Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Perd Hapley on April 05, 2015, 10:38:30 AM
-
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/denvers-azucar-bakery-wins-right-to-refuse-to-make-anti-gay-cake
Some animals are more equal than others.
-
So here's the thing:
I think bakeries should be free to pick their clients (or not) for whatever reason. Genuinely held religious beliefs are the core of a persons psyche, and the idea that we are forcing people to question those needs some serious thought, as a society.
But.
The two things you are equating aren't equal. Baking a cake for celebration, even of someone you despise is not the same as being asked (or hired) to participate in the defaming of someone. The equivalent to this cake thing is if she were asked to bake a Koran cake with a couple of the verses talking about killing and enslaving nonbelievers. Which I'm betting she wouldn't do either.
The other bakery being forced to make a wedding cake for a gay couple is likewise a different thing. They are forced to provide the same product to gays and non gays. This lady refused to provide a product to a christian that she also doesn't provide to anyone else. So, on this one the courts are right.*
Of course this whole thing wouldn't be an issue if we actually believed in freedom of association.
*Assuming of course you accept the legitimacy of the courts being able to decide who you do and don't do business with.
ETA: changed terminology for fistful.
-
Nope. They are equal. Either you have a right of refusal of service or not. Either you have the right of association (or disassociation) or you do not.
PERIOD.
-
So here's the thing:
I think bakeries should be free to pick their clients (or not) for whatever reason. Genuinely held religious beliefs are the core of a persons psyche, and the idea that we are forcing people to question those needs some serious thought, as a society.
But.
The two things you are equating aren't equal. Baking a cake for celebration, even of someone you despise is not the same as being asked (or hired) to participate in the hating of someone. The equivalent to this cake thing is if she were asked to bake a Koran cake with a couple of the verses talking about killing and enslaving nonbelievers. Which I'm betting she wouldn't do either.
The other bakery being forced to make a wedding cake for a gay couple is likewise a different thing. They are forced to provide the same product to gays and non gays. This lady refused to provide a product to a christian that she also doesn't provide to anyone else. So, on this one the courts are right.*
Of course this whole thing wouldn't be an issue if we actually believed in freedom of association.
*Assuming of course you accept the legitimacy of the courts being able to decide who you do and don't do business with.
and this is why the Republic was lost; even guys who are on our side regarding most things are completely lost on what is the nature of true liberty and individual rights.
Liberty is not compatible with the modern redefinition of egalitarianism.
-
Nope. They are equal. Either you have a right of refusal of service or not. Either you have the right of association (or disassociation) or you do not.
PERIOD.
You don't. I thought that was clear to everyone by now.
That's why the Denver lady won in court. She wasn't claiming right of association, which business owners don't have. She was claiming that her business doesn't defame ANY group. She apparently had evidence that she doesn't.
-
Nope. They are equal. Either you have a right of refusal of service or not. Either you have the right of association (or disassociation) or you do not.
PERIOD.
We no longer have the right of association, it went away with natural rights and the rest of the republic.
We're living in the rotting carcass of the old Republic.
-
and this is why the Republic was lost; even guys who are on our side regarding most things are completely lost on what is the nature of true liberty and individual rights.
Liberty is not compatible with the modern redefinition of egalitarianism.
I am not confused on the nature of liberty. I am also not surprised when courts do not use a freedom that hasn't existed in my lifetime in rulings.
-
We no longer have the right of association, it went away with natural rights and the rest of the republic.
We're living in the rotting carcass of the old Republic.
No argument there. My point was If we are going to fight in the culture wars, we need to do so based on the rights and privileges we actually have, not should have.
Denver Baker won her case because she proved that she treated all groups the same. The Christian Baker lost because she didn't. The difference between supporting cakes and defaming cakes are what allowed that to happen. That's why the cases aren't equal, and conservatives that ddon't understand that distinction are why we keep losing battles.
-
So here's the thing:
I think bakeries should be free to pick their clients (or not) for whatever reason. Genuinely held religious beliefs are the core of a persons psyche, and the idea that we are forcing people to question those needs some serious thought, as a society.
But.
The two things you are equating aren't equal.
I didn't say those things (celebrating vs so-called hating) are equal. If you're going to be all rational and objective, would it be out of your way to give a brother the benefit of the doubt, at least?
What I equated are two bakers who didn't want to produce a good that had a purpose with which they disagreed.
And, since you are taking such pains to be objective, could you correct that bit about "hating of someone"? Expressing moral disagreement with someone's behavior certainly doesn't qualify as hatred. If there's something hateful about the customer's request, I haven't seen it. You'll notice he asked for the one of the cake's to say "God loves sinners."
-
You can understand my confusion, you did use the word "equal"......
-
You can understand my confusion, you did use the word "equal"......
Which was correct. Ask for clarification, maybe.
-
What I equated are two bakers who didn't want to produce a good that had a purpose with which they disagreed.
This right here.
The message is inconsequential. Refusal to produce a service for someone you don't want to serve should be a simple right of a free people.
Just further proof of the failings of the civil rights act, and of just how free we ain't.
-
No, Jamis, it all makes sense. Moral beliefs against homosexual marriage get no protection from the law. The religion of Happycake gets all the protection it needs. You understand that, right?
-
Truth.
I do see a new opportunity for a niche business. Hatecakes. You want a KKK cake? No problem! You want a "got hates fags" cake? No problem!
-
No, Jamis, it all makes sense. Moral beliefs against homosexual marriage get no protection from the law. The religion of Happycake gets all the protection it needs. You understand that, right?
Ahh Christian Martyr Syndrome kicks in to 5th gear.
We don't yet live in a place where we actually have as much liberty as we'd like to tell ourselves. If you run a business, you don't get freedom of association.
Make wedding cakes? You gotta make them for pretty much everybody.
Make negative cakes? Gotta make them for everybody. Only Bakery #2 doesn't actually make them for anybody, so she's good. The two situations are not the same because of the content of the request. I know it makes folks feel all oppressed to conflate the two, but there are obvious differences between the two situations.
Unless you have evidence that Baker #2 has made cakes showing Christians (or anyone else) negatively, this isn't a "Some animals are more Equal" moment, it's a "Content of the message matters in the real world" issue.
But keep pretending that this guy didn't get his cakes made because he was Christian if it makes you feel better.
-
So if hypothetically you wanted a gay wedding cake, why would you seek out a baker who did not want to sell you one and then sue them, rather than go someplace else that actually wanted you business? (Would you eat anything cooked under duress by someone who disliked you or strongly disapproved of what you were doing?) I'd be afraid of what disgusting "extras" I got with the cake. It's like insulting the cook or waitress at a restaurant *before* you get your food.
If the baker is forced at gunpoint to bake the cake, and therefore participate in your so-called "wedding" that they find repugnant, how is that not slavery? Or is it okay that we enslave people we disagree with because they are inhuman troglodytes?
AFAIK, the baker did not refuse to sell them a tray of cupcakes or a sheet cake; it was specifically a wedding cake. Same thing with the photographer in a similar situation. IMHO, the gay couple was not looking for a cake, they were looking for a fight.
-
Ahh Christian Martyr Syndrome kicks in to 5th gear.
We don't yet live in a place where we actually have as much liberty as we'd like to tell ourselves. If you run a business, you don't get freedom of association.
Make wedding cakes? You gotta make them for pretty much everybody.
Make negative cakes? Gotta make them for everybody. Only Bakery #2 doesn't actually make them for anybody, so she's good. The two situations are not the same because of the content of the request. I know it makes folks feel all oppressed to conflate the two, but there are obvious differences between the two situations.
Unless you have evidence that Baker #2 has made cakes showing Christians (or anyone else) negatively, this isn't a "Some animals are more Equal" moment, it's a "Content of the message matters in the real world" issue.
But keep pretending that this guy didn't get his cakes made because he was Christian if it makes you feel better.
Why do you want to keep pretending that I'm saying things I'm not saying? Does it make you feel special?
-
IMHO, the gay couple was not looking for a cake, they were looking for a fight.
IMHO you're 100% correct. I think Fistful is as well. Or at least the dude that went into the bakery. The gay folks just picked one they could win, with the laws as they are currently written.
So if hypothetically you wanted a gay wedding cake, why would you seek out a baker who did not want to sell you one and then sue them, rather than go someplace else that actually wanted you business? (Would you eat anything cooked under duress by someone who disliked you or strongly disapproved of what you were doing?) I'd be afraid of what disgusting "extras" I got with the cake. It's like insulting the cook or waitress at a restaurant *before* you get your food.
There is much wisdom here. =D
If the baker is forced at gunpoint to bake the cake, and therefore participate in your so-called "wedding" that they find repugnant, how is that not slavery?
Well it's not slavery, because you don't own them. They could legally say "*expletive deleted*ck it, and you!" close their bakery and not participate. Not a great choice but not slavery. Let's not call a hoe a spade. I will however 100% agree that it's bullshit. You should be able to contract, or not with anyone for any reason. If you don't want to bake a cake because the groom's tux is ugly, fine. Or it's a mixed race couple, fine. That is, unfortunately, only my opinion at the moment. Our society has decided that some of the discrimination we had was so bad that we passed laws exchanging our freedom of association to stop discrimination. In CO (where this all took place) it is codified in law that you can not discriminate based on sexual orientation. If your business is supporting weddings, then you have to support gay weddings if contracted. It sucks, but that's the current law.
If you want to talk about civil disobedience we can. They could just say no and take the fine. They could do any of the sit-inesque stuff that was done to get anti discrimination laws passed in the first place. Every choice one makes has consequences. Weight them and choose. What you can't do is fight the battle in a court of law, and not expect the clear law to prevail. (well, you can but it's stupid.)
Similarly, you can't equate two different situations and smugly claim hypocrisy. Well, again, you can but folks will call you out on it.
When you find a bakery that refuses to bake an Easter cake, because it's Christian, you can claim some animals are more equal.
-
Why do you want to keep pretending that I'm saying things I'm not saying? Does it make you feel special?
Perhaps you could clarify what you meant by "Some Animals are more equal then others"
From your past comments on this subject I took it to mean that Gay folks had forced a wedding cake to be made, and this dude (a Christian) just lost in court to have his christian themed cakes made. So you were saying that gay folks were more equal then Christians in this story.
Was that not what your OP meant?
-
Let's not call a hoe a spade.
Beautiful; it's almost poetry. I'm gonna have to steal it! I can see all kinds of possibilities at the office... >:D
-
Nope. They are equal. Either you have a right of refusal of service or not. Either you have the right of association (or disassociation) or you do not.
PERIOD.
Pretty much this.
In the current climate, such freedom of association is denied and business owners need to take steps to protect themselves and their beliefs. Such as policies that include branding/inclusions likely to turn off those who would troll them and try to force them to work against their conscience. Think Windows 95+Internet Explorer. To uninstall IE you must pretty much must destroy the OS. Or contractual provisions / EULAs onerous to those hostile to their beliefs. Sure, we can be forced to bake anyone a cake, no matter our conscience. But ALL cakes come with the following contractual provisions...
And I am not sure why different pricing scales could not be used. Legitimate when done in say, dry cleaning of men's & women's clothing. Gay/KKK Cakes cost 2x non-gay/non-KKK cakes with the difference being donated to conversion therapy charity / NAACP.
Gotta get creative when dealing with evil people who seek to make you act contrary to your conscience.
-
Perhaps you could clarify what you meant by "Some Animals are more equal then others"
From your past comments on this subject I took it to mean that Gay folks had forced a wedding cake to be made, and this dude (a Christian) just lost in court to have his christian themed cakes made. So you were saying that gay folks were more equal then Christians in this story.
Was that not what your OP meant?
The person who doesn't want to make "hateful" cakes is more equal than the person who doesn't want to make same-sex wedding cakes. Both treat all customers equally. (If you doubt this, just ask one of the hatebakers to make a same-sex wedding cake for a heterosexual.) Both are asserting a moral objection.
I should add, I'm not disagreeing with you about one person using a better argument than the other (I don't do this for anybody vs religious objection). But don't you agree that the difference is a fig leaf?
-
The person who doesn't want to make "hateful" cakes is more equal than the person who doesn't want to make same-sex wedding cakes. Both treat all customers equally. (If you doubt this, just ask one of the hatebakers to make a same-sex wedding cake for a heterosexual.) Both are asserting a moral objection.
I did edit that adjective as you requested.
I see where you are coming from a little clearer now. I guess it comes down to the reality of you can't try to assert a moral objection to something that is protected by law. I still see the distinction that the person refusing to make the cake is refusing to make that kind of cake for everyone. Hence no discrimination. The other baker is perfectly willing to make wedding cakes, just not for gay weddings. So discrimination. If we are going to have anti discrimination laws, this is how they are used. I'm certain that there were a BUNCH of lunch counter owners in 1965 that asserted a moral objection to serving blacks.
What do you do? There were some really vile things happening that led to these laws. Any attempt to repeal them is almost certainly doomed. So now what?
-
What do you do? There were some really vile things happening that led to these laws. Any attempt to repeal them is almost certainly doomed. So now what?
I think it was government actions/laws that were the vile part of what happened before. Govt turning the tables the other way isn't any better.
-
No argument there. My point was If we are going to fight in the culture wars, we need to do so based on the rights and privileges we actually have, not should have.
Denver Baker won her case because she proved that she treated all groups the same. The Christian Baker lost because she didn't. The difference between supporting cakes and defaming cakes are what allowed that to happen. That's why the cases aren't equal, and conservatives that don't understand that distinction are why we keep losing battles.
Your position makes more sense now that you've elaborated.
These situations are the very opportunities that need to be highlighted and used to turn public opinion on this loss of rights.
-
I still see the distinction that the person refusing to make the cake is refusing to make that kind of cake for everyone. Hence no discrimination. The other baker is perfectly willing to make wedding cakes, just not for gay weddings. So discrimination.
This is the way I see it. If, as a baker, I refuse to bake wedding cakes, period, I'm covered from having to bake one for a gay wedding. Who knows, maybe I don't bake cakes at all. Maybe it's because all I do are 1/2 sheet cakes and smaller, basically good for a civil wedding with a dozen attendees, and I have this printer thingy that does the decorating, so not exactly fancy.
I stick a policy up on the wall 'Too complex requests will be declined, no negative messages*, no violating federal discrimination laws'.
On the other hand, with the latter situation I might be 'forced' to make a simple cake for the gay 'wedding' that's a pure civil service with a dozen or so friends. In which case, if I was operating a bakery, especially given the news, I'd sell them their cake. Not worth the hassle, and their money spends just as good.
*The cancer test was negative! Congratuations! would probably be okay. ;)
-
Who decides what constitutes a "negative" message? How is "I refuse to bake a cake with a message I don't support" not applicable to a situation where the cake celebrates (and thus has a message endorsing) a situation I do not support?
-
Meh, I don't see "you will serve them or you will close your doors" as much of a choice in the matter.
If a baker, or a DJ, or a planner, or whatever doesn't want to take part in or provide a service to your ceremony they shouldn't be forced to regardless of the reason.
-
Meh, I don't see "you will serve them or you will close your doors" as much of a choice in the matter.
If a baker, or a DJ, or a planner, or whatever doesn't want to take part in or provide a service to your ceremony they shouldn't be forced to regardless of the reason.
So simple yet it seems the majority in our nation disagree with us.
-
So simple yet it seems the majority in of vocal advocates and the media in our nation disagree with us.
FTFY.
-
FTFY.
No, I think Ron had it right. The country is pretty split on the gay marrage issue right now, but if you asked a good sample of Americans if they thought a lunch counter owner should be willing to refuse to serve black folks, a vast majority of Americans would be OK with a law preventing that. That that same law can then be expanded to include other groups wouldn't cross their mind.
The majority of our nation disagrees with most of us here on the concept of freedom of association.
-
I don't disagree that we're moving, inexorably, in that direction, but I think that the perception of an overwhelming majority is overstated. It would hardly be the first time I could be proven wrong.
-
No, I think Ron had it right. The country is pretty split on the gay marrage issue right now, but if you asked a good sample of Americans if they thought a lunch counter owner should be willing to refuse to serve black folks, a vast majority of Americans would be OK with a law preventing that. That that same law can then be expanded to include other groups wouldn't cross their mind.
The majority of our nation disagrees with most of us here on the concept of freedom of association.
False analogy.
-
Not making an analogy. Lupinus said "regardless of the reason". Ron thought the majority would support that. I mearly pointed out that there are reasons that the (I think) majority of the country supports disallowing by law.
I would point out that it's the same anti-discrimination laws that started with black folks at lunch counters that are being expanded and applied in the cases we are discussing. Not really an analogy there either, though I'm not sure what you would call that. Remember, in CO, Sexual Orientation is a named, protected class. Right there with race.
-
So, a couple walks into a photography studio wanting portraits, and the photographer says "sure, pose in front of this backdrop".
The couple then asks the photographer to document their wedding ceremony. The photographer says "I prefer not to for X reason".
Is there a legitimate distinction under a public accommodation standard?
-
So, a couple walks into a photography studio wanting portraits, and the photographer says "sure, pose in front of this backdrop".
The couple then asks the photographer to document their wedding ceremony. The photographer says "I prefer not to for X reason".
Is there a legitimate distinction under a public accommodation standard?
My opinion? or my opinion of what the law says?
Mine? Sure. I already said I thought he should be free to contract or not at his pleasure.
What the law says? Depends. Does he offer wedding photography to other couples? What was "X Reason". Is whatever "X" was in his state (or federal) law as a protected class? These would matter.
-
This story makes me think that people in 'merica have entirely too much time on their hands...
cake ;/
-
No, I think Ron had it right. The country is pretty split on the gay marrage issue right now, but if you asked a good sample of Americans if they thought a lunch counter owner should be willing to refuse to serve black folks, a vast majority of Americans would be OK with a law preventing that. That that same law can then be expanded to include other groups wouldn't cross their mind.
The majority of our nation disagrees with most of us here on the concept of freedom of association.
"Black" is not a protected class that one can opt in and out of as it's convenient.
-
My opinion? or my opinion of what the law says?
Mine? Sure. I already said I thought he should be free to contract or not at his pleasure.
What the law says? Depends. Does he offer wedding photography to other couples? What was "X Reason". Is whatever "X" was in his state (or federal) law as a protected class? These would matter.
I can't currently open the Denver article, but my understanding of the Indiana law is that it gave the vendor recourse to a hearing if the questions you pose were ambiguous or undetermined, rather than a blanket exemption to refuse service. Thus, the uproar and backlash is ostensibly in response to creating an avenue to address individual cases where the law is uncertain.
My example was to illustrate that circumstances could vary in interactions between the same people over similar but not identical scenarios. It seems to me this is why we have courts, and what these laws are broadly intended to address, including the Federal statute Bill Clinton signed in 1993.
ETA: In my example the on-premises photography is commerce, while the off-premises photography is, in my opinion, indentured servitude.
-
False analogy.
Are you implying the left isn't equating the current homosexual push for "equal rights" with the civil rights movement?
Or are you saying that despite what they claim it is a false analogy?
For better or worse a large exception has been carved out of the freedom of association. The civil rights movement was used to pretty much gut it as a protected right.
Once those who identify themselves by their alternative sexuality become part of the protected victim class their new "rights" will end up trumping freedom of religion. It is happening already.
-
Are you implying the left isn't equating the current homosexual push for "equal rights" with the civil rights movement?
Or are you saying that despite what they claim it is a false analogy?
For better or worse a large exception has been carved out of the freedom of association. The civil rights movement was used to pretty much gut it as a protected right.
I'm saying that lunch counter owners refusing to seat blacks is not a fair analogy to the Christian baker choosing not to make gay wedding cakes.
As a rule, Christian bakers happily sell their baked goods to everyone equally. Gay people and straight people and trans people and bi people and anyone else can buy all the same goods and services from Christian bakers without discrimination.
Undoubtedly the left is trying to equate gay marriage with the old civil rights movement. But it's a false analogy to what's happening today. Blacks in the segregation era could not shop at the same places whites could not shop, nor buy the same goods.
Once those who identify themselves by their alternative sexuality become part of the protected victim class their new "rights" will end up trumping freedom of religion. It is happening already.
Absolutely.
Unlike the civil rights era, where blacks just wanted the same access to society that whites had, gays today are demanding special rights even including the power to strip others of their religious freedoms. And lots people support it, even many who otherwise value liberty.
This is how freedom dies, to the cheering of the mob.
-
HTG, I see what you're saying, but you'll need to argue that analagy with the left, their the ones making it. I simple mentioned lunch counters as a buisness association that the majority are in favor of regulating.
Also, I do have to mention at this juncture that it's been my experiance that "Christians" don't all do a dang thing happily. That's half y'all's problem. No one can agree on anything. There's plenty of Christans that not only would bake a gay wedding cake, but go to and officiate a gay wedding.
-
I'm not arguing the analogy with you, nor saying it's your analogy. It's a false analogy, that's all I'm sayin'.
Christians disagree on all sorts of stuff, sure, but generally not on things like this. I've never seen a Christian business turn someone away without good reason. Never even heard someone suggest it, and in fact I'd expect most Christians to be against it if the situation ever came up.
Granted, with so many of us out there, I'm sure some Christians somewhere might do it, but they'd be the exception that proves the rule.
-
I'm not arguing the analogy with you, nor saying it's your analogy. It's a false analogy, that's all I'm sayin'.
Gotcha.
Christians disagree on all sorts of stuff, sure, but generally not on things like this. I've never seen a Christian business turn someone away without good reason. Never even heard someone suggest it, and in fact I'd expect most Christians to be against it if the situation ever came up.
Granted, with so many of us out there, I'm sure some Christians somewhere might do it, but they'd be the exception that proves the rule.
I have. To me. But it is what it is. I'm not going to try to quantify how big a slice of Christianity they might have been.
There is a pretty good slice of Christianity supporting the whole gay marriage mess however.
-
Really depends on how one defines "Christian." There are people whose stated belief system is explicitly atheist who still claim to be Christian.
-
I believe in cake. Cake should not be defaced in any manner. Either a pristine white icing, or deep undisturbed chocolate frosting. i'm suing to preserve the purity of cake. Damn you unbelievers who try to write all over cake. I'm going to use the legal system to force other people to do cake things my cake way. Oh my, this is so caking important.
-
Really depends on how one defines "Christian." There are people whose stated belief system is explicitly atheist who still claim to be Christian.
Presbyterian.
Apropos of nothing, this story was on my local news today at lunch.
http://touch.orlandosentinel.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-83228088/
-
Eh.
It's not like being heretical is anything new among Christians.
-
Presbyterian.
Apropos of nothing, this story was on my local news today at lunch.
http://touch.orlandosentinel.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-83228088/
Presbyterians refused you service for your religious beliefs? That's odd, I know there are schisms in the denominations but they tend to be one of the most God-lite, semi Unitarian denominations out there. http://www.mlp.org/
Also, didn't the Indiana pizza place get something like $850,000 from their gofundme?
-
Presbyterians refused you service for your religious beliefs? That's odd, I know there are schisms in the denominations but they tend to be one of the most God-lite, semi Unitarian denominations out there. http://www.mlp.org/
Also, didn't the Indiana pizza place get something like $850,000 from their gofundme?
Oh no, I read that wrong. Presbyterian's are the one's OK with Gay Marriage. Baptists refused me service.
-
No, I think Ron had it right. The country is pretty split on the gay marrage issue right now, but if you asked a good sample of Americans if they thought a lunch counter owner should be willing to refuse to serve black folks, a vast majority of Americans would be OK with a law preventing that. That that same law can then be expanded to include other groups wouldn't cross their mind.
The majority of our nation disagrees with most of us here on the concept of freedom of association.
Actually, I think they should be allowed to refuse service to anyone regardless of reason. If they choose to discriminate based on race, orientation, hair style, or number of vowels in the last name, then so be it.
And let the market respond as it sees fit.
-
Actually, I think they should be allowed to refuse service to anyone regardless of reason. If they choose to discriminate based on race, orientation, hair style, or number of vowels in the last name, then so be it.
And let the market respond as it sees fit.
Honestly I'd be most everyone HERE thinks that. But we're not really a representitive cross section of America.
-
Marjorie Silva, the owner of the bakery, told Jack that she would make him the bible-shaped cakes, but would not decorate them with the biblical verses and the image of the groomsmen that he requested. Instead, she offered to provide him with icing and a pastry bag so he could write or draw whatever messages he wished on the cakes.
Does this mean a baker opposed to gay marriage could supply a gay customer with a plain cake, icing, and a pastry bag and tell him to do it himself?
-
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/04/01/story-about-1st-business-to-publicly-vow-to-reject-gay-weddings-was-fabricated-out-of-nothing/
-
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/04/01/story-about-1st-business-to-publicly-vow-to-reject-gay-weddings-was-fabricated-out-of-nothing/
This kind of bullshit is why I have a burning hatred of reporters. I refused to speak to them at the old job or do them any favors when an incident happened because they ALWAYS purposefully screwed the details up, left critical information out, or flat out lied...and then I had to deal with the fallout because asswipes that read the stories decided to put their two cents in when calling or visiting the park.
They will say any kind of bullshit to further their "story". They have no morals and no inhibitions against doing harm with what they say.
-
Really depends on how one defines "Christian." There are people whose stated belief system is explicitly atheist who still claim to be Christian.
So we have to differentiate the Cis-tians from the trans-tians?