Thoughts on the gay cake case

[minkymurph]

Was due to Mr Lee being a regular customer. It wasn’t a fat couple entering he shop asking for s cake but just Mr Lee

I don’t see how the fact that Mr Lee being a regular customer proves they were not set up.

Mr Lee asked for a cake with Bert and Ernie and Support Gay Marriage on it. When I heard the case was going to court, I was not at all surprised Asher’s Bakery had refused to make the cake. I would have been more surprised if they had agreed to make it.

This is a small part of the world. The McArthur family are well knows as is their religious disposition. The bakery is named after one of the twelve tribes of Israel and it is well known this is a consequence of the families religious beliefs. Those of their faith community who share their views are very vocal about their opposition to same sex marriage and homosexuality.

I would find it hard to believe Mr Lee was unaware of any of this - particularly if he was a regular customer. Giving him the benefit of the doubt it is possible he naively thought there would be no issue with the cake, but being a natural cynic I find it hard to believe he was that naive.

 

[Benjamin12]

I don’t see how the fact that Mr Lee being a regular customer proves they were not set up.

Mr Lee asked for a cake with Bert and Ernie and Support Gay Marriage on it. When I heard the case was going to court, I was not at all surprised Asher’s Bakery had refused to make the cake. I would have been more surprised if they had agreed to make it.

This is a small part of the world. The McArthur family are well knows as is their religious disposition. The bakery is named after one of the twelve tribes of Israel and it is well known this is a consequence of the families religious beliefs. Those of their faith community who share their views are very vocal about their opposition to same sex marriage and homosexuality.

I would find it hard to believe Mr Lee was unaware of any of this - particularly if he was a regular customer. Giving him the benefit of the doubt it is possible he naively thought there would be no issue with the cake, but being a natural cynic I find it hard to believe he was that naive.

I don’t think Ashers thought it was a setup. They did agree to make the cake only to phone later to cancel the order. I had no idea they were so religious when I have been in their shop.

I actually think they have a decent chance on their appeal.

 

[minkymurph]

I don’t think Ashers thought it was a setup. They did agree to make the cake only to phone later to cancel the order. I had no idea they were so religious when I have been in their shop.

I actually think they have a decent chance on their appeal.

The people who work in the shop aren’t necessarily religious. Hence they took the order. To my knowledge the family are.

The appeal will be interesting. It’s uncharted legal territory.

 

[Benjamin12]

The people who work in the shop aren’t necessarily religious. Hence they took the order. To my knowledge the family are.

The appeal will be interesting. It’s uncharted legal territory.

It was owner Karen McArthur who took the order before then cancelling at a later time due to issues of conscience. It is certainly an interesting case and has really split opinion

 

[minkymurph]

It was owner Karen McArthur who took the order before then cancelling at a later time due to issues of conscience. It is certainly an interesting case and has really split opinion

Certainly is an interesting case. I would not have wanted to be in the judges shoes. A bit of diplomacy would have gone a long way in that she could have agreed to bake the cake without the slogan.

It was inevitable there would be an appeal. I do not know the grounds of appeal but I would guess they are the judge erred in law. Do you know the grounds of appeal?

 

[Benjamin12]

Certainly is an interesting case. I would not have wanted to be in the judges shoes. A bit of diplomacy would have gone a long way in that she could have agreed to bake the cake without the slogan.

It was inevitable there would be an appeal. I do not know the grounds of appeal but I would guess they are the judge erred in law. Do you know the grounds of appeal?

I believe the main reason is due to judge stating that the customers sexuality was a factor in the refusal. Plus the judge ruled that it was a business for profit and not a religious organisation. The Christian Unstitute (funding the McArthurs case) believe this was not the case and an incorrect ruling.

 

[PRmerger]

Not that I am questioning your logic or semantics here, but I reserve the right to present questions to you ABOUT both your logic and semantics, rather than to PR’s twelve year old. Although if s/he takes after PR I am pretty certain his/her logic and semantics would add clarity to the question.

shaw:

:flowers:

 

[PRmerger]

As are many things. Already pointed out. The fact that something appears to be illogical is not an argument against it.

I am constantly amazed at the things that are swallowed by folks here.

Really. Something can come from nothing.

Can you offer some example of this happening, ever, in the universe?

(Laurence Krauss claimed to have done so, but only because he re-defined “nothing” to be “a vacuum”.)

 

[PRmerger]

It is really not credible that I can tap my fingers on a piece of glass sitting here on one side of the planet and have you read my thoughts almost instantly half a world away. We have passed the point when even the most mundane aspects of life are beyond most people’s ability to comprehend them. It would only be a generation or so ago that these abilities would be classed as illogical.

Ah, no. If any child of mine had said “it’s illogical that I could write to someone almost instantaneously around the world” I would have given her a little lesson on Logic.

Illogical would not be the correct word.

Not feasible.
Improbable.
Not likely.

But illogical?

No, ma’am. That’s a misuse of a word I value so much.

 

[Rau]

I believe the main reason is due to judge stating that the customers sexuality was a factor in the refusal. Plus the judge ruled that it was a business for profit and not a religious organisation. The Christian Unstitute (funding the McArthurs case) believe this was not the case and an incorrect ruling.

Have you heard of the TV show where complete strangers get married (for real)? That seems outrageous to me, and I wouldn’t blame a service provider for declining to decorate a cake or film the ceremony! Nothing do with the sexuality of the participants - just the act they contemplate.

 

[PRmerger]

I think that the writers of the catechism assumed a minimum of intelligence of the readers, and did not feel compelled to bring the message down to the level of 4 years old, where everything needs to be spelled out. Rational people understand that when I question someone’s intellectual prowess or someone’s integrity, then I do not present a question about the meaning of intellectual prowess or their integrity.

Something for you to consider. There was a Vice President called Dan Qualye, maybe you remember him. He was not the sharpest “blade” around the block and said many stupid things. As such people made loads of jokes about him. Here is one of my favorites. "A journalist goes up to him and asks: ‘Mr. Vice President, does it bother you when you hear all those jokes about you?’. Qualye answers: ‘No, they do not bother me at all.’ Whereupon the reporter: ‘And when your children explain them to you?’…

Do you realize that in your attempt to make a joke about someone’s lack of intelligence, you misspelled his name? Twice.

#irony
#justsayin

 

[PRmerger]

I suggest you look up “questioning” on the many available on-line dictionaries. You will learn that there are (at least) two meanings, or usages. One is to “present a question to someone”, and the other one is to “doubt” or “reject” a proposition. Obviously when I said that the truth or veracity of the dogmas is “unquestionable” it meant that they must be accepted as true, that you are not “free” to doubt of “question” them.

Definition of questioning:

1. ask questions of (someone), especially in an official context.
   synonyms: interrogate, cross-examine, cross-question, quiz, etc.
2. feel or express doubt about; raise objections to.
   synonyms: query, call into question, challenge, dispute, cast aspersions on, doubt, suspect, have suspicions about, have reservations about, etc.

Definition of unquestionable:

1. not able to be disputed or doubted.
   synonyms: indubitable, undoubted, beyond question, beyond doubt, indisputable, undeniable, irrefutable, incontestable, incontrovertible, unequivocal… etc.

That is your problem. Both PR and you started to shoot from the hip, without checking the “veracity” of your claim. In the age of the internet such laziness is “unpardonable” (synonym of “unpardonable” is “unforgivable”… in case you were wondering).

PA, you need to simply retract your error.

There is NOTHING in Catholic teaching which demands that Catholics accept without question anything proposed by the Church.

In fact, you should know that this is a HERESY, known as Fideism, condemned by the CC.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20110128_dec-rif-filosofia_en.html

 

[Bradski]

Ah, no. If any child of mine had said “it’s illogical that I could write to someone almost instantaneously around the world” I would have given her a little lesson on Logic.

Illogical would not be the correct word. No, ma’am. That’s a misuse of a word I value so much.

Then it’s a word you should use carefully.

As I said previously, quite a few things for which you would normally use the term ‘illogical ‘ are not. It was only our lack of knowledge that enabled us to use the term at all in past scenarios. It is obvious now that when we said ‘It is illogical that something can be in two places at the same time’, what we should have been saying is: ‘It APPEARS to be illogical etc.’

It wouldn’t have been that long ago that it would have been quite acceptable to say that it is illogical to say that you can see something that doesn’t exist or that a son can be older than his father or that changing one thing here can instantly affect something on the far side of the universe. They are all, to our minds, and using the term in its everyday use, illogical. Not to say impossible.

And now you want to add another. You suggest that if God didn’t make the universe then…it must have been created from nothing. An effect without a cause. And you’d like to add that to all the things that we currently don’t understand and class it as illogical. So therefore it can’t have happened any other way than God doing it.

Well, hell yes, it certainly DOES appear to be illogical. But let’s be honest. There are possibly only a few hundred people on the planet who are anywhere near being able to understand the concept of how the universe began. Maybe only a handful who truly understand it. Even the term The Big Bang was meant as a pejorative because it seemed to dumb down a concept that is so esoteric that it can only be understood in mathematical terms.

You are probably like me and almost everyone else – we do our best to try to understand these things using everyday concepts with a brain that evolved on the savannah a few thousand generations ago. We cannot even visualise more than around 9 objects (a three by three grid – any more is exceptionally difficult). We only experiences 4 dimensions. We have no sense of deep time or astronomical distances. We can only see a tiny proportion of radiation as visible light.

Let’s face it, if you have a mental impression of how the universe began it will be 100% wrong. Even if we knew exactly how it began, your impression of it would still be wrong. It is not a concept which we have the ability to understand on a purely human level.

That said, your term ‘illogical’ is probably quite apt on the level at which 99.999% of people discuss things. But by describing it as such you are putting it in the same class as the other examples I gave. That is, examples which APPEAR to be illogical but are not.

 

[PRmerger]

Then it’s a word you should use carefully.

Indeed.

As I said previously, quite a few things for which you would normally use the term ‘illogical ‘ are not. It was only our lack of knowledge that enabled us to use the term at all in past scenarios. It is obvious now that when we said ‘It is illogical that something can be in two places at the same time’, what we should have been saying is: ‘It APPEARS to be illogical etc.’

If this was this scenario, it would indeed be illogical: something cannot be both here and not-here at the same time.

If that’s what you mean in the above scenario, then it is indeed illogical.

If that’s not what you mean, can you please offer an example of what you mean by something being “in two places at the same time”?

 

[PRmerger]

It wouldn’t have been that long ago that it would have been quite acceptable to say that it is illogical to say that you can see something that doesn’t exist

Huh?

How can you see something that doesn’t exist???

And now you want to add another. You suggest that if God didn’t make the universe then…it must have been created from nothing. An effect without a cause. And you’d like to add that to all the things that we currently don’t understand and class it as illogical. So therefore it can’t have happened any other way than God doing it.

Well, hell yes, it certainly DOES appear to be illogical.

Egg-zactly. Thank you.

But let’s be honest. There are possibly only a few hundred people on the planet who are anywhere near being able to understand the concept of how the universe began. Maybe only a handful who truly understand it. Even the term The Big Bang was meant as a pejorative because it seemed to dumb down a concept that is so esoteric that it can only be understood in mathematical terms.

You are correct.

You are probably like me and almost everyone else – we do our best to try to understand these things using everyday concepts with a brain that evolved on the savannah a few thousand generations ago. We cannot even visualise more than around 9 objects (a three by three grid – any more is exceptionally difficult). We only experiences 4 dimensions. We have no sense of deep time or astronomical distances. We can only see a tiny proportion of radiation as visible light.

Let’s face it, if you have a mental impression of how the universe began it will be 100% wrong. Even if we knew exactly how it began, your impression of it would still be wrong. It is not a concept which we have the ability to understand on a purely human level.

That said, your term ‘illogical’ is probably quite apt on the level at which 99.999% of people discuss things. But by describing it as such you are putting it in the same class as the other examples I gave. That is, examples which APPEAR to be illogical but are not.

Wow, Bradski.

You see how much faith you have in the unknown?

Are you not really using the Science of the Gaps paradigm here? Or, perhaps, a Logic of the Gaps?

“Science will one day explain everything we don’t understand now” is one of the most Faith-Based assertions I’ve heard.

 

[Bradski]

If that’s not what you mean, can you please offer an example of what you mean by something being “in two places at the same time”?

Sounds illogical, doesn’t it.

Superposition was supposed to exist only in a quantum world inaccessible to real-world experiments. Wineland achieved it in the lab. When he hit the atom with half of the light needed to move it, it was simultaneously immobile and in motion, until eventually it was in two locations, 80 nanometers (billionths of a meter) apart, at the same time. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/09/us-nobel-physics-quantum-idUSBRE8980V620121009

Huh? How can you see something that doesn’t exist???

Again, sounds very illogical. But just look upwards tonight and quite a lot of the stars that you see don’t exist anymore.

You see how much faith you have in the unknown? Are you not really using the Science of the Gaps paradigm here? Or, perhaps, a Logic of the Gaps? “Science will one day explain everything we don’t understand now” is one of the most Faith-Based assertions I’ve heard.

I haven’t said that science will explain everything. In fact, I’m reasonably certain that this is one thing it will be unable to explain. But as you mentioned Gaps, this is precisely what you are doing: Any reason other than God appears to be illogical, therefore God must have done it.

Just because I haven’t got an answer doesn’t mean that yours is correct. 'Appears to be illogical’ carries no weight in these matters.

 

[PRmerger]

Again, sounds very illogical. But just look upwards tonight and quite a lot of the stars that you see don’t exist anymore.

I am seeing something that exists, Bradski. I am seeing light. That exists.

The star doesn’t exist but its light still does.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I believe the main reason is due to judge stating that the customers sexuality was a factor in the refusal. Plus the judge ruled that it was a business for profit and not a religious organisation. The Christian Unstitute (funding the McArthurs case) believe this was not the case and an incorrect ruling.

Now that is what could make the judge’s ruling invalid. If the family had served gays before, in numbers and with no issue, then the clear and obvious conclusion is that customers’ sexuality is not a factor in whether they have been refused service - because it hadn’t been a factor before.

No, the issue is clearly one surrounding the idea of “gay marriage,” and what the bakers believe about marriage, not the customers’ sexuality, which was never an issue prior - if that can be shown.

It isn’t discrimination against penguins to say they aren’t mammals, except in the very trivial sense of discriminating between penguins and mammals. Which is why this whole “discrimination” claim reeks of illogic.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Then it’s a word you should use carefully.

As I said previously, quite a few things for which you would normally use the term ‘illogical ‘ are not. It was only our lack of knowledge that enabled us to use the term at all in past scenarios. It is obvious now that when we said ‘It is illogical that something can be in two places at the same time’, what we should have been saying is: ‘It APPEARS to be illogical etc.’

Or, more prudently we should be saying, “It is confounding to think that something can APPEAR to be in two places at the same time.” There is an appearance of it being in two different places at the same time, but that does not mean it is, nor that it is a “thing” in any physical sense. Two people can have the same idea, emotion or experience at the same time; does that mean the same “thing” is in two (or more) places at the same time? It wouldn’t be illogical to claim some things like ideas, emotions or experiences to be, so it would depend on the “things” we are speaking about, no? You seem to be setting yourself up to commit the same avoidable error you are reporting to be so unfortunate.

 

[Bradski]

The star doesn’t exist but its light still does.

Quite right. It’s an image of a non existent object. You are seeing something that isn’t there. You could actually watch something die that is dead already. You can see into the past.

The more we know, the more illogical the universe becomes. The more we know, the more we realise we don’t know.

Classing something as illogical cuts no ice I’m afraid.