I guess I am having difficulty squaring two of the things you've mentioned. If a devout Muslim barber can refuse to serve women and this is not seen as discrimination why can't a devout Christian refuse to participate in a gay wedding and get the same respect from you?

As to the idea that religious rights, or rights of conscience are subservient to rights of physical attributes or genetic predisposition I need more convincing. The Civil Rights Act doesn't favor one over the other. Religion ranks as an equal with race, color, sex and national origin. How are physical rights "more protected?"

An instance comes to mind where someone's religious rights are actually weighed as more important that your physical rights. Members of the Native American Church may legally use peyote. You and I will be arrested.

I see the argument of conscience vs. genetics upside down from where you've landed. So does the State of Oregon. Did you know, that if there is no reconciliation between the bakery and the State then State will move to 'rehabilitate?' Because something must be defective in the bakery owner's mind they need to be 'rehabilitated.' That is chilling. The very idea that your thoughts could be somehow suspect indicates that the State has concluded that thoughts are incredibly important. Because thoughts lead to behavior. Not only do they not want you behaving in a certain manner, they don't even want you thinking it. I reference 1984 and Animal Farm.

I am not sure that people know what they are asking for when they back this kind of intrusion. It might seem right to them at this moment, but when their counterparts are are in charge (because the pendulum swings), it makes one wonder what thoughts will be in the dock then. How will that law be used to root out contrary thinking then? I want to be free to think what I want to think. I want the privilege of being right and the privilege of being wrong. I also want you to have that privilege, as well.

As I have mentioned before, I think these laws are blunt. While I agree that people should not be discriminated against and I practice that in my own life, 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? How can they refuse since they already cater other events? We have opened the proverbial can of worms

@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.

Exactly, you didn't get the point. It isn't about punishing people for being hypocritical idiots, it's about calling them out for it and making clear that behaviour isn't ok.
Let's stick with the wedding cake example for a moment. It's not about forcing somebody to make a shitty cake a dozen other people can do as well or having them pay damages for percieved (by lawyers or pissed off grooms) emotional trauma. I would be perfectly fine with it if a judge ordered those kind of businessowners to just hang some Westboro Baptist style posters on their storefront and call it a day. At least then everybody knew with what kind of people they're dealing with.
The problem isn't that people with shitty opinions exist, they'll be always there, the problem is if we let them act as if it's normal and fine and not adress it.
You would crucify them if they'd say that sex with children is ok, you'd call them out if they were telling you black people should be glad their slave ancestors were treated so well. Shit, just try to open a mosque one block away from ground zero and someone will talk to you about that too.
Why is it wrong then if you confront them when they put gay relationships on the same level as people fucking their dogs or tell us that two fathers can't raise a son?
I was serious when I said I admire the Phelps familiy for their honesty. They're horrible, disgusting people but at least they made up their minds and stick to their beliefs. They won't come to us calling homosexuality a "controversial lifestyle" where you can have "differing opinions" than all the "gay friends they have". You fuck a bloke in the ass you go to hell, that's it. No cures, no dicussions. It's antisocial, cruel and stupid but at least, they very least, it's honest.
Those anti discrimination laws are just crude tool to protrect yourself from their stupid hatred. Not everybody lives in San Francisco where you call your transgender girlfriends for a protest sit in at the local homophobic bakery. Some people have only big brother on their side in their hometown.
It's not about getting your way, it's about stopping others from continuing taking a shit on you.

Again, you are making this out as they are being treated inhumane. In my example of the bakery. They couple that owned it didnt have any problems with the people. They just didnt want to be associated with a gay wedding due to their beliefs. LGBT in turn, ran them out of business because they didnt believe in their lifestyle.

The LBGT is nothing but a mafia type organization. Eventually they will be exposed for what they are.

I also dont want this topic to be about me vs the gay community. I could care less if some dude wants to suck another dudes dick or two ladies scissoring. If gays want to get married, godspeed. However, dont you dare tell me what I should or should not think about that. To me, the bigotry within the gay community is running rampage. They SHOUT that they arent being treated fairly but yet they do most of the persecuting.

I'm not talking about extremist. I'm talking about, for example, a bakery that doesnt want to bake a cake for a gay couples wedding due to religious beliefs. The gay couple then get the LGBT to start threatening and blackmailing them and the people that want to use the bakery. This kind of thing is happening more nowadays. Seems like gays think their beliefs are the only ones that matter.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'conan o brien, bakery, fantasy, fuck, dwarves' to 'conan o brien, bakery, fantasy, fuck, dwarves, game of thrones, pete holmes' - edited by xxovercastxx

Man...I miss Shakey's pizza-They had this uber-thin crispy-cracker crust and the ingredients in the late 70's (last time I saw Shakey's pizza open) were of a definably (through-taste-bud-memory), much higher quality. But maybe I've simply killed my taste buds from abuse...

I agree with whoever said essentially though, if you start with good pizza ingredients, you can't go too far south.

I too, dislike a ginormous amount of dough with a bite of pizza...thin-as-hell crust rocks-Stayed in Chicago for 2 months, never hadda slice of pizza-But I DID slam all-manner of Polish and German fare in small restaurants in the part of town I was staying in. Fresh bakeries of varied ethnicity is what I remember most-The BOMB is, fresh baked!

I do a deep-type dish pizza whenever I make a batch of dough and split it into two balls instead of three...But mines' not all runny and watery an shit like some glopstrosoties I've had...it's all in the water(vegetables) on the top-

Yeah, and fuck a buncha pineapple on pizza....maybe onna vacation camping-out as a have-to-I'm-famished boost...

Could someone explain to me.. what's the deal with Oreos?

As an European this didn't come to my country until a few years ago. So it was quite hyped in my brain (we consume alot of US film & TV) and I was quite exited to try them. And I've tried them, over and over, some 7-8 different times.

They are bland, quite dry and just doesn't taste no where close to as good or delicious as what I've grown up with. Are oreos plain and lacking, or is our domestic cookie industry (from home-made, to bakery's to industrial) superior to these mass-made-zzz-cirles ? I can whip up chocolat-y-er cookies in 20 minutes than oreos.

Youtubes -
@vincenttalleu Question-- Does the bread with the flat "pancake" placed on top have some name, or can you share a recipe? I mean the bread at 9:55, would definitely like to try baking it myself.
eeexxxaaaa 1 month ago

Hello, it's called pain auvergnat, we make it with white sourdough, but you could make with and dough really.
vincenttalleu in reply to eeexxxaaaa 1 month ago 2 >> ^oritteropo:

What are the loaves with hats at 9:54?

yet you manage to do both

>> ^bobknight33:

Hate the sin not the sinner.
>> ^PostalBlowfish:
>> ^bobknight33:
Christ not only would be proud He is proud

If your religious beliefs are true, I want you to continue thinking this so that it is impossible for you to avoid eternal punishment. That's not really true. I'm not that petty. But God is (allegedly).
Go back to judging and hating people. That's what you were told to do, after all!

Hate the sin not the sinner.

>> ^PostalBlowfish:

>> ^bobknight33:
Christ not only would be proud He is proud


If your religious beliefs are true, I want you to continue thinking this so that it is impossible for you to avoid eternal punishment. That's not really true. I'm not that petty. But God is (allegedly).
Go back to judging and hating people. That's what you were told to do, after all!

>> ^bobknight33:

Christ not only would be proud He is proud



If your religious beliefs are true, I want you to continue thinking this so that it is impossible for you to avoid eternal punishment. That's not really true. I'm not that petty. But God is (allegedly).

Go back to judging and hating people. That's what you were told to do, after all!

The great thing about this thread is that it gives me a good idea of the people I should be avoiding on this website.

"For people who are gay or support gay marriage...take solace in this: Gay marriage is happening... And your bonus is this: You get gay marriage, and all your political opponents are going to get is Type-II Diabetes." - John Stewart

>> ^lantern53:

Atheists crack me up. If there is no God, no afterlife, then man is free to do any damn thing he pleases, whether it is porking another man or killing a buttporker. Who's to judge? Yet atheists love to judge the Christian because the Christian does not live up to Christian values. Meanwhile, the atheist can have no values, and this is the most highly valued thing of all.

>> ^lantern53:

Atheists crack me up. If there is no God, no afterlife, then man is free to do any damn thing he pleases, whether it is porking another man or killing a buttporker. Who's to judge? Yet atheists love to judge the Christian because the Christian does not live up to Christian values. Meanwhile, the atheist can have no values, and this is the most highly valued thing of all.


Dude, what the fuck?

@bobknight33 makes all this effort to be the biggest asshole on the sift and then you just appear and one-up him. Not cool.

Why would you do that? What has he done to you? Seriously, that was all he had going for him in his pathetic little life.

And yet here you are, plumbing such depths of idiocy that I have actually run out of synonyms, metaphors and similes to mock you.

I'm glad atheists crack you up. It's good that you have something in your life, 'cos fuck knows it's certainly devoid of anything even remotely resembling culture, wit or intellect.

>> ^lantern53:

Atheists crack me up. If there is no God, no afterlife, then man is free to do any damn thing he pleases, whether it is porking another man or killing a buttporker. Who's to judge? Yet atheists love to judge the Christian because the Christian does not live up to Christian values. Meanwhile, the atheist can have no values, and this is the most highly valued thing of all.


"If there's no threat of eternal torture people can do whatever they want! What, reciprocity? Human responsibility? Goodness for goodness' sake? What witchcraft is that? I don't go kill the people my ancient book tells me to hate only because I'm afraid my sky-daddy will punish instead of reward me!"