Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

981 Excellent

About Jtrekkie

  • Rank
  • Birthday 03/17/1994

Personal Information

  • Species

Art Sites

  • FA

Instant Message

  • Skype

Recent Profile Visitors

1347 profile views
  1. New year

    Happy new year guys. This one will be interesting for me
  2. The Consumerism Thread

    I bought a watch.
  3. General Chat/Time-Waster Thread

    I despise toad. Also, happy Easter everyone. I hope you had a good day. Double post because of toad
  4. Just one more furry trash, at your service!

    Hey, welcome! Nice to see you
  5. G'day everyfur

    Hello, and welcome! Nice to see you.
  6. I suppose I'm back

    Welcome back. And congrats!
  7. Thoughts on gay cake case in front of SCOTUS

    If that was their reasoning, they wouldn't serve gay people at all. We used to have a lot of bigots and that's how they behaved to other people. These bakers do serve gay people, however, including that same couple. They don't think it is right to support gay marriage, so they directed the couple to another baker that was OK with it. There's a big difference. And for that they've most likely lost their business. I don't know if you're familiar with Judaism, but there are many things that we think are harmless that they don't allow themselves to take part in (and that angers many people). They generally don't try to stop anyone else from having their own celebrations; they understand their ethics are too strict for other people, but they remove themselves from it. That's what these bakers did. That's different from holding other people to your standards. OP had a good observation in recognizing that law is no substitute for morality. At any rate, it is legal to refuse service to a single male or white heterosexual couple, but no one else. In those cases, a provider is not equal.(You'll have trouble refusing service to everyone, too. A NM judge was recently sued by a gay couple for doing that. ) That's not a fair situation for any party, and I don't think it's an easy position to defend, but that is just according to public opinion.
  8. Thoughts on gay cake case in front of SCOTUS

    I can see there's some prejudice in here, so I'll be brief. I've read what both sides have to say; I could not call the Kleins bigots. They have been quite gracious through the whole thing. Vae, you made a weak analogy. Christian doctrine does not hold gays (or liars, or bigots, or murderers) to be inferior. The Kliens never indicated they thought anything like that, either. The bakers passed judgement on themselves only. Personally, it seems that forcing someone to do something against his will for my own gratification would be immoral. It is hurting him for my pleasure, it might feel good, but it's not respecting his agency. The bakers were picked on purpose, you know. The question comes down to whether it is acceptable to subject a personal, or even public, will on someone else. This was not a matter of public safety like traffic laws are, or of public courtesy like noise pollution laws are. It is purely a conflict of will. If the answer is yes, the rule must be applied universally; fair laws don't admit arbitrary classes.
  9. General Chat/Time-Waster Thread

    A happy new year for everyone.

    Merry Christmas everyone! Couldn't get everyone together until tomorrow, so tonight is prep.
  11. Reintroduction?

  12. The Mugshots and Selfie Thread 2.0

    Gir is awesome.
  13. Last final in less than 12 hours

    Im really late, but good luck, U!