The Woke Mind Virus

[impartialobserver]

About the baker in Colorado, if I was the couple.. I would have simply chose another baker/service provider. Afterwards, would have wrote a scathing review of his business. Word of mouth has more impact than folks think. Only drawback is that the impact is not immediate or noticeable. 

[Deluge]

3 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

About the baker in Colorado, if I was the couple.. I would have simply chose another baker/service provider. Afterwards, would have wrote a scathing review of his business. Word of mouth has more impact than folks think. Only drawback is that the impact is not immediate or noticeable. 

partialobserver gets profoundly offended when people don't bend the knee to the LGBTQ community. 

[User]

6 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

About the baker in Colorado, if I was the couple.. I would have simply chose another baker/service provider. Afterwards, would have wrote a scathing review of his business. Word of mouth has more impact than folks think. Only drawback is that the impact is not immediate or noticeable. 

That would certainly be the more tolerant thing to do! 

Hodad could take a lesson on tolerance here from you. 

[impartialobserver]

8 minutes ago, Deluge said:

partialobserver gets profoundly offended when people don't bend the knee to the LGBTQ community. 

if you could read you would see that I do not demand that anybody does anything. No need to bring this to court and such. No need to publicize and pretend that i am a victim. The gay couple could have easily went elsewhere. Now.. afterwards would have expressed my opinion which apparently is not ok in your book... interesting logic. . 

Edited May 2 by impartialobserver

[Deluge]

4 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

if you could read you would see that I do not demand that anybody does anything. No need to bring this to court and such. I would have went with someone else and then expressed my opinion. 

If you weren't such a liar you would see that I never said that you demand that anybody does anything. You're just offended that people don't bend the knee to the LGBTQ community. 

See, instead of jumping the baker's shit, maybe you come after the queers for losing their shit over someone's disobedience. Did they have to take the guy to court? Apparently woke cultists are still coming after that baker. What a bunch of f*cking psychopaths. 

Do you see how your response would lack impartiality? 

[impartialobserver]

11 minutes ago, Deluge said:

If you weren't such a liar you would see that I never said that you demand that anybody does anything. You're just offended that people don't bend the knee to the LGBTQ community. 

See, instead of jumping the baker's shit, maybe you come after the queers for losing their shit over someone's disobedience. Did they have to take the guy to court? Apparently woke cultists are still coming after that baker. What a bunch of f*cking psychopaths. 

Do you see how your response would lack impartiality? 

Hmm... another reading failure on your part. 

"The gay couple could have easily went elsewhere.".. I would think that you know how to read and interpret this. Apparently, my expectations are too high. I do think it was unnecessary for them to sue and take legal action. 

[Deluge]

3 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Hmm... another reading failure on your part. 

"The gay couple could have easily went elsewhere.".. I would think that you know how to read and interpret this. Apparently, my expectations are too high. I do think it was unnecessary for them to sue and take legal action. 

Actually the failure is on you - ALWAYS. 

Let's check out some more of your comment:

"Afterwards, would have wrote a scathing review of his business"

Being partial to the homosexual community, I would've expected no less from you. But the problem is that you continue to insist that you are impartial when it's obvious that you are NOT impartial - you sharing the homosexual community's outrage confirms that. 

So how do we fix this inconsistency? 

[impartialobserver]

16 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Actually the failure is on you - ALWAYS. 

Let's check out some more of your comment:

"Afterwards, would have wrote a scathing review of his business"

Being partial to the homosexual community, I would've expected no less from you. But the problem is that you continue to insist that you are impartial when it's obvious that you are NOT impartial - you sharing the homosexual community's outrage confirms that. 

So how do we fix this inconsistency? 

Writing a review / opinion of a business is perfectly normal. Yes, I do not find the LGBTQ community repulsive as you do. If I owned a business.. I would not care if my customer was gay, straight, male, female, old, young, christian, muslim... etc. I do agree that the business owner should have done it but he also has the right to refuse service.. lets repeat that you do not go off into the weeds again.. he has the right to refuse service. I respect that law. He has the right to operate a business and do as he likes and I have the right to not support his operations. If enough people agree with him and he stays in business in spite of my review.. then so be it. There is a gun store a few blocks from where I live that is openly racist. I will not support them but they are allowed to exist even if i do not like them. 

[Deluge]

24 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Writing a review / opinion of a business is perfectly normal. Yes, I do not find the LGBTQ community repulsive as you do. If I owned a business.. I would not care if my customer was gay, straight, male, female, old, young, christian, muslim... etc. I do agree that the business owner should have done it but he also has the right to refuse service.. lets repeat that you do not go off into the weeds again.. he has the right to refuse service. I respect that law. He has the right to operate a business and do as he likes and I have the right to not support his operations. If enough people agree with him and he stays in business in spite of my review.. then so be it. There is a gun store a few blocks from where I live that is openly racist. I will not support them but they are allowed to exist even if i do not like them. 

You're babbling again. 

The issue is about your claims of being impartial when it's clear you are NOT being impartial. 

Let's explore: 

In your OPINION, you think the store owner is wrong and the homosexuals are right - THIS is not you being impartial; THIS is you being partial to the homosexuals. THAT is the issue. 

The question is, are you mature enough to admit that you are in the homosexual community's camp? 

[impartialobserver]

3 minutes ago, Deluge said:

You're babbling again. 

The issue is about your claims of being impartial when it's clear you are NOT being impartial. 

Let's explore: 

In your OPINION, you think the store owner is wrong and the homosexuals are right - THIS is not you being impartial; THIS is you being partial to the homosexuals. THAT is the issue. 

The question is, are you mature enough to admit that you are in the homosexual community's camp? 

For goodness sake.. it is a screen name. the fact that you take it so literally is a "you" problem. Yes, I do agree with the LGTBQ community that he should have made the cake. But the law is the law (i know that is hard for you to accept). The law states that he has the right to refuse service. That takes precedence in the legal world and in mine. Now, when I own a business.. i will not discriminate. 

[Deluge]

12 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

For goodness sake.. it is a screen name. the fact that you take it so literally is a "you" problem. 

Hey, not anymore. I just wanted to be clear where your allegiances are. 

You came out as a woke leftoid and now I want to congratulate you for your honesty. 

Have a great rest of your day! 

[impartialobserver]

2 hours ago, Deluge said:

Hey, not anymore. I just wanted to be clear where your allegiances are. 

You came out as a woke leftoid and now I want to congratulate you for your honesty. 

Have a great rest of your day! 

if you must know, I fished it out of a book review on amazon. There was an amazon politics forum from 2003 to roughly 2014. I kept getting banned because I like folks similar to WCM get to me. Well.. i ran out of names and found this one in a book review.

In short, I respect the right of the business to refuse service above all. Do you? 

[Deluge]

8 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

In short, I respect the right of the business to refuse service above all. Do you? 

Absolutely. It's not even a discussion as far as I'm concerned. 

[impartialobserver]

1 minute ago, Deluge said:

Absolutely. It's not even a discussion as far as I'm concerned. 

Ok, so then you get the point. No matter my beliefs about the LGBTQ community.. the right of the business to refuse service trumps that. Its a matter of core economics.. if the transaction is not voluntary then the supplier vs. consumer dynamic that you learn in microeconomics falls apart. 

[Deluge]

4 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Ok, so then you get the point. No matter my beliefs about the LGBTQ community.. the right of the business to refuse service trumps that. Its a matter of core economics.. if the transaction is not voluntary then the supplier vs. consumer dynamic that you learn in microeconomics falls apart. 

I already had that point. I just wanted to see where you stand, politically. 

It's all good. 

[impartialobserver]

2 minutes ago, Deluge said:

I already had that point. I just wanted to see where you stand, politically. 

It's all good. 

nobody can be truly impartial. You have to care about something. However, I do not belong to either party and register as an independent. So generally when I view a topic.. I have no party line to agree with. I come up with my views on my own. 

[Michael Hardner]

21 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

nobody can be truly impartial. You have to care about something. However, I do not belong to either party and register as an independent. So generally when I view a topic.. I have no party line to agree with. I come up with my views on my own. 

I never understood why you had to declare an allegiance when you register for voting in the USA. Seems to favor status quo. 

Is that information public?

[eyeball]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I never understood why you had to declare an allegiance when you register for voting in the USA. Seems to favor status quo. 

Is that information public?

What happens if you change your mind between registering and marking your ballot? Almost seems like fraud or lying on a loan application or something. 

[Deluge]

Woketard vs Cuban

 

[CdnFox]

On 5/2/2024 at 3:02 PM, Michael Hardner said:

I never understood why you had to declare an allegiance when you register for voting in the USA. Seems to favor status quo. 

Is that information public?

Yeah i have to admit, that baffles me too.  It kind of defeats the whole concept of the anonymous vote for me. I mean we have to declare donors here but that doesnt' mean you voted for the party, lots of people donate to more than one party for political reasons and lots change their mind before voting day.

[Deluge]

On 5/2/2024 at 3:40 PM, impartialobserver said:

nobody can be truly impartial. You have to care about something. However, I do not belong to either party and register as an independent. So generally when I view a topic.. I have no party line to agree with. I come up with my views on my own. 

Well, you come up with your own views from a left-wing slant - your agreeing with the homosexuals and not the baker confirms that.

You recognize the baker's rights, but I'm sure you wish there was some way you could erase those rights, and I'm quite certain you also would've sued his ass if you were in the same situation.

Edited May 5 by Deluge

[impartialobserver]

On 5/2/2024 at 3:02 PM, Michael Hardner said:

I never understood why you had to declare an allegiance when you register for voting in the USA. Seems to favor status quo. 

Is that information public?

First, one does not have to register as anything. Yes, you register to vote but you can leave the affiliation blank. All it really does is let you vote in the primary for a given party. I made the mistake of selecting independent. It is a mistake for myself because I openly show my distaste for politics and by registering as an independent.. both parties flood you with pamphlets, ads, and folks coming to your door. However, folks like to register as republican or whatever as a virtue signal. Its like going out in public with a band t-shirt on. 

[impartialobserver]

On 5/5/2024 at 6:35 AM, Deluge said:

Well, you come up with your own views from a left-wing slant - your agreeing with the homosexuals and not the baker confirms that.

You recognize the baker's rights, but I'm sure you wish there was some way you could erase those rights, and I'm quite certain you also would've sued his ass if you were in the same situation.

No, I would not have. Another aspect to modern politics that I thoroughly loathe is the faux victimhood. Yes, the gay couple were met with resistance but they could have easily have went elsewhere. If I was the couple.. I would not let one religious zealot ruin my day. I would have brushed him off like pocket lint, found someone else, and then wrote a negative review. The review would let others of like mind to myself know that he is not welcoming. That is free enterprise at its finest.

The usual line is "I should not have to do that". The "that" is choosing an alternative. When I point out that they have a choice.. the indignation and whining is epic. You should not have to choose an alternate route to work but the interstate is closed going westbound so you can either figure out another way or sit in traffic and whine. I find that most people today prefer the latter. 

as an example, I have two websites (one political like this and one centered around music)  that recently went live... I love the fact that I do not allow comments. I have the right to block trolls, hackers, and ignorant types. 

Edited May 6 by impartialobserver

[Hodad]

6 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

No, I would not have. Another aspect to modern politics that I thoroughly loathe is the faux victimhood. Yes, the gay couple were met with resistance but they could have easily have went elsewhere. If I was the couple.. I would not let one religious zealot ruin my day. I would have brushed him off like pocket lint, found someone else, and then wrote a negative review. The review would let others of like mind to myself know that he is not welcoming. That is free enterprise at its finest.

The usual line is "I should not have to do that". The "that" is choosing an alternative. When I point out that they have a choice.. the indignation and whining is epic. You should not have to choose an alternate route to work but the interstate is closed going westbound so you can either figure out another way or sit in traffic and whine. I find that most people today prefer the latter. 

In my view, they shouldn't have to do that, but I don't think the indignity of it is the whole--or even most--of the point. 

Remember that the laws of this country are not written in a vacuum. We made equal access laws for businesses of public accommodation because we have a very real and vivid history of extreme exclusion, and there's not always an alternative.

Before we had these laws, the exclusion was so extreme that it often made minorities into de facto 2nd class citizens. And still, today America is peppered with small towns where there are only a few businesses of any kind and they may all be owned by a handful of families or aligned to single church, etc. Should they be able to exclude minorities for the fact of being minorities? Should they be able to exclude minorities to the degree that those minorities are effectively unable to live in that town? To buy groceries? To buy gas?

Or to flip it from the general to the specific, should the only gas station for the next 60 miles be able to refuse service to a gay person? Should they be able to refuse black children access to the bathroom? 

What kind of country do we want this to be? We can't make everyone be kind and accepting or friendly, but we can make sure that everyone has a right to exist and function in society. And that's why people bring cases like this. It's not because they couldn't have gotten a cake elsewhere. It's because they shouldn't have to--so that everyone else shouldn't have to, because that's not always an option. 

 

[impartialobserver]

7 minutes ago, Hodad said:

In my view, they shouldn't have to do that, but I don't think the indignity of it is the whole--or even most--of the point. 

Remember that the laws of this country are not written in a vacuum. We made equal access laws for businesses of public accommodation because we have a very real and vivid history of extreme exclusion, and there's not always an alternative.

Before we had these laws, the exclusion was so extreme that it often made minorities into de facto 2nd class citizens. And still, today America is peppered with small towns where there are only a few businesses of any kind and they may all be owned by a handful of families or aligned to single church, etc. Should they be able to exclude minorities for the fact of being minorities? Should they be able to exclude minorities to the degree that those minorities are effectively unable to live in that town? To buy groceries? To buy gas?

Or to flip it from the general to the specific, should the only gas station for the next 60 miles be able to refuse service to a gay person? Should they be able to refuse black children access to the bathroom? 

What kind of country do we want this to be? We can't make everyone be kind and accepting or friendly, but we can make sure that everyone has a right to exist and function in society. And that's why people bring cases like this. It's not because they couldn't have gotten a cake elsewhere. It's because they shouldn't have to--so that everyone else shouldn't have to, because that's not always an option. 

 

I truly do agree with the gay couple but find that legal action is not always the best way to achieve the goal. Legal action creates faux victims and galvanizes them. However, by simply going somewhere else and therefore not giving them your business and spreading the word... you do something far more impactful. Your other examples are a bit hyperbolic. Yes, if they lived in shoup, Idaho.. they would have no alternatives. But they do not.. I did a quick google search and found that they had dozens of alternatives within 30 miles.