• Government threatens bakery for refusing to bake cake for lesbian wedding
    165 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Stroma;41923898]i support sex between two people if they consent, regardless of age. in some cases, this would be considered statutory rape, so in a sense i do support it.[/QUOTE] "i don't support pedophila, except when i do" -- stroma, 2013
Little Timid Tommy isn't really sure about sex, but he knows how angry Neighbor Joe can get, and he [I]really[/I] doesn't want that mean old Neighbor Joe to yell at him or tell his parents he was being disrespectful. "Okay," Timid Tommy mumbles. Jackpot! Now it's not rape! That's consent, it counts, no take-backs!
[QUOTE=lolz3;41923758]They refused to bake a cake, that is all. Go to another shop, tell people they discriminate and move on, but no, the government wants to hold hands and force people and make it law on how business should be run. Look at the A.D.A. people many people with disabilities loathe the A.D.A. because it forces people to be nice to them and hold their hand and get free passes.[/QUOTE] The right to refuse service to someone isn't intended to be abused simply to not service someone you disagree with or dislike. That would be discrimination which is illegal and supersedes the right to refuse service.
snip
neighbour stro and timid epicfail
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;41923838]You are just tripping all yourself, aren't you? In the same post, you stated that the law allows for people within a similar age group to engage in relationships, [I]and[/I] that it does not. [/QUOTE] Yes, my point exactly. I am pointing out the difference between what he believes and what people believe he is saying. My point is that he believes in consensual sex, and that he believes age doesn't constitute wether a person can consent or not (which I do not agree with completely). My addressing of the laws is in support (inextensively) of his belief. People are adamant in believing that he supports pedophilia, which he does not.
so to sum up, laws about discrimination exist to protect minorities, laws about consent exist to protect minors. if you're against either of these you're a stroma and nobody wants to be that!
[QUOTE=Stroma;41923954]i never said i didn't support paedophilia, as long as both parties consent[/QUOTE] for christs sake a child cannot legally consent. pedophilia is criminally defined as sex with a child. therefore theres no such thing as consenting pedophilia.
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;41923970]for christs sake a child cannot legally consent. pedophilia is criminally defined as sex with a child. therefore theres no such thing as consenting pedophilia.[/QUOTE] i've made it clear none of my posts are in a legal sense
I wouldn't want to give them my business if they refused service to me
[QUOTE=Stroma;41923991]i've made it clear none of my posts are in a legal sense[/QUOTE] ok so you honestly believe a 5 year old is understanding of what sex with a 40 year old entails??? give me a break!!!
[QUOTE=butre;41924011]I wouldn't want to give them my business if they refused service to me[/QUOTE] you wouldn't be able to give them your business if they refused service to you
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;41923940]Little Timid Tommy isn't really sure about sex, but he knows how angry Neighbor Joe can get, and he [I]really[/I] doesn't want that mean old Neighbor Joe to yell at him or tell his parents he was being disrespectful. "Okay," Timid Tommy mumbles. Jackpot! Now it's not rape! That's consent, it counts, no take-backs![/QUOTE] Cute. What is this addressing again? I hope you aren't saying that this is stroma's viewpoint, because the situation presented is in no way a form of consentual sex. That situation could be applied to adults too. Not directly, but having sex with someone to avoid repercussions isn't consent.
of course you think that's cute
[QUOTE=butre;41924011]I wouldn't want to give them my business if they refused service to me[/QUOTE] The customer in the article likely no longer cares about the cake. That's not what the legal battle is about anymore.
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;41924020]ok so you honestly believe a 5 year old is understanding of what sex with a 40 year old entails??? give me a break!!![/QUOTE] Nice emphasis with use of punctuation. Too bad your putting words in his mouth, otherwise this might have been the perfect burn.
[QUOTE=3picFail;41924038]Cute. What is this addressing again? I hope you aren't saying that this is stroma's viewpoint, because the situation presented is in no way a form of consentual sex. That situation could be applied to adults too. Not directly, but if having sex with someone to avoid repercussions isn't consent.[/QUOTE] This is the whole fuckin' point of statutory rape laws, ya donk. Children are not physically, emotionally, or mentally developed enough to make informed decisions about sex, [I]especially[/I] when the requests are coming from people older than them who they may view as figures of authority! Sexual consent from a child to an adult is impossible because of the inherent probability that the child is just doing what he or she thinks the adult wants them to do, and that not doing it would be wrong! Golly [I]gosh,[/I] how can you not see that?
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;41924136]Understanding what you're agreeing to is a prerequisite to giving consent, thus a 5 year old cannot give consent, when a 16 year old illegally can. You're intentionally misinterpreting his post to try and make him look bad and this kamikaze way of arguing is stupid and infantile.[/QUOTE] except he's talking about literal consent (as evidenced by him) which in its most basic form is just a affirmative response. and legally speaking no a 16 year old cannot consent to sex. replace sex with contract and everyone understands that no, a 16 year old cannot be the sole signer of a contract but when its sex everyones like woah who cares while yes it is a woah who cares, the point still stands that that sexual conduct was given out of consent
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;41924093]This is the whole fuckin' point of statutory rape laws, ya donk. Children are not physical, emotionally, or mentally developed enough to make informed decisions about sex, [I]especially[/I] when the requests are coming from people older than them who they may view as figures of authority! Sexual consent from a child to an adult is impossible because of the inherent probability that the child is just doing what he or she thinks the adult wants them to do, and that not doing it would be wrong! Golly [I]gosh,[/I] how can you not see that?[/QUOTE] Of course I realize that. People are getting too caught up over stroma's hypothetical. I'm not in support of pretty much anything he's saying, from his terrible hypothetical to his view that buisiness rights come before discrimination. I'm on the side of the people I'm arguing with for fucks sake, I'm just dissapointed that this thread became based around a single stupid comment. I guess i should address one more thing before its brought up again. I do believe that within a certain age range an adult can be in a relationship with a minor. I dated an 18 year old for a year when I was 15. Completely consensual, happy relationship. Why should the law consider that wrong? Well it should consider that wrong because thats not the case in every situation. If it seems that I was agreeing that minors should be able to consent, I wasn't. I'm saying there are exceptions.
What did the couple expect to happen by going to a christian bakery? I don't think private businesses should be forced to serve people they don't want to serve.
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;41924165]except he's talking about literal consent (as evidenced by him) which in its most basic form is just a affirmative response. and legally speaking no a 16 year old cannot consent to sex. replace sex with contract and everyone understands that no, a 16 year old cannot be the sole signer of a contract but when its sex everyones like woah who cares while yes it is a woah who cares, the point still stands that that sexual conduct was given out of consent[/QUOTE] What a dilapidated arguement of what other people have already been saying. Yes, it is realized that legally minors cannot consent. Stroma was pointing out that teenagers have sex anyways, and thats okay if both parties are consenting. Not legal, but legitimate consent means nobody is getting hurt. He never endorsed pedophilia.
[QUOTE=isnipeu;41924202]What did the couple expect to happen by going to a christian bakery? I don't think private businesses should be forced to serve people they don't want to serve.[/QUOTE] except that the private business is a "public accommodation" oregon has a antidiscrimination against all lgbt persons act that applies to public accommodations, ergo yes they are required to serve these people.
Yeah businesses are public accommodations unless they're like country clubs or something you need to be invited to, or churches I guess
-snip wow this thread was bigger than I thought it was-
[QUOTE=popbob;41921648][url]http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/08/23141-oregon-seeks-to-re-educate-christian-bakery-that-refuses-to-bake-cakes-for-homosexual-weddings/[/url][/QUOTE] I walked past this place 2 times today, was wondering why the fuck the news was posted up in front of a bakery.
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;41923970]for christs sake a child cannot legally consent. pedophilia is criminally defined as sex with a child. therefore theres no such thing as consenting pedophilia.[/QUOTE] pedophilia is the attraction to children, not the act of engaging in sexual acts with one.
I don't understand refusing to serve people Gay money is still money its not like they pay for everything with rainbow bucks or something
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.