[JoeF]

In the letter of topic there is the following question put to me:

Are you saying that Jack should have to post links to the USHGRS when he does not believe in it?

My answer to that question:
Yes and no.
No explanation:
I am not saying or suggesting that Jack must fairly allow links to USHGRS in his site whether he believes in USHGRS or not; he might believe in USHGRS and yet still act generally not to allow links to USHGRS for some special reason. That is up to Jack; no problem here on that. However, such is addressing the general case. In the next paragraph will be a twist.

Yes explanation:
When Jack allowed a link to USHGRS there was set up some text by an author giving the link. Jack had a choice to null the text in some fair manner. But his action to edit the text link to go to a site that did not exist while leaving "USHGRS" as the text representative, then Jack committed a deliberate injurious falsehood; he worsened his stumble by choosing a derogatory domain name in the coding. After some while I purchased the false domain. Jack stumbled by deliberately deceiving readers and by deliberately misrepresenting the text he allowed to be published. He let stand for some while the stumble; damage was being done while he let stand his act of sabotage. The text USHGRS read correctly in that while, but the linking was falsified; such sabotage is not protected by reference to the Constitution. He would have been better off just deleting the topic's post rather than commit an unfair act of sabotage fully deceiving readers by linking misdirection; it looked like I was misdirecting the reader---that hurt. When his membership appreciates what he does with his coding ability to injure at his pleasure, they would have reason to never post in the sg space again; trust is damaged by his machinations.

Soon for further points,
Lift,
Joe

[JoeF]

Are you saying that Jack Phillips should have to make a gay wedding cake?

First, I've no text anywhere about that case. You are bringing in that case. Perhaps you want me to address the case and give my opinion. Assuming you want me to give a decision, I'll give an opinion about that case.

Upon first reading of the breaking news of Mr. Phillips' decision not to make the artistic cake, I winced and had a silent hope that Mr. Phillips had advertised his business with some clause that allowed him to do his art over matter to his choosing and that if he chose not to do some art matter, then that would be the expected allowance. I did not and do not know if Mr. Phillips gave clauses to that effect or not. On the other extreme, if Mr. Phillips advertised that he would make art for any topic with any figurements and with any message, then Mr. Phillips would probably have to make art for any topic with any figurement.

I have no idea what a "gay wedding cake" is. But if art on a cake was to depict or support such depiction of two men (or two women) having genital sex with each other, and if the artist agreed to use his artistic abilities to make such a depiction, then the artist would be liable to carry out the agreement. If the artist did not agree to use his artistic abilities to form such an image, then the artist obtains no liability for not making such art. I have not read the legal case you mentioned. If I were running a cake business employing my art, I'd have easily up front: "If I do not feel right about using my creative art for art requested, then I retain the right not to make the art; go have the art done elsewhere."

If the essential reason for Mr. Phillips not making the cake was countering one of the protected discrimination sectors, then I'd put him liable for damages. But if the essential reason was that he himself as active artist was countered, then the subject is himself; he would not be liable to act against his own core when that core is aside of the protected sectors.

[JoeF]

Furthering response to the open letter to me:
=======================================

Michael stated in the letter:

Nobody should be compelled to do something they do not believe in.

Michael, I hear you or read you.
But I have comment, as I do not side with you on that statement.
I think I should be compelled to pay a fine put over me even though I did not believe I was guilty. I believe in the general system that brought the fine to bear; I would think poorly of the officers had they not compelled me to pay the fine; I want the system to work. But I paid the fine even though I did not believe the fine to be fair.
Maybe the principle could be tweaked. Perhaps, I offer: "Nobody should be compelled to believe in something." But that has some challenges also; should reason and good logic compel belief?
A womb-based child may not believe in birth, but he or she will be compelled to be born. Probably we all have been compelled to do something that we do not believe in. I was born and did not believe in birth at that time; I was compelled to do something I did not believe in.

[JoeF]

Another point in the letter has me confused a bit:

Michael, the following extracted paragraph seem challenging:

I am truly sorry, I don’t see an argument for your defense except, I will defend your right as an owner, publisher, and editor just as would any other including Jack.

"defense" on what point?
Do you see any argument for defending me against sg's deliberately changing text with substantial meaning change while leaving the reader to believe that I was still author of the deliberately changed text? If you do not see any argument in defense of the integrity of my text, then game is over. If game is over on such count, then we have no further need to converse over the matter, I hold. But elsewhere you argue for your own defense for protecting the integrity of your text; why not use the same argument to defend the text of others.

Lift,
Joe

[JoeF]

In the topic's letter:

What would you have me do, go protest Jack Phillips’ bakery shop?

Answering:
Michael, if you want to go to the bakery shop and promote some idea, then consider doing so.
I have no energy in me to urge you to travel to the bakery shop to protest this or that. I do have energy to suggest that thinking over the case may bring some value to you. The case is challenging me to think over many principles. Potential customers have options in how they will celebrate some event usually; an artist has himself or herself in the moment without option: they can only be themselves.

There are other points in the letter; I will have to pause now for a nap.

Later,
Lift,
Joe

[Free]

I posted this on another thread that lacks the power of this thread, "Letter to Joe Faust" but it is about this thread.
So here it is again. Stop wasting everybody's time, Michael. Stop wasting your time and get your rest to safely fly that plane.
Love and best wishes to everyone that isn't on my Shame List.
You know who you are..

Is That You Jussie?

magentabluesky wrote:
Is it the policy and rule of the US Hawks that the LGBTQ community cannot post threads relevant to LGBTQ within the Recreational Hang Gliding Community on the main message board?

Really Michael?
Are you really a jet pilot?
I'm starting to worry about the public that may be at risk in strapping in behind a pilot that is really quite nutty?
The games you play. The time that is wasted for everybody involved on your campaign "to clear your good name" when in
reality all you are doing is making it worse.
You didn't listen when I said, all you have to do is say 'no thank you' to Bob.
You've allowed yourself to be drawn into a bigger thing of which you've never gained an inch on what you think you are debating.

I thank you for doing it, nonetheless. It serves a purpose of which you still are not cognizant.
You have lost the debate. You don't have a case worth anything.
Your good name and reputation is still the same as before you got sucked into the vortex but the difference now is that more of us can see it.

You should take my advise now and give it a rest. Stop putting so many people through this useless exercise.
Your case, your cause is kaput.
Your reputation is not harmed by what Bob says. He is not speaking for you or putting words in your mouth.
The term "lying fraud' sucked of substance when Red used it and it doesn't play any better now.

It's time to get back on board the 'walk away' train as it leaves the station.
U$hPa has likely added the final straw to the camel's back.
The dirty corporate scheming is so clear that everybody can see it now.
The worm has turned and it's name is Mark Forbes.
What an ugly bastard it is.

There is your new focus. Work on that and I'll work on Bob to return you to social graces.
You are still a lovable guy as far as I can tell.
I'm jealous of your job. How great is to get paid to fly sky rockets!
Concentrate on the right things and be sure to get plenty rest.
Trains wreck and run off the tracks when sleep deprivation distracts.
Ask me how I know.
Peace brother..
Warren