of my peers, so I'm not going to hazard a guess as to what percent of the calories and nutrients are going towards the really bad gay stuff, like touching, instead of the not quite as bad gay stuff, like being gay, so my recommendation to the concerned faith practitioner is to avoid selling any gays any food at all, just in case. This approach should be comfortingly familiar, it's the same basic rationale used to try to ban hormonal birth control because it has no other uses besides preventing pregnancy and nobody takes it to improve their cramps or anything.
|
|
