You can make a baker out of anyone as long as the subject has 2 hands and a functional brain. That will probably taste shit as all other premade crap does.
/Baker

Looking forward to this. I've been binging on the old Doctor Whos, Series 7 & 8 (Jon Pertwee & Tom Baker). They are so different to the last few years. The old ones had a real sense of menace that few of the new stories have. Not as cartoonish and some like "Genesis of the daleks" are so bleak they would never make them now. Less swelling music and melodrama, more hard sci-fi.

Thanks Silvercord, I do believe you've articulated yourself here better than I have. I don't take much issue with anything you've said above and I think we agree more than we disagree.

You're right, I'm from Canada. I have a unique perspective of American culture at the same time as living in the most culturally diverse city in the world. Here, multiculturalism is enshrined in law. We see ourselves as a mosaic instead of a melting pot. Something I'm quite proud of. (but not all Canadians feel the same way) There are plenty of conflicts of culture to choose from around here.

But when I'm speaking about an individuals 'fundamental human rights', I'm not speaking as a Canadian, or Torontonian or North American, I'm speaking as a human. And when I stated that religious/cultural rights were trumped by physical ones I didn't mean to suggest they were non-existent. The Klu Klux Klan for example is a religious organization (or at least that's what they call them selves) as is the Westboro Baptist Church and it's because their rights "extend to the tips of their noses" that they can't impose their will over people they believe are lesser than themselves. They are free to carry hateful ideas around in their heads, (as is their "right") but if it causes them to commit hateful actions, they are breaking the law.

The same can be said of the baker and the photographer. Albeit of varying degrees. The reason the baker and photographer have a sacred idea of marriage being only between a man and a woman is because of an intolerance of homosexuality. You say they're not intolerant because they serve the gay community in every other aspect outside of marriage and I say if there is any way they treat the gay community differently than that is the very definition of discrimination. Again, it's just in varying degrees.

What if I held a religious belief that marriage was only between a white man and a white woman and refused to supply services to anyone outside of that definition? "Sorry we can't in good conscience go there. Oh, it's not you, it's me." I would be running my business in a discriminatory fashion and I would pay a fine. As it should be.

Might I suggest if you want to be selective as to who you will serve and who you won't based on the physical attributes someone was born with, that you keep those reasons to yourself and politely refuse service to those people citing a scheduling conflict or artistic differences. Because to stand up proudly saying you don't recognize gay marriage or mixed race coupling as your 'fundamental human right' is offensive. By all means, carry your intolerant ideas in your head, just don't carry out intolerant actions and think the rest of the community has to respect you for them.

"Let me ask you, have you ever seen a law change someone's heart? I haven't."

Um, no, you're right. It doesn't work that way. But laws do create culture if not for this generation, than for the next. As Yogi stated above; "Eventually these people will die, and the old husks and their followers left behind will spur further movements towards greater equality." A little harsh perhaps, but when you you think back to the '40s, '50s and '60s and the how attitudes and culture have changed for the Black community you can't deny that civil rights laws have made the world a better place, for equality and for everyone.

Some disconnected thoughts:

I didn't mean to say what you weren't saying. Apologies. I do like what you said here, "for her to use her basic human right to not be discriminated against as a woman to leverage those men into a difficult position, sounds like a crappy thing to do." Yes, a crappy thing. I think we'd better get used to it; at least in the United States where people want to adhere to the letter of the law when it comes to asserting their rights.

Am I wrong in assuming you live outside of the States? If so that makes it easy for me to understand your stance on religious rights being unequal with other rights.

I am not insisting that discrimination be protected. Far from it. If you were being discriminated against you would want me in your corner. I detest discrimination. What I find interesting about all of the cases you mentioned, the only reason a gay couple has given for asking the state to enforce the anti-discrimination laws is over the issue of marriage and the issue of marriage alone. The photographer and bakers apparently served the gay community in other capacities from their storefronts without incident. No lawsuits, no nothing. I think we have to ask 'why?" What is it specifically about marriage that would cause a Christian (or a Muslim, or any number of religions for that matter), to say, "I can't participate in that?" I suspect that if the couple in question had been a man and two or three women getting married that the business owners response would have been the same - that is not our understanding of marriage, sorry we can't in good conscience go there." At the risk of repeating myself, their refusal isn't about the people they refused. It is specifically about the act of marriage.

As an aside, I find it ironic to the nth degree that the State of Oregon is trying to legally compel the bakery owners to participate in a ceremony that is illegal in the State of Oregon. Marriage among gays in Oregon is illegal. Sigh. This is why I wish religion, of any sort, would get out of the business of telling people what to do. I would like to see a withdrawal from the legislation of religious tenets that are not in line with the US Constitution. Then gays could marry freely in this country and this argument could be put away.

Many of the problems in this world could be resolved if the religionists didn't feel like they needed to make everyone outside of their religion believe and behave like they do. As I see it, in a free society, a religious belief should not be able compel those outside that belief to do anything.

You may be familiar with openly gay author/blogger Andrew Sullivan who has written about this subject. He says: I would never want to coerce any fundamentalist to provide services for my wedding – or anything else for that matter – if it made them in any way uncomfortable. The idea of suing these businesses to force them to provide services they are clearly uncomfortable providing is anathema to me. I think it should be repellent to the gay rights movement as well.

There is, of course, extensive writing on this issue by all sides and we may never be able to untangle it here but I have enjoyed getting your perspective.



“what is to stop the members of Westboro Baptist Church from showing up at a bakery run by gays and demand they cater an anti-gay event?” answer; Anti-discrimination laws.

I hope you're right. I hope we never have an opportunity to find out. But here is, in part, the text of Oregon's law:

Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.

"Religion" doesn't not have a special designation of 'unless' in there. I can see those Westboro Baptist a-holes notice that and will have some gay bakers baking a cake for them every day of the week.

All of this discussion is really a digression of my initial post which was to say: If our communities were stronger, if we'd risk more relationally, if we'd put down the electronics and get to know each other, it sure would be a lot easier to get along. We would have less use for the legal system to resolve our differences.

Let me ask you, have you ever seen a law change someone's heart? I haven't.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't suggest the Muslim men were not discriminating. I simply stated that the Canadian woman who wanted to force devout Muslim men to cut her hair, for her to use her basic human right to not be discriminated against as a woman to leverage those men into a difficult position, sounds like a crappy thing to do. Just as if a mixed race couple were to find Archie Bunker to ask him to cater their wedding solely for the purpose of crying foul when they get discriminated against by the well known racist.

But that's not what's going on with the wedding couple, the photographer or the bakers. You are insisting that discrimination should be protected as a fundamental human right if someone calls it their “religion” and I find that idea abhorrent. So does the State of Oregon.

The bakers can't discriminate against a gay couple on religious grounds just as Archie Bunker can't deny blacks from drinking from the same water fountain as him. The difference between these two analogies is Archie Bunker wouldn't then turn around and suggest that his right to be a bigot is a fundamental human right that is on par with black's rights to not be discriminated against.

“what is to stop the members of Westboro Baptist Church from showing up at a bakery run by gays and demand they cater an anti-gay event?” answer; Anti-discrimination laws.

As stated many times above, your right to religion extends to the tip of your nose. That's how and why physical rights trump religious rights.

@Hanover_Phist

@ChaosEngine

There are several cases currently being discussed in the US regarding Christians not wanting to support a gay marriage either through attending/participating (photographer) or by providing goods thereby giving the impression that they celebrate gay marriage (wedding cakes, etc.). The case with which I am most familiar is the Oregon couple who decided not to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Here is my understanding: The bakers were already serving gays and lesbians in the course of their day-to-day business. In fact, the couple whom they refused to provide with a wedding cake were already walk-in customers of the bakery. So, this isn't 'you're gay, you can't come in here.' This isn't a case of bigotry. They aren't saying, "I'm not going to serve you because of who you are." They are saying, "I can't do that wedding because of who I am." Bigotry says, "you can't come in here because you're black, gay, asian, white, straight, muslim, whatever." The bakers said, 'you are welcome here. We can serve you. You are also welcome to get married, however, we are not able to go there with you.'

In Canada, a woman went to a Muslim barbershop which only serves men. She demanded a haircut. Devout Muslim men are not allowed to touch a woman who is not a member of their own family. They denied her a haircut based not on who she was, but on who they were. They offered to find her a barber who would cut her hair. Not good enough. She pressed the issue. It became a case of what is now called 'conflicting rights.'

This is what has begun and will increase - cases of conflicting rights. People on both sides have rights. But the law is so blunt that all it has been able to accomplish at this point is to protect one side of those rights. I think that sooner or later our Supreme Court is going to have to take up this issue although, to date, they have been reticent to do so.

I would rather err on the side of love than the side of law any day. Love knows how to protect everyone.

From ESPN: Rodman's squad -- featuring ex-All Stars Kenny Anderson, Cliff Robinson and Vin Baker -- will play against a team of North Koreans on Wednesday, which is believed to be Kim's birthday. The former NBA players, who arrived in Pyongyang on Monday, also include Eric "Sleepy" Floyd, guard Doug Christie and Charles D. Smith, who played for the New York Knicks. Four streetball players also are on the squad.

What? Nazis? Really?
Are the homos spraypainting yellow crosses on doors in your town again?

Stop acting like you're a victim here. If the gay community could ruin anybodys livelyhood they'd start with the republican party or foxnews (both are doing fine) and not some shitty baker. What might ruin these businesses is not knowing their countries laws (you can't refuse service to select individuals and you can't sell whiskey to 10 year olds no matter what your gods have to say about it) and alienating customers with their douchebaggery. People don't want cake from a homophobe the same way they don't want drinks served by white supremacists or drycleaning from somebody who thinks rape is a crime made up by ungrateful sluts who should've dressed less like whores.

If your community thinks you're an antisocial idiot, it will shun you. They only thing that has changed is why people consider you unworthy of their business.

As I said, the wedding cake business isn't something everybody is cut out to stomach.

If you believe the baker should be able to turn away a gay couple on the basis of having the freedom to express their beliefs in who they conduct business with, you're free to do so. But if you want to be consistent, then you should also believe that the gay couple should be able to express their opinions to others about the baker's bigoted practice.

If you're taking about someone threatening or blackmailing another person, there's a legal code you can refer to, and that's entirely a different matter.

So you're ok with atheist bakers not making your wedding cake for religious reasons?
Can a jewish mayor refuse you your business licenses because your "Everything Bacon!" store is against his beliefs?
Is it ok if I ask your mother to cover up her shame with a burka for religious reasons?
Can a doctor become a christian scientist and start prescribing exclusively prayer as cancer treatment for little children too? You know, for religious reasons.

You see what I did there?
Nobody gives a crap what you do to yourself in the name of your religion but don't expect us to play by your imaginary rules. You don't want to bake gay wedding cakes? Maybe the wedding cake business just isn't for you. Or maybe you should move to Iran, no gay weddings there and people are very religious as well. You might like it there.

I'd like the next two to be a challenge of baker's gold proportions if anyone dare place the task upon me, ...no exotic ingredients or process being too extravagant-

Oh my god, I'm a dumbass, I seemed to have skimmed over the cookie part, haha. Ok, well I've never made them before, I'm not much of a baker, but I heard about these bacon cookies this one time...

WITCH! Quick go get a sack of ugly cats, a baker's dozen cardboard tubes, and some Chili pepper string lights... incandescent. We shall find out the source of his evil power!

I kinda hope this turns into a meme. Matt Smith regenerates into... TOM BAKER.
or TOM CRUISE, or EPIC BEARD GUY
etc. etc.

Excellent stuff, all around. It's nice to have a comprehensive overview over certain aspects of (y)our economic system instead of having to rely on piecemeal analysis by Baker, Stiglitz, Krugman, Galbraith, DeLong and the likes.

I watched the November issue last night and it made me appreciate even more that we still have a proper socialist party in our parliament, including a communist wing. They are still considered pariahs, yet their presence alone suffices to keep the other parties from following the British Tories' footsteps -- what a nasty bunch of inhumane wankers they continuously reveal themselves to be.