You can take a look at this trailer now, and in the next few days I will bump it to the top again along with a few words on the politics of apology.
Have 'Em Delivered
Write to the Editor
Subscribe
Connect with
Connect with
39 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Reformed Roy
9 years ago
That is a nice 12 minute teaser. I am truly looking forward to the release.
It strikes me that if the biblical God were removed from Doug’s argument, he would be immensly popular among the same crowd that reviles him.
Over the line? Check.
Clever? Check.
Anti-establishment? Check.
Hip in a old-bearded dude way? Check.
Adept at communicating? Check.
Reasonably attractive? Check. (not that I notice physical appearance)
If it weren’t for the whole God thing he would have a committed loyal following and a moderately successful late night tv show.
Or that might make it the best possible name – if you wage the SEO battle just right, they could get more traffic from online searches and confront unwitting viewers with the truth.
(Anyway it’s about time we re-appropriated some words and symbols back from their movement)
I did some googling on the Kleins after watching this trailer, and interestingly, they are refusing to pay the damages. I hope they make some kind of statement about it.
Uhm, the Kleins posted the name and address of the complainants to their Facebook page, which led to an invasion of privacy by followers/fans of the Kleins. That’s why the complainants were given damages, because they were harassed due to the action of the Kleins. Nobody mentions this, it’s just that the Kleins are being persecuted. Maybe they should have thought about not posting the complainants’ names first.
Seriously though, if this is what “being a Christian” is about, I’m glad I’m now outside the household of faith.
Question: if a similar bakery business had faced a similar complaint through the government, and did not publish the personal information of those accusing them, would you think that they deserved any penalties the state deemed fit?
I ask because fundamentally, your posts indicate that you think the Kleins are guilty whether or not they doxxed their accusers. If, in fact, this is not the case, and you think the Kleins would be totally justified if only they had not doxxed their accusers, then I apologize for my misapprehension.
You completely misread what I said, and why the Kleins were fined. They spread the names of the complainants and the complainants were harassed as a result. That’s the reason for the $135,000 fine.
What really gets me is how some Christians are willing to allow this kind of grift to continue because They Are Against Teh Ghey Marriage! Seriously, these guys are taking advantage of you.
I’m personally of the opinion that if they’re in business, they should serve all comers. That said, I am not an expert in the Oregon statute law and processes surrounding this. My point has been that the Kleins were fined for the invasion of privacy.
NO. Public record? NO on “all customers;” that’s wrong as well.
And there’s a LOT more to this that just OR law, because both the free exercise and free speech clauses of the 1st Ad control here.
I’ve flogged Barnette (1943), Wooley (1977), Thomas (1981) and the 1993 RFRA quite a bit on these pages. Plus HandsOn Designs winning in KY on a set of facts more adverse than the Kleins faced.
But the cake/florist/photog/pizza cases aren’t really about “law” at all, much less on human/secular law. This is really a cultural clash.
Then if that is the basis for the fine, I expect you to advocate the fining of every government agency that holds public records, and every newspaper that prints unflattering things with identifying information, that might lead to someone being harassed.
The did not reveal anything that was not already public information, as a matter of record when the complaint was filed.
Agreed. My question below was merely to ascertain whether ideological commitment or sympathy would rule out believing that the Kleins have a right to do what they did in the cake issue or not.
It is my understanding that there can be serious repercussions from a legal perspective for publishing the address and or/pictures of the house, etc. online. You might find this article to be of help.
“with respect to an individual, the Social Security number, the home address, home phone number, mobile phone number, personal email, or home fax number of, and identifiable to, that individual.” “Once you outline the address or location of a person, within which a person can be placed at risk, you have violated the law.”
If publishing a public record of a legal action is a crime, without demonstration of intent to cause harm, we are under a SERIOUSLY messed up legal structure.
Deana, the Klein’s fine had nothing to do with the posting of the complainants information. This is a lie meant to “justify” the fine and make people feel better about themselves as they deny First Amendment protections to individuals.
Leslie, apparently you never read the memo. What don’t you understand? We reallt need to get you up to speed my dear
Tim Paul
9 years ago
Brilliant Doug. I just shared the love with my FB chain. Looking forward to stepping on lots of toes, that’s how some roll. Excellent editing. If Goebbels was a Christian.
Looking forward to it. Many evangelicals will admit behind closed doors that certain things are sins, but will allow the culture at large to dictate that they speak about these abominations with reverence
It is difficult as it estranges your peers from you. You end up separating yourself by speaking the truth. Couple that with (normal) doubts about your own faith and the reticence to speak is wise. As soon as you plainly refer to sin as sin, a multiple of the same arguments arise and having fluency in them is helpful . This Blog and comment section is a wonderful tool for gaining such. When all is said and done, you gain respect. Self-respect due to the fidelity to integrity, an assured walk with God as He is pleased, and the respect… Read more »
Barnabas
9 years ago
To apologize to a person in real life for an offense given is quite different than apologizing to the social media world for an offense they have taken. In the case of the later that essentially means throwing yourself on the mercy of the mob. That would by no means be the end of it and it would not go well. It would also mean establishing precedent that every word or action be carried out with the opinions of your most sensitive critic in mind.
It is interesting to me that the multiple references to “fainting couch” have elicited no comment. Perhaps it was some sort of reverse-trigger; the point being so obvious and unarguable that it forced an innate silence. If so, thanks be to God. There is hope.
blueskiesmom
9 years ago
About 25 years ago, our neighbor, an elderly German woman, was a young girl in Hitler’s Germany. She said her father once told her, “Think whatever you want, Emma, but never say it out loud.” It still makes me shutter to think that in course of my lifetime, we’d be in such a similar place with no one remembering where this will lead.
That is a nice 12 minute teaser. I am truly looking forward to the release.
It strikes me that if the biblical God were removed from Doug’s argument, he would be immensly popular among the same crowd that reviles him.
Over the line? Check.
Clever? Check.
Anti-establishment? Check.
Hip in a old-bearded dude way? Check.
Adept at communicating? Check.
Reasonably attractive? Check. (not that I notice physical appearance)
If it weren’t for the whole God thing he would have a committed loyal following and a moderately successful late night tv show.
Innocent cigars and whiskey left out? Check! ; – )
Both implied and inferred.
I think you should change the name of it. There is a pro-gay “Stonewall” out in the theaters right now and that might be confusing.
And nobody seems to like the ‘gay’ Stonewall; I gather it’s a terrible movie. Link to 22 severe comments:
http://www.autostraddle.com/22-epic-comparisons-from-scathing-reviews-of-stonewall-308868/
Those are pretty hilarious. :)
Or that might make it the best possible name – if you wage the SEO battle just right, they could get more traffic from online searches and confront unwitting viewers with the truth.
(Anyway it’s about time we re-appropriated some words and symbols back from their movement)
Even better.
I did some googling on the Kleins after watching this trailer, and interestingly, they are refusing to pay the damages. I hope they make some kind of statement about it.
Of course they should refuse to pay anything. For starters, there weren’t any damages. And there’s the whole fact that they did nothing wrong.
So…uh, what was the point of the crowdfunding, then?
Legal costs I had assumed.
Hmmm. I am still curious.
This seems to clear up what their current actions and motivations are. Thankfully! http://dailysignal.com/2015/10/01/state-takes-legal-action-to-seize-135k-from-bakers-who-refused-to-make-cake-for-lesbian-couple/
Uhm, the Kleins posted the name and address of the complainants to their Facebook page, which led to an invasion of privacy by followers/fans of the Kleins. That’s why the complainants were given damages, because they were harassed due to the action of the Kleins. Nobody mentions this, it’s just that the Kleins are being persecuted. Maybe they should have thought about not posting the complainants’ names first.
Seriously though, if this is what “being a Christian” is about, I’m glad I’m now outside the household of faith.
–Deana M. Holmes
Question: if a similar bakery business had faced a similar complaint through the government, and did not publish the personal information of those accusing them, would you think that they deserved any penalties the state deemed fit?
I ask because fundamentally, your posts indicate that you think the Kleins are guilty whether or not they doxxed their accusers. If, in fact, this is not the case, and you think the Kleins would be totally justified if only they had not doxxed their accusers, then I apologize for my misapprehension.
You completely misread what I said, and why the Kleins were fined. They spread the names of the complainants and the complainants were harassed as a result. That’s the reason for the $135,000 fine.
What really gets me is how some Christians are willing to allow this kind of grift to continue because They Are Against Teh Ghey Marriage! Seriously, these guys are taking advantage of you.
–Deana M. Holmes
So, you think the Kleins did nothing deserving of punishment until they “doxxed” the complainants?
And I am concerned about grift – it’s why I was searching for a statement on why the Kleins are refusing to pay in the comments below.
I’m personally of the opinion that if they’re in business, they should serve all comers. That said, I am not an expert in the Oregon statute law and processes surrounding this. My point has been that the Kleins were fined for the invasion of privacy.
Fair point. Thank you for clarifying.
NO. Public record? NO on “all customers;” that’s wrong as well.
And there’s a LOT more to this that just OR law, because both the free exercise and free speech clauses of the 1st Ad control here.
I’ve flogged Barnette (1943), Wooley (1977), Thomas (1981) and the 1993 RFRA quite a bit on these pages. Plus HandsOn Designs winning in KY on a set of facts more adverse than the Kleins faced.
But the cake/florist/photog/pizza cases aren’t really about “law” at all, much less on human/secular law. This is really a cultural clash.
Then if that is the basis for the fine, I expect you to advocate the fining of every government agency that holds public records, and every newspaper that prints unflattering things with identifying information, that might lead to someone being harassed.
The did not reveal anything that was not already public information, as a matter of record when the complaint was filed.
Your claim about the reason for the fine doesn’t seem to be so. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/07/13/fact-check-theres-a-false-accusation-circulating-on-social-media-about-the-christian-bakers-who-declined-to-make-a-gay-wedding-cake-and-were-fined-135000/
They republished a matter of public record based on a legal action taken. How is that an invasion of privacy?
Agreed. My question below was merely to ascertain whether ideological commitment or sympathy would rule out believing that the Kleins have a right to do what they did in the cake issue or not.
Yes, I was addressing Deana/mirele in that comment.
Deana has a point.
It is my understanding that there can be serious repercussions from a legal perspective for publishing the address and or/pictures of the house, etc. online. You might find this article to be of help.
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/11/28/the-illegal-activity-of-doxing-revealing-documents-or-personal-information-about-a-person-without-their-permission-with-the-intent-to-threaten-harass-intimidate-shame-humiliate-or-place/
“with respect to an individual, the Social Security number, the home address, home phone number, mobile phone number, personal email, or home fax number of, and identifiable to, that individual.” “Once you outline the address or location of a person, within which a person can be placed at risk, you have violated the law.”
If publishing a public record of a legal action is a crime, without demonstration of intent to cause harm, we are under a SERIOUSLY messed up legal structure.
Deana, the Klein’s fine had nothing to do with the posting of the complainants information. This is a lie meant to “justify” the fine and make people feel better about themselves as they deny First Amendment protections to individuals.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/07/10/no-the-oregon-bakers-werent-fined-for-publishing-the-complainants-home-address-or-for-otherwise-publicizing-the-complaint-against-them/
And this makes sense?
Leslie, apparently you never read the memo. What don’t you understand? We reallt need to get you up to speed my dear
Brilliant Doug. I just shared the love with my FB chain. Looking forward to stepping on lots of toes, that’s how some roll. Excellent editing. If Goebbels was a Christian.
Looking forward to it. Many evangelicals will admit behind closed doors that certain things are sins, but will allow the culture at large to dictate that they speak about these abominations with reverence
It is difficult as it estranges your peers from you. You end up separating yourself by speaking the truth. Couple that with (normal) doubts about your own faith and the reticence to speak is wise. As soon as you plainly refer to sin as sin, a multiple of the same arguments arise and having fluency in them is helpful . This Blog and comment section is a wonderful tool for gaining such. When all is said and done, you gain respect. Self-respect due to the fidelity to integrity, an assured walk with God as He is pleased, and the respect… Read more »
To apologize to a person in real life for an offense given is quite different than apologizing to the social media world for an offense they have taken. In the case of the later that essentially means throwing yourself on the mercy of the mob. That would by no means be the end of it and it would not go well. It would also mean establishing precedent that every word or action be carried out with the opinions of your most sensitive critic in mind.
“Ooo…that’s triggering!”
“Well, grow up.”
Love it!
It is interesting to me that the multiple references to “fainting couch” have elicited no comment. Perhaps it was some sort of reverse-trigger; the point being so obvious and unarguable that it forced an innate silence. If so, thanks be to God. There is hope.
About 25 years ago, our neighbor, an elderly German woman, was a young girl in Hitler’s Germany. She said her father once told her, “Think whatever you want, Emma, but never say it out loud.” It still makes me shutter to think that in course of my lifetime, we’d be in such a similar place with no one remembering where this will lead.
By the way, this looks like a cool movie that I would like to watch. Looking forward to it.