Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

(Nov 25, 2017 08:55 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:So, should she be forced to bake cakes for gay couples' weddings? No, I don't think so,

A person can't physically be forced to bake a cake, but they can be fined as per the state non-discrimination laws. She is blatantly discriminating against a class of people in the name of her religion. Should others who believe blacks are subhumans based on their religion be able to discriminate against them? No..religion cannot be used to violate the laws of the state. Like you point out, that's a slippery slope that will end up with compounds of non-taxpaying rebels and polygamous cults of child molesters. We have to draw the line somewhere, and discrimination is the best place to do that.

Very valid point. It reminds me of parents who refuse chemo therapy for their kids who have cancer (due to religious reasons), and the kids have died. I'm not comparing the baker to parents who have done this, but it begs the question, where do we draw the boundaries when it comes to ''religious freedom?''

(Nov 25, 2017 05:03 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Yes, an example that illustrates the definition. Again with the vocabulary lesson:

No moron. It demonstrates useage, not definition.

Yeah, "demonstrates usage" is exactly what "illustrates the definition" means, oh so dim one. No wonder you're so bad at basic grammar. You seem to think usage and definition are wholly independent of each other.

Quote:

Quote:associate -
to join as a partner, friend, or companion
to keep company with
to come or be together as partners, friends, or companions

So do you think I'm a "partner, friend, or companion" to you? O_o

"associate- to keep company with"

Anything else?

More grammar lessons:

company -
a : association with another : fellowship
enjoy a person's company
b : companions, associates
know a person by the company she keeps
c : visitors, guests
having company for dinner

So do you think I'm your "fellowship, companion, or visitor"?

I don't hang out or keep company with or even know you. There is no way I associate with you in anyway that could even remotely reflect on my character (other than maybe my generosity for volunteering time with the mentally handicapped). I have the same relationship with you that I have with the comment section on YouTube. Random, anonymous strangers. I don't "keep company" with strangers, otherwise they'd soon cease to be strangers. All I know about you is that you're a hateful gay. Don't even know your real name. At a minimum, I know the names of all my associates.

Maybe you just don't have any real-life associates? That would explain a lot.

Quote:

Quote:Marriage is a joining of the flesh
Homosexual joining of flesh is clearly condemned
Hence, homosexual marriage is clearly condemned

Uh no. Marriage and having sex aren't the same thing. You can be married and not have sex. And you can have sex and not be married. Are you too stupid to actually get this?

Already lost track of the discussion again, huh?
You specifically said, "A gay wedding is nowhere described in the bible as an immoral act." Hence the Bible definition of marriage. You just keep moving your own goal posts, troll.

And again, where are these mythical married celibate gays?

Quote:

Quote:It's only your straw man that interjects gay marriage. Neither your OP article or anything you've shown since have indicated any complaints about this cup having to do with gay marriage specifically.

You're the one that's bitching about gay marriage. I'm merely showing how all this bitching has nothing to do with the OP.  

Zin and RU are the ones who brought up gay marriage. Go look for yourself.
And I only brought it up to tell Leigha why people would be offended.
That's when YOU decided it was about the Bible and gay marriage.

Quote:

Quote:Normal people don't subject children to things they find immoral. It has nothing to do with fears of taking on that behavior and everything to do with requiring some degree of maturity. It's the same reason normal people don't subject kids to graphic violence, drug use, pornography, etc.. Are they being violence, drug, and porn bigots?  Rolleyes

Normal people don't freak out over public displays of affection like holding hands either. Which just shows how abnormal homophobes really are.

So conservatives can't use the same boycotting and social media tactics the left does?
How else could denying a cake for a gay wedding "be really bad for business"?

That's a transparent double-standard, hypocrite.

Quote:

Quote:So you're obviously making straw man arguments, even about motive. You're an anti-religious bigot, who has no problem depriving people of basic human rights to satisfy your personal agenda. But I agree. Starbucks should go whole hog advocating its LGBT agenda. Let the market sort it out.

No..those who freak out over coffee cup cartoons of two gender-nonspecific hands holding each other are the bigots. We live in a free society. Gay people can now walk down the street and express affection in public without being attacked by nutcases like you. And Starbuck's has the total right to print whatever it wants on it's own coffee cups given it isn't obscene. It's a tolerant and freemarket society now. Get used to it.

Yep, a free market where even conservatives can voice their opinions, boycott, and start social media campaigns. So why are you whining about it? O_o
Oh right, you're an anti-religious bigot who thinks only people you agree with should have basic human rights, like freedom of expression.
Yes, gays can express themselves publicly. But so can people who disapprove. But you can rest assured that they think you're just as mentally ill as you think they are.
Although only one of them has ever been diagnosed as mental illness.

(Nov 25, 2017 08:06 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]I don't really think it's virtue signaling.

I think that's precisely what it is. Starbucks' management sees their global brand recognition as an opportunity to preach morality to the unsaved out there (like me).

Quote:For those of us who are heterosexual - when it comes to ads, movies, etc heterosexual themes have always been the norm.

What is Starbucks trying to sell? Moral correctness? Starbucks shops as sexually-charged lesbian pick-up spots? Or coffee and pastries to as many customers as possible?  

Quote:The fact that we're discussing this shows that Starbucks' marketing strategy is winning.

There's a big difference between being talked about and attracting new customers. Repelling customers will get a company talked about too.

People would certainly be discussing them if they launched a pro-Trump advertising campaign in hopes of attracting middle America to their brand. Of course, a lot of that discussion would be denunciations and angry calls for boycotts.

I haven't noticed any lack of business in Starbucks in gay neighborhoods. Or rather, there may be, but it's because Starbucks is perceived as a big corporate cookie-cutter chain, driving all the little unique neighborhood cafes out of business. I've never sensed that gays have ever felt that they aren't welcome in Starbucks.

So a gay advertising campaign isn't likely to win Starbucks a whole lot of new business.

I still think that it's probably best for the company to steer clear of all that. There's no need for it to plop itself down on one side of divisive social issues, especially if there's only limited commercial upside and more danger of alienating prospective customers. Starbucks should strive to be the proverbial "big-tent" and sell coffee to as many people as possible. Try to get everyone coming in.

(Nov 25, 2017 08:06 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]I don't really think it's virtue signaling. For those of us who are heterosexual - when it comes to ads, movies, etc heterosexual themes have always been the norm. This doesn't mean I see commercials and blurt out ''there's a heterosexual theme,'' but it's just always present, and we have become immune to the representation of our own group.

If I were gay, and I only saw heterosexual couples in advertisements, movies, etc...not sure how it might make me feel. But, you see, it's not something I ever have to think about, because heterosexuals are ALWAYS represented, as if anything outside of that is considered taboo, or controversial. Walk a mile in another's shoes....

The fact that we're discussing this shows that Starbucks' marketing strategy is winning.

virtue signalling -
the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue.

A marketing strategy that elicits boycotts...perhaps not so winning.

(Nov 25, 2017 08:47 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]

(Nov 25, 2017 08:18 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

(Nov 25, 2017 07:55 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]

(Nov 25, 2017 07:31 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]I don't consider it really targeting the LGBT community from a marketing view, as much as Starbucks is displaying a more inclusive marketing strategy. In the past, gay people were excluded out of ads, now, they're part of the marketing strategy because companies realize that excluding part of your customer base isn't very wise, even if it's all in the name of profitability.

So, virtue signaling. That's actually a pretty cynical market strategy to associate moral superiority with your product. But I guess many Starbucks customers are already coffee snobs, so it isn't much of a leap.

Inclusion isn't about moral superiority. It's a message of everyone is equal. That's not elitism by any stretch. Christian businesses otoh? Yeah.."we are so morally superior to gays that we refuse to business with them for their weddings". That's the very definition of self-righteous exclusiveness.

While I agree in principle, the only thing that makes the situation with the Christian baker a little grayer than other more clear cut scenarios, is that she felt if she baked a cake for a gay couple's wedding, she would be somehow participating in celebrating a union she feels is ''sinful,'' and goes against her morals. So, should she be forced to bake cakes for gay couples' weddings? No, I don't think so, but...she shouldn't be surprised when people label her a bigot, don't agree with how she handled things, and it all goes viral on social media. The government's involvement to impose fines or run her out of business for discrimination is extreme, yet I can see why they'd get involved, because where would the discrimination end? If that same baker refuses to do business with a couple that is interracial, would that be okay? 

That gay couple was especially hurt I think, because they gave her a lot of business over the years, knew her personally and were dumb founded when she refused to bake a cake for their wedding. It seemed personal, from what I read about it.

Again, where in the Bible does it condemn interracial marriage? You sure like to ignore questions that are inconvenient to your arguments.
You keep making excuses for government force without justifying them. You just keep citing boogeymen.
Can the right boogeyman justify the government force used in an execution? O_o


MR, inclusion is a virtue to the left....hence virtue signalling. People being equal means you don't pander to extremely niche markets out of proportion to their consumption. Or do gays (3.8% of population) drink almost six times (represented in that ad) more coffee than straights. I know they have higher rates of addiction, but does that include caffeine?

(Nov 25, 2017 08:58 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]

(Nov 25, 2017 08:55 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:So, should she be forced to bake cakes for gay couples' weddings? No, I don't think so,

A person can't physically be forced to bake a cake, but they can be fined as per the state non-discrimination laws. She is blatantly discriminating against a class of people in the name of her religion. Should others who believe blacks are subhumans based on their religion be able to discriminate against them? No..religion cannot be used to violate the laws of the state. Like you point out, that's a slippery slope that will end up with compounds of non-taxpaying rebels and polygamous cults of child molesters. We have to draw the line somewhere, and discrimination is the best place to do that.

Very valid point. It reminds me of parents who refuse chemo therapy for their kids who have cancer (due to religious reasons), and the kids have died. I'm not comparing the baker to parents who have done this, but it begs the question, where do we draw the boundaries when it comes to ''religious freedom?''

MR, "do it or lose your livelihood" is a threat of force.
And as I already showed you, race is federally protected while orientation is not. But I agree that states have to right to make their own laws, and good people have the right to vote with their feet.


Leigha, where do we draw lines on freedom of expression or thought? That's the truly dangerous slippery slope. Market pressure naturally restricts the other now days.

Quote:MR, inclusion is a virtue to the left....hence virtue signalling. People being equal means you don't pander to extremely niche markets out of proportion to their consumption. Or do gays (3.8% of population) drink almost six times (represented in that ad) more coffee than straights. I know they have higher rates of addiction, but does that include caffeine?

The market for all those that think LGBT's should have equal rights isn't a niche market. It's 50% of the American public. If a business can rally 50% of the American public to support it's business and causes, that's pretty good. I'd say they're a success, and the history of Starbuck's proves it.

http://wyomingequality.org/half-of-strai...al-rights/

Quote:MR, "do it or lose your livelihood" is a threat of force.
And as I already showed you, race is federally protected while orientation is not. But I agree that states have to right to make their own laws, and good people have the right to vote with their feet.

A company doesn't have to agree with the laws of the federal govt to take a moral stand. They can protest a war, or discrimination, or a cultural value, or anything else. To take a moral stand on an issue regardless of laws is a noble trait that the public respects and looks up to. What they're doing is a good thing, both morally and for their business. It promotes a message of equality and inclusion despite the bitching of those who are devoted to seeing that message suppressed. And in the particular context of the op, it is eschewing the business of the small minority of wingnuts out there were look for gay sex where it isn't even being implied. I'm sure Starbuck's is glad to see those people go.

(Nov 25, 2017 09:53 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:MR, inclusion is a virtue to the left....hence virtue signalling. People being equal means you don't pander to extremely niche markets out of proportion to their consumption. Or do gays (3.8% of population) drink almost six times (represented in that ad) more coffee than straights. I know they have higher rates of addiction, but does that include caffeine?

The market for all those that think LGBT's should have equal rights isn't a niche market. It's 50% of the American public. If a business can solidify 50% of the American public to support it's business and causes, that's pretty good.

Thinking what "should' be is prescriptive morality, and marketing to that is literally virtue signalling.

Quote: I'd say they're success, and the history of Starbuck's proves it.

Not according to their stock price over the last 5 days, since this hit the fan.

Starbucks is using the oldest trick in the book to boost its stock price (SBUX)

Or even further:
Starbucks Just Had Its Worst Stock Dive in 2 Years

---

(Nov 25, 2017 09:53 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:MR, "do it or lose your livelihood" is a threat of force.
And as I already showed you, race is federally protected while orientation is not. But I agree that states have to right to make their own laws, and good people have the right to vote with their feet.

A company doesn't have to agree with the laws of the federal govt to take a moral stand. They can protest a war, or discrimination, or a cultural value, or anything else. To take a moral stand on an issue regardless of laws is a noble trait that the public respects and looks up to. What they're doing is a good thing, both morally and for their business. It promotes a message of equality and inclusion despite the bitching of those who are devoted to seeing that message suppressed. And in the particular context of the op, it is eschewing the business of the small minority of wingnuts out there were look for gay sex where it isn't even being implied. I'm sure Starbuck's is glad to see those people go.

So...now you're agreeing it's virtue signalling?

Quote:So...now you're agreeing it's virtue signalling? Rolleyes

Virtue signaling is a term made up by right wingnuts to impugn the moral stands businesses take. It's a cynical take on companies and corporations accomplishing more than just good fiscal results. You know, something along the lines of social change? Hence the irremediable incomprehension of conservatives over these businesses not making a profit from it. As if you needed to make a profit from triggering social change.

(Nov 25, 2017 09:34 PM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]

(Nov 25, 2017 08:06 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]I don't really think it's virtue signaling.

I think that's precisely what it is. Starbucks' management sees their global brand recognition as an opportunity to preach morality to the unsaved out there (like me).

Quote:For those of us who are heterosexual - when it comes to ads, movies, etc heterosexual themes have always been the norm.

What is Starbucks trying to sell? Moral correctness? Starbucks shops as sexually-charged lesbian pick-up spots? Or coffee and pastries to as many customers as possible?  

Quote:The fact that we're discussing this shows that Starbucks' marketing strategy is winning.

There's a big difference between being talked about and attracting new customers. Repelling customers will get a company talked about too.

People would certainly be discussing them if they launched a pro-Trump advertising campaign in hopes of attracting middle America to their brand. Of course, a lot of that discussion would be denunciations and angry calls for boycotts.

I haven't noticed any lack of business in Starbucks in gay neighborhoods. Or rather, there may be, but it's because Starbucks is perceived as a big corporate cookie-cutter chain, driving all the little unique neighborhood cafes out of business. I've never sensed that gays have ever felt that they aren't welcome in Starbucks.

So a gay advertising campaign isn't likely to win Starbucks a whole lot of new business.

I still think that it's probably best for the company to steer clear of all that. There's no need for it to plop itself down on one side of divisive social issues, especially if there's only limited commercial upside and more danger of alienating prospective customers. Starbucks should strive to be the proverbial "big-tent" and sell coffee to as many people as possible. Try to get everyone coming in.

It gets people talking. It gets people talking about Starbucks. It gets people thinking about their brand, positively or negatively. That is effective marketing. The rest is just white noise. 

And many companies dabble in political/social justice posturing.

I don't really see this as a gay marketing campaign though. (thus, the title of this thread, I guess?) Not that you're hallucinating lol Maybe reaching. Reaching sounds better than hallucinating. I see nothing offensive about these cups. ??

---

Syne, I don't really take a firm stand either way, I'm simply trying to see both sides of it.

(Nov 25, 2017 10:16 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:So...now you're agreeing it's virtue signalling?  Rolleyes

Virtue signaling is a term made up by right wingnuts to impugn the moral stands businesses take. It's a cynical take on companies and corporations accomplishing more than just good fiscal results. You know, something along the lines of social change? Hence the irremediable incomprehension of conservatives over these businesses not making a profit from it. As if you needed to make a profit from triggering social change.

"The term was first used in signalling theory, to describe any behavior that could be used to signal virtue—especially piety among the religious." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling

I assume you'd lose your ever-loving mind if companies started virtue signalling religious views.

ETA: Just look at the hysteria caused by Hobby Lobby, Chick-fil-A, Mozilla CEO, etc.. And those weren't even paid ad campaigns.

(Nov 25, 2017 10:32 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]Syne, I don't really take a firm stand either way, I'm simply trying to see both sides of it.

Well, it sounded like you took a stand against government use of force for execution. Maybe it only sounded that way.

Let's stay on topic. lol The death penalty has nothing to do with this thread's topic. Government sanctioned murder really isn't what we're discussing here. Funny you're still stirred up over that conversation, though. We will have to agree to disagree. You believe in an eye for an eye, and I don't. See? Problem solved.