Friday, September 8, 2017

No Cake For You !!!

One of our favorite topics is in the news again. You know my view...


If you are LGBTQ, find a business owner who wants to be an active part of your most special day!!!


CNN Religious Freedoms vs LGBT Rights

83 comments:

Anonymous said...

Christians need to tell the world that their faith stands for more than just denying gay people access to cake.

--Hiram

Sean said...

The government's brief tries to draw lines that would be very difficult to enforce going forward. What is "expression" in this context? Creating a custom menu for the wedding buffet? Choosing to play the "Electric Slide" before or after the "Chicken Dance" from the DJ booth?

John said...

Hiram,
The point is that no one is denying them cake...

They are just turning down a customer who they do not want to associate with for event that they think is improper.

The LGBTQ customer can and should go else where.

As I usually describe... Should we force a caterer who supports PETA to cater the annual mink farmer convention where they are displaying new efficient killing devices???

Laurie said...

This is not one of my favorite topics, in fact I don't even want to comment on it. I did read the other day the membership in conservative evangelic churches is down, mostly due to young people not agreeing with the anti gay views of older church leaders.

jerrye92002 said...

Laurie, I think this topic suddenly became interesting to me. What you have just done is what I usually do, which is to read something and then pass that information on here. Since that information contests the biased opinion of others, I get asked for sources, and then those sources are dismissed as being untrue or biased or... And where we could have a debate, or "dueling sources," we actually get hardened opinion on both sides. Just for example, I recently read that evangelical churches are GROWING. I don't doubt you read something different and do not care to even look up evidence one way or the other; that's not the issue under discussion. I'm just pointing out the nature of the "discussion" here, and how it seems to have changed over time.

John said...

Jerry,
So you would prefer to each make unsubstantiated claims while saying trust me.

As for Laurie's point.
HP Evangelical

CT Evangelicals

Laurie said...

It turns out I do have something new on this topic. From an article my son told me about last night:

"The paper suggested that the findings provide “strong support” for the theory that sexual orientation stems from exposure to certain hormones before birth, meaning people are born gay and being queer is not a choice. The machine’s lower success rate for women also could support the notion that female sexual orientation is more fluid."

New AI can guess whether you're gay or straight from a photograph

Since John needs proof that gay is an inherent orientation (not choice) before he is willing to provide them legal protect / equal rights, perhaps this research will lead him to decide it is okay to refuse to bake a cake for lesbians, but the cake must be baked for a marriage between gay men.

My other comment I am quite sure I made before is that sometimes going to another baker that might be 50 miles away might be a big imposition, as well as a slap in the face to be treated with such disrespect. And who knows, the other bakers in nearby small towns might be bigoted as well and refuse service.

jerrye92002 said...

Yes, I think we should all be entitled to make unsubstantiated statements and not be called liars. We ought to trust one another by now, and if we are only offering opinion, which we do sometimes, then somebody else's opinion is just as good and we can go from there to WHY do you feel that way? And when we get to the point of actually finding underlying fact or even "truth," then specific points of information made must be countered by specific points to the contrary. It's called debate, though informal. I used to think that was what we did here.

jerrye92002 said...

Laurie, once again we have let terminology trip up our thinking. There has long been evidence that male sexual characteristics, brain configurations, etc. are affected by hormones in the womb. To some degree this may create a "predisposition" towards a non-normal orientation. It does not, under any circumstance, dictate homosexual behavior, any more than certain people are "born criminals." Behavior is always chosen.

As for this poor baker, I still think I would have, in the face of furious onslaught from all sides, simply agreed to make the cake. It would have been inedible and maybe a little lopsided. And I would have given them their money back.

John said...

"Does not dictate"

It is a good thing you are supporting your freedom to espouse your opinions as fact.

You sure like to do it.

John said...

Laurie,
Cool link... Maybe soon we will have an LGBTQ test that will tell people before they know...

jerrye92002 said...

Please acknowledge /your/ opinion, as implied above, that I am wrong and that Hitler was correct-- that criminals and homosexuals should be identified and killed at birth.

Anonymous said...

Yes indeed, people who are predisposed to left handedness will choose a behavior that comports with that predisposition. The problem is that you've bought into the ridiculous Catholic idea that homosexual orientation is intrinsically disordered, so you can't crack open your mind far enough to see reality.

Moose

John said...

I don't even know what to do with Jerry's comment... It is odd.

I guess my point is that if the algorithm can be that accurate, it may help some very conflicted and confused people understand why they feel different than the norm or their uptight parents.

And if it gets well accepted as a scientific test, then the Religious Right folks like Jerry who still believe that to be Gay is a life style choice will hopefully cease to exist...

Unfortunately we have known that being Black is only a physiological issue and there are still some real backwards folks who want to discriminate against them anyway.

jerrye92002 said...

John, what is odd is your refusal to accept even simple logic that disagrees with what you wish to be true, or at least your opinion of what the truth may be. You cannot say that a "lifestyle choice" is not a choice and then excuse every behavioral aberration as genetically pre-determined. Human beings are simply not wired that way. We have very few purely "inborn" behaviors. You need look no further than the many, many men who marry and father children, and then discover they are "gay." There are also priests and nuns who remain celibate for life, by choice. It shouldn't be possible, unless sexual behavior is actually chosen.

Joel, you need to follow the science-- "the reality," as you put it. Handedness IS genetic, but unlike gayness, it is NOT counter-survival. If it were, it would have disappeared from the gene pool eons ago.

Anonymous said...

"Joel, you need to follow the science-- "the reality," as you put it. Handedness IS genetic, but unlike gayness, it is NOT counter-survival. If it were, it would have disappeared from the gene pool eons ago."

I don't know who Joel is, but I was the one who brought up handedness.

Science doesn't really support your hypothesis. It's easily refutable by hypothesizing that homosexuality also isn't counter-survival. In fact, we know this because it exists in many species which presumably are not making choices about their sexual orientation. Remember, you are the one trying to convince us that behaviors are chosen, so it can't follow that species who do not have the capability of making choices will somehow make a choice. It is much more likely that it is an innate trait in some individuals.

The ability for the human mind to suppress thoughts and feelings that are believed to be harmful or dangerous to the individual is well known. It is not surprising that there are people who are able to suppress their innate orientation and be unaware of it. Thankfully, we are likely to see fewer and fewer instances now that we are coming out from under the darkness of Religion.

Moose

John said...

Hi Moose,
You commented a few times recently while logged in as Joel... So we suspect you may be our old friend... However I will call you Moose per your desire.

I always envision what if Jerry truly was gay. Meaning that he had ZERO attraction towards women and fantasized about being with men.

Would he really choose social propriety over his own true nature?

Would he marry and bed a woman even though it gave him no real pleasure?

Would that be fair to the woman?

I know that I would never have married and bedded a man... My personal happiness and being true to myself is much more important than conforming with society's norms. Maybe Jerry would just kiss and fondle a man to conform in that alternate universe while fantasizing about a woman he truly wanted to be with.

John said...

Jerry,
So are you truly saying that people should not behave as God intended them to?

Or are you saying that God wanted to torture these folks for their whole life by denying them the joy and companionship that their God given physiology drives them towards?

Anonymous said...

That's very strange. I don't know a Joel.

Moose

John said...

It was interesting that they rely on more than just facial features.

"The research found that gay men and women tended to have “gender-atypical” features, expressions and “grooming styles”, essentially meaning gay men appeared more feminine and vice versa. The data also identified certain trends, including that gay men had narrower jaws, longer noses and larger foreheads than straight men, and that gay women had larger jaws and smaller foreheads compared to straight women."

jerrye92002 said...

"...God given physiology..." That is what you are trying to prove, and admittedly (scientists) have been unable to do. You are also saying that we have genetically determined behaviors and that we can pass on a genetic "mutation" that cannot survive into the next generation. "Survival of the fittest" would quickly eliminate the "homosexual gene" from the gene pool, simply because it could not be passed on. This is not to deny that animals exhibit homosexual behavior, just as humans do, but for the same reason, that does not get passed on genetically.

Gay people have a " God given physiology" that enables them to function perfectly well in heterosexual relationships, but some of them choose to do otherwise. I suspect science will never find a "monogamy gene, "either, yet that is what billions of people choose to do. Should a baker be forced to bake a cake for a plural marriage?

Anonymous said...

What do you know about being gay?

Moose

Anonymous said...

Also, what do you know about being straight?

Moose

John said...

Jerry,
Every year they get closer to understanding exactly what is different in the physiology of LGBTQ individuals.

My opinion is that Laurie's comment is correct...

"“strong support” for the theory that sexual orientation stems from exposure to certain hormones before birth, meaning people are born gay and being queer is not a choice."

And as Moose notes...
I do not know why an attractive woman can distract me by just walking by...

I assume it comes down to my physiology in some way.

Anonymous said...

The potential variety of life is infinite. Only clones have identical DNA, for instance.

To think that homosexuality isn't one of the possible genetic outcomes for an individual is simply too much of a stretch to be believed.

Moose

jerrye92002 said...

I'll agree with Laurie, and have for a very long time, that hormones affect orientation. I will continue to deny that orientation must dictate behavior. I do not have to know anything about "being gay" or "being straight" to accept explanations that make sense and that coincide with other knowledge, namely, that behavior can NOT be genetically predetermined.

So let's try a little thought experiment. Let us say that Laurie is right and that female hormones in the womb create a gay male orientation. Then how do you explain a lesbian? And how do you explain identical twins in which one is gay and the other straight, apparently by far the more likely condition? Now the simple solution is that behavior is chosen, perhaps influenced by social and environmental factors later in life, but chosen. So why should some behaviors be forced to be "accepted" by those who disapprove?

John said...

Well apparently you think being "straight is normal", which science may prove to be incorrect. 😀

John said...

The reality is we likely have over lapping normal distributions.

Men who like Women. (Large portion)
Men who are indifferent (ie Bi-sexual)
Men who like Men.
Women who like Women.
Women who are indifferent (ie Bi-sexual)
Women who like Men. (Large portion)

jerrye92002 said...

If science can prove that the species will continue naturally without mating and reproduction, then I will give up that "antiquated" notion that "straight is normal."

I have science which explains all of this, combines Laurie's-- shall we say-- hypothesis and my logic that gay behavior can NOT be genetic, and yet permits an ongoing population that, regardless of whether there is an "orientation" involved, engages in gay behavior.

Anonymous said...

Straight isn't normal, just common.

Snark aside, if you must insist that sexuality is chosen, you'll need to explain why, how, and when you chose to be attracted to the opposite sex. John has already said that he doesn't know why he finds women attractive, and I presume from that that he never made a conscious choice to be heterosexual.

If you prefer to believe that every single homosexual person is self-delusional, that's your prerogative, but just because you lack the imagination to see the variability of nature doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Moose

John said...

I agree with Moose on this one. These distributions more than allow for the continuation of the human race. Lord knows this Earth has too many humans on it in some locations with these distributions.

Men who like Women. (Large portion)
Men who are indifferent (ie Bi-sexual)
Men who like Men.
Women who like Women.
Women who are indifferent (ie Bi-sexual)
Women who like Men. (Large portion)

And please remember that the science is indicating that being LGBTQ may not necessarily a genetic condition that would end if gay folks did not make babies. It seems more related to the conditions under which each fetus develops. (ie hormones, levels, timing, other)

Modern science is very interesting...

jerrye92002 said...

Moose, I do NOT insist that sexuality is chosen, only sexual BEHAVIOR. OK, John is attracted to pretty women on the street. He's married, not dead, as the old joke says. But he does NOT (we assume) immediately initiate sex with every one of them.

John, you somehow seem to have gotten back to Laurie's original premise, with which I agreed but then offered the evidence that, whatever physiological source there may be for an "uncommon" (to use Moose's word) sexual orientation, there is nothing that conclusively creates a given orientation, and certainly orientation does not drive behavior. You are pushing on a very long string, when the original subject has to be where do the "rights" of those who choose to behave differently end, and where do the rights of those who do not wish to participate in those behaviors begin?

Anonymous said...

All kinds of behavior is genetically predetermined. You want people to go against their given nature and either abstain from a sexual relationship or engage in a sexual relationship that you approve of (which will also be unfulfilling to them).

You've simply convinced yourself, in your typical arrogance, that the way you view the world is the way the world is.

Thankfully, the world is much more diverse and interesting than your perspective.

Moose

John said...

Seems like a pretty short string to me.

Once a scientific proof exists that sexual orientation is a physiological issue, not a purely behavioral issue. And if it stays socially acceptable in most of America like it is today, very soon the protections will grow as they exist based on race, sex, etc.

And the folks who stand against these folks will continue to become more and more ostracized in our society.

jerrye92002 said...

Sorry, but at the moment the proof does not exist, and it is highly unlikely that it ever will be proven. Now what society chooses to tolerate or not tolerate, that is up to them, but the point is that each of us should be free to choose which side of that we are on, and not have our freedoms of speech and association trampled to such political correctness. Isn't that the real problem here? If and when society evolves to the point where it is generally accepted behavior, the issue goes away, doesn't it? The problem is we're forcing acceptance down society's throat before it is ready. In fact it is creating a backlash that will delay the societal change. Live and let live, for catsake.

jerrye92002 said...

Moose, I am a bit surprised to hear that your opinion of how the world really is is entirely correct, and that my opinion of how the world really is is 100% wrong. And I am the "arrogant" one.

Anonymous said...

DNA backs me up...a nearly infinite number of combinations.

You, on the other hand, suggest there is only one possible, correct outcome.

It is not political correctness to require that all people be treated equally under the law regardless of personal choices such as religion or innate traits such as skin color or sexual orientation. To get what you want will require a re-writing of the Constitution. Society IS ready; however, now that it's YOUR ox being gored and not the homosexual's, you want us to "live and let live" so that people like you can continue to discriminate and advocate for unequal treatment under the law and in public accommodations.

Moose

John said...

Jerry,
For better or worse you will continue to earn the "arrogant one" title with statements like this.

"there is nothing that conclusively creates a given orientation, and certainly orientation does not drive behavior."

"Sorry, but at the moment the proof does not exist, and it is highly unlikely that it ever will be proven."

The reality is that the field of neuro science is relatively new and I am pretty certain that they will unravel the mystery of why I am attracted to women and others are attracted to men sooner or later.

And our society will continue to evolve as the older more rigid people die off.

John said...

I am kind of curious. When science has solved this riddle and some people decide to continue to look down on others who God created differently....

Will that then be a good time to use the term bigot?

"a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially :one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"

Now I am willing to cut Religious Conservatives some slack as long as the science is still pretty fuzzy, but when things become clearer there will less and less flexibility available.

John said...

I mean there are still a few back woods Religious Conservatives out there who support Racism, Segregation, Intolerance for Other Religions... And I am pretty sure our society will not tolerate that bigoted behavior.


So as for your comment...

"Now what society chooses to tolerate or not tolerate, that is up to them, but the point is that each of us should be free to choose which side of that we are on, and not have our freedoms of speech and association trampled to such political correctness. Isn't that the real problem here?"

The reality that at some point people do lose their freedom of association. Because that freedom then officially tramples on the freedom of others to be treated equally.

jerrye92002 said...

Ah. I see the problem. There are people here who are "science deniers," and it's not I. This thing has already been exhaustively studied, and even Laurie's quite reasonable explanation has been proven indeterminate.

Let's see if I can reduce this topic to a simple question. Whose civil rights are being violated, in this case? Is it the gay couple denied a wedding cake by this ONE baker, or this one baker forced, by law, into baking a cake he does not want to bake? You've heard my solution, that if I were the baker and pressed, I would bake the worst cake I had ever made. Or let me posit another solution. One of the couple could have come in, ordered a wedding cake, or just a cake, and with no intimation it was a gay wedding, what would the baker have done?

As for "treated equally," Why must marriage be limited to two people? To people unrelated? To those of a certain age? To human beings?

jerrye92002 said...

John, please explain on what basis you criticize my comment: "Sorry, but at the moment the proof does not exist, and it is highly unlikely that it ever will be proven."

Does this mean you have the definitive proof and I have not seen it? Or that you have not seen the science that proves rather substantially the opposite case, making future science unlikely to alter that conclusion? Sure, there is room for skeptics in science, who will eventually overturn the "theory." Too bad that rule doesn't seem to apply to those pro-Global-Warming "bigots."

John said...

The reality is that science is rapidly working to disprove 2 of your sacred cows.

Humans don't negatively impact climate.

LGBTQ is just another behavior / choice like bowling...

I am patient and can wait. I am just curious how or when you will let these cows die?

Anonymous said...

Apparently, these things need to be continually rehashed.

"Why must marriage be limited to two people?"

I don't know that it must be. Let those who want plural marriage petition their government for it.

"To people unrelated?"

Marriage establishes legal kinship, so it's unnecessary.

"To those of a certain age?"

We have established ages of consent. If you wish to change them, petition your government to do so.

"To human beings?"

I guess that since you believe that animals make decisions regarding sexuality this is something that is possible. The rest of us who can use our brains know that animals can't consent to such a thing.

Any other silly questions?

Moose

jerrye92002 said...

"The reality is that science is rapidly working to disprove 2 of your sacred cows."

So I am correct in stating that the proof does not currently exist, and that what evidence we have suggests that the cows will live long and healthy lives is, what? Contrary to the way you wish reality to be?

Anonymous said...

Reality is what it is. When science confirms reality, you will be proven to have always been wrong.

On the other hand, you could observe the world around you and realize that not everything, in fact almost nothing, is as simply binary as you want it to be.

Moose

John said...

Jerry,
Since most educated individuals have already butchered those cows and grilled them up for steaks. I have faith that the people worshipping them will continue to shrink rapidly as the rigid Baby Boomers die off and the science becomes clearer.

As I said before, I am just more curious if you have the personal capacity to release old beliefs as new data becomes available.

jerrye92002 said...

Since when does science have anything to do with public opinion? Even "97% of scientists" cannot convince anywhere near a majority that we face a climate catastrophe, and they claim to have the science "settled." Researchers in this field have already proven it isn't genetic and it isn't hormonal, so the fact that society seems to be moving towards accepting the behavior that goes along with this "condition" says we aren't paying attention to the science on that, either.

None of which answers the question I asked, which is, at the present time, whose "rights" are being violated, here? Of all the other possible combinations of baker and customer, why is this particular combination notorious?

John said...

Jerry,
I am only 51 years old, so I am patient.

By the way... Here is one source that states you are very incorrect again.

"Sixty-eight percent of Americans -- the highest Gallup has recorded -- believe increases in Earth's temperatures over the last century are mainly due to the effects of pollution from human activities. Just 29% now attribute global warming to natural changes in the environment."

The good news is that you are special... I mean only 29% of Americans are like you. :-)

As for Gay at Birth... It seems many people are still working on that. I would say we are a LONG WAY from proving it is not hormones or genetics...

I usually use bakers, florists, caterers, photographers, counselors, doctors, landlords, etc because they have to be part of the activity and really associate with the LGBTQ individuals. I have no tolerance if a hardware store owner refused to sell a gay couple a hammer.

John said...

Kind of like how I had no tolerance for Muslim Taxi drivers who wouldn't carry people with alcohol in the cab.

jerrye92002 said...

As I said, how people think about a controversy is often at odds with the science, especially since most people have absolutely no clue about the actual science. For Global Warming, these poll results mean the propaganda has been effective at persuading people that the science, and indeed common sense, is other than what it is.

And again, my statements that gay at birth or caused by hormones reflect the science, whereas poll results reflect how the uniniformed "feel" about the science. In both cases, here, the science continues because there is money to be made studying this stuff ad infinitum.

As for your intolerance of hardware store owners, I can only say: How would he/she KNOW? Just like someone ordering a celebration cake from a baker, who never revealed that the celebration was for a gay wedding, wouldn't the issue go away? If the baker learned of it and refused, and the gay couple was tolerant and accepted that refusal and took their business elsewhere, wouldn't it be a dead issue? Photographers, yes, would ALWAYS know but again, if the couple simply found another photographer, what's the problem?

John said...

Jerry,
I hope that you live long enough to see that you were incorrect. Though I think it is unlikely that you will ever let your cows RIP.

So are you saying that businesses should be free to turn away minorities and women by using "religious objections" as an excuse? I think that ship sailed long ago.

As soon as science determines what physiological factors make LGBT people the way they are, they will be granted the same protections as other minority groups.

jerrye92002 said...

Will I ever let my religious beliefs RIP? Even though "science" cannot prove there is a God? Will the supporters of CAGW ever abandon their religious belief in that scientifically untenable position?

I believe businesses should be free to "refuse service to anyone," and that regardless of whether that is a business, common sense or "religion based" objection should not matter to the law. If a halal grocery refuses to sell me pork chops and as a result of my lack of patronage goes out of business, can they sue me?

John said...

What religion are you that still sees gay and lesbian relationships as unacceptable?

My parents are pretty conflicted since they want to be anti LGBT rights, however their ELCA church is pro LGBT rights and one of their best life long friends has been gay forever... As I said, much of this angst will disappear when the baby boomers start dying off.

As for CAGW, time will tell...

You may be willing to go back to the days of racism and segregation, however I do not see the rest of us allowing it.

jerrye92002 said...

Don't start that again. Racial discrimination is based on genetic characteristics, but being gay is about behavior, and so far science has far more evidence for that than of the contrary proposition you would impose on all who believe otherwise. If "time will tell" on CAGW, then what would you call the cries for "deniers" to be prosecuted, jailed, or worse? What if it is your belief that science eventually decides is wrong? Should you still be allowed to hold that opinion?

Anonymous said...

Religion is about behavior, and that's enshrined in the Constitution. Science cannot prove there is a God, yet those who choose to believe in one are protected by the Constitution. So, I'll take that as your agreement that the Constitution should protect sexual minorities even though Science can't prove that they are innate.

After all...as you say...it's the Science that's important, not how one feels about it (unless it's Religion, I guess.)

Moose

jerrye92002 said...

Well, there you have an actual, valid argument, with only one flaw. That is, if the practice of religion is protected by the constitution, then these "sexual minorities" don't have a legal leg to stand on when someone wants to force the practice of that behavior over the practice of another person's religion, and that is what is at issue here.

Anonymous said...

"That is, if the practice of religion is protected by the constitution, then these "sexual minorities" don't have a legal leg to stand on when someone wants to force the practice of that behavior over the practice of another person's religion, and that is what is at issue here."

Nonsense. If that's the case, then a Christian can refuse service to a Jew because doing otherwise would force the Christian to practice Judaism.

Moose

John said...

Jerry
Here we go again... "but being gay is about behavior, and so far science has far more evidence for that than of the contrary proposition" I call BS... Lay your sources on the computer.

The reality is that every year science is learning more and more about what most American's already know. Being LGT is set for the most part when one is born.

I personally have no idea about B & Q... Those seem more behavioral in nature to me.

Please feel free to deny that human behaviors are negatively impacting our Earth's climate as long as you wish. There are even people out there who believe Black people are less because their skin is a different color.

In America we are free to believe whatever we wish. However the majority gets to set our policies, social norms, etc. So please feel free to keep hollowing at the storm.

Moose,
You can fight it all you want, but religion is pretty much the only behavior / belief that is protected in this country. That is unless you want to start the church of the LGBTQ...

John said...

Moose,
I am guessing the Jewish couple wouldn't throw a fuss if a Christian fundamentalist refused to be their photographer.

It is mostly the LGBTQ community that keeps trying force the issue.

Anonymous said...

"You can fight it all you want, but religion is pretty much the only behavior / belief that is protected in this country."

I have no issue with Religion being protected, but then we need to dispense with the argument that rights should be dependent on whether or not a trait is inherent.

In other words, it's irrelevant whether or not gayness or straightness is chosen. And it won't matter to the bigots when/if sexuality is proven to be innate, just as there are still monsters among us who believe worthiness is based on skin color.

Moose

Anonymous said...

"I am guessing the Jewish couple wouldn't throw a fuss if a Christian fundamentalist refused to be their photographer."

But you're focusing a VERY small number of dust-ups in this fight over Constitutional rights. The bigger picture is that there should be fairness and non-discrimination in public accommodations. Are you willing to open Pandora's box by allowing some proprietors to discriminate?

Moose

John said...

Yes, I am okay letting some businesses discriminate until LGBTQ is proven to be equivalent to male/ female, Black/ White, healthy /disabled.

Until this occurs, the jury is still out and people are free to disagree with that "lifestyle choice".

jerrye92002 said...

John, I have my sources and "the science" says LG is NOT genetic and NOT hormonally determinative. I believe it is up to those who take the contrary view to prove it, scientifically or logically, and "public opinion" is neither scientific or logical. So back to the original question, you are "OK until... proven" on this, yet you insist that such reasoning does not apply to CAGW. Am I the only one seeing an inconsistency?

John said...

Jerry, In this case you are taking a view that is contrary to Moose and myself, so prove it. :-)

As for inconsistency... Let's go back to the concept of a FMEA.

Though it is very important to a small percentage of Americans and it causes them some annoyance at times. LGBTQ rights allowing them to use a preferred baker, photographer, etc has little impact on the lives of everyone on Earth. And the problem can be resolved very quickly when the the science is clarified. In other words the severity is low, few die and it can be fixed quickly. It is like a mouse standing in the road on that foggy night.

Where as with climate change the severity may mean the deaths of many millions of people and once we are in that position it will be very expensive and difficult to fix the issue. That moose standing in the fog...

jerrye92002 said...

Prove it? Easy. I am the world's foremost authority on my opinion, and I have the weight of science-- existing science, not speculative science – on my side. I would provide references but I have seen no evidence that you would believe them.

Now, if you want to be scientific and use FMEA analysis, I think we should do it more rigorously than simply throwing about the term and then making the same old unsupported assertions. Of course, much depends on your definitions of "failure" and "customer." So, for the matter of wedding cakes, etc., I define "failure" as one or more people being prevented from doing what they want to do. so…
– The "severity" I rate at two; the customer will experience slight annoyance
– the "probability of occurrence" is higher now that gay marriage is legalized, so I am going to call that a three;; "low failure rate without documentation."
– The "ability to detect" is the tough one. Because of the notoriety of this situation, I am going to suggest a rating of three, because "low likelihood that the potential failure will reach the next customer undetected."

So, our rating for this particular situation is 2×3×3 = 18. Now notice that if we define the customer as the Baker, the severity rises to five, because the Baker is very dissatisfied and his business suffers. Therefore the priority for action is 45, pointing us to the remedy.

jerrye92002 said...

Now let us try the same with global warming, only we have two cases side by side. We define failure as a large rise in temperature having massive effects on the human population, and the "customer" as that human population.
- The severity of a large rise in temperature CAUSED BY FOSSIL FUELS I will rate a 7, "high degree of customer dissatisfaction due to component failure without complete loss of function." In other words, the planet would remain habitable, but dislocations would occur.
-- the severity of a large rise in temperature occurring naturally also rates a seven,since they are indistinguishable one from the other.

– The probability of occurrence is problematic, because FMEA is intended for use where multiple widgets are manufactured, and we only have one Earth to experiment on. "occasional failures" is not an option. Furthermore, we won't have any data for 100 years or more, the way failures are defined here. so, if we accept the IPCC models and their worst-case scenario, OCC is a 8-- "high failure rate without supporting documentation" (i.e. 95% certain to be less).
--Now here's where it gets tricky. The models base their predictions based on CO2 being the predominant factor in the warming. If we simply go by long-term temperature trends (natural warming)-- that is, the actual data that we DO have – we have to rate this a 2 – "low failure rate with supporting documentation."
– Now, as for ability to detect: so far we have been unable to detect the "human footprint" in the warming that has taken place so far, and so for the man-made scenario, we must rate this as a 8 – "very poor likelihood that the potential failure will be detected or prevented before reaching the next customer."
--For the case of natural warming, we are going to assume that people will notice catastrophic changes in temperature IF THEY OCCUR. Therefore we are at rating 1 – "sure that the potential failure will be found or prevented before reaching the next customer" except that if it is natural it cannot be prevented and there is no next customer.

so what do we have? For the case of manmade warming, 7 times 8 (or 2) times 8, whereas for natural warming (non-catastrophic), we have 448 (speculative) or 112 (measured). If the warming is largely natural and/or the models are wrong (TWO distinct possibilities), we have 7 * 2* 1, or 14. So, you are correct that man-made warming is by far the more high-priority "failure." I'm a bit surprised. maybe I shouldn't be, since natural warming has no expected point of failure. Our worries are over the predictions of unproven climate models.

Nonetheless, following the FMEA procedure then takes you to the matter of solutions, starting with the highest-priority items. If there are multiple solutions, they are evaluated for effectiveness and cost. THAT is where we will have trouble. There is no solid evidence that reducing man-made CO2 has any significant effect on global temperatures. Both the IPCC and EPA confirm it. The cost of replacing the global energy infrastructure to obtain this nearly insignificant benefit is astronomical. Discard that solution. What is left? A miracle?

jerrye92002 said...

Correcting confusion in next to last paragraph:

So what do we have? For the case of manmade warming, 7 times 8 (or 2) times 8, (deleted), we have 448 (speculative) or 112 (measured). If the warming is largely natural and/or the models are wrong (TWO distinct possibilities), we have 7 * 2* 1, or 14. So, you are correct that man-made warming is by far the more high-priority "failure." I'm a bit surprised. maybe I shouldn't be, since natural warming has no expected point of failure. Our worries are over the predictions of unproven climate models.

John said...

If there is a risk, even a low risk then severities of 9 & 10 trigger a need for action / mitigation.

"IV Critical (causes a loss of primary function; Loss of all safety Margins, 1 failure away from a catastrophe, severe damage, severe injuries, max 1 possible death )

V Catastrophic (product becomes inoperative; the failure may result in complete unsafe operation and possible multiple deaths)"


Therefore the need immediate action on Climate change, and more flexibility with regard to LGBTQ issues.

If a passenger train is capable of making a curve at 100 mph 99.9% of the time you would not set the speed limit at 100 mph. The potential consequence of dead passengers and by standers is not acceptable. You either slow down the trains or redesign the rail in the curve.

Here is a link to a Ford Pinto lawsuit site for what may happen when people rationalize away 9's and 10's.

jerrye92002 said...

Back to the original issue, here's the actual case:

"In July 2012, two men entered the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado. They asked the owner of the bakery, Jack Phillips, to custom-design a wedding cake for the pair’s same-sex wedding.

Phillips offered to sell the couple anything else in his store, even a pre-made cake. But, citing his Christian faith, he declined to design a special cake for the couple’s wedding.

The two men filed a complaint with Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which found that Phillips had violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. It ordered Phillips to bake the couple a wedding cake.

The commission also ordered Phillips to go through a “re-education” program and file quarterly “compliance” reports with the state showing that his business was following the state’s prevailing marriage doctrine.

Phillips appealed the decision to Colorado’s Supreme Court, and when that court ordered him to bake the cake too, he appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. It will hear oral arguments in the case later this year."

So, which side is "intolerant" in your view?

jerrye92002 said...

In my FMEA, I see no 9's. And even if I bump up one of the 8's to a 9 (on a whim, I don't see how you honestly do it) so that "action/ mitigation" is required, you still do not have a mandate for PREVENTION of the failure. "Mitigation" would be sufficient, that is, dealing with the problems caused by the warming, rather than trying to prevent the warming from occurring. And to justify "prevention" as one of the solutions you would have to solidly identify the specific cause of the failure, like "insufficient tool sharpening cycle." Unless you have such specific proof, prevention is not an option and without proof, as is the case for CAGW, the solution doesn't exist. That's in general.

Worse yet, for the specific case of CAGW, even if we /think/ we have the proof (which we do not), the solution is simply too costly and ineffective. That train is moving too fast, and in the wrong direction!

Anonymous said...

Let's make an analogy by replacing a couple of words in the story:

"In July 2012, a couple entered the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado. They asked the owner of the bakery, Jack Phillips, to custom-design a wedding cake for the pair’s Jewish wedding.

Phillips offered to sell the couple anything else in his store, even a pre-made cake. But, citing his Christian faith, he declined to design a special cake for the couple’s wedding."

Are you still okay with it?

Moose

jerrye92002 said...

No, I'm not OK with it, because it would never happen. Christians have a high regard for the Jewish faith. Jesus was a Jew, you know. Now if you could find a BLM or Klan or Nazi or Nation of Islam bakery, it might be true.

And the point was the baker was willing to sell them anything else, but could not "take part" in a gay wedding. He "declined an invitation," and for that was threatened with a "re-education camp." Are you OK if government decides you need to be "re-educated" about some of your deeply-held beliefs?

Anonymous said...

"And the point was the baker was willing to sell them anything else, but could not "take part" in a gay wedding."

They're being asked to bake a cake. Baking a cake is not a religious activity.

"Are you OK if government decides you need to be "re-educated" about some of your deeply-held beliefs?"

When my beliefs deny others equal access to a public accommodation, perhaps I SHOULD be re-educated. But since I'm not a bigot, that won't be a problem.

You should probably go back to the 1950s where you belong, so you can put up a "no coloreds" sign in your business window. 2017 is obviously too much for you to deal with.

Moose

John said...

"I see no 9's."

Maybe that is because your cup is full and your eyes are closed. So sad as Trump would say.

World Health Organization

John said...

Moose,
As noted many times, LGBT is NOT a religion, or a sex, or a race, or a disability...

It is NOT protected by the law in all States, whereas Religion is.


Do you want that baker forced to make a KKK cake against their Christian values?

Anonymous said...

"As noted many times, LGBT is NOT a religion, or a sex, or a race, or a disability..."

Okay...so if they discriminate against a customer based on religion, sex, race, or disability, THEN you agree that they should be subject to the law?

I think you're forgetting that they ARE discriminating against a potential customer here because one of them is of the wrong sex.

Also, you apparently think that they should be forced to bake a cake for Satanists (protected Religious class).

Moose

jerrye92002 said...

"2017 is obviously too much for you to deal with." You still have no idea to whom you are speaking, do you? You are still, apparently, of the opinion, that cultural and moral rot are equivalent to progress, and quick to condemn any who see it differently. And what is a "public accommodation"? Isn't this situation one of private contract, between a willing buyer and a willing seller? If somebody walks into this bake shop and wants a "kill all niggers" cake, or offers just a dollar for a huge wedding cake, is the baker required by law to sell it? WHY?

jerrye92002 said...

John, you were the one who introduced FMEA into the climate change discussion so that we could supposedly have an objective basis for assessing the situation. I could not justify a 9 in any part of the definition, but I was willing to speculate what would happen if forced to find a solution (as a 9 would require). I find there are no viable solutions except "adaptation if and when." What is being proposed and implemented (far ahead of any reliable documentation that the problem even exists), has already been proven ineffective at preventing the problem, does nothing to ameliorate the problem, and costs far more than just "dealing with it" if and when.

And your WHO cite STILL suffers from the fundamental flaw in all of this, which would not be tolerated in a real FMEA, jumping from the cause of the problem being "climate change" to the cause being "manmade CO2."

And now we have the evidence, complete in the first 3 words.
WE WERE WRONG

Anonymous said...

"Isn't this situation one of private contract, between a willing buyer and a willing seller?"

If that's the case, then we have no such thing as a public accommodation in this country, yet we have laws that define such a thing. And if you're not being obtuse and genuinely don't know what a public accommodation is, then you are as ignorant as I claim you to be.

"You still have no idea to whom you are speaking, do you?"

Of course not. I doubt jerrye92002 is your real name. And I don't care. A bigot is a bigot no matter "who" they are.

"You are still, apparently, of the opinion, that cultural and moral rot are equivalent to progress..."

You are sadly and sorely mistaken, and your statement is evidence of your arrogance and willingness to paint your ideological opponent in the worst possible light. You don't know what progress is. You don't have any clue what a progressive believes. You're not interested in progress.

You support Trump, who has gone on record in front of the U.N. saying that he would be willing to wipe a nation of 25 million people off the map. Your support of him is proof enough of your moral bankruptcy, and you have the audacity to suggest that I'M in support of cultural and moral rot? With all due respect, bugger off!

Moose

jerrye92002 said...

"You don't know what progress is. You don't have any clue what a progressive believes. You're not interested in progress."

You have no idea to whom you are "speaking," do you? As for what a progressive believes, I have only your irrational insults upon which to build knowledge.

Anonymous said...

"As for what a progressive believes, I have only your irrational insults upon which to build knowledge."

There are many ways to build your knowledge of progressive beliefs, but you're too arrogant to do so.

"You have no idea to whom you are "speaking," do you?"

You keep "saying" that as if I should care.

Moose

John said...

I think we are done with this discussion... :-)