Christian bakery wins 'gay cake' ruling from UK supreme court

Well some people think the world's flat.

 

Actual science has proved them wrong.

 

Actually facts have proven them wrong. Science is an intellectual and practical endeavor. Not a set of facts.

To go about proving something you must approach it with an open mind. Which is why it's hilarious when you deny the science of psychiatry.

You hold science in the worst regard.

People like saying the word science as though it gives weight to their posts

 

Again, what stigma should be associated with homosexuality and why?

 

Doesn't seem he likes social engendering unless it's done in his favor.

 

Science uses observable facts for their proof. Unlike the APA who votes.

 

You would need to ask those who stigmatize homosexuals

 

Okay facts are just a term for reality. And yes science is an endeavor that is based on the notion that there is a reality.

Seems a stupid point to make, but here we are.

Well the APA is an association that's what the last A stands for. Associations operate on parliamentary procedure of one form or another.

That doesn't suggest that there is no science in psychiatry.

Your starting to sound more and more like a conspiracy theorist.

 

I guess all the astronomists who voted on Pluto's planet status aren't using science either.

 

Yeah, decisions shouldn't occur in administrative organizations they should just science a policy or code of ethics.

 

It was you who said they had, "an agenda to eliminate societal stigmas". This implies, intended or not, that you feel such stigmas need to continue. So why is that?

 

When it comes to what is the definition of a planet, at some point a criteria has to be established. There is nothing factual per se a to what that criteria is. A standard hydrogen atom is an atom with one proton one electron and one neutron. What makes a planet and what makes a mental illness do need to have definitions created. Mind you science should be used in helping in the creation of the definition, but ultimately it is going to have to be a decision that is made.

 

The APA should focus on treating mental disorders

 

Kind of demonstrates my point. One moment it was a planet, then following a vote it was not a planet. The after a while and another vote its a planet again. This isn't science

 

That isn't their function. It is an administrative body. Psychiatric Doctors who practice medicine focus on treating mental disorders.

 

Nobody's claiming it's science, it is a governing body.

Also did you know that the status of being labeled the planet in general isn't science? It's actually called language.

 

See my post immediately prior to this one I am responding to. When it comes to such definitions it can never be science in and of itself although science can certainly back up the reasoning.

Let's look at gender. A related topic to boot. Initially science said that sex (the physical body) and gender (the sense of self) we're one and the same. We are now seeing that this doesn't seem to be the case. While we can certainly bell curve the matchup the normally occurs (statistically speaking) we also see consistent variations outside that norm. Additionally, there have been several studies that have shown that a transgender's brain structure is closer to that of their gender than to their sex so they aren't even physically the same as a cisgender. So now we have to determine whether or not this is a mental disorder or not. But what is a mental disorder? There might be a whole range of opinions on that throughout the field. In order to set a common ground and establish the baseline a decision has to be made. That is what the APA does. As new knowledge is discovered and learned, those definitions get updated. Science still drives those definitions, but we have all seen how interpertation of results and statistics can be wildly different. The APA doesn't just willy nilly change things. Those wanting the change still have to bring the scientific data to support their position for the change.

 

.

 

And I think a grown man can have a weekend marriage with two pubescent girls.
I demand the law recognize my sexual preferences seeing the girls are consenting.

Weekend marriages will do away with some women's concern for commitment and
there will no more issues about male motives. Now that we have moved the goal
posts on what constitutes marriage, let's all arrange our own.

 

What's this got to do with this baker story?

 

The bakery story is an account of conservative vs "progressive" (regressive?)
views on marriage. If it's okay for people of some sexual orientation to redefine
what marriage meant for a million years, then it's okay for EVERYONE to redefine
what marriage means to them. Why can't a pederast marry a pubescent person?
Who gets to choose?
Why can't I marry three young men for three months? Why can't I marry my classic
car? Why can't I get married at 5 yo? Why can't I get married to my great, great
grandfather long gone? Why can't I tell Muslims what marriage ought to be?
And I want everyone else to respect that or I'll take them to court.

And while I am at it - if some Greenies own a cake shop and I want them to bake a
cake which celebrates the anniversary of Big Oil - I want to sue them if they balk
at my request.
And if it's a cake shop owned by a strong Labor party I won't take no if I want a cake
to celebrate the years of Margaret Thatcher.
In short, this cake business, in the UK and USA, is code for covert and growing Fascism.

 

What country are you in?

 

I am Australian. And we have our own Politically Correct lunatics.
Today the news featured school children demonstrating with
placards about global warming. Some couldn't spell and a minister
said the three R's didn't include revolution.
I remember that Global Freezing campaign, BTW. Now conveniently
forgotten.

 

You actually 17? That's young for a political forum! Good on you.

 

No.