Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 588 of 1309 (728199)
05-25-2014 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 587 by Faith
05-24-2014 9:32 PM


Yarmulkes and wedding cakes
Of course it's a tax on Jews
I see. The intent to disfavour the Jews can readily be presumed on the basis that the action taken (in this case taxation) is based on a behaviour predominantly carried out by Jews. You didn't answer my second question, 'why?', so I presumed your answer for you.
Is a tax on wedding cakes for gay marriages, a tax on gay people?
Why are you carrying on about this?
So I can understand your position better in an attempt to move the discussion forward rather than around in circles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 587 by Faith, posted 05-24-2014 9:32 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 589 by Faith, posted 05-25-2014 12:50 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 590 of 1309 (728203)
05-25-2014 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 589 by Faith
05-25-2014 12:50 PM


Re: Yarmulkes and wedding cakes
Is a tax on wedding cakes for gay marriages, a tax on gay people? You didn't answer.
The stuff you wrote was irrelevant to the point I'm moving towards. I'm not claiming who can or cannot levy taxes or what is or is not against God's law.
And as far as I'm concerned there is no more discussion here.
Well naturally, I am after all, asking you to reconcile some of your conflicting ideas which is not pleasant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 589 by Faith, posted 05-25-2014 12:50 PM Faith has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 926 of 1309 (741823)
11-14-2014 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 923 by Faith
11-14-2014 8:56 PM


Check out those balances
Checks and balances: The Devil's handiwork.
You vote for legislators. Along with legislators you vote for the head of the executive. They appoint the judicial. The judicial branch can, indeed must, review the work of the legislature to ensure it is consistent with the constitution and other laws. Sometimes you'll agree with them, sometimes you won't.
And by the way Nazi leaders used propaganda to create the will of the people.
Everyone does that.
What the Nazis did was destroy the liberal (but potentially flawed) constitution to give them powers to do whatever they wanted. The lesson here is, the constitution is good but possibly flawed. It's probably a good idea to keep the thing around, and change it using it's own rules for being changed. If you reject the judicial branch, the system has no checks on it, which can be exploited by the executive to 'enable' itself to ignore the legislative: aka dictatorship.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 923 by Faith, posted 11-14-2014 8:56 PM Faith has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 947 of 1309 (741853)
11-15-2014 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 945 by Faith
11-15-2014 8:34 AM


And what if I continue to rail against the courts?
I expect the same thing as happens with the atheists who continue to rail against the courts. Some people will criticize them, some will agree with them. Eventually things might change, or they might not. As long as it is protected speech, then only social consequences will follow.
Inciting or engaging in violence, harassment and what have you can have legal consequences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 945 by Faith, posted 11-15-2014 8:34 AM Faith has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 1006 of 1309 (741949)
11-15-2014 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 992 by Faith
11-15-2014 5:33 PM


Re: learn a little history Faith
They were fined $150,000
Have they been fined?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 992 by Faith, posted 11-15-2014 5:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1007 by Faith, posted 11-15-2014 7:02 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 1008 of 1309 (741955)
11-15-2014 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1007 by Faith
11-15-2014 7:02 PM


Re: learn a little history Faith
They face a fine, the lesbian couple are asking for $150,000 in damages plus expenses, and there may be a punitive fine on top of that. The final decision on this has not yet been made as the proposed settlement is contested and a hearing is required. This will be made by an administrative law judge. It was meant to happen last month but this has been postponed until early 2015. The labour commissioner then makes a final order. This can be appealed by the courts.
I don't rate their chances, though they may well have to pay less than the desired sum, but it's not a done deal yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1007 by Faith, posted 11-15-2014 7:02 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1010 by dwise1, posted 11-15-2014 8:41 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 1025 of 1309 (741977)
11-15-2014 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1022 by Faith
11-15-2014 10:02 PM


Re: You need to read more carefully jar
What it says, and what is the truth may not be the same thing.
BOLI found they broke laws they have the power to enforce. They said the matter could be settled by paying damages to the lesbians. A conciliation phase was begun to try and reach an exact agreement on this matter, but they were informed that the lesbians were looking for $150,000 going into the conciliation. This process is not public. However, it is public that an agreement could not be reached. Therefore a hearing has been scheduled wherein an ALJ will hear the case and review the evidence and drafts a final order. The Commissioner will then review this final order and may make amendments before issuing it. Then and only then can it be said that a fine has been levied against them. And it may only be an order to pay damages and legal costs etc.
This can be read about here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1022 by Faith, posted 11-15-2014 10:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1027 by Faith, posted 11-15-2014 11:40 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 1034 of 1309 (741994)
11-16-2014 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1027 by Faith
11-15-2014 11:40 PM


Re: I don't think you proved anything
What you have linked is a page of general procedures
Correct. This was to support what I was saying regarding the general procedure.
really old page too, 2008-9
Really old? I can think of other documents of procedures that the US uses that are much older.
Have you any evidence that BOLI's procedures have since changed? If so, why is this out of date document still being linked to on the Oregon State government website with regards to the current procedure, do you think?
Where are you getting your idea that they haven't ruled on this case yet?
Sweet Cakes by Melissa's motion to recuse labor commissioner on grounds of bias quashed - oregonlive.com
Sweet Cakes by Melissa civil rights hearing date moved to 2015 - oregonlive.com
See my Message 1008
Here's from the Christian Post article again
Yes, the BOLI investigation concluded there was significant evidence of a breach. The couple could have paid right there to conclude the matter, or they could contest it. They couldn't reach an agreement during conciliation. So now they are going to have a hearing. In 2015.
BOLI decided in JANUARY that the couple had discriminated against the lesbians. The CP article was written on October 22 and it says that LAST MONTH the couple said they are facing this fine.
Correct, they are facing a fine. If the hearing issues a final order that they pay a fine. Which they haven't done yet. They could pay some money now, and there would be no hearing and the matter would be resolved. That doesn't seem likely at this juncture.
When a person is charged with a crime, a newspaper might report that they face '25 years in prison'. It doesn't make it a done deal.
Is there some reason you think differently?
Yes: the way the law works.
Here's video from You Tube, most from people who agree with you all here, confirming that the fine is a done deal: first one says the bakery has gone bankrupt as a result of the fine.
I don't care what people say or believe about this, I care about the facts. Just because some online news sources suggest that the fine has been issued that doesn't make it so. In a sense there is a fine on the table, after all they were found to have contravened the law - which can result in financial penalties. But the law seems to be structured such that this fine isn't something they have to pay until after an ALJ hears the case. Which they have not yet done.
Maybe I'm wrong. Can you find any public document attesting that the Klein's have declared bankruptcy? Any public document that says the fine must be paid by a certain date?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1027 by Faith, posted 11-15-2014 11:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1038 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 12:11 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 1035 of 1309 (741995)
11-16-2014 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1028 by Faith
11-16-2014 12:17 AM


I do remember the founding fathers flap and would like to revisit it because I didn't get to check it out fully before. But I can't find it through the Search feature. Maybe it's a closed thread, it always says "Search all open forums." Why can't we search closed ones too? Anyway I'd like to find it if you happen to know which thread it was on. Thanks.
Erm, isn't it this very thread?
Message 565, Message 571, Message 575.
The Search function covers closed threads (they are displayed with a gold 'CLOSED' repeating in the background - search for '1984' to see some examples), but does not search Fora that have been closed. Ie stuff that non-Admins can't see.
One has to wonder why we're back in this thread, incidentally, and not having this discussion over at Where should there be "The right to refuse service"?.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1028 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 12:17 AM Faith has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 1043 of 1309 (742013)
11-16-2014 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1038 by Faith
11-16-2014 12:11 PM


Re: I don't think you proved anything
You've given a lot of information in your various posts that talks about stages in the process but nothing that actually supports your claim that they are still waiting for some final judgment
Sweet Cakes by Melissa civil rights hearing date moved to 2015 Maybe third times a charm:
quote:
The Kleins and the state have not been able to reach a settlement, so the case will go before an administrative law judge. A hearing date had been set for this month but was postponed last week until March 10, 2015, said Charlie Burr, a spokesman for the state Bureau of Labor and Industries.
Sweet Cakes by Melissa's motion to recuse labor commissioner on grounds of bias quashed
quote:
While an administrative law judge will hear the case, Avakian has the power to change and sign off on the final decision...A judge ruled against disqualifying Avakian earlier this month, and quashed a second request to move the matter outside administrative court....
Yet Adams contends the Kleins did not discriminate, noting the couple had purchased a cake for a relative's wedding in the past. "This case is about whether the state of Oregon can force you to communicate a message and participate in a ceremony which violates your religious beliefs," she said.
In Oregon, such contested civil rights cases are heard before an administrative law judge.
After a hearing similar to a trial, the judge issues a proposed order. Both sides can lodge any objections they may have. Avakian, the state labor commissioner, then issues a final order.
It isn't final until the Final Order. You can go to Oregon State's website to see the Final Orders that have been issued this year here.
Perhaps it's somewhere in all that information but it's beyond me to dig it out.
You've probably read that Christian Post news story a dozen times by now, but you can't read two other news stories?
The general procedure page you posted does not tell me anything
It tells you that in contested cases (which this is) an ALJ makes a draft for a final order and the commissioner signs off on it. If you can find any evidence an ALJ has drafted such a final order, please go and find it it should be on BOLI's website above (the last order such listed was from November 6th).
reports earlier in the year don't tell me anything
Of course they do. The July one tells you that the ALJ hearing was scheduled for October and the October one tells you that it was postponed until March 2015.
The CP article is the most recent report and I still have no reason to think what it says is wrong: the case has been settled and they owe the $150,000 in fines.
What was the name of the ALJ judge? Where is it on the Final Order page? What date this happen on?
And why would the guy who is trying to raise money for them even be doing that if the case hadn't already been settled?
A question the donors should be asking themselves.
Please don't just pile on more irrelevant information. If you have something that truly speaks to the point, showing the status of the case NOW, please post it.
I have. The status of the case NOW is that the hearing is scheduled 10th March 2015. The Klein's believe they have already lost and are talking about it as a done deal, this is part of their defence. Maybe the guy above thinks they will lose, or maybe he doesn't understand the case properly, or maybe he's a wicked embezzler trying to divert financial assistance from the Kleins.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1038 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 12:11 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1045 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 12:56 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 1044 of 1309 (742014)
11-16-2014 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1037 by Faith
11-16-2014 11:56 AM


For him to mention God loving him in a letter to a homosexual lover makes NO sense at all. It sounds like a letter he would have written to his wife Anne that got misattributed to Buckingham, and how that might have happened raises all kinds of strange questions about the integrity of somebody in this saga.
Especially odd given his wife had been dead for a number of years when the letter was written.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1037 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 11:56 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1046 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 12:59 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 1049 of 1309 (742020)
11-16-2014 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1046 by Faith
11-16-2014 12:59 PM


Then I'm going to wonder if it's a forgery.
A possibility, has anyone who has studied them been able to provide any evidence of this? Or are you only wondering this because you have invested emotionally in the uprightness of the man?
Perhaps you should also wonder whether a power mad dictator who believed he had been given divine rights to rule and oppress, might have more dimension to him than you had previously considered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1046 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 12:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1051 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 1:37 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 1052 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 1:40 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 1058 of 1309 (742038)
11-16-2014 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1051 by Faith
11-16-2014 1:37 PM


it's just so weird, that letter he supposedly wrote to Buckingham, first invoking God and calling him wife, it's just too too weird.
That's 17th Century oppressive dictators for you, they sound weird.
Besides why on earth would he leave such evidence around for his enemies to find?
It wouldn't be the first time a powerful person has communicated in secret in such a way his enemies can exploit that leaves evidence, especially when the only way he could communicate with a person he said he loved, was through letters. Maybe he thought he was powerful enough that he could ignore or kill any enemies that tried to make a deal out of it.
It contradicts too much else that is known about him. He had a reputation as a true Christian.
People with such reputations can and do get involved in scandals, sometimes involving sex.
Kings generally don't mind being all kinds of sinners if they really are, but he seemed to be a genuine believer.
Believers can still sin and can do so while thinking they are in God's graces.
The whole idea was concocted after his death and most of it in our time. Nobody ever accused him of homosexuality in his own time which they certainly would have in that age.
There are a number of reports that comment on the scandalous or inappropriate nature of the relationship.
Yet again, I can't disprove the claims, they just don't convince me.
But if such letters were written by Obama I'm sure you'd find them very persuasive, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1051 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 1:37 PM Faith has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 1074 of 1309 (742059)
11-16-2014 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1052 by Faith
11-16-2014 1:40 PM


That's another big fat lie.
He was an oppressive dictator by any modern and ancient definition.
James asserted the divine right of kings as antidote to the Pope's claim to be boss over kings as well as everybody else.
In his own words he believed that Kings came into existence before laws did, so Kings were primary over the law. He believed that therefore parliaments should only be held for new laws, and consequentially he dissolved the government and became the supreme executive, legislative and judicial leader of England, with only the nobles to check his power.
And he was hardly the great tyrant you make him out to be.
He was the autocrat of England and Scotland. He believed the divine right meant that parliament was nearly inconsequential, and he derided it as a bad idea to begin with. He passed his beliefs on to his children, and this resulted in civil war.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1052 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 1:40 PM Faith has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 1075 of 1309 (742060)
11-16-2014 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1061 by Faith
11-16-2014 2:28 PM


But the contemporary claim didn't quite accuse him of homosexuality anyway, just of unseemly behavior..
quote:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1061 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 2:28 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1077 by Faith, posted 11-16-2014 2:58 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024