You're right, I did misunderstand you completely, so my apologies for that. I mistook you for someone advocating the providence of discriminating against gays. Instead, it appears to me that you're a kind of free market libertarian when it comes to this kind of thing, wanting everyone's bigotry worn on their shirt sleeves. I can respect that line of thought, even though I vehemently disagree with it.
"So because the gay rights movement got themselves added to a non-discrimination law, that law should trump the religious freedom of the photographer to decline their business?"
You do realize these exact same arguments were made in favor of businesses descriminating based on race, right? You do realize that the warrant for slavery and bigotry is religious, yes? You do realize that a secular government can legislate against a religious compulsion, RIGHT!?!?!?
"That might make some sense if she ran an establishment open to the public for people to wander in, then made a point of throwing out some particular class of people."
Business is business. Her door is open to the public to contract with her, except if it's for a homosexual union of love. She's a charmer, that one....
"If she does everything on a per-customer contract basis, the ability to refuse a contract on any or no grounds seems more rational to me."
Fine, so she should be allowed to refuse business to dirty niggers because she says she don't like them dirty niggers? How about the perfidious Jews? Lord knows plenty of people don't like them. Or how about a business saying they won't serve the warlike Christians, the terrorist Muslims, or the polytheistic Hindus?
We legislate against that kind of bigotry because we're a secular, inclusive nation. People are allowed their religious views, but they don't get to apply them to government regulated commerce. That's how this whole secular democracy thing works. Either get on board or get the hell out of the way.
In that case, a photographer refused to due the same work she's paid to do for straight couples due to the couple in question being homosexual. She refused on religious grounds, even though the refusal violates the states non-descrimination in business laws. That isn't an in-your-face homosexual, it's an in-your-face religious zealot breaking the law. Nice try, but you've got shit backwards.
"Or try to use the power of the government to deny permits to a business because they don't like the views of the owner?"
Link to an example please. Not sure if you're referring to Chik-Fil-A or Arizona. Either way, I can happily tear both examples apart at the seams....
You're a crazy person. Gay rights has never had more support than it does right now, and that's a good thing. And I'll be damned if I'll ever understand what an "in your face" gay attitude is. I've yet to have a tastefully dressed, chiseled man with a delightful coif stand in my way and scream at me about how great being a homosexual is.
"Well yeah, if there were dick jokes in the article, it would have probably put things into better context: another day on the glorious Internet"
Christ, what are you, some kind of Puritan? Get over yourself.
"I disagree with your comments which clearly show either a lack of understanding or pure unadulterated and willful ignorance."
I mean, with such substantial logical dialectic as this, who could possibly argue with you. "You're wrong because I say so. Now watch me say so." Oh, okay....
"Especially when you consider that I backed everything I posted with links to original sourced material. Instead, all you did was use conjecture and misdirection to attack me."
I read the source material to which you linked. I even commented upon it. But, hey, keep playing that victim card instead of simply admitting you're wrong and getting on with things, because it feels oh so good to pretend to be persecuted.
"And as someone who is published, maybe one day when someone actually writes a review of your books, then you will see what it's like when the shoe is on the other foot. It is always nice to be on the outside looking in."
I've had people say horrible things about my books. Frankly, I'm happy they're even reading them, and I'm certainly not going to get my shorts in a twist because some of them don't care for them or want to call me a name or two. Why the hell would I give a shit about those comments, other than any lessons I can actually learn from them? Why would I spend even a moment thinking about them, never mind patrolling reviews and responding.
It must leave you very little time in life when you're busy battling the world....
Hi, Derek. Timothy Geigner here. Wanted to give my last name since we're already had some challenges with like names. I typically make the dick jokes around here, but every once in a while I'll jump into a comment to deconstruct it. Here we go.
"While I am not going to debate the merits of the article nor the tone - as that is unlikely to change anything - all I want to point out is that at no time did I threaten anyone - veiled or otherwise. That aspect - and cause for this article - is taken completely out of context in this case of un-sourced reporting."
That's bullshit and you know it. The only possible reason for jumping into a reviews section you've been patrolling and start throwing around general language about legal action and pursuits is to chill the air. This would be like claiming, while someone was making fun of you for a silly comment on Techdirt, that you typically respond to bullying with gun-violence wasn't really a threat to those mocking you, just some general information you thought it'd be nice for everyone to have. Don't treat us like idiot children, thankyouverymuch....
"I am not going to bother defending myself. Instead, I am just to assume that the TechDirt reader (not the anons who are going to flood this article) is smart enough to understand what has happened here and how this article is highly questionable."
I, not an AC, understand EXACTLY what happened here. Some people wrote negative reviews of your game, some of them may even have been nasty, and you decided to wade into the muck instead of staying the hell out of it and letting the chips fall where they may. Regardless of any justification you think you can come up with, I'd say your strategy has proved to be uber-shitty. You've been Streisanded, and if you read Techdirt as you say, you probably should have seen this coming....
"I do want to mention that, at no time, did I ever threaten, veiled or otherwise, anyone with any legal action over reviews; as the article implies. This is FALSE and the web article I wrote and which was excerpted, was clearly taken out of context. Below is the original posting on Steam forums."
I read your comment in the link. Here's a paraphrase of what you said: I'm fucking rich as shit and when I respond to something I don't like, I go for "overkill". You can keep claiming that there was nothing threatening in what you said, but nobody with half a brain cell is going to buy it....
"This article is patently unfair, without merit and not the sort of thing I have come to expect from TechDirt. But it is what it is."
All I'll say is you're lucky Cushing got his meatpaws on this before I did. There would have been soooooo many dick jokes....
Re: Timmy comes out for regulating businesses! Merely "for the purpose of commerce" must never stifle others.
"I assume Timmy considers himself a "libertarian""
Hardly. I'm generally left of center, more commonly on the socialist side than anything, but with enough libertarian dashed in to keep things interesting.
"and suddenly all the "excessive" regulation of the past -- when the country was most prosperous -- begins to make sense."
If you're point is that we're currently under-regulated, I agree with you. Which is weird. And if by the past you mean the 1950's, then I agree with you more than you likely know.
"Just one short step more is to recognize that a legislated monopoly such as the NFL can never be consistent with freedom: we could get meaningless sports contests much more cheaply if that monopoly were taken away... So, Timmy: glad to see you're coming along!"
See, I DO agree with this. You know who doesn't? YOU. You can't say this in one breath and talk up copyright, another legislated monopoly, with the other. At least I'm consistent....