goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: renocat on March 29, 2015, 10:11:39 PM
-
The gay community has declared war on Indiana. The state passed a law that said government could not have a law that forces a business to do something against their religious beliefs. My first reaction was hot damn we are fighting back, but then I remembered similar arguements used against minorities. If you are in business catering to the public you best should willing to serve anyone who is legal. My problem is when this community forces Christian ministers to marry them.
-
you have to keep your eye on the gay community
-
The gay community has declared war on Indiana. The state passed a law that said government could not have a law that forces a business to do something against their religious beliefs. My first reaction was hot damn we are fighting back, but then I remembered similar arguements used against minorities. If you are in business catering to the public you best should willing to serve anyone who is legal. My problem is when this community forces Christian ministers to marry them.
Can't people shop where they want?
-
LOL @ reno
show me where Christian ministers are forced you marry anyone.
Oh and Reno appears to be a bigot. I'm glad more states are being brought to heel by the courts so people like you can't deny the civil rights of others. Hopefully the Supreme Court acts in accordance with the spirit of our constitution and forbids people like Reno from destroying the lives of other people.
-
Wasn't this all spawned by the cake shop (in Colorado?) that refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple? I think she was within her rights to do that. The owner said she had no problem serving them anything else - she just refused to make the wedding cake because she opposed gay marriage as a matter of religious principle. I think we should all respect that and move on.
But as a matter of federal law and the law in most states (I think including Indiana), discrimination by private businesses based on sexual orientation is not even prohibited. So, I'm not sure if this religous freedom law was even necessary in Indiana. People need to calm down on both sides of the issue and learn to live and let live.
-
Wasn't this all spawned by the cake shop (in Colorado?) that refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple? I think she was within her rights to do that. The owner said she had no problem serving them anything else - she just refused to make the wedding cake because she opposed gay marriage as a matter of religious principle. I think we should all respect that and move on.
But as a matter of federal law and the law in most states (not sure about Indiana), sexual orientation is not a pretected classification under civil rights laws applicable to private businesses. So, I'm not sure if this religous freedom law was even necessary in Indiana. People need to calm down on both sides of the issue.
Probably true, and people can choose to boycott those businesses out of business if they want.
-
Wasn't this all spawned by the cake shop (in Colorado?) that refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple? I think she was within her rights to do that. The owner said she had no problem serving them anything else - she just refused to make the wedding cake because she opposed gay marriage as a matter of religious principle. I think we should all respect that and move on.
But as a matter of federal law and the law in most states (not sure about Indiana), sexual orientation is not a pretected classification under civil rights laws applicable to private businesses. So, I'm not sure if this religous freedom law was even necessary in Indiana. People need to calm down on both sides of the issue.
Probably true, and people can choose to boycott those businesses out of business if they want.
Agreed.
-
Does the Indiana law extend protections to employees as well as business owners? I remember Kansas trying to pass something similar that would protect employees, too, but maybe I'm remembering that wrong.
-
Dem niggers would just quit trying to marry our women we could just live and let live. /K-S-U pre Loving v Virginia //pre Heart of Atlanta
-
Dem niggers would just quit trying to marry our women we could just live and let live. /K-S-U pre Loving v Virginia //pre Heart of Atlanta
Didn't take long to trot that one out. Ugg.
-
Goodness gracious . . . completely off the deep end, that's our edn.
Sad
How is it off the deepend. Please include relevant court decisions which have exact parallels to the discrimination citizens of this country are facing on a daily basis because of their basic human condition. I'll wait.
-
Dem niggers would just quit trying to marry our women we could just live and let live. /K-S-U pre Loving v Virginia //pre Heart of Atlanta
Didn't take long to trot that one out. Ugg.
The fact that you see standing against discrimination based on the basic principles of humanity as an issue to be "trotted out" show you're a moral coward, a bigot, and a someone who is actively obstructing the freedoms and liberties all Americans should enjoy.
-
Goodness gracious . . . completely off the deep end, that's our edn.
Sad
How is it off the deepend. Please include relevant court decisions which have exact parallels to the discrimination citizens of this country are facing on a daily basis because of their basic human condition. I'll wait.
Sorry I caught that Dax. I see you on the wrong side of history.
-
Yes I intentionally went with the shock factor of that post. But the reality is we have a class of Americans who are still de jure second class citizens in America. crap like this in Indiana and however many other states are a thinly veiled attempt to enforce more layers of de jure segregation on America through the guise of religious liberty. These exact same arguments were used in miscegenation issues.
-
No, what's off the deep end is your absurd analogies, your world view is completely warped, how sad that you literally see everything and apparently everyone who disagrees with you as being the worst of the worst. Pragmatism . . . you don't know it.
Please cite court cases with exact parallels as I have.
Because I don't see how Loving and Heart of Atlanta aren't exactly the same. Both deal with social radicals trying to enforce their morality on people they don't agree with through de jure oppression.
-
Yes I intentionally went with the shock factor of that post. But the reality is we have a class of Americans who are still de jure second class citizens in America. crap like this in Indiana and however many other states are a thinly veiled attempt to enforce more layers of de jure segregation on America through the guise of religious liberty. These exact same arguments were used in miscegenation issues.
Drawing parallels between opposition to gay marriage and interracial marriage is a lazy, flawed argument. In fact, it is downright moronic.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/24/opposing-gay-marriage-doesn-t-make-you-a-crypto-racist.html# (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/24/opposing-gay-marriage-doesn-t-make-you-a-crypto-racist.html#)
Your post was not only stupid, you magnified it by inserting a racial slur. "Hey everybody, look at me - I'm making a really profound, morally superior argument and I'll use the n-word as an exclamation point!" What a dumbass.
-
You don't even know what I am talking about, you're the poster child for First World Problems.
Sad
No I know exactly what you're talking about. I see you hiding behind bullshit.
-
You're completely missing the point.
As usual
Sorry Dax, if you were on the right side of history you wouldn't have made that post to begin with. You don't disagree with me, you disagree with progress. The fact you see me calling out blatant bigotry as "going off the deepend" shows the absurdity of your position. How would you react if Reno or K-S-U actually posted what I did? Would you cower in the corner and refuse to post against that kind of bullshit? The reality is we have people in this country actively working against the enfranchisement of citizens in America. We have a larger group who share their beliefs just enough that they will remain silent and say crap like "thats going off the deepend." And we have a third group who will stand against the attacks on their fellow citizens.
Where are you Dax?
-
Yes I intentionally went with the shock factor of that post. But the reality is we have a class of Americans who are still de jure second class citizens in America. crap like this in Indiana and however many other states are a thinly veiled attempt to enforce more layers of de jure segregation on America through the guise of religious liberty. These exact same arguments were used in miscegenation issues.
Drawing parallels between opposition to gay marriage and interracial marriage is a lazy, flawed argument. In fact, it is downright moronic.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/24/opposing-gay-marriage-doesn-t-make-you-a-crypto-racist.html# (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/24/opposing-gay-marriage-doesn-t-make-you-a-crypto-racist.html#)
Your post was not only stupid, you magnified it by inserting a racial slur. "Hey everybody, look at me - I'm making a really profound, morally superior argument and I'll use the n-word as an exclamation point!" What a dumbass.
Hey bigot please read my entire post because you're under covered analysis shows you don't grasp the issues at play.
Edit:
WOW thanks for posting that. It really makes it quite clear you are on the wrong side of history and have a fundamental problem with the rights of all Americans.
First issue is the author clearly doesn't understand what marriage means in the modern context. Okay I'll bite that it always has been gendered. Do you really want to go into what fem covert means? do you really want to talk about why and where the legal precedent of spouses being prohibited from testifying against one another comes from? Because if you understood those issues you'd know that marriage has improved dramatically over the centuries. The fact is gender is a social construct based on societal norms. That means the authors flawed attempts at homogenizing marriage over all cultures if fatally flawed from the beginning. The author totally fucks up his position further by noting this as a gender issue instead of recognizing that these laws are being based on sex. At that point his entire critique is void. Yes we should ask people to give up thousands of years of history on marriage so gays can have real citizenship. Just the same way we asked for it to happen for women when we decided they had a fundamental legal identity which wasn't totally subsumed and destroyed because they were attached to their husbands, fathers, or brothers.
Second point is that religion is constitutionally protected, but that doesn't mean you have the right to discriminate against someone because of their basic humanity. That slipper slope would allow something you fear, the mass application of something like sharia law in America because my liberty of being an oppressive muslim would trump my wife's (remember since you hate evolving marriage law and custom from point one) right to be a secure person and I could beat her and rape her at will because me religion, my gender, and my rights trump her's in your fantasy world.
More on Point 2: OOOHHH it has deep roots in religious history. You know what else does? Banning mixed fabrics. With your logic taken to the extreme I should be allowed to strike people down for their trespasses of wearing poly cotton blends, because my religion says I should cast down all who stand for "abominations". Further more the bible's term for homosexuality being wrong is properly translated into a religious felony of sorts with no scale of standard. That means it could be in violation of a felony on the same level of mixed fabrics or murder. There is no context. How about we give gays some rights and see if the world gets flooded. If we stay dry I think we'll know which side Jesus was on.
Point 3: rough ridin' wow. Every time a glbt person has their rights violated that is a political emergency. Ask a gblt person with someone on the death bed in a bigot state if they would like to have a say in their partner's end of life care. Ask a gblt person if they would like to have kids through adoption with shared parental rights. Ask a gblt person if they would like to have the same rights to pensions, health insurance, or legal protections as a straight couple. Yeah all of those are political emergencies which should be rectified. The wait it out bullshit does only one thing: delay justice. And as William Penn said justice delayed is injustice. That is empirically a political emergency which much rendered just.
-
I'm not even discussing the issue this thread is about, I'm discussing you.
You and your ilk paint, no check that, you fire bomb everyone who even slightly disagrees with you with the worst, most derisive, most polarizing kind of vitriol possible.
It's sad. Again, you're the very definition of First World Problems.
Yeah the fact is Dax you're solidly in group 2 and possibly the worst kind of person to discuss this. You are distracting from the issue at hand because you tacitly support it. I knew that is exactly why you deleted your post. The reality is we have millions of people in America who aren't full citizens because people like KSU and Reno are actively working against their rights. I mean look at their posts! " My first reaction was hot damn we are fighting back." JESUS rough ridin' CHRIST. They really think their entire way of life is under threat and they need to fight back because gays want to get married? Stop and think about that Dax. Stop and think about being a gay person and getting kicked out of your partner's hospital room. Stop and think about losing your kids to be wards of the state because you legally aren't their parent if something happens to your partner. These aren't first world problems. They are fundamental human problems where we've allowed people like Reno and KSU to say that they are under attack because GBLT citizens are finally getting redress of their grievances. We must stop talking about glbt citizens getting their rights like its a courtesy and start talking about it like its a fundamental imperative for America. We shouldn't need to equivocate on whether or not Mathew Shepard was an Emmit Till.
-
Actually I don't support it all Edn . . . I'm against all legislation of this type that has to do with fringe social issues that fall outside of the purview of core and vastly more important equal rights legislation and laws. I'm against defense of marriage legislation, I'm against absurd legislation like Brownback tried to pass about government workers refusing service based on personnel beliefs etc. etc. etc.
You're now not painting with an extremely broad brush, you're painting with a commercial grade sprayer.
Sad, but typical of edn.
Dax: "no dude, I totally support people's rights*......"
*as long as its politically easy and I don't have to examine my own beliefs and make a public stand because ya know, enfranchising citizens is a fringe social issue
-
No, because I actually live in a world that pretty much understands that the vast majority of businesses (for example) don't give a crap if someone is gay or don't care about the color of someone's skin. I also understand that those that discriminate either get dealt with via the laws that already exist or via other measures be they social, civil litigation, what have you.
Again, you simply choose to continue to use a knee jerk gatling gun filled with bird shot approach. Which is typical edn.
LULZ
I'm sure thats a comfort to gay people who have been disenfranchised that you know of companies which don't outright practice bigotry. Please fwd that to place like Hobby Lobby though. PS the laws that are being passed by people Reno and KSUW support are preventing "dealing with" these people, just so you know.
But continue to not make a stand....
-
how is everyone today
-
I've already taken stands at the voting booth (for example) multiple times edn. But by all means, turn that sprayer up to a 11 and let'er rip.
by all means keep making this a thread about how you feel persecuted because you're being called out for not standing against the bigots in this thread. Martyr complex at 12.
-
LOL, yeah that's it.
See Dax you're proving my point with this thread. Instead of focusing on bigotry, you're focusing on me. And thats just sad. Group 2 confirmed.
-
how is everyone today
I'm doing great. How about you?
-
I would add that in reading numerous articles on this subject, noted democrats continue to dance around this issue and similar when forced to look at similar legislation that they have pinned their name to . . . gotta play both sides of the fence if you want to keep getting elected.
Oh and edn, I focused on you simply because of your absurd but usual method of immediately codifying anyone who disagrees with you as being at the farthest fringes of the worst of the worst.
This really isn't that hard edn, but you're so far off the deep end, you can't help yourself. Sad
LoL at the deflection of bringing in the Dems. You have no answers so you're hiding.
Dax: Stop painting me with this brush (while i paint myself with it!)
-
see this is why you are the worst. you are destroying a thread because you know you're on the wrong side. I mean at least KSUW and Reno have the balls to put their bigotry out there. You deflect when you bring me up with Obama and the rest of the dems. It a joke of a tactic and very transparent. Do you want to get to the issue at hand, your support of anti-gay legislation, or deflect some more? I mean once we hash out why you hate gblt rights, maybe we can move onto why we have such shitty leaders.
-
oh edn and dax
-
how is everyone today
I'm doing great. How about you?
Just enjoying this wonderful day in the land of the free and gE, Sundance Formerly Pound Sign Kid. Thanks for asking
-
Edna is melting down hard today. Like Chernobyl hard. BIGOT! RACIST! BIGOT RACIST!!!! :shakesfist:
-
Stop ruining Reno's thread, guys.
-
how is everyone today
I'm doing great. How about you?
Just enjoying this wonderful day in the land of the free and gE, Sundance Formerly Pound Sign Kid. Thanks for asking
It truly is a glorious day to be EMAW and American. May all of your days be as fantastic as this one.
(Not sure what is in my name now, the pound sterling was nice)
-
Stop ruining Reno's thread, guys.
They can't help themselves
-
I was talking about that dumbass edna more, but thanks for the butthurt obsession dax
-
I was talking about that dumbass edna more, but thanks for the butthurt obsession dax
yeah someone should speak to that poster whenever they finally register.
-
Tough to say how much you want the gov involved and I agree that the market should generally work these things out. Maybe just a law to have the business owner put a sticker on the front door saying who the discriminate against so that way, those people can easily avoid the establishment.
-
Tough to say how much you want the gov involved and I agree that the market should generally work these things out. Maybe just a law to have the business owner put a sticker on the front door saying who the discriminate against so that way, those people can easily avoid the establishment.
Generally bigots like to do it pretty low key, at least where their livelihood is concerned
-
Seems to me all this law does is keep the business from being sued for refusing service based on their religion. The market will still work this out.
-
When has the market worked out discrimination against a small minority group?
-
When has the market worked out discrimination against a small minority group?
Would you purchase from a business that discriminates against gays? I wouldn't.
-
It also opens up business opportunities for non-bigots.
-
I'm not sure if this religous freedom law was even necessary in Indiana. People need to calm down on both sides of the issue and learn to live and let live.
This makes sense to me.
-
Even a half breed hillbilly like me realizes that a business has to sell goods and services to all legitimate consumers at the same price. This is where it should end as what the state can force me to do. For example if I want to put up posters all over my store saying homosexuality and abortion is wrong, some butthole weasel progressive legislator squirrel should not be allowed to pass a law forcing me to take down the poster. If I don't want to pay for insurance coverage that pays for abortion I should not have to do it. On a side note, a minister has to be licensed by the state to sign a marriage certificate; the state dould easily say you have to marry gays if you want a license. In Canada, a minister cannot say bad things about gays for fear of being prosecuted as a hate crime. The state could pass a law to revoke a church's tax free status if they shun gays or atheists.
-
When has the market worked out discrimination against a small minority group?
Would you purchase from a business that discriminates against gays? I wouldn't.
I bet you would and wouldn't even know it unless you were researching everywhere you shop for anything.
-
I had chikfila today :frown:
-
The "market" may force Indiana to change their stupid law before businesses are really able to stick it to the gays. The state looks like it's run by a bunch of clowns.
Quite frankly, it's refreshing to know Kansas isn't in the spotlight for this type of idiocy this time.
-
Aren't there like 30 states that have a similar law regarding religious freedoms? It's basically a first amendment law.
-
http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indianas-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/
-
http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indianas-religious-freedom-law-different/388997/
that is a fantastic piece, great work explaining the horrific entrenchment of private businesses having 1st amendment rights.
-
I would also urge people who believe that the market will sort this out to read the Heart of Atlanta decision. Although its pretext is race, it becomes very evident that the majority is writing a meditation on how corrosive these kinds of attacks on liberty are for the American project. Race might have been the issue at hand, but its about the free access and exchange in society which cannot exist with segregation of any kind.
-
What about a store owner that would refuse service to another person based on political views? Same thing?
-
What about a store owner that would refuse service to another person based on political views? Same thing?
define political views? I'm much less forgiving in that regard personally because you are targeting someone for their political thoughts where as I find no relief for people targeting others because of the basic human composition (race, sex/gender, sexual orientation). It is interesting that we do seem to place a higher regard to religious protection then we do speech and for sure assembly (I mean imagine requiring a permit for the peaceful exercise of religion).
-
What about a store owner that would refuse service to another person based on political views? Same thing?
define political views? I'm much less forgiving in that regard personally because you are targeting someone for their political thoughts where as I find no relief for people targeting others because of the basic human composition (race, sex/gender, sexual orientation). It is interesting that we do seem to place a higher regard to religious protection then we do speech and for sure assembly (I mean imagine requiring a permit for the peaceful exercise of religion).
We do require a permit for peaceful exercise of religion if you want to do it in the middle of the street.
-
The activists have really lost their crap over this, which is off considering:
(1) there is no material difference between this law and existing federal law, and more importantly
(2) sexual orientation is not even a protected class under Indiana law.
Thus, businesses can already discriminate against gays (aside from perhaps some municipalities with specific ordinances) regardless of this law.
The law appears to have been prompted by the Hobby Lobby religious freedom case, which was about Obamacare, not gay marriage.
What a ridiculous controversy.
-
A "wonks" appearance, what a thread :love:
-
I haven't really read what the law is other than the basics and have no idea how it differs from other laws but watching the IN gov back-peddle on it as fast as they can has been enjoyable
-
If it's just the same as the federal law, why do they pass it unless they're trying to send a big "eff you" to gay people and look like complete dumbfucks?
-
If it's just the same as the federal law, why do they pass it unless they're trying to send a big "eff you" to gay people and look like complete dumbfucks?
no politician would ever do such a thing
-
Market forces do regulate this sort of thing best. Everyone think the civil rights laws in the 60s ended segregation in private business, but the boycotts and sit ins before that did a much better job and were already moving the country in that direction.
The price of freedom is the tolerance of others freedoms. Boorish speech and behaviors are the cost of letting everyone have tier say and it's much better than the alternative.
-
If it's just the same as the federal law, why do they pass it unless they're trying to send a big "eff you" to gay people and look like complete dumbfucks?
Because federal law doesn't always apply. Over 20 other states already have the same or similar law.
-
:love:
-
Market forces do regulate this sort of thing best. Everyone think the civil rights laws in the 60s ended segregation in private business, but the boycotts and sit ins before that did a much better job and were already moving the country in that direction.
The price of freedom is the tolerance of others freedoms. Boorish speech and behaviors are the cost of letting everyone have tier say and it's much better than the alternative.
LOL
Yeah because making discrimination a federal crime had nothing to do with it. I mean, read a book.
-
The activists have really lost their crap over this, which is off considering:
(1) there is no material difference between this law and existing federal law, and more importantly
(2) sexual orientation is not even a protected class under Indiana law.
Thus, businesses can already discriminate against gays (aside from perhaps some municipalities with specific ordinances) regardless of this law.
The law appears to have been prompted by the Hobby Lobby religious freedom case, which was about Obamacare, not gay marriage.
What a ridiculous controversy.
1) Youre so totally wrong. There are extreme differences between the two.
2) Yes, that is why we need to protect all citizens and not make these bullshit laws.
-
but what about clinton in '93?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
-
Market forces do regulate this sort of thing best. Everyone think the civil rights laws in the 60s ended segregation in private business, but the boycotts and sit ins before that did a much better job and were already moving the country in that direction.
The price of freedom is the tolerance of others freedoms. Boorish speech and behaviors are the cost of letting everyone have tier say and it's much better than the alternative.
LOL
Yeah because making discrimination a federal crime had nothing to do with it. I mean, read a book.
That's a revisionist view of history, the fact of the matter was that society was headed one way and lawmakers jumped on the tide and passed that law after the fact. You read a rough ridin' book.
-
The Soviets gave us a lot of crap about civil rights back then, too.
-
I, for one, will not be buying anything that says "Made In The Anna" anytime soon.
-
Who is the homophobe fashion designer that hates guys (may also hate blacks, but that could be a separate designer), who nobody boycotts because his close are so "tight"?
-
Market forces do regulate this sort of thing best. Everyone think the civil rights laws in the 60s ended segregation in private business, but the boycotts and sit ins before that did a much better job and were already moving the country in that direction.
The price of freedom is the tolerance of others freedoms. Boorish speech and behaviors are the cost of letting everyone have tier say and it's much better than the alternative.
LOL
Yeah because making discrimination a federal crime had nothing to do with it. I mean, read a book.
That's a revisionist view of history, the fact of the matter was that society was headed one way and lawmakers jumped on the tide and passed that law after the fact. You read a rough ridin' book.
lol. Glad to see you never took a history class at k-state.
Also its clear you have no traps on the history of civil rights in this country. The court cases and law were in tandem with agitation. Please go read about the early history of the naacp ldf and realize that none of it would have been possible without legal action, of any kind, happening first.
Staying crap like this is as dumb as saying slavery was dying out because of economic reasons.
-
Here's another good article from National Review (commence general leg pissing, frothing at the mouth, and complete meltdown by resident ProgLibs and ProgLibs in denial).
As Indiana University law professor Daniel Conkle, a supporter of same-sex marriage, explained, “The proposed Indiana RFRA would provide valuable guidance to Indiana courts, directing them to balance religious freedom against competing interests under the same legal standard that applies throughout most of the land. It is anything but a ‘license to discriminate,’ and it should not be mischaracterized or dismissed on that basis.” In this sense, the Indiana law would operate as does its federal counterpart.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416160/indiana-protecting-discrimination-josh-blackman
mich's Atlantic piece rubs its taint all over this talking point. If you can't see the substantial differences between the current laws and this one...
-
I'm having a hard time following where everyone stands on this. Is anyone pro-this-law? There's a lot of anti-this-law and a lot of anger over people being anti-this-law but is anyone taking a strong pro-this-law stance?
-
Market forces do regulate this sort of thing best. Everyone think the civil rights laws in the 60s ended segregation in private business, but the boycotts and sit ins before that did a much better job and were already moving the country in that direction.
The price of freedom is the tolerance of others freedoms. Boorish speech and behaviors are the cost of letting everyone have tier say and it's much better than the alternative.
LOL
Yeah because making discrimination a federal crime had nothing to do with it. I mean, read a book.
That's a revisionist view of history, the fact of the matter was that society was headed one way and lawmakers jumped on the tide and passed that law after the fact. You read a rough ridin' book.
lol. Glad to see you never took a history class at k-state.
Also its clear you have no traps on the history of civil rights in this country. The court cases and law were in tandem with agitation. Please go read about the early history of the naacp ldf and realize that none of it would have been possible without legal action, of any kind, happening first.
Staying crap like this is as dumb as saying slavery was dying out because of economic reasons.
In any case concerning the private sector you are wrong. Restaurants and hotels were desegregating as a result of economic forces well before the civil rights act. Schools and civic institutions needed laws passed because they are bureaucratic pits but you can't say the same about the private sector.
-
I'm having a hard time following where everyone stands on this. Is anyone pro-this-law? There's a lot of anti-this-law and a lot of anger over people being anti-this-law but is anyone taking a strong pro-this-law stance?
Lots of backlash against the backlash but even most of those folks are scared to really say it's a law that is both necessary and well thought out, which I think is a positive sign of progress.
-
Market forces do regulate this sort of thing best. Everyone think the civil rights laws in the 60s ended segregation in private business, but the boycotts and sit ins before that did a much better job and were already moving the country in that direction.
The price of freedom is the tolerance of others freedoms. Boorish speech and behaviors are the cost of letting everyone have tier say and it's much better than the alternative.
LOL
Yeah because making discrimination a federal crime had nothing to do with it. I mean, read a book.
That's a revisionist view of history, the fact of the matter was that society was headed one way and lawmakers jumped on the tide and passed that law after the fact. You read a rough ridin' book.
lol. Glad to see you never took a history class at k-state.
Also its clear you have no traps on the history of civil rights in this country. The court cases and law were in tandem with agitation. Please go read about the early history of the naacp ldf and realize that none of it would have been possible without legal action, of any kind, happening first.
Staying crap like this is as dumb as saying slavery was dying out because of economic reasons.
In any case concerning the private sector you are wrong. Restaurants and hotels were desegregating as a result of economic forces well before the civil rights act. Schools and civic institutions needed laws passed because they are bureaucratic pits but you can't say the same about the private sector.
THIS CAN'T GET ANY BETTER
I usually don't do this, but how about a little bit of proof? I only ask because Heart of Atlanta, the landmark case for desegregating this exact point wasn't until '64. Because its irrefutable that it took a combination of measures to break open these places culminating in the mid 60s and not as you suggest in the 50s.
I'll wait for some Napolitano bullshit.
-
Of course you would think that edn it didn't come from one of your pre approved sources and it cuts to your over-the-top hyper reaction. Legal experts from a litany of highly regarded institutions and entities are saying over and over that the Indiana law is not a license to discriminate and you of course will not reconcile yourself to the reality that 2 Democratic administrations have played huge roles in making this type of legislation possible.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(http://static.celebuzz.com/uploads/2013/08/14/jennifer-lawrence-10.gif)
Its plainly obvious that your reciting sources which haven't read the bill or you didn't read the piece from Mich. If it actually have, and its highly doubtful, how do you reconcile the basic language in the bills being dramatically different? How do you reconcile that this bill can be used to shield bigots from civil action? How do you reconcile that this is a new spin on these bills with the terrifying effect of giving more business first amendment rights? (hint this is the first law to act this way post Hobby Lobby so by definition it can't be like the other bills)
And if you really want me to drop the "hyper reaction" of me laughing at your dumbass point, drop the prolib shtick and we can talk like adults. Also be reasonable and stop calling the national review highly respected.
-
Market forces do regulate this sort of thing best. Everyone think the civil rights laws in the 60s ended segregation in private business, but the boycotts and sit ins before that did a much better job and were already moving the country in that direction.
The price of freedom is the tolerance of others freedoms. Boorish speech and behaviors are the cost of letting everyone have tier say and it's much better than the alternative.
LOL
Yeah because making discrimination a federal crime had nothing to do with it. I mean, read a book.
That's a revisionist view of history, the fact of the matter was that society was headed one way and lawmakers jumped on the tide and passed that law after the fact. You read a rough ridin' book.
lol. Glad to see you never took a history class at k-state.
Also its clear you have no traps on the history of civil rights in this country. The court cases and law were in tandem with agitation. Please go read about the early history of the naacp ldf and realize that none of it would have been possible without legal action, of any kind, happening first.
Staying crap like this is as dumb as saying slavery was dying out because of economic reasons.
In any case concerning the private sector you are wrong. Restaurants and hotels were desegregating as a result of economic forces well before the civil rights act. Schools and civic institutions needed laws passed because they are bureaucratic pits but you can't say the same about the private sector.
I believe this is true for most of the country, but not the deep south.
-
http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/takei--indiana-law-affects-all-americans-420451907948?cid=sm_fb_msnbc_native
Because this guy doesn't know anything about discrimination.
Here is the problem that you defenders who claim this is purely religious protection can't reconcile. If you believe that, why didn't Pence agree that gays shouldn't be discriminated against? In a simple yes/no question he [Pence] refused to say that all of his citizens' humanity should be protect. Look at who he had with him in the signing ceremony, multiple people connected with the gay hate agenda.
-
CNN saying Arkansas is most likely signing a very similar bill this morning.
-
Market forces do regulate this sort of thing best. Everyone think the civil rights laws in the 60s ended segregation in private business, but the boycotts and sit ins before that did a much better job and were already moving the country in that direction.
The price of freedom is the tolerance of others freedoms. Boorish speech and behaviors are the cost of letting everyone have tier say and it's much better than the alternative.
LOL
Yeah because making discrimination a federal crime had nothing to do with it. I mean, read a book.
That's a revisionist view of history, the fact of the matter was that society was headed one way and lawmakers jumped on the tide and passed that law after the fact. You read a rough ridin' book.
lol. Glad to see you never took a history class at k-state.
Also its clear you have no traps on the history of civil rights in this country. The court cases and law were in tandem with agitation. Please go read about the early history of the naacp ldf and realize that none of it would have been possible without legal action, of any kind, happening first.
Staying crap like this is as dumb as saying slavery was dying out because of economic reasons.
In any case concerning the private sector you are wrong. Restaurants and hotels were desegregating as a result of economic forces well before the civil rights act. Schools and civic institutions needed laws passed because they are bureaucratic pits but you can't say the same about the private sector.
THIS CAN'T GET ANY BETTER
I usually don't do this, but how about a little bit of proof? I only ask because Heart of Atlanta, the landmark case for desegregating this exact point wasn't until '64. Because its irrefutable that it took a combination of measures to break open these places culminating in the mid 60s and not as you suggest in the 50s.
I'll wait for some Napolitano bullshit.
There are plenty of examples of business desegregating without a law telling them they have to. Not everywhere, not by a long shot, had by the passing of the civil rights but that's the way society was heading anyway. That's the difference with trying to convince someone to change (economics) versus forcing someone to change (law) it takes time. It takes time but it's the way a free society should operate.
-
I'm having a hard time following where everyone stands on this. Is anyone pro-this-law? There's a lot of anti-this-law and a lot of anger over people being anti-this-law but is anyone taking a strong pro-this-law stance?
Lots of backlash against the backlash but even most of those folks are scared to really say it's a law that is both necessary and well thought out, which I think is a positive sign of progress.
yes, a big ass ship ever so slowly steering away from a path towards bigot island
-
Sorry I won't kowtow to your narrative edn, however it's all duly noted, but I've also read the words of legal experts (with no real skin in the game and of which many are pro marriage for anybody etc. etc.) from IU Law, Stanford Law, UVA Law and elsewhere who are saying that the Indiana law does not shield "bigots" from legal action. This is all part and parcel to what I was saying earlier that it's absurd to draw any concrete conclusions and these state laws only add to the legal minutia that will have to be sorted through in the courts.
I would like t see these sources, please. Because the actual text of these documents tells a radically different story. The proponents of this bill tell a radically different story. The refusal of Pence to say he would protect all of his citizens tells a radically different story. I get that you want this bill to be about protecting religious liberty but all the circumstances around it say otherwise. It seems like you are looking for the good and unstated possibility in a rotten bill.
-
Market forces do regulate this sort of thing best. Everyone think the civil rights laws in the 60s ended segregation in private business, but the boycotts and sit ins before that did a much better job and were already moving the country in that direction.
The price of freedom is the tolerance of others freedoms. Boorish speech and behaviors are the cost of letting everyone have tier say and it's much better than the alternative.
LOL
Yeah because making discrimination a federal crime had nothing to do with it. I mean, read a book.
That's a revisionist view of history, the fact of the matter was that society was headed one way and lawmakers jumped on the tide and passed that law after the fact. You read a rough ridin' book.
lol. Glad to see you never took a history class at k-state.
Also its clear you have no traps on the history of civil rights in this country. The court cases and law were in tandem with agitation. Please go read about the early history of the naacp ldf and realize that none of it would have been possible without legal action, of any kind, happening first.
Staying crap like this is as dumb as saying slavery was dying out because of economic reasons.
In any case concerning the private sector you are wrong. Restaurants and hotels were desegregating as a result of economic forces well before the civil rights act. Schools and civic institutions needed laws passed because they are bureaucratic pits but you can't say the same about the private sector.
THIS CAN'T GET ANY BETTER
I usually don't do this, but how about a little bit of proof? I only ask because Heart of Atlanta, the landmark case for desegregating this exact point wasn't until '64. Because its irrefutable that it took a combination of measures to break open these places culminating in the mid 60s and not as you suggest in the 50s.
I'll wait for some Napolitano bullshit.
There are plenty of examples of business desegregating without a law telling them they have to. Not everywhere, not by a long shot, had by the passing of the civil rights but that's the way society was heading anyway. That's the difference with trying to convince someone to change (economics) versus forcing someone to change (law) it takes time. It takes time but it's the way a free society should operate.
This is the inherent problem with the neo-libertarian's fixation with economic forces: they have never worked to achieve the large scale enfranchisement of all citizen. I poke at you with the Napolitano comment because this is the same line of reasoning he has for saying Lincoln was a tyrant etc etc (which coincidentally was literally laughed at by one of the preeminent historian on the subject, Eric Foner). The South was not going to change. These people are not going to change. The very least the law can do is make it more onerous for them to practice public discrimination. I will agree that many parts of the country were changing, but I would then argue that that pressure put the most ardent Southerners in a more defensive position and caused their views to harden and lash-out more at the people agitating for their rights.
The fact remains that the largest pushes for freedom in society are not through economic means but through civil action against the structures which maintain this aggression towards it citizens. There has never been a case in history where purely economic forces have allowed for the expansion of rights to a large swath of people.
-
I'm having a hard time following where everyone stands on this. Is anyone pro-this-law? There's a lot of anti-this-law and a lot of anger over people being anti-this-law but is anyone taking a strong pro-this-law stance?
Lots of backlash against the backlash but even most of those folks are scared to really say it's a law that is both necessary and well thought out, which I think is a positive sign of progress.
I think it's a positive and well thought out law to simply codify the common law that the government cannot substantially burden a person's exercise of religion unless the burden is in furtherance of a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest.
Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
This already well established law, both pursuant to common law and the federal religious freedom act. The only thing this law does in addition to the federal law is to define "person" as including certain business entities as well as individuals.
Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following: (1) An individual. (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.
This too is already supported by the USSC's recent Hobby Lobby Obamacare decision (which the libtards threw a complete hissy fit about).
The law is not a "license to discriminate" - it simply codifies a legal framework for deciding religious freedom cases.
-
The south started to change after the civil war, so governments passed Jim Crow laws to force businesses to discriminate, and the Supreme Court of the United States upheld these separate-but-equal laws over opposition from a private business that just wanted to make money.
-
What is the law in issue? Most of this thread is tl:dnr or just pit-y as eff (Edna posts).
Are we trying to force churches to say they approve of guys again? Or is this a bakery can refuse service to prolific homosexuals thing? Because neither scenario ought to be the basis of legislation.
-
The south started to change after the civil war, so governments passed Jim Crow laws to force businesses to discriminate, and the Supreme Court of the United States upheld these separate-but-equal laws over opposition from a private business that just wanted to make money.
Again, this simply isn't anywhere near the same thing. Gay rights activists are ginning up hysteria over this law and the media (and those who read the media without a legal education or common sense) are blindly following along. If you actually read the law, it doesn't give anyone license to discriminate - it simply codifies the "compelling interest" balancing test that is already federal and common law. It also clarifies that freedom of religion applies to business owners whether owned as a sole prop, llc, partnership, closely held corporation, etc., just like what was held in Hobby Lobby.
I personally believe that businesses should have the right to refuse service based on religious moral objections. A wedding photographer, should have the right to choose not to photohraph a gay wedding based on religious objections. A printer who is pro-life should have the right to not print fliers for an abortion provider. A pro-life business should not be required to purchase insurance which provides abortion coverage. This just seems like common sense to me. Liberals seem to be the anti-choice party, unless it's the choice they agree with.
But regardless, as I've said before, Indiana does not even include sexual preference as a protected class under its civil rights laws, so this Indiana RFRA is completely irrelevant to the gay rights issue.
-
I'm having a hard time following where everyone stands on this. Is anyone pro-this-law? There's a lot of anti-this-law and a lot of anger over people being anti-this-law but is anyone taking a strong pro-this-law stance?
Lots of backlash against the backlash but even most of those folks are scared to really say it's a law that is both necessary and well thought out, which I think is a positive sign of progress.
I think it's a positive and well thought out law to simply codify the common law that the government cannot substantially burden a person's exercise of religion unless the burden is in furtherance of a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest.
Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
This already well established law, both pursuant to common law and the federal religious freedom act. The only thing this law does in addition to the federal law is to define "person" as including certain business entities as well as individuals.
Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following: (1) An individual. (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.
This too is already supported by the USSC's recent Hobby Lobby Obamacare decision (which the libtards threw a complete hissy fit about).
The law is not a "license to discriminate" - it simply codifies a legal framework for deciding religious freedom cases.
So why was time and money spent passing this thing? It is going to hurt the state ultimately.
-
But regardless, as I've said before, Indiana does not even include sexual preference as a protected class under its civil rights laws
I like that you keep repeating this like it's a good thing
-
But regardless, as I've said before, Indiana does not even include sexual preference as a protected class under its civil rights laws
I like that you keep repeating this like it's a good thing
I'm not repeating it like it's a good thing or bad thing. It is a fact. And because of that fact, this Indiana RFRA law is almost completely irrelevant.
-
But regardless, as I've said before, Indiana does not even include sexual preference as a protected class under its civil rights laws
I like that you keep repeating this like it's a good thing
I'm not repeating it like it's a good thing or bad thing. It is a fact. And because of that fact, this Indiana RFRA law is almost completely irrelevant.
then it seems completely stupid to pass and defend
-
I don't believe a business has religious beliefs.
-
The south started to change after the civil war, so governments passed Jim Crow laws to force businesses to discriminate, and the Supreme Court of the United States upheld these separate-but-equal laws over opposition from a private business that just wanted to make money.
Again, this simply isn't anywhere near the same thing. Gay rights activists are ginning up hysteria over this law and the media (and those who read the media without a legal education or common sense) are blindly following along. If you actually read the law, it doesn't give anyone license to discriminate - it simply codifies the "compelling interest" balancing test that is already federal and common law. It also clarifies that freedom of religion applies to business owners whether owned as a sole prop, llc, partnership, closely held corporation, etc., just like what was held in Hobby Lobby.
I personally believe that businesses should have the right to refuse service based on religious moral objections. A wedding photographer, should have the right to choose not to photohraph a gay wedding based on religious objections. A printer who is pro-life should have the right to not print fliers for an abortion provider. A pro-life business should not be required to purchase insurance which provides abortion coverage. This just seems like common sense to me. Liberals seem to be the anti-choice party, unless it's the choice they agree with.
But regardless, as I've said before, Indiana does not even include sexual preference as a protected class under its civil rights laws, so this Indiana RFRA is completely irrelevant to the gay rights issue.
90% of corporations in the US are closely held dumbass. Quit trying to make it look like you're sticking up for mom and pop.
And no one is saying you have to do business with anyone (your sides hysteria). They are saying you can't deny them because of their humanity.
And you continue to ignore who authored, pushed, and endorsed this bill as you spout that it wasn't about gay rights.
-
:horrorsurprise:What if your business is hooker and you want to deny service to people with aids?
-
What if your a gay couple that owns a printing company in Topeka and the Phelps want to hire you to print a "God Hates mommies" sign?
-
What if you're the New York Times and you want to offer advertising space at one rate to democrats and a substantially higher rate to republicans (actually happened)?
-
These are all 1st amendment issues. Unless the person, whether acting as individual or through their business, is a common carrier or utility, it's completely futile and misguided to try and force people to do something in violation of their constitutional rights. Regardless of how unreasonable or unconscionable it is.
You would think the libtards would understand the gravity of making exceptions to the first amendment. I guess they've swung so far police state their minds are clouded.
-
But regardless, as I've said before, Indiana does not even include sexual preference as a protected class under its civil rights laws
I like that you keep repeating this like it's a good thing
I'm not repeating it like it's a good thing or bad thing. It is a fact. And because of that fact, this Indiana RFRA law is almost completely irrelevant.
then it seems completely stupid to pass and defend
Which is to say it's completely stupid to be outraged and opposed by it. Congrats
-
But regardless, as I've said before, Indiana does not even include sexual preference as a protected class under its civil rights laws
I like that you keep repeating this like it's a good thing
I'm not repeating it like it's a good thing or bad thing. It is a fact. And because of that fact, this Indiana RFRA law is almost completely irrelevant.
then it seems completely stupid to pass and defend
Which is to say it's completely stupid to be outraged and opposed by it. Congrats
there's that outrage against the outrage we love. :love:
-
Quit acting like this is really anything but a "mom and pop" issue . . . an issue that has and will arise so rarely it will barely even be noticed by the vast societal landscape. A society that has a vast repertoire of remedies should any discriminatory issues arise (and all probability a copious degree of existing laws/rights will have been violated/trampled before FRPA even enters the picture). . . and I am enjoying how the fact that these types of laws have allowed numerous people from all walks of life/skin color/religions/orientations etc. etc. to seek recourse when the MAN has tried to keep them down is being almost completely ignored.
Show me all those laws protecting the gblt community, I'll wait.
Hint: Its not a protected class.
And to answer Fake's strawman: Your rights end where mine begin. No one is trying to do anything you are suggesting.
-
Edna, did you just "come out"?
-
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/26/3333161/religious-liberty-racist-anti-gay/
-
Edna, did you just "come out"?
what does it matter to you? Your right to "freedom" ends at my underlying human principles.
-
Are atheists given the freedom to discriminate, or do you have to tie it to a religion?
-
Are atheists given the freedom to discriminate, or do you have to tie it to a religion?
reminds me of the satanists who wanted to distribute literature to kids because FL had an exception to allow passive distribution of materials
-
But regardless, as I've said before, Indiana does not even include sexual preference as a protected class under its civil rights laws
I like that you keep repeating this like it's a good thing
I'm not repeating it like it's a good thing or bad thing. It is a fact. And because of that fact, this Indiana RFRA law is almost completely irrelevant.
then it seems completely stupid to pass and defend
Again, this law applies generally to religious freedom - not to the issue of gay marriage.
-
Edna just linked a thinkprogress blog post. :lol: Your hyperventilation over a law that has no practical effect on gay rights just shows that you have lost all rational thought.
This is based on a law passed in 1993 by an overwhelming bipartisan majority and signed into law by Bill Clinton (to legislatively reverse a SC opinion written by Scalia, btw). But now that RFRAs have been cited (unsuccessfully) in support of discriminatory actions by businesses against gay marriage, IT'S HOLY MOTHER FREAKOUT TIME!!!! :runaway:
-
But regardless, as I've said before, Indiana does not even include sexual preference as a protected class under its civil rights laws
I like that you keep repeating this like it's a good thing
I'm not repeating it like it's a good thing or bad thing. It is a fact. And because of that fact, this Indiana RFRA law is almost completely irrelevant.
then it seems completely stupid to pass and defend
Again, this law applies generally to religious freedom - not to the issue of gay marriage.
It doesn't seem very fair that as an atheist I'm not allowed to kick out customers I find icky.
-
But regardless, as I've said before, Indiana does not even include sexual preference as a protected class under its civil rights laws
I like that you keep repeating this like it's a good thing
I'm not repeating it like it's a good thing or bad thing. It is a fact. And because of that fact, this Indiana RFRA law is almost completely irrelevant.
then it seems completely stupid to pass and defend
Again, this law applies generally to religious freedom - not to the issue of gay marriage.
It doesn't seem very fair that as an atheist I'm not allowed to kick out customers I find icky.
You are. But if you want to argue that "I refuse to comply with ___ law because it violates my freedom of religion" that's going to be a pretty weak argument if you're an atheist.
-
that's discrimination against non-religious people
-
When WalMart speaks, Arkansas listens.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/walmart-takes-firm-stand-arkansas-religious-freedom-bill/story?id=30043531
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/04/01/govt-and-business-leaders-object-to-ark-religion-bill/70757942/
-
But regardless, as I've said before, Indiana does not even include sexual preference as a protected class under its civil rights laws
I like that you keep repeating this like it's a good thing
I'm not repeating it like it's a good thing or bad thing. It is a fact. And because of that fact, this Indiana RFRA law is almost completely irrelevant.
then it seems completely stupid to pass and defend
Again, this law applies generally to religious freedom - not to the issue of gay marriage.
It doesn't seem very fair that as an atheist I'm not allowed to kick out customers I find icky.
Just pretend to be very religious the same way the people who are refusing service to homosexuals do.
-
that's discrimination against non-religious people
No, it's common sense and basic english. Tough to claim a "religious objection" to a law when you don't have a religion. As Dugout suggests, just lie. But you're still probably going to lose your case, just like the vast majority of religious freedom cases.
Ok - now that we're done with the brief interlude of common sense - resume FREAKOUT!
-
that's discrimination against non-religious people
Tough to claim a "religious objection" to a law when you don't have a religion.
the point is that a "religious objection" is complete bullshit. It should just be "objection" so anyone that wants can participate without lying.
-
that's discrimination against non-religious people
Tough to claim a "religious objection" to a law when you don't have a religion.
the point is that a "religious objection" is complete bullshit. It should just be "objection" so anyone that wants can participate without lying.
Good point.
-
Does hillary clinton accepting money from the Saudi government, who has criminalized homosexuality, make her anti-gay?
#thinkprogress
-
Does hillary clinton accepting money from the Saudi government, who has criminalized homosexuality, make her anti-gay?
#thinkprogress
hillary sucks, she doesn't care about anyone but herself
-
Edna, did you just "come out"?
Your right to "freedom" ends at my underlying human principles.
What is this?
-
Are atheists given the freedom to discriminate, or do you have to tie it to a religion?
Everyone has the same religious freedom, so long as you're a citizen of the u.s.
-
Does hillary clinton accepting money from the Saudi government, who has criminalized homosexuality, make her anti-gay?
#thinkprogress
hillary sucks, she doesn't care about anyone but herself
I demand outrage over a lack of outrage, then. In this case, it would at least be warranted.
Govt.: you are afforded your religious freedom
proglibs: that's antigay
Saudi: let's hang another alleged gay and then give hillary $3 million
Proglibs: let's contrive outrage against a Republican run state govt. and call it antigay
-
that's discrimination against non-religious people
Tough to claim a "religious objection" to a law when you don't have a religion.
the point is that a "religious objection" is complete bullshit. It should just be "objection" so anyone that wants can participate without lying.
Good point.
No, it's not a good point. We have a First Amendment right to freedom of religion. There is no such right to object to any law for any reason we choose (at least, not in the print - I dunno, maybe that's one of those bonus "rights" hidden in a penumbra of an emanation in the Constitution).
By definition, an atheist cannot have an objection based upon religion.
-
Bill Clinton signed the law in Arkansas, and the Federal Law Indiana mimicked.
:lol:
-
Atheist is protected under religious freedom (as in the right to abstain from and in that they also believe in a bunch of made up crap), imho.
-
that's discrimination against non-religious people
Tough to claim a "religious objection" to a law when you don't have a religion.
the point is that a "religious objection" is complete bullshit. It should just be "objection" so anyone that wants can participate without lying.
Good point.
No, it's not a good point. We have a First Amendment right to freedom of religion. There is no such right to object to any law for any reason we choose (at least, not in the print - I dunno, maybe that's one of those bonus "rights" hidden in a penumbra of an emanation in the Constitution).
By definition, an atheist cannot have an objection based upon religion.
"freedom of religion" also grants the freedom to not practice religion. If I want to discriminate based on my morals, I should be able to even if it isn't based on religion. (if religious people can)
-
Bill Clinton signed the law in Arkansas, and the Federal Law Indiana mimicked.
:lol:
The bill in Arkansas is similar to the Indiana law, with both diverging in certain respects from the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That act was passed in 1993 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton, Arkansas’s most famous political son.
But the political context has changed widely since then. The law was spurred by an effort to protect Native Americans in danger of losing their jobs because of religious ceremonies that involved an illegal drug, peyote.
-
98.1 in KC said that The Church of Cannabis just filed and received recognition as a church in Indiana and they list Cannabis as their sacrament. Sounds like week will now be protected as a religious practice in Indiana, unless they are April 1'ing everyone.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/03/30/the-first-church-of-cannabis-was-approved-after-indianas-religious-freedom-law-was-passed/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/03/30/the-first-church-of-cannabis-was-approved-after-indianas-religious-freedom-law-was-passed/)
-
98.1 in KC said that The Church of Cannabis just filed and received recognition as a church in Indiana and they list Cannabis as their sacrament. Sounds like week will now be protected as a religious practice in Indiana, unless they are April 1'ing everyone.
Sadly, no it won't. That's because the RFRA does not guarantee any religious exemptions - it only codifies the balancing test Indiana courts must follow in determining whether to grant a religious exemption. They would almost certainly lose the case, as has happened to other such suits.
Nice April-foolsin though.
-
This thing sounds like sharia law to me
-
that's discrimination against non-religious people
Tough to claim a "religious objection" to a law when you don't have a religion.
the point is that a "religious objection" is complete bullshit. It should just be "objection" so anyone that wants can participate without lying.
Good point.
No, it's not a good point. We have a First Amendment right to freedom of religion. There is no such right to object to any law for any reason we choose (at least, not in the print - I dunno, maybe that's one of those bonus "rights" hidden in a penumbra of an emanation in the Constitution).
By definition, an atheist cannot have an objection based upon religion.
"freedom of religion" also grants the freedom to not practice religion. If I want to discriminate based on my morals, I should be able to even if it isn't based on religion. (if religious people can)
I think you may be confusing real morals, which are based on God's law, with "personal whims." Jesus Saves, Rusty.
-
Great troll, I can't tell if you're serious or not
-
DR this thread, it's like a modern day Peanuts cartoon with Dax Lucying the eff out of all the Charlie Browns.
-
Bill Clinton signed the law in Arkansas, and the Federal Law Indiana mimicked.
:lol:
The bill in Arkansas is similar to the Indiana law, with both diverging in certain respects from the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That act was passed in 1993 and signed into law by President Bill Clinton, Arkansas’s most famous political son.
But the political context has changed widely since then. The law was spurred by an effort to protect Native Americans in danger of losing their jobs because of religious ceremonies that involved an illegal drug, peyote.
I LOVE this argument. The libtards were totally cool with RFRAs back when they were just about people doing drugs and Muslim inmates growing beards, but as soon as a Christian mom and pop wedding photographer refused to photograph a gay wedding The libtards are all SCREW RFRAS - ITS rough ridin' WAR!!!
A wonderful window into the libtard psyche.
-
It's a wonderful look into the psychopath psyche when someone doesn't understand the difference
-
It's a wonderful look into the psychopath psyche when someone doesn't understand the difference
Oh I see a difference. There actually is a compelling government interest in prohibiting employee drug use, whereas allowing a few Christian photographers to follow their conscience harms nobody. There are plenty of other photographers around. Maybe even some atheist ones.
-
Yes - a guy growing a beard is harming people but restaurants refusing to serve people harms nobody.
-
I'm sure the Defense of Marriage Act that Bill Clinton signed was about protecting Indians' right to get married, as well.
Gmafb
-
what about bill clinton 20 years ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Hey guys, have you seen the "straights only" drinking fountains, bus seats and schools? Because based upon some of the analogies made in this thread, that's what is going on.
-
Yes - a guy growing a beard is harming people but restaurants refusing to serve people harms nobody.
I think his point is neither harms anyone. Which is true.
-
Yes - a guy growing a beard is harming people but restaurants refusing to serve people harms nobody.
I'm fine with a Muslim inmate having a beard or an Indian school kid having long hair (both examples where the plaintiff rightly prevailed ). And nobody is talking about refusing to serve gays at a a restaurant. At most, a few restaurants might refuse to host a gay wedding reception. That doesn't seem to burdensome to respect devout religious beliefs.
-
Yes - a guy growing a beard is harming people but restaurants refusing to serve people harms nobody.
I think his point is neither harms anyone. Which is true.
What about grocery stores refusing to serve someone? What if it's the only grocery store in town?
-
I, for one, will not be buying anything that says "Made In The Anna" anytime soon.
Hahahahahha
-
Why is calling someone Edna cool? Seems as stupid as beems calling dax daxi pad. Can't we move past namecalling? Can't we love one another?
-
CNN saying Arkansas is most likely signing a very similar bill this morning.
I might soon be embarrassed to be a Grad Hog student :blindfold:
-
Yes - a guy growing a beard is harming people but restaurants refusing to serve people harms nobody.
I think his point is neither harms anyone. Which is true.
What about grocery stores refusing to serve someone? What if it's the only grocery store in town?
The entire libtard butthurt over this is an increasingly far fetched series if what ifs. The law is only a legal framework for the courts. That's it.
-
Arky governor sent it back for changes.
-
more like the legal framework to sharia law
-
Yes - a guy growing a beard is harming people but restaurants refusing to serve people harms nobody.
I think his point is neither harms anyone. Which is true.
What about grocery stores refusing to serve someone? What if it's the only grocery store in town?
The entire libtard butthurt over this is an increasingly far fetched series if what ifs. The law is only a legal framework for the courts. That's it.
The only reason the law was enacted in the present day is to protect bigots in far-fetched what-ifs. That's it.
-
Not every town has multiple bakeries, dax. Some towns don't have any!
-
I've never understood why someone would go to a food service business, knowing they are not wanted, and demand to be served. You're basically begging for a spit and pubes sandwich.
I do understand why we don't narrowly define (whittle away, if you will) 1st amendment rights. Sorry, the KKK can have their sophomoric parade and the Phelps klan can verbally crap on soon to be graves. If one bad person doesn't want to serve cake to a gay, so be it. If the bartender at Buddy's refuses to serve a priest, wgaf.
Comparing this law to segregation is rough ridin' insane. It's stupid legislation, no doubt. But don't allow yourself to become so misinformed you think this is a license to shun guys from society. All of this is the overreaction to the gross overreach and abuse of democratic process that is the Obama administration. We should all be embarrassed and frightened by both sides at this juncture.
-
cRusty :lol:
-
Its been interesting reading these last couple pages with KSU and Fake jerking each other off with Dax occasionally applying some spit to keep things moving.
-
Its been interesting reading these last couple pages with KSU and Fake jerking each other off with Dax occasionally applying some spit to keep things moving.
Oh look, a gay joke. How clever.
#bigotsgonnabigot
-
Its been interesting reading these last couple pages with KSU and Fake jerking each other off with Dax occasionally applying some spit to keep things moving.
Oh look, a gay joke. How clever.
#bigotsgonnabigot
Who said it was a joke? Much like this law, you're enforcing your own personal bias on statements, altering their true meaning.
-
Market forces do regulate this sort of thing best. Everyone think the civil rights laws in the 60s ended segregation in private business, but the boycotts and sit ins before that did a much better job and were already moving the country in that direction.
The price of freedom is the tolerance of others freedoms. Boorish speech and behaviors are the cost of letting everyone have tier say and it's much better than the alternative.
LOL
Yeah because making discrimination a federal crime had nothing to do with it. I mean, read a book.
That's a revisionist view of history, the fact of the matter was that society was headed one way and lawmakers jumped on the tide and passed that law after the fact. You read a rough ridin' book.
lol. Glad to see you never took a history class at k-state.
Also its clear you have no traps on the history of civil rights in this country. The court cases and law were in tandem with agitation. Please go read about the early history of the naacp ldf and realize that none of it would have been possible without legal action, of any kind, happening first.
Staying crap like this is as dumb as saying slavery was dying out because of economic reasons.
In any case concerning the private sector you are wrong. Restaurants and hotels were desegregating as a result of economic forces well before the civil rights act. Schools and civic institutions needed laws passed because they are bureaucratic pits but you can't say the same about the private sector.
THIS CAN'T GET ANY BETTER
I usually don't do this, but how about a little bit of proof? I only ask because Heart of Atlanta, the landmark case for desegregating this exact point wasn't until '64. Because its irrefutable that it took a combination of measures to break open these places culminating in the mid 60s and not as you suggest in the 50s.
I'll wait for some Napolitano bullshit.
There are plenty of examples of business desegregating without a law telling them they have to. Not everywhere, not by a long shot, had by the passing of the civil rights but that's the way society was heading anyway. That's the difference with trying to convince someone to change (economics) versus forcing someone to change (law) it takes time. It takes time but it's the way a free society should operate.
This is the inherent problem with the neo-libertarian's fixation with economic forces: they have never worked to achieve the large scale enfranchisement of all citizen. I poke at you with the Napolitano comment because this is the same line of reasoning he has for saying Lincoln was a tyrant etc etc (which coincidentally was literally laughed at by one of the preeminent historian on the subject, Eric Foner). The South was not going to change. These people are not going to change. The very least the law can do is make it more onerous for them to practice public discrimination. I will agree that many parts of the country were changing, but I would then argue that that pressure put the most ardent Southerners in a more defensive position and caused their views to harden and lash-out more at the people agitating for their rights.
The fact remains that the largest pushes for freedom in society are not through economic means but through civil action against the structures which maintain this aggression towards it citizens. There has never been a case in history where purely economic forces have allowed for the expansion of rights to a large swath of people.
I'd still contest that you're ignoring a large portion of history. What made the South different from the rest of the country? Were the people down there just slanty-foreheaded Neanderthals who were simply too obtuse to understand the direction of the rest of the country? No, the racist cesspool that was the American deep south was propped up by laws. Jim Crow laws (Federally approved via Plessy v. Ferguson) held back progress in the South. They didn't need overreaching and blunt Civil Rights laws to fix that, they needed to appeal the racist laws that supported it.
Laws fixing laws. This is why the best place to talk about these issues is in changing the hearts and minds of others, not tossing around laws at the end of a gun. The civil disobedience, boycotts, and marches of the civil rights era and today do and did far more to advance tolerance in our society than pointy haired bureaucrats do from atop their pedestals.
-
Market forces do regulate this sort of thing best. Everyone think the civil rights laws in the 60s ended segregation in private business, but the boycotts and sit ins before that did a much better job and were already moving the country in that direction.
The price of freedom is the tolerance of others freedoms. Boorish speech and behaviors are the cost of letting everyone have tier say and it's much better than the alternative.
LOL
Yeah because making discrimination a federal crime had nothing to do with it. I mean, read a book.
That's a revisionist view of history, the fact of the matter was that society was headed one way and lawmakers jumped on the tide and passed that law after the fact. You read a rough ridin' book.
lol. Glad to see you never took a history class at k-state.
Also its clear you have no traps on the history of civil rights in this country. The court cases and law were in tandem with agitation. Please go read about the early history of the naacp ldf and realize that none of it would have been possible without legal action, of any kind, happening first.
Staying crap like this is as dumb as saying slavery was dying out because of economic reasons.
In any case concerning the private sector you are wrong. Restaurants and hotels were desegregating as a result of economic forces well before the civil rights act. Schools and civic institutions needed laws passed because they are bureaucratic pits but you can't say the same about the private sector.
THIS CAN'T GET ANY BETTER
I usually don't do this, but how about a little bit of proof? I only ask because Heart of Atlanta, the landmark case for desegregating this exact point wasn't until '64. Because its irrefutable that it took a combination of measures to break open these places culminating in the mid 60s and not as you suggest in the 50s.
I'll wait for some Napolitano bullshit.
There are plenty of examples of business desegregating without a law telling them they have to. Not everywhere, not by a long shot, had by the passing of the civil rights but that's the way society was heading anyway. That's the difference with trying to convince someone to change (economics) versus forcing someone to change (law) it takes time. It takes time but it's the way a free society should operate.
This is the inherent problem with the neo-libertarian's fixation with economic forces: they have never worked to achieve the large scale enfranchisement of all citizen. I poke at you with the Napolitano comment because this is the same line of reasoning he has for saying Lincoln was a tyrant etc etc (which coincidentally was literally laughed at by one of the preeminent historian on the subject, Eric Foner). The South was not going to change. These people are not going to change. The very least the law can do is make it more onerous for them to practice public discrimination. I will agree that many parts of the country were changing, but I would then argue that that pressure put the most ardent Southerners in a more defensive position and caused their views to harden and lash-out more at the people agitating for their rights.
The fact remains that the largest pushes for freedom in society are not through economic means but through civil action against the structures which maintain this aggression towards it citizens. There has never been a case in history where purely economic forces have allowed for the expansion of rights to a large swath of people.
I'd still contest that you're ignoring a large portion of history. What made the South different from the rest of the country? Were the people down there just slanty-foreheaded Neanderthals who were simply too obtuse to understand the direction of the rest of the country? No, the racist cesspool that was the American deep south was propped up by laws. Jim Crow laws (Federally approved via Plessy v. Ferguson) held back progress in the South. They didn't need overreaching and blunt Civil Rights laws to fix that, they needed to appeal the racist laws that supported it.
Laws fixing laws. This is why the best place to talk about these issues is in changing the hearts and minds of others, not tossing around laws at the end of a gun. The civil disobedience, boycotts, and marches of the civil rights era and today do and did far more to advance tolerance in our society than pointy haired bureaucrats do from atop their pedestals.
I'm done with this. Its clear that you're basing your arguments on some extremely flawed assumptions about what chattle slavery was (hint is was in no way an economic construct which your position by definition relies on) and the constructs of racial Southern society. There was no economic force that was going to change the deep south. There was no force other than radical reconstruction, dormant under jim crow, progressed under the civil rights movement, and arguably left to this day unfinished. If you want to start comparing books we've read on the South, reconstruction, the civil rights movement, and Southern historical memory, we can. I don't think you'll like what you'll find. Because your perpetual use of "revisionist history" as an attack on scholarship clearly shows you have a lot of reading to do. There is a reason why Eric Foner, one of the most mild mannered historians broke out with uncontrolled laughter when Napaolatano tried to use this market forces bullshit to attack Lincoln and his course of action in the Civil War. Monolithic race constructs cannot be controlled by economic forces because they are the the fundamental drivers of those economics. Please read some of the history about the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Please read about the methods used by SNCC. Whats clearly lacking in your scholarship is that these issues were not in vacuums of progress but rather heavily interrelated and dependent on one another. Most often legal precedents were carefully constructed to allow the conversation to begin and allow civil action, resulting in more legal action. You keep mentioning boycotts as an example, but you fail to realize the totality of the circumstances involved. The bus boycott for example wasn't just Rosa --> Bus Boycotts --> Freedom Rides-->lets all sit together on Greyhounds! There was a careful, planned approach, which was built on legal action which started in the 40s.
If you seriously have questions PM or start a new thread and we can talk about the literature of a racialized South. If you want I can tell you which Profs at K-State are experts in various aspects of Southern study.
-
Why is calling someone Edna cool? Seems as stupid as beems calling dax daxi pad. Can't we move past namecalling? Can't we love one another?
:frown:
-
Oh look trusted news source Daily Caller who says its about religious freedom say:
"The new language will prevent RFRA from being used broadly to discriminate against gay people and may make it more difficult for businesses like florists and bakers to argue a burden on their religion."
So why would a florist or baker need to deny anyone service?
Oh look people who lobbied for the law say its about discriminating against the LGBT community:
"Advance America, a conservative group that lobbied for the original RFRA, said in a blog post that the update would destroy the law.
“Among the things that will happen, Christian bakers, florists and photographers would now be forced by the government to participate in a homosexual wedding or else they would be punished by the government!” the group said."
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/02/indiana-republicans-totally-cave-on-religious-freedom-law/
JFC you people are a joke.
-
That is an incoherent stream of consciousness that only the truly deranged and obsessive possess. We're talking news clippings psychotically connected with yarn and push pins, paranoid schizophrenia, clock tower gunman crap right there.
It's not just poorly written garbage, that would be an excuse, it's truly crazy. Goodness gracious.
-
That is an incoherent stream of consciousness that only the truly deranged and obsessive possess. We're talking news clippings psychotically connected with yarn and push pins, paranoid schizophrenia, clock tower gunman crap right there.
It's not just poorly written garbage, that would be an excuse, it's truly crazy. Goodness gracious.
Plus the gay slurs. An Edna meltdown is not pretty. All this over a law of neutral application that simply codifies the balancing test for the courts.
-
Why do these people feel the need to discriminate against harmless activities? I thought God was supposed to judge you, not man. Just shows christian hypocrisy
-
Market forces do regulate this sort of thing best. Everyone think the civil rights laws in the 60s ended segregation in private business, but the boycotts and sit ins before that did a much better job and were already moving the country in that direction.
The price of freedom is the tolerance of others freedoms. Boorish speech and behaviors are the cost of letting everyone have tier say and it's much better than the alternative.
LOL
Yeah because making discrimination a federal crime had nothing to do with it. I mean, read a book.
That's a revisionist view of history, the fact of the matter was that society was headed one way and lawmakers jumped on the tide and passed that law after the fact. You read a rough ridin' book.
lol. Glad to see you never took a history class at k-state.
Also its clear you have no traps on the history of civil rights in this country. The court cases and law were in tandem with agitation. Please go read about the early history of the naacp ldf and realize that none of it would have been possible without legal action, of any kind, happening first.
Staying crap like this is as dumb as saying slavery was dying out because of economic reasons.
In any case concerning the private sector you are wrong. Restaurants and hotels were desegregating as a result of economic forces well before the civil rights act. Schools and civic institutions needed laws passed because they are bureaucratic pits but you can't say the same about the private sector.
THIS CAN'T GET ANY BETTER
I usually don't do this, but how about a little bit of proof? I only ask because Heart of Atlanta, the landmark case for desegregating this exact point wasn't until '64. Because its irrefutable that it took a combination of measures to break open these places culminating in the mid 60s and not as you suggest in the 50s.
I'll wait for some Napolitano bullshit.
There are plenty of examples of business desegregating without a law telling them they have to. Not everywhere, not by a long shot, had by the passing of the civil rights but that's the way society was heading anyway. That's the difference with trying to convince someone to change (economics) versus forcing someone to change (law) it takes time. It takes time but it's the way a free society should operate.
This is the inherent problem with the neo-libertarian's fixation with economic forces: they have never worked to achieve the large scale enfranchisement of all citizen. I poke at you with the Napolitano comment because this is the same line of reasoning he has for saying Lincoln was a tyrant etc etc (which coincidentally was literally laughed at by one of the preeminent historian on the subject, Eric Foner). The South was not going to change. These people are not going to change. The very least the law can do is make it more onerous for them to practice public discrimination. I will agree that many parts of the country were changing, but I would then argue that that pressure put the most ardent Southerners in a more defensive position and caused their views to harden and lash-out more at the people agitating for their rights.
The fact remains that the largest pushes for freedom in society are not through economic means but through civil action against the structures which maintain this aggression towards it citizens. There has never been a case in history where purely economic forces have allowed for the expansion of rights to a large swath of people.
I'd still contest that you're ignoring a large portion of history. What made the South different from the rest of the country? Were the people down there just slanty-foreheaded Neanderthals who were simply too obtuse to understand the direction of the rest of the country? No, the racist cesspool that was the American deep south was propped up by laws. Jim Crow laws (Federally approved via Plessy v. Ferguson) held back progress in the South. They didn't need overreaching and blunt Civil Rights laws to fix that, they needed to appeal the racist laws that supported it.
Laws fixing laws. This is why the best place to talk about these issues is in changing the hearts and minds of others, not tossing around laws at the end of a gun. The civil disobedience, boycotts, and marches of the civil rights era and today do and did far more to advance tolerance in our society than pointy haired bureaucrats do from atop their pedestals.
I'm done with this. Its clear that you're basing your arguments on some extremely flawed assumptions about what chattle slavery was (hint is was in no way an economic construct which your position by definition relies on) and the constructs of racial Southern society. There was no economic force that was going to change the deep south. There was no force other than radical reconstruction, dormant under jim crow, progressed under the civil rights movement, and arguably left to this day unfinished. If you want to start comparing books we've read on the South, reconstruction, the civil rights movement, and Southern historical memory, we can. I don't think you'll like what you'll find. Because your perpetual use of "revisionist history" as an attack on scholarship clearly shows you have a lot of reading to do. There is a reason why Eric Foner, one of the most mild mannered historians broke out with uncontrolled laughter when Napaolatano tried to use this market forces bullshit to attack Lincoln and his course of action in the Civil War. Monolithic race constructs cannot be controlled by economic forces because they are the the fundamental drivers of those economics. Please read some of the history about the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Please read about the methods used by SNCC. Whats clearly lacking in your scholarship is that these issues were not in vacuums of progress but rather heavily interrelated and dependent on one another. Most often legal precedents were carefully constructed to allow the conversation to begin and allow civil action, resulting in more legal action. You keep mentioning boycotts as an example, but you fail to realize the totality of the circumstances involved. The bus boycott for example wasn't just Rosa --> Bus Boycotts --> Freedom Rides-->lets all sit together on Greyhounds! There was a careful, planned approach, which was built on legal action which started in the 40s.
If you seriously have questions PM or start a new thread and we can talk about the literature of a racialized South. If you want I can tell you which Profs at K-State are experts in various aspects of Southern study.
You can prattle on about slavery and repealing laws being the same thing as creating laws but that doesn't change the fact at hand. Passing new laws forcing people to be tolerant isn't a wide step away from being as bad a law as the ones forcing intolerance they were fighting against. The early civil rights movement had its start in challenging unjust laws as you mentioned, a noble and right pursuit. Congress passed the civil rights act AFTER much of the work had already been done repealing Jim Crow laws and creating a diaolog across the country. Consequently, as you admitted earlier, the civil rights act calloused many and did more harm than good. The fact is the voluntary forces of the market and free speech do a great deal more for the advancement of oppressed people than one could ever legislate into being.
And if you're referring to Lou Williams, I took her HIST555 class as an undergrad, not a fan.
-
Why do these people feel the need to discriminate against harmless activities? I thought God was supposed to judge you, not man. Just shows christian hypocrisy
As a Christian, it blows my mind, too.
-
Market forces do regulate this sort of thing best. Everyone think the civil rights laws in the 60s ended segregation in private business, but the boycotts and sit ins before that did a much better job and were already moving the country in that direction.
The price of freedom is the tolerance of others freedoms. Boorish speech and behaviors are the cost of letting everyone have tier say and it's much better than the alternative.
LOL
Yeah because making discrimination a federal crime had nothing to do with it. I mean, read a book.
That's a revisionist view of history, the fact of the matter was that society was headed one way and lawmakers jumped on the tide and passed that law after the fact. You read a rough ridin' book.
lol. Glad to see you never took a history class at k-state.
Also its clear you have no traps on the history of civil rights in this country. The court cases and law were in tandem with agitation. Please go read about the early history of the naacp ldf and realize that none of it would have been possible without legal action, of any kind, happening first.
Staying crap like this is as dumb as saying slavery was dying out because of economic reasons.
In any case concerning the private sector you are wrong. Restaurants and hotels were desegregating as a result of economic forces well before the civil rights act. Schools and civic institutions needed laws passed because they are bureaucratic pits but you can't say the same about the private sector.
THIS CAN'T GET ANY BETTER
I usually don't do this, but how about a little bit of proof? I only ask because Heart of Atlanta, the landmark case for desegregating this exact point wasn't until '64. Because its irrefutable that it took a combination of measures to break open these places culminating in the mid 60s and not as you suggest in the 50s.
I'll wait for some Napolitano bullshit.
There are plenty of examples of business desegregating without a law telling them they have to. Not everywhere, not by a long shot, had by the passing of the civil rights but that's the way society was heading anyway. That's the difference with trying to convince someone to change (economics) versus forcing someone to change (law) it takes time. It takes time but it's the way a free society should operate.
This is the inherent problem with the neo-libertarian's fixation with economic forces: they have never worked to achieve the large scale enfranchisement of all citizen. I poke at you with the Napolitano comment because this is the same line of reasoning he has for saying Lincoln was a tyrant etc etc (which coincidentally was literally laughed at by one of the preeminent historian on the subject, Eric Foner). The South was not going to change. These people are not going to change. The very least the law can do is make it more onerous for them to practice public discrimination. I will agree that many parts of the country were changing, but I would then argue that that pressure put the most ardent Southerners in a more defensive position and caused their views to harden and lash-out more at the people agitating for their rights.
The fact remains that the largest pushes for freedom in society are not through economic means but through civil action against the structures which maintain this aggression towards it citizens. There has never been a case in history where purely economic forces have allowed for the expansion of rights to a large swath of people.
I'd still contest that you're ignoring a large portion of history. What made the South different from the rest of the country? Were the people down there just slanty-foreheaded Neanderthals who were simply too obtuse to understand the direction of the rest of the country? No, the racist cesspool that was the American deep south was propped up by laws. Jim Crow laws (Federally approved via Plessy v. Ferguson) held back progress in the South. They didn't need overreaching and blunt Civil Rights laws to fix that, they needed to appeal the racist laws that supported it.
Laws fixing laws. This is why the best place to talk about these issues is in changing the hearts and minds of others, not tossing around laws at the end of a gun. The civil disobedience, boycotts, and marches of the civil rights era and today do and did far more to advance tolerance in our society than pointy haired bureaucrats do from atop their pedestals.
I'm done with this. Its clear that you're basing your arguments on some extremely flawed assumptions about what chattle slavery was (hint is was in no way an economic construct which your position by definition relies on) and the constructs of racial Southern society. There was no economic force that was going to change the deep south. There was no force other than radical reconstruction, dormant under jim crow, progressed under the civil rights movement, and arguably left to this day unfinished. If you want to start comparing books we've read on the South, reconstruction, the civil rights movement, and Southern historical memory, we can. I don't think you'll like what you'll find. Because your perpetual use of "revisionist history" as an attack on scholarship clearly shows you have a lot of reading to do. There is a reason why Eric Foner, one of the most mild mannered historians broke out with uncontrolled laughter when Napaolatano tried to use this market forces bullshit to attack Lincoln and his course of action in the Civil War. Monolithic race constructs cannot be controlled by economic forces because they are the the fundamental drivers of those economics. Please read some of the history about the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Please read about the methods used by SNCC. Whats clearly lacking in your scholarship is that these issues were not in vacuums of progress but rather heavily interrelated and dependent on one another. Most often legal precedents were carefully constructed to allow the conversation to begin and allow civil action, resulting in more legal action. You keep mentioning boycotts as an example, but you fail to realize the totality of the circumstances involved. The bus boycott for example wasn't just Rosa --> Bus Boycotts --> Freedom Rides-->lets all sit together on Greyhounds! There was a careful, planned approach, which was built on legal action which started in the 40s.
If you seriously have questions PM or start a new thread and we can talk about the literature of a racialized South. If you want I can tell you which Profs at K-State are experts in various aspects of Southern study.
You can prattle on about slavery and repealing laws being the same thing as creating laws but that doesn't change the fact at hand. Passing new laws forcing people to be tolerant isn't a wide step away from being as bad a law as the ones forcing intolerance they were fighting against. The early civil rights movement had its start in challenging unjust laws as you mentioned, a noble and right pursuit. Congress passed the civil rights act AFTER much of the work had already been done repealing Jim Crow laws and creating a diaolog across the country. Consequently, as you admitted earlier, the civil rights act calloused many and did more harm than good. The fact is the voluntary forces of the market and free speech do a great deal more for the advancement of oppressed people than one could ever legislate into being.
And if you're referring to Lou Williams, I took her HIST555 class as an undergrad, not a fan.
Yeah its clear that you want to remain ignorant on the topic. You clearly have no interest in understanding how laws were constructed in the South and how they required Federal action to destroy them. If you're actually believe that passing laws protecting people from lynching, burning, and enforcing their fundamental American civil rights then you have totally lost the fundamental points of the Civil Rights movement. Its clear that you have done no research and have only pandered to poorly constructed, poorly researched, poorly ethos-ed agenda driven political points to explain complex events in American history.
Another respected voice on the topic, David Blight who closes this video on point. Because I'm sure Dr. King was over reacting asking for a presidential proclamation, a second Emancipation Proclamation, to end their plight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6cjtMXTjPA
(And I can see why you didn't like Dr Wililams' class. Too much historical scholarship undoing your preconceptions. You should stay away from Dr. Sanders too as he wont give you a 'bless your heart' before telling you how wrong you are.)
-
Does anyone have any questions for me on this topic?
-
[omitting this quote chain, tldnr]
Its like you don't understand how stupid it is to say "We needed federal laws to make lynching illegal"
All the things you referenced were results of the Jim Crow south and making bad laws to counter bad laws is counter productive.
I respected Dr. Williams a good deal and if my grades in the class were any indication she respected me (even if she'd constantly snipe at my position in the margins of my essays) but I was not a fan of the world view she brought to bare in discussing American History. To each their own.
-
Does anyone have any questions for me on this topic?
wasn't the north still pretty racist in the 60's?
-
Does anyone have any questions for me on this topic?
wasn't the north still pretty racist in the 60's?
I'll say yes.
-
[omitting this quote chain, tldnr]
Its like you don't understand how stupid it is to say "We needed federal laws to make lynching illegal"
All the things you referenced were results of the Jim Crow south and making bad laws to counter bad laws is counter productive.
I respected Dr. Williams a good deal and if my grades in the class were any indication she respected me (even if she'd constantly snipe at my position in the margins of my essays) but I was not a fan of the world view she brought to bare in discussing American History. To each their own.
Stop and think about what you just said. The Civil Right(s) (I also assume you mean 1964) act was a bad law. I mean stop and think about that. There is a reason why its considered one of the greatest, most necessary pieces of American legal process.
-
[omitting this quote chain, tldnr]
Its like you don't understand how stupid it is to say "We needed federal laws to make lynching illegal"
All the things you referenced were results of the Jim Crow south and making bad laws to counter bad laws is counter productive.
I respected Dr. Williams a good deal and if my grades in the class were any indication she respected me (even if she'd constantly snipe at my position in the margins of my essays) but I was not a fan of the world view she brought to bare in discussing American History. To each their own.
Stop and think about what you just said. The Civil Right(s) (I also assume you mean 1964) act was a bad law. I mean stop and think about that. There is a reason why its considered one of the greatest, most necessary pieces of American legal process.
It was bad in the sense that it was root canal surgery with a sledgehammer. The provisions in the act, as they relate today, fundamentally changed the role of private property and freedom of association negatively and outside the scope of civil rights in ways still felt today.
-
[omitting this quote chain, tldnr]
Its like you don't understand how stupid it is to say "We needed federal laws to make lynching illegal"
All the things you referenced were results of the Jim Crow south and making bad laws to counter bad laws is counter productive.
I respected Dr. Williams a good deal and if my grades in the class were any indication she respected me (even if she'd constantly snipe at my position in the margins of my essays) but I was not a fan of the world view she brought to bare in discussing American History. To each their own.
Stop and think about what you just said. The Civil Right(s) (I also assume you mean 1964) act was a bad law. I mean stop and think about that. There is a reason why its considered one of the greatest, most necessary pieces of American legal process.
It was bad in the sense that it was root canal surgery with a sledgehammer. The provisions in the act, as they relate today, fundamentally changed the role of private property and freedom of association negatively and outside the scope of civil rights in ways still felt today.
Look you have no position, material, or evidence to posit forth. I mean its clear that you don't want to engage in a real discussion on the issue. You only have your ideas borrowed from bankrupt neo libertarians who live in a fantasy world grounding in an idealized false history.
Because guess what, you need a sledge hammer to smash the society which allows people to be lynched and buses burned. You need a sledge hammer to bludgeon states who wouldn't prosecute suspects in the name of Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner. You cannot move that society without the pen and the bayonet. If your position had an validity it would not have taken 100 years and a sledge hammer, as you describe, to cause this movement.
-
[omitting this quote chain, tldnr]
Its like you don't understand how stupid it is to say "We needed federal laws to make lynching illegal"
All the things you referenced were results of the Jim Crow south and making bad laws to counter bad laws is counter productive.
I respected Dr. Williams a good deal and if my grades in the class were any indication she respected me (even if she'd constantly snipe at my position in the margins of my essays) but I was not a fan of the world view she brought to bare in discussing American History. To each their own.
Stop and think about what you just said. The Civil Right(s) (I also assume you mean 1964) act was a bad law. I mean stop and think about that. There is a reason why its considered one of the greatest, most necessary pieces of American legal process.
It was bad in the sense that it was root canal surgery with a sledgehammer. The provisions in the act, as they relate today, fundamentally changed the role of private property and freedom of association negatively and outside the scope of civil rights in ways still felt today.
Look you have no position, material, or evidence to posit forth. I mean its clear that you don't want to engage in a real discussion on the issue. You only have your ideas borrowed from bankrupt neo libertarians who live in a fantasy world grounding in an idealized false history.
Because guess what, you need a sledge hammer to smash the society which allows people to be lynched and buses burned. You need a sledge hammer to bludgeon states who wouldn't prosecute suspects in the name of Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner. You cannot move that society without the pen and the bayonet. If your position had an validity it would not have taken 100 years and a sledge hammer, as you describe, to cause this movement.
And you're coming from some grand pedigree of author name-drop and youtube-link fame? We're posting on a bbs, in not going to pretend to come from some position of authority to win my arguments.
Jim Crow laws propped up the atrocities you named. The pen and bayonet did that. You win hearts and minds with reason and voluntary action, not force.
-
People, only post articles from EDN pre-approved sources.
Looks like the legislation is going to be amended, it seems enough death/bomb/bodily harm threats have been called into Christians revolving around hypothetical situations that would likely never occur have won the day. Analogies to water cannons/separate drinking fountains/lynchings/back of the bus etc. etc. still ongoing and as always, absolutely deplorable.
Okay D-A-X-W, because just spouting off with no evidence to counter someone point to specific experts on the issue is totally legit in a discussion.
Are you sure you aren't in high school?
-
this edn person is a real nutcase.
-
Tell me what sources I can use edn, I want to be right.
Not sure why you're jocking my posts after talking about the South. Seems really manic of you.
But why don't you notice where I'm pulling sources from and explaining them. You're using mouthpieces who pushed for this bill and should be called on that. Congrats, I acknowledged that you quoted from a guy pushing for this bill. Its great that you slander anything that disagrees with your points because you can't understand their intellectual credibility.
BUT HEY THIS BILL ISN'T ABOUT GAYS!!!! BUT WHAT IF A FLORIST HAS TO LET THOSE mommies GET A BOUQUET!!! /still not about gays amirite! Because that is the final reductionist point of your entire purpose in this thread.
-
People, only post articles from EDN pre-approved sources.
Looks like the legislation is going to be amended, it seems enough death/bomb/bodily harm threats have been called into Christians revolving around hypothetical situations that would likely never occur have won the day. Analogies to water cannons/separate drinking fountains/lynchings/back of the bus etc. etc. still ongoing and as always, absolutely deplorable.
dax posts like this are the very best.
-
BUT HEY THIS BILL ISN'T ABOUT GAYS!!!! BUT WHAT IF A FLORIST HAS TO LET THOSE mommies GET A BOUQUET!!! /still not about gays amirite! Because that is the final reductionist point of your entire purpose in this thread.
Back away from the ledge, and stop using gay slurs. The original version of the bill was not about gay marriage any more than it was about abortion coverage mandates, drug policies, dress codes, or anything else that could potentially infringe on a person's freedom of religion. Again, the most recent court decision concerning a RFRA concerned Obamacare abortion coverage mandates. Of course a RFRA can also touch on the issue of gay marriage, but the law is expresly neutral. Not only does it not expressly apply to any one particular topic, it doesn't even declare a winner or loser. It only codifies the balancing test that courts should apply in religious objection cases. These are facts. You are hysterical. Also a fact.
-
I would agree cRusty . . . when the Mike Lupica's of the world start invoking Selma like images you know the backlash is coming, and it's coming with a vengence.
I don't want to want to cater a cake to a same sex marriage ceremony trumps the fire hoses of Birmingham every day and (dare i say) twice on Sunday.
:D
-
I don't want to want to cater a cake to a same sex marriage ceremony trumps the fire hoses of Birmingham every day and (dare i say) twice on Sunday.
It's the gay activists this time who are unleashing the dogs and fire hoses on mom and pop businesses. Sort of a 180 from Selma. Children, that's called "irony."
Death threats against the family pizza joint in Nowheresville, Indiana for saying they won't cater a gay wedding. "Well crap, we'll have to find another pizza place to cater our wedding" said no gay couple. Ever.
-
If discrimination doesn't involve fire hoses or lynchings, the discrimination ain't crap, and these gays can SHUT IT!!!
:D
-
Lol
-
So the libtards hate outrage over outrage and outrage over lack of outrage, but not conjectural outrage???
Why?
-
If discrimination doesn't involve fire hoses or lynchings, the discrimination ain't crap, and these gays can SHUT IT!!!
:D
I'm outraged over the discrimination I foresee!
-Saint Libtard, protector against conjectural discrimination
-
If discrimination doesn't involve fire hoses or lynchings, the discrimination ain't crap, and these gays can SHUT IT!!!
:D
I'm outraged over the discrimination I foresee!
-Saint Libtard, protector against conjectural discrimination
:lol:
-
Tell me what sources I can use edn, I want to be right.
Not sure why you're jocking my posts after talking about the South. Seems really manic of you.
But why don't you notice where I'm pulling sources from and explaining them. You're using mouthpieces who pushed for this bill and should be called on that. Congrats, I acknowledged that you quoted from a guy pushing for this bill. Its great that you slander anything that disagrees with your points because you can't understand their intellectual credibility.
BUT HEY THIS BILL ISN'T ABOUT GAYS!!!! BUT WHAT IF A FLORIST HAS TO LET THOSE mommies GET A BOUQUET!!! /still not about gays amirite! Because that is the final reductionist point of your entire purpose in this thread.
Pretty much a nope on all "points" of that little meltdown, but I would like a list of pre-approved sources.
lulz those are almost direct quotes from your approved sources you idiot. Lol at me melting down when you guys are pulling out all the stops to cover up your bigotry.
By the way I'm sure Matt Shepard feels so much hetter that he didn't have a fire hosed turned in him too.
-
Saint Libtard :lol:
-
Resident ProgLibs: The hypothetical discriminated against party of today is exactly the same as the real discriminated against parties of pre Civil Rights America!!
Step aside Rosa Parks and Selma, here comes Memories Pizza and Walkerton, IN!!
and we're back to you being on the wrong side of history. Congrats on saying the lgbt community is making up their discrimination. Real piece of crap move. (I know you'll say you mean libs compare anything to CR movement, but this thread is proof enough)
-
Resident ProgLibs: The hypothetical discriminated against party of today is exactly the same as the real discriminated against parties of pre Civil Rights America!!
Step aside Rosa Parks and Selma, here comes Memories Pizza and Walkerton, IN!!
and we're back to you being on the wrong side of history.*
As revised by Edna and written in all the books leftover after the nazi bonfire
-
Would love to see a red line of the statute as revised to as originally written. Interested to see how they wrote "carte blanche to shun gays from society" out of it.
-
the fact that they are backpedaling so much pretty much proves that this was all about gay hatin' all along
-
the fact that they are backpedaling so much pretty much proves that this was all about gay hatin' all along
That doesn't make sense. Maddow?
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/04/02/indiana-lawmakers-agree-on-fix-to-religious-freedom-law/
-
the fact that they are backpedaling so much pretty much proves that this was all about gay hatin' all along
That doesn't make sense. Maddow?
actually heard this on limbaugh today lol (he was fine with the gay hatin, but was mad that the cover was blown)
-
the fact that they are backpedaling so much pretty much proves that this was all about gay hatin' all along
No, just bowing to the mob. Very effective tactics.
-
I never pictured liblib as a Rushite.
Kinda, sad.
it's like reading a ksuw post, you never know what sort of crazy reasoning he will come up with next. mega dittos!
-
laura ingram today was pretty hilarious on this topic as well. she had like an hour dedicated to asking if big business has too much power in politics because wal-mart got arkansas to change their gay hatin' law or something. real comedy from the republican leaders :lol:
-
I never pictured liblib as a Rushite.
Kinda, sad.
it's like reading a ksuw post, you never know what sort of crazy reasoning he will come up with next. mega dittos!
No, no dice Rushite, enjoy your subscription to the Limbaugh Letter (does that still exist?).
i haven't heard it mentioned. i just started listening again after taking a few years off, so i don't know when it stopped.
-
micheal savage is the absolute best tho, he's FSD on the radio with a little kstatefreak42 (?) conspiracy mixed in. absolutely entertaining! plot twist.... he lives in san francisco and rough ridin' hates liberals so much but decides to be surrounded by them :lol:
-
i mean, i can if there is demand. listening is probably going to take a hit though because i won't be on the road so much during the day in the coming weeks :frown:
-
good grief dax :lol:
-
:lol:
-
#closted
-
http://louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-bakery/ (http://louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-bakery/)
I need a ruling from the libtards - do we boycott this bakery, too?
-
http://louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-bakery/ (http://louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-bakery/)
I need a ruling from the libtards - do we boycott this bakery, too?
Didn't watch, but let's just say yes. Will you start a fundraiser for them (http://www.gofundme.com/MemoriesPizza) in response?
-
You seem pretty fired up about all this . . . cRusty. I can see it now, of course I really see the late Phil Hartman as Bill Clinton signing that bill, talking about the "big buy upstairs". I mean, I really do have a good imagination.
I'M FIRED UP!!!
-
kRusty is clearly rattled
-
http://louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-bakery/ (http://louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-bakery/)
I need a ruling from the libtards - do we boycott this bakery, too?
Didn't watch, but let's just say yes. Will you start a fundraiser for them (http://www.gofundme.com/MemoriesPizza) in response?
You should watch. The guy is funny. And sure, if the libtards boycotted any of those Muslim bakeries and somebody started a crowd funding campaign, I'd probably chip in a few bucks. Easy for me to say since I know they'll never be boycotted.
-
https://twitter.com/papalputz/status/583838544818503680
lol
-
I have been at slow boil every since I learned about this issue, but I could not understand what was gnawing at my innards. Laws protecting against discriminating the sale of goods to other humans is good. Tonight my gasket has burst and my steam pipes ruptured when I read hateful militant gays have forced the closure of a small pizzeria in Indiana. The owner said the would serve pizza to anyone, but not cater a gay wedding. I just googled gays refuse to serve Christians; I found multiple stories where gays refused to sell a product or service to Christians. One gay baker said it was against his beliefs to make a wedding cake for a hetro-marriage - it was his right to do business with whom he chooses. This is not about fairness and non-discrimination, it is about militant gays trying to jam their beliefs down others throats. If militant gays want a culture war, every Christian or pro-traditional lifestyle need to go to every gay business and order hetroproducts. If I owned that pizzeria I would have delivered the crappiest tasting pizza ever made in the history of man.
-
.If militant gays want a culture war, every Christian or pro-traditional lifestyle need to go to every gay business and order hetroproducts.
loved this part, reno
-
http://louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-bakery/ (http://louderwithcrowder.com/hidden-camera-gay-wedding-cake-at-muslim-bakery/)
I need a ruling from the libtards - do we boycott this bakery, too?
Didn't watch, but let's just say yes. Will you start a fundraiser for them (http://www.gofundme.com/MemoriesPizza) in response?
You should watch. The guy is funny. And sure, if the libtards boycotted any of those Muslim bakeries and somebody started a crowd funding campaign, I'd probably chip in a few bucks. Easy for me to say since I know they'll never be boycotted.
Are you saying liberals are Muslims? I don't understand your point.
-
It takes real talent for you guys to speak out both sides of your mouth.
1) This law is about religious protection, its not about discrimination. Gays aren't really discriminated against!!
2) Lets make a strawman about Muslims, our favorite boogeyman, that shows actual discrimination, pretend that all libs love Muslims and their anti-gblt actions and make it seem like libs would support them. While simultaneously showcasing the discrimination you say doesn't exist and the law which would protect them.
I mean you really can't make this kind of stuff up. Truly some Kerri Strug level mental gymnastics. Although I wonder if would guys would rather have Rush or Hannity come carry you off the mat.
-
Guest host on laura ingram today, lame
-
It takes real talent for you guys to speak out both sides of your mouth.
1) This law is about religious protection, its not about discrimination. Gays aren't really discriminated against!!
2) Lets make a strawman about Muslims, our favorite boogeyman, that shows actual discrimination, pretend that all libs love Muslims and their anti-gblt actions and make it seem like libs would support them. While simultaneously showcasing the discrimination you say doesn't exist and the law which would protect them.
I mean you really can't make this kind of stuff up. Truly some Kerri Strug level mental gymnastics. Although I wonder if would guys would rather have Rush or Hannity come carry you off the mat.
Only in your bizarre, twisted mind am I talking out of both sides of my mouth. Let me see if I can untangle this for you...
1. The law is NEUTRAL (or was - I haven't seen the revised version). It only provides the "compelling interest" balancing test that a court has to apply in a religious freedom case. THIS IS A FACT.
2. Regardless of number 1 above, Americans have freedom of religion in this country. THAT IS ALSO A FACT. It is therefore my opinion (and the opinion of a majority of Americans according to polls) that people who object to gay marriage for religious reasons should not be compelled to provide services for gay weddings.
3. While not directly related, I am also pointing out the hypocrisy on the left in attacking Christian businesses, while at the same time largely looking the other way when it comes to Muslim businesses with the same viewpoint. Oh, they'll pay some lipservice to the notion that "I don't care if they're Christian or Muslim, it's wrong" but we all know (at least, all sensible people know) that the libtards won't go after the Muslim businesses with the same zeal as the Christian businesses.
None of that is inconsistent.
-
Why are leftists so bigoted towards christians, but will go miles out of their way to defend muslims? It seems weird to repeatedly rail on one while staunchly defending the other?
My thoughts, perverse indoctrination.
-
Why are leftists so bigoted towards christians, but will go miles out of their way to defend muslims? It seems weird to repeatedly rail on one while staunchly defending the other?
My thoughts, perverse indoctrination.
As a moderate, I'm bigoted toward Muslims and Christians equally. They're right up there with Scientologists almost.
-
I think more atheists cut work today than catholics. Which was negative surprising because most atheists are self centered sociopaths.
-
I think more atheists cut work today than catholics. Which was negative surprising because most atheists are self centered sociopaths.
Get to work you atheists, jeez.
-
Why would someone not work today? Spring break?
-
It warms my heart to think that seven is listening to conservative talk radio. Soon he will join us. :cheers:
-
edn I have never said that gay people haven't been discriminated against, ever. I'm just appalled at the level of projection coming from some, who are using hypothetical scenarios and positioning them as being exactly the same thing as the most abhorrent levels of discrimination that have actually occurred in this country. It's disgusting, but, typical.
So not enough gays are being murdered in the streets for you to give a crap about their plight? I mean stop and think about the paradigm you're constructing for them to be sufficiently discriminated against before you push for their rights. They don't have equal property rights. They don't have equal contract rights. They aren't a protected class. They don't have a right to marry. States don't observe the fundamental principles of comity with respect to gblt rights. They are consistently persecuted in this country and only the most overt and heinous acts are rejected (think Phelps). How is that situation fundamentally different then the Civil Rights movement in the mid 20th century? Your only fall back at that point it seems is that not enough gays are being killed.
-
It takes real talent for you guys to speak out both sides of your mouth.
1) This law is about religious protection, its not about discrimination. Gays aren't really discriminated against!!
2) Lets make a strawman about Muslims, our favorite boogeyman, that shows actual discrimination, pretend that all libs love Muslims and their anti-gblt actions and make it seem like libs would support them. While simultaneously showcasing the discrimination you say doesn't exist and the law which would protect them.
I mean you really can't make this kind of stuff up. Truly some Kerri Strug level mental gymnastics. Although I wonder if would guys would rather have Rush or Hannity come carry you off the mat.
Only in your bizarre, twisted mind am I talking out of both sides of my mouth. Let me see if I can untangle this for you...
1. The law is NEUTRAL (or was - I haven't seen the revised version). It only provides the "compelling interest" balancing test that a court has to apply in a religious freedom case. THIS IS A FACT.
2. Regardless of number 1 above, Americans have freedom of religion in this country. THAT IS ALSO A FACT. It is therefore my opinion (and the opinion of a majority of Americans according to polls) that people who object to gay marriage for religious reasons should not be compelled to provide services for gay weddings.
3. While not directly related, I am also pointing out the hypocrisy on the left in attacking Christian businesses, while at the same time largely looking the other way when it comes to Muslim businesses with the same viewpoint. Oh, they'll pay some lipservice to the notion that "I don't care if they're Christian or Muslim, it's wrong" but we all know (at least, all sensible people know) that the libtards won't go after the Muslim businesses with the same zeal as the Christian businesses.
None of that is inconsistent.
Its so cute when you think you're trying.
1) It isn't neutral for a number of reasons, mostly because of the specific language of the bill which makes it fundamentally different then the federal version and the vast majority of the various state laws. On its face it allows you to use your religion to attack the basic commerce rights of citizens. It abhorrently provides a defense against legal recourse by offended parties (gays in this case) which nearly every other bill, including the fed does not. Whats worse is that we are further entrenching the Hobby Lobby decision with this asinine notion that companies have rights as well as their owners. (also love how you bitched out of the closely held corp issue)
2) I recognize that right and it ends when you attack other people with it. There are lots of racists who run business too. Congrats on painting yourself squarely in that camp. Its great that you paint this "majority" (lol weekly standard report) when you clearly don't understand the stats at hand. America is equally split on the issue and your poll suggesting this majority is nearly withing the margin of error. The problem is that you haven't read the entire question so you've lost call context to it with your spoon fed headline based reporting.
3) I'm constantly amazed at white protests ability to feel persecuted in a country where they have been the unquestioned dominant force since its founding. People agitating for their rights is not part of a culture war against "you". The reality is that yes your power structure will have to be rolled back in order to allow room for others to have their fundamental civil rights. And by rolled back, I mean you might have to actually realize that other people should be allowed to vote, have property, and purse their individual liberty. Nothing is eroding your rights, people are eroding your unquestioned hegemony over America's discourse.
-
Why would someone not work today? Spring break?
Good Friday.
-
Holidays should all fall on Fridays
-
Yeah edn, death is my personal litmus test on discrimination. :rolleyes:
I've been trying to get you to articulate, something other then gays don't have it that bad.
-
Yeah edn, death is my personal litmus test on discrimination. :rolleyes:
Yeah, I was going to respond to Edna's latest response, but it's just pointless. There is no reasoning with completely irrational people. Moving on...
-
Yeah edn, death is my personal litmus test on discrimination. :rolleyes:
Yeah, I was going to respond to Edna's latest response, but it's just pointless. There is no reasoning with completely irrational people. Moving on...
Says the guy who can't even understand why gays want rights. Rational constructs are hard to grasp when you blindingly follow ideologues.
-
Yeah edn, death is my personal litmus test on discrimination. :rolleyes:
Yeah, I was going to respond to Edna's latest response, but it's just pointless. There is no reasoning with completely irrational people. Moving on...
Says the guy who can't even understand why gays want rights. Rational constructs are hard to grasp when you blindingly follow ideologues.
Damn it, my resolution to not engage lasted all of 15 minutes. Just to clarify, I completely understand why gays want the right to marry.
But I also understand why devout Christians (and Muslims, etc.) feel it offends their religious principles to support gay marriage. I think both viewpoints are valid, and I think both sides should be respectful of each other's beliefs. There are openly gay commentators who agree with me. But for you, if a Christian baker doesn't want to make a friggin' cake for a gay wedding, rather than the couple patronizing a different business, it must be SHAME! BIGOT! CONFORM OR CLOSE! You're so twisted that you can't see your own intolerance.
-
Yeah edn, death is my personal litmus test on discrimination. :rolleyes:
I've been trying to get you to articulate, something other then gays don't have it that bad.
I haven't said that or even implied that.
*still refuses to say how much discrimination is necessary before he'll give a eff about gay rights.*
-
Yeah edn, death is my personal litmus test on discrimination. :rolleyes:
Yeah, I was going to respond to Edna's latest response, but it's just pointless. There is no reasoning with completely irrational people. Moving on...
Says the guy who can't even understand why gays want rights. Rational constructs are hard to grasp when you blindingly follow ideologues.
Damn it, my resolution to not engage lasted all of 15 minutes. Just to clarify, I completely understand why gays want the right to marry.
But I also understand why devout Christians (and Muslims, etc.) feel it offends their religious principles to support gay marriage. I think both viewpoints are valid, and I think both sides should be respectful of each other's beliefs. There are openly gay commentators who agree with me. But for you, if a Christian baker doesn't want to make a friggin' cake for a gay wedding, rather than the couple patronizing a different business, it must be SHAME! BIGOT! CONFORM OR CLOSE! You're so twisted that you can't see your own intolerance.
Can't gay rights activists choose who they want to boycott? Are you saying that someone has to go shop there even if they think their religious beliefs are nuts?
-
we have outrage over outrage over intolerance against intolerance.
This thread has it all.
-
yeah, very good stuff in this thread. if only someone could mod some of it to the edn stuff thread
-
:Wha:Makes you want to jam a bumble bee up your butt to calm down. Just read on Fox News that Apple CEO is leading the agitation in Indiana saying the state is mean to gays. Meantime his company is selling products in Islamic countries where they execute someone for being gay. Seems like a big time double standard. Meanwhile the pizza martyrs are threatened. One incensed teacher of antihetro beliefs said he would burn the pizzaria and everyone in it down. Who is doing the hate?
-
Just read on Fox News that Apple CEO is leading the agitation in Indiana saying the state is mean to gays. Meantime his company is selling products in Islamic countries where they execute someone for being gay.
this isn't a bad point.
-
Yeah edn, death is my personal litmus test on discrimination. :rolleyes:
Yeah, I was going to respond to Edna's latest response, but it's just pointless. There is no reasoning with completely irrational people. Moving on...
Says the guy who can't even understand why gays want rights. Rational constructs are hard to grasp when you blindingly follow ideologues.
Damn it, my resolution to not engage lasted all of 15 minutes. Just to clarify, I completely understand why gays want the right to marry.
But I also understand why devout Christians (and Muslims, etc.) feel it offends their religious principles to support gay marriage. I think both viewpoints are valid, and I think both sides should be respectful of each other's beliefs. There are openly gay commentators who agree with me. But for you, if a Christian baker doesn't want to make a friggin' cake for a gay wedding, rather than the couple patronizing a different business, it must be SHAME! BIGOT! CONFORM OR CLOSE! You're so twisted that you can't see your own intolerance.
This is the fundamental issues your side fails to grasp. No one is asking you to support their marriage. They are asking to be left the eff alone. Your side instead makes it a constitutional issue because your bigotry is founded in the belief that you have the right and authority to tell them their way of life is wrong and should be condemned. For christ sake look at the progress of these laws, and your supporters make no bones about it, its in direct challenge to states who have had their bans on same sex marriage quashed.
And it is intolerance. Intolerance of hate and oppression. That is what is so twisted about your view.
-
Your side condones [the constitutional right to say whatever bad person thing you want to say] bigotry.
My side supports [a police state with censorship and civil rights for a selected few] tolerance.
-Edna
-
Yeah edn, death is my personal litmus test on discrimination. :rolleyes:
Yeah, I was going to respond to Edna's latest response, but it's just pointless. There is no reasoning with completely irrational people. Moving on...
Says the guy who can't even understand why gays want rights. Rational constructs are hard to grasp when you blindingly follow ideologues.
Damn it, my resolution to not engage lasted all of 15 minutes. Just to clarify, I completely understand why gays want the right to marry.
But I also understand why devout Christians (and Muslims, etc.) feel it offends their religious principles to support gay marriage. I think both viewpoints are valid, and I think both sides should be respectful of each other's beliefs. There are openly gay commentators who agree with me. But for you, if a Christian baker doesn't want to make a friggin' cake for a gay wedding, rather than the couple patronizing a different business, it must be SHAME! BIGOT! CONFORM OR CLOSE! You're so twisted that you can't see your own intolerance.
This is the fundamental issues your side fails to grasp. No one is asking you to support their marriage. They are asking to be left the eff alone.
That's an interesting take. See, if somebody comes into my shop and demands that I bake a cake for a ceremony that I find morally wrong, and threatens a lawsuit if I don't do it, it doesn't seem like that customer "just wants to be left alone." Now the store owner? Yeah, he wants to be left alone.
So are you saying that both sides should just agree to "leave each other the eff alone?" I think the Christians would be good with that. Something tells me you won't be.
-
The bizarro version of the current state of "gay rights" activism, is that guy who thinks this is all a ploy to force regular people to have gay sex.
It's unfounded, irrational and obnoxious, and strikingly familiar to an unsolicited conversation you with an old guy one time when buying zigzags at 3 am at a Circle K in Unionville, Missouruh.
-
Yeah edn, death is my personal litmus test on discrimination. :rolleyes:
Yeah, I was going to respond to Edna's latest response, but it's just pointless. There is no reasoning with completely irrational people. Moving on...
Says the guy who can't even understand why gays want rights. Rational constructs are hard to grasp when you blindingly follow ideologues.
Damn it, my resolution to not engage lasted all of 15 minutes. Just to clarify, I completely understand why gays want the right to marry.
But I also understand why devout Christians (and Muslims, etc.) feel it offends their religious principles to support gay marriage. I think both viewpoints are valid, and I think both sides should be respectful of each other's beliefs. There are openly gay commentators who agree with me. But for you, if a Christian baker doesn't want to make a friggin' cake for a gay wedding, rather than the couple patronizing a different business, it must be SHAME! BIGOT! CONFORM OR CLOSE! You're so twisted that you can't see your own intolerance.
This is the fundamental issues your side fails to grasp. No one is asking you to support their marriage. They are asking to be left the eff alone.
That's an interesting take. See, if somebody comes into my shop and demands that I bake a cake for a ceremony that I find morally wrong, and threatens a lawsuit if I don't do it, it doesn't seem like that customer "just wants to be left alone." Now the store owner? Yeah, he wants to be left alone.
So are you saying that both sides should just agree to "leave each other the eff alone?" I think the Christians would be good with that. Something tells me you won't be.
So everyone who chooses can boycott that business though. I am good with that. If your "i think gay people are wrong" base outweighs your "I don't think it's wrong and I am going to tell my friends to avoid your store" base, they win.
-
Yeah edn, death is my personal litmus test on discrimination. :rolleyes:
Yeah, I was going to respond to Edna's latest response, but it's just pointless. There is no reasoning with completely irrational people. Moving on...
Says the guy who can't even understand why gays want rights. Rational constructs are hard to grasp when you blindingly follow ideologues.
Damn it, my resolution to not engage lasted all of 15 minutes. Just to clarify, I completely understand why gays want the right to marry.
But I also understand why devout Christians (and Muslims, etc.) feel it offends their religious principles to support gay marriage. I think both viewpoints are valid, and I think both sides should be respectful of each other's beliefs. There are openly gay commentators who agree with me. But for you, if a Christian baker doesn't want to make a friggin' cake for a gay wedding, rather than the couple patronizing a different business, it must be SHAME! BIGOT! CONFORM OR CLOSE! You're so twisted that you can't see your own intolerance.
This is the fundamental issues your side fails to grasp. No one is asking you to support their marriage. They are asking to be left the eff alone.
That's an interesting take. See, if somebody comes into my shop and demands that I bake a cake for a ceremony that I find morally wrong, and threatens a lawsuit if I don't do it, it doesn't seem like that customer "just wants to be left alone." Now the store owner? Yeah, he wants to be left alone.
So are you saying that both sides should just agree to "leave each other the eff alone?" I think the Christians would be good with that. Something tells me you won't be.
So everyone who chooses can boycott that business though. I am good with that. If your "i think gay people are wrong" base outweighs your "I don't think it's wrong and I am going to tell my friends to avoid your store" base, they win.
Yeah I'm good with that approach. Take your money elsewhere. It does get a little noxious though when massive companies, like Apple and Walmart get in the mix, when they do tons of business with countries that have far worse records on gay rights. The hypocrisy is gross. I include the NCAA in the mix, too, which makes hundreds of millions off licensing of apparel made in those same countries.
And again, those companies weren't boycotting the businesses - they were threatening to boycott an entire state based on passing a NEUTRAL law that simply codified a legal balancing test. That seems wrong to me.
-
Yeah edn, death is my personal litmus test on discrimination. :rolleyes:
Yeah, I was going to respond to Edna's latest response, but it's just pointless. There is no reasoning with completely irrational people. Moving on...
Says the guy who can't even understand why gays want rights. Rational constructs are hard to grasp when you blindingly follow ideologues.
Damn it, my resolution to not engage lasted all of 15 minutes. Just to clarify, I completely understand why gays want the right to marry.
But I also understand why devout Christians (and Muslims, etc.) feel it offends their religious principles to support gay marriage. I think both viewpoints are valid, and I think both sides should be respectful of each other's beliefs. There are openly gay commentators who agree with me. But for you, if a Christian baker doesn't want to make a friggin' cake for a gay wedding, rather than the couple patronizing a different business, it must be SHAME! BIGOT! CONFORM OR CLOSE! You're so twisted that you can't see your own intolerance.
This is the fundamental issues your side fails to grasp. No one is asking you to support their marriage. They are asking to be left the eff alone.
That's an interesting take. See, if somebody comes into my shop and demands that I bake a cake for a ceremony that I find morally wrong, and threatens a lawsuit if I don't do it, it doesn't seem like that customer "just wants to be left alone." Now the store owner? Yeah, he wants to be left alone.
So are you saying that both sides should just agree to "leave each other the eff alone?" I think the Christians would be good with that. Something tells me you won't be.
So everyone who chooses can boycott that business though. I am good with that. If your "i think gay people are wrong" base outweighs your "I don't think it's wrong and I am going to tell my friends to avoid your store" base, they win.
Yeah I'm good with that approach. Take your money elsewhere. It does get a little noxious though when massive companies, like Apple and Walmart get in the mix, when they do tons of business with countries that have far worse records on gay rights. The hypocrisy is gross. I include the NCAA in the mix, too, which makes hundreds of millions off licensing of apparel made in those same countries.
And again, those companies weren't boycotting the businesses - they were threatening to boycott an entire state based on passing a NEUTRAL law that simply codified a legal balancing test. That seems wrong to me.
*ITP: makes really great points about hypocrisy, shits his pants when he calls a law neutral that is in no way neutral*
-
Yeah edn, death is my personal litmus test on discrimination. :rolleyes:
Yeah, I was going to respond to Edna's latest response, but it's just pointless. There is no reasoning with completely irrational people. Moving on...
Says the guy who can't even understand why gays want rights. Rational constructs are hard to grasp when you blindingly follow ideologues.
Damn it, my resolution to not engage lasted all of 15 minutes. Just to clarify, I completely understand why gays want the right to marry.
But I also understand why devout Christians (and Muslims, etc.) feel it offends their religious principles to support gay marriage. I think both viewpoints are valid, and I think both sides should be respectful of each other's beliefs. There are openly gay commentators who agree with me. But for you, if a Christian baker doesn't want to make a friggin' cake for a gay wedding, rather than the couple patronizing a different business, it must be SHAME! BIGOT! CONFORM OR CLOSE! You're so twisted that you can't see your own intolerance.
This is the fundamental issues your side fails to grasp. No one is asking you to support their marriage. They are asking to be left the eff alone.
That's an interesting take. See, if somebody comes into my shop and demands that I bake a cake for a ceremony that I find morally wrong, and threatens a lawsuit if I don't do it, it doesn't seem like that customer "just wants to be left alone." Now the store owner? Yeah, he wants to be left alone.
So are you saying that both sides should just agree to "leave each other the eff alone?" I think the Christians would be good with that. Something tells me you won't be.
So everyone who chooses can boycott that business though. I am good with that. If your "i think gay people are wrong" base outweighs your "I don't think it's wrong and I am going to tell my friends to avoid your store" base, they win.
Yeah I'm good with that approach. Take your money elsewhere. It does get a little noxious though when massive companies, like Apple and Walmart get in the mix, when they do tons of business with countries that have far worse records on gay rights. The hypocrisy is gross. I include the NCAA in the mix, too, which makes hundreds of millions off licensing of apparel made in those same countries.
And again, those companies weren't boycotting the businesses - they were threatening to boycott an entire state based on passing a NEUTRAL law that simply codified a legal balancing test. That seems wrong to me.
You and your friends should stop buying apple and going to Wal-mart. You should rally like minded individuals to do same.
-
(http://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2015/04/Bake-the-Cake-copy.jpg)
-
I try not to support any business that has it's own religion or morals. If you think your business is a person with its own moral code, I'd rather not support you.
-
I try not to support any business that has it's own religion or morals. If you think your business is a person with its own moral code, I'd rather not support you.
Adam Smith has got this
-
:bawl:
I try not to support any business that has it's own religion or morals. If you think your business is a person with its own moral code, I'd rather not support you.
It's too bad all liberals don't understand this. There wouldn't be any need for religious freedom legislation.
-
:bawl:I try not to support any business that has it's own religion or morals. If you think your business is a person with its own moral code, I'd rather not support you.
It's too bad all liberals don't understand this. There wouldn't be any need for religious freedom legislation.
LOL woosh, right over your head.
-
:bawl:I try not to support any business that has it's own religion or morals. If you think your business is a person with its own moral code, I'd rather not support you.
It's too bad all liberals don't understand this. There wouldn't be any need for religious freedom legislation.
LOL woosh, right over your head.
You still don't understand what the legislation is about.
-
Taking the cues from your apporoved media sources I know exactly what its about.
But it still doesn't change the fact that that post when right over your head.
-
Taking the cues from your apporoved media sources I know exactly what its about.
But it still doesn't change the fact that that post when right over your head.
No, it didn't. Maybe my post went over your head?
-
Edna, can you cite the text of the (former) law that discriminates against gays (or anyone else)? It's not a very long law. I've read it over a couple time and I'm just not seeing it. Let's work through this.
-
ksuw, can you bold the section in the bible where it says christians should be dicks to gay people?
-
ksuw, can you bold the section in the bible where it says christians should be dicks to gay people?
I don't think that's in the bible. There are a few pretty specific sections against sleeping with other dudes though.
-
are there any specific sections on being a dick to other people?
-
Christ died and rose so all who believe that he is Lord and Savior will have eternal life with him in Heaven. He died so God would forgive us our sins. Every person is a sinner and the sin separates us from being with our Holy and sinless God. Jesus reconciled us tothe Father by his death - the penalty of death has been erased. Jesus died for all sinners, even gay folks. My sins are no less or greater than someone else's. All are invited to repent of their sins, ask for forgiveness of them from Jesus, and to follow him and abide in his teaching. If we continue to keep living in a certain sin without repentance we can fall away. Christ reaches to love and pray for all so they may know the love of Jesus. Frankly, knot head Christians like myself fail to follow Christ's directives. Thankfully he forgives us. I pray for peace and better understanding for all people.
-
are there any specific sections on being a dick to other people?
Yes. A lot.
-
If adults acted like adults none of this would be a problem.
-
On one hand you have a businessman refusing to sell someone his services because he disagrees with how they live their life. Nobody is asking him to condone gay marriage, participate in the service, or even approve of it. Just take money, and cook food and serve it.
On the other hand someone has been told they wont be served because of the way they live their life. They weren't told they couldn't live that way, it's a one off incident, not a systemic problem (although some very awful people are portraying it that way), and they can get food at any number of other places. Instead of going elsewhere, they're throwing a huge fit and insisting on being served out of spite towards the person doesn't agree with them.
If anyone I ever knew acted like either of these people, I'd slap them in the face and tell them to grow the eff up.
-
Fsd breaking character :Wha:
-
How do you prove religious belief in court? Baptism receipt?
-
How do you prove religious belief in court? Baptism receipt?
Freedom of religion means you are welcome to create your own religion and follow its tenets. Having a list of government-approved religions would be fascism at its finest.
-
How do you prove religious belief in court? Baptism receipt?
It's like Fred Dhurst said, sometimes you gotta have faith.
-
are there any specific sections on being a dick to other people?
Basically the entire book.....
-
are there any specific sections on being a dick to other people?
Basically the entire book.....
is the book generally in favor or not in favor of being a dick to other people?
-
are there any specific sections on being a dick to other people?
Basically the entire book.....
Hmmmmm....
-
are there any specific sections on being a dick to other people?
Basically the entire book.....
is the book generally in favor or not in favor of being a dick to other people?
Only be dicks to people who don't agree with you. Also, kill them
-
If a woman discriminates against gays because the bible tells her to, she must also sacrifice pigeons every time she has her period. Otherwise she is not really discriminating because she is Christian, she is just doing it because she's a bigot.
-
#pigeonsforperiods
-
In all seriousness though, the government shouldn't have any say in who businesses cater to. If I open a business and don't want to cater to KU fans, then that should be on me.
-
In all seriousness though, the government shouldn't have any say in who businesses cater to. If I open a business and don't want to cater to KU fans, then that should be on me.
I agree as long as you post a sign listing all the people/groups who you will not do business with.
-
.... and aren't the only pharmacy, doc, etc around.
-
In all seriousness though, the government shouldn't have any say in who businesses cater to. If I open a business and don't want to cater to KU fans, then that should be on me.
Yes because your human condition is the exact same as who you root for.
-
In all seriousness though, the government shouldn't have any say in who businesses cater to. If I open a business and don't want to cater to KU fans, then that should be on me.
I agree as long as you post a sign listing all the people/groups who you will not do business with.
Also something which was touched on in Heart of Atlanta. Apparently the Court found it sad that black people needed to develop a book of business open to them.
-
Hi Edna, welcome back! You might have missed my question earlier. Here you go...
Edna, can you cite the text of the (former) law that discriminates against gays (or anyone else)? It's not a very long law. I've read it over a couple time and I'm just not seeing it. Let's work through this.
-
Hi Edna, welcome back! You might have missed my question earlier. Here you go...
Edna, can you cite the text of the (former) law that discriminates against gays (or anyone else)? It's not a very long law. I've read it over a couple time and I'm just not seeing it. Let's work through this.
please show me where corporations are people in the Constitution. TIA
-
The "corporations aren't people" mindless retort is one the dumbest thing spewed by butthurt police state trolls in society today.
If an entity or organization isn't permitted to "have views", then every lawsuit brought by the Sierra club should be summarily dismissed and all environmental rulings and regulations imparted upon the public as a result of prior action reversed. Everyone affiliated with the United Way needs to go to prison for misappropriation of millions of dollars of money, and all labor unions should be issued cease and desist orders for COLUSION. There needs to be unbridled direct shareholder action against every corporate board that's ever elected to donate money to charity, and going forward no charity shall ever benefit from a single corporate dollar. Etc.
-
Hi Edna, welcome back! You might have missed my question earlier. Here you go...
Edna, can you cite the text of the (former) law that discriminates against gays (or anyone else)? It's not a very long law. I've read it over a couple time and I'm just not seeing it. Let's work through this.
please show me where corporations are people in the Constitution. TIA
Ok - so based on your answer, which pertains to an unrelated issue, I'll take that as an admission that you can't point to any provision that discriminates against gays. I didn't expect you to find one, because there isn't one.
Now to answer your question, the Supreme Court has held in the Hobby Lobby case that people do not abandon their First Amendment rights simply because they choose to organize as a corporation. The Indiana RFRA simply codified that decision for purposes of the State of Indiana. And it's not every corporation, but only...
As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following: (1) An individual. (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.
If you want to bitch and moan about Hobby Lobby and how "corporations aren't people" go right ahead. I really couldn't care less. But againt, this issue only pertains to the scope of people covered by the law. There is absolutely no provision of the law that allowed discrimintion against gays. It merely codified the "compelling interest" legal balancing test that is already the law in most states plus federal.
TIA.
-
Hi Edna, welcome back! You might have missed my question earlier. Here you go...
Edna, can you cite the text of the (former) law that discriminates against gays (or anyone else)? It's not a very long law. I've read it over a couple time and I'm just not seeing it. Let's work through this.
please show me where corporations are people in the Constitution. TIA
Ok - so based on your answer, which pertains to an unrelated issue, I'll take that as an admission that you can't point to any provision that discriminates against gays. I didn't expect you to find one, because there isn't one.
Now to answer your question, the Supreme Court has held in the Hobby Lobby case that people do not abandon their First Amendment rights simply because they choose to organize as a corporation. The Indiana RFRA simply codified that decision for purposes of the State of Indiana. And it's not every corporation, but only...
As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following: (1) An individual. (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.
If you want to bitch and moan about Hobby Lobby and how "corporations aren't people" go right ahead. I really couldn't care less. But againt, this issue only pertains to the scope of people covered by the law. There is absolutely no provision of the law that allowed discrimintion against gays. It merely codified the "compelling interest" legal balancing test that is already the law in most states plus federal.
TIA.
Thanks for showing everyone that you have no concept of the legal issues at play in this case, or Hobby Lobby.
-
The "corporations aren't people" mindless retort is one the dumbest thing spewed by butthurt police state trolls in society today.
If an entity or organization isn't permitted to "have views", then every lawsuit brought by the Sierra club should be summarily dismissed and all environmental rulings and regulations imparted upon the public as a result of prior action reversed. Everyone affiliated with the United Way needs to go to prison for misappropriation of millions of dollars of money, and all labor unions should be issued cease and desist orders for COLUSION. There needs to be unbridled direct shareholder action against every corporate board that's ever elected to donate money to charity, and going forward no charity shall ever benefit from a single corporate dollar. Etc.
:lol:
I mean this is just great. I also really love the intellectual cop out. *I can't defend something reasonably so I'm just going to slander people.*
-
Edna, :lol: you're getting crowned in here.
-
In response to your stupid, snide retort, you have been shown that, as interpreted by the supremes, corporations are "people" (in the context questioned) under the constitution. Yet you press the issue and vaguely refer to "legal concepts" and "issues" in your retort.
Then follow that up with incoherent deflection and a lol.
You just aren't very smart and you don't think very well. You're left winged the Essex blog.
-
In response to your stupid, snide retort, you have been shown that, as interpreted by the supremes, corporations are "people" (in the context questioned) under the constitution. Yet you press the issue and vaguely refer to "legal concepts" and "issues" in your retort.
Then follow that up with incoherent deflection and a lol.
You just aren't very smart and you don't think very well. You're left winged the Essex blog.
:lol:
frothing with anger
-
more frothing with anger at other people claiming to have "rights"
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/23/opinion/bobby-jindal-im-holding-firm-against-gay-marriage.html
-
A pluralistic and diverse society like ours can exist only if we all tolerate people who disagree with us.
Unless it's letting gays marry
-
Those who believe in freedom must stick together: If it’s not freedom for all, it’s not freedom at all.
Except the gays, they're the exception
-
Guys you're getting it all wrong. This isn't about gays, its about my freedom to be a prick. /KSUW
-
Guys you're getting it all wrong. This isn't about gays, its about my freedom to be a prick. /KSUW
This is true. Everyone should have the freedom to be a prick, the pit would die without it.
-
Is this a metaphor? Who do the cherry blossoms represent?
-
Huge surprise that "small government" republican ted cruz wants to impose his twisted morality though government means
-
Freedom of religion and speech should trump others. When someone forces me or the business I own do something that my religion opposes, my freedom is stripped from me. Why the hell have a so called free nation.
-
Translation: If you do something we don't like, even it's simply talking to someone we hate, we will seek to destroy you.
http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20150424/prospect-heights/photos-spring-finally-blooms-new-york-city
its sad that we have people like you who don't understand the fundamental difference at play.
-
Cruz may have stumbled on to a way to make the virulent, ignorant left cannibalize itself.
-
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/north-carolina-veto-override-ushers-religious-freedom-bill
when in doubt, attack the rights of others by claiming you're defending your own, even if it destroys someone else's civil rights.
-
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/north-carolina-veto-override-ushers-religious-freedom-bill
when in doubt, attack the rights of others by claiming you're defending your own, even if it destroys someone else's civil rights.
Are you pining for the gays or the government workers?
-
Amen Brother Franklin. I am going to join your boycott since a war was started against Godly business owners.
-
Yes I intentionally went with the shock factor of that post. But the reality is we have a class of Americans who are still de jure second class citizens in America. crap like this in Indiana and however many other states are a thinly veiled attempt to enforce more layers of de jure segregation on America through the guise of religious liberty. These exact same arguments were used in miscegenation issues.
Drawing parallels between opposition to gay marriage and interracial marriage is a lazy, flawed argument. In fact, it is downright moronic.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/24/opposing-gay-marriage-doesn-t-make-you-a-crypto-racist.html# (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/24/opposing-gay-marriage-doesn-t-make-you-a-crypto-racist.html#)
Your post was not only stupid, you magnified it by inserting a racial slur. "Hey everybody, look at me - I'm making a really profound, morally superior argument and I'll use the n-word as an exclamation point!" What a dumbass.
I wonder how KSUW feels about this post since the majority used Loving and Obama used "that" word to show the issue of race and polite company.
-
Now the pigressives are attacking Christian based hospitals. ACLU is suing a big Catholic hospital to for example them to do abortions according to foxnews.
-
Professor Hawkins AR Wheaton College was terminated for saying Muslims and Christians pray and believe in the same God. Wheaton is a private Christian college. Hawkins is trying to stop the dismissal on the grounds she is tenured, a woman and black. Why in the heck does she think she has a chance of succeeding. Probably will and religious freedom eroded some more.
-
Academic freedom is the esteemed argument made for tenure. This rationale dates back to the late 18th century, when professors at religious schools needed protection from trustees and donors who might demand termination of those faculty who taught outside the accepted doctrine.
-
Colorado's Cake Crafting Compulsion finally gets its day at the Supreme Court. This is an easy one, or at least it should be, even for Justice Kennedy.
Here in the US, businesses can't refuse service to customers based upon their race, gender, sexuality, or other protected classifications. But businesses are perfectly within their rights to discriminate against actions, ideas, or speech they disagree with. The inquiry is simple: on what basis did the business discriminate?
This ruling should hopefully drive a stake through one big tentacle of the left's PC fascism.
-
I'm not fully informed on the details of the Colorado cake thing. Did the business refuse to make the couple any wedding cake, or did they refuse to make some sort of a custom cake that was different than the other cakes they make every day?
-
I'm not fully informed on the details of the Colorado cake thing. Did the business refuse to make the couple any wedding cake, or did they refuse to make some sort of a custom cake that was different than the other cakes they make every day?
As best I understand, the couple did not request any special message to be printed on the cake. They said they wanted a cake for their wedding, and he (politely) refused. This guy has previously refused to bake cakes for other things he finds objectionable (including Halloween!) but the closest analogy would be when he refused to sell cupcakes to a lesbian couple when they told him they were for some sort of commitment ceremony. It wasn't the design of the cupcake itself that caused the problem - it was what it was for. I think that's what happened with the wedding cake.
And I'm fine with that. Business should not be required to support activities, speech, or ideas they disagree with. A reasonable inquiry should be made as to the basis for the discrimination.
-
It's not really anyone's business what the customer does with a product after they buy it.
-
It's not really anyone's business what the customer does with a product after they buy it.
I could see that. That is why defining him as an "artist" makes it a bit different. If someone commissioned a painting from me but I knew it was going to be hanging in a house of devil worship...should I be allowed to turn their request down if I didn't want my name or artwork associated with their organization?
-
I'm not fully informed on the details of the Colorado cake thing. Did the business refuse to make the couple any wedding cake, or did they refuse to make some sort of a custom cake that was different than the other cakes they make every day?
As best I understand, the couple did not request any special message to be printed on the cake. They said they wanted a cake for their wedding, and he (politely) refused. This guy has previously refused to bake cakes for other things he finds objectionable (including Halloween!) but the closest analogy would be when he refused to sell cupcakes to a lesbian couple when they told him they were for some sort of commitment ceremony. It wasn't the design of the cupcake itself that caused the problem - it was what it was for. I think that's what happened with the wedding cake.
And I'm fine with that. Business should not be required to support activities, speech, or ideas they disagree with. A reasonable inquiry should be made as to the basis for the discrimination.
It gets pretty complicated, then, since the business does support the activity of marriage. How do you differentiate hetero marriage from gay marriage without discriminating based upon sexuality?
-
It's not really anyone's business what the customer does with a product after they buy it.
I could see that. That is why defining him as an "artist" makes it a bit different. If someone commissioned a painting from me but I knew it was going to be hanging in a house of devil worship...should I be allowed to turn their request down if I didn't want my name or artwork associated with their organization?
why not take the money and just make a real shitty cake/piece of art as a form of protest?
-
I agree the cake person should be allowed to say no in this instance but what everybody is scared of is this leads itself to "I'm hobby lobby and I won't sell you candles because you are going to use it for a gay wedding"
-
I'm not fully informed on the details of the Colorado cake thing. Did the business refuse to make the couple any wedding cake, or did they refuse to make some sort of a custom cake that was different than the other cakes they make every day?
As best I understand, the couple did not request any special message to be printed on the cake. They said they wanted a cake for their wedding, and he (politely) refused. This guy has previously refused to bake cakes for other things he finds objectionable (including Halloween!) but the closest analogy would be when he refused to sell cupcakes to a lesbian couple when they told him they were for some sort of commitment ceremony. It wasn't the design of the cupcake itself that caused the problem - it was what it was for. I think that's what happened with the wedding cake.
And I'm fine with that. Business should not be required to support activities, speech, or ideas they disagree with. A reasonable inquiry should be made as to the basis for the discrimination.
It gets pretty complicated, then, since the business does support the activity of marriage. How do you differentiate hetero marriage from gay marriage without discriminating based upon sexuality?
Further complication on this line: At the time of the refusal, gay marriage was not legal in Colorado. The couple was married in Connecticut (?) but wanted to celebrate reception at home in Colorado.
-
It's not really anyone's business what the customer does with a product after they buy it.
I could see that. That is why defining him as an "artist" makes it a bit different. If someone commissioned a painting from me but I knew it was going to be hanging in a house of devil worship...should I be allowed to turn their request down if I didn't want my name or artwork associated with their organization?
a) my reputation as an artist
b) because it might be considered a breach of contract / in the case of the baker - wouldn't want to ruin or complicate someone's "big day"
-
not confusing - the cake shop discriminated based on sexuality.
-
Not confusing: try a different bakery
-
not confusing - the cake shop discriminated based on sexuality.
I totally agree if it's refusing to sell them like anything....like "no you can't buy that brownie cause gays"....this does have a little nuance to it.
-
This is like a white trash walking into the official apparel store of the black panthers and demanding they make him a klansman robe, and when they say no thanks filing a lawsuit.
It's rough ridin' absurd there's litigation over this.
-
Not confusing: try a different bakery
Expected dumbest answer.
-
This is like a white trash walking into the official apparel store of the black panthers and demanding they make him a klansman robe, and when they say no thanks filing a lawsuit.
It's rough ridin' absurd there's litigation over this.
No, it’s more like a gay guy going into a store that sells Klan robes and being unable to buy a Klan robe because he’s gay.
-
Bakery is Masterpiece Bakery denotes an artist. You would not expect to force a black artist to make a cross cake for a clan party. These guys could have gone to Wallace Mart and bought a non artistic cake.
-
not confusing - the cake shop discriminated based on sexuality.
I totally agree if it's refusing to sell them like anything....like "no you can't buy that brownie cause gays"....this does have a little nuance to it.
no it really doesn't. they are refusing to sell them anything.
-
This is like a white trash walking into the official apparel store of the black panthers and demanding they make him a klansman robe, and when they say no thanks filing a lawsuit.
It's rough ridin' absurd there's litigation over this.
No, it’s more like a gay guy going into a store that sells Klan robes and being unable to buy a Klan robe because he’s gay.
Do you mean a gay klan robe?
-
not confusing - the cake shop discriminated based on sexuality.
I totally agree if it's refusing to sell them like anything....like "no you can't buy that brownie cause gays"....this does have a little nuance to it.
no it really doesn't. they are refusing to sell them anything.
If they are refusing to sell them anything then I retract my earlier comments....I thought this was about only a wedding cake.
-
not confusing - the cake shop discriminated based on sexuality.
I totally agree if it's refusing to sell them like anything....like "no you can't buy that brownie cause gays"....this does have a little nuance to it.
no it really doesn't. they are refusing to sell them anything.
If they are refusing to sell them anything then I retract my earlier comments....I thought this was about only a wedding cake.
it doesn't matter if it's only a wedding cake or something else
-
hypothetical: could a bakery owner legally refuse to make a cake with a swastika on it for a neo nazi's 40th bday bash?
-
not confusing - the cake shop discriminated based on sexuality.
I totally agree if it's refusing to sell them like anything....like "no you can't buy that brownie cause gays"....this does have a little nuance to it.
no it really doesn't. they are refusing to sell them anything.
If they are refusing to sell them anything then I retract my earlier comments....I thought this was about only a wedding cake.
it doesn't matter if it's only a wedding cake or something else
I think it will make a difference.
-
This is like a white trash walking into the official apparel store of the black panthers and demanding they make him a klansman robe, and when they say no thanks filing a lawsuit.
It's rough ridin' absurd there's litigation over this.
No, it’s more like a gay guy going into a store that sells Klan robes and being unable to buy a Klan robe because he’s gay.
Do you mean a gay klan robe?
Sure, if a gay klan robe is the same plain white klan robe that everyone else gets.
-
not confusing - the cake shop discriminated based on sexuality.
I totally agree if it's refusing to sell them like anything....like "no you can't buy that brownie cause gays"....this does have a little nuance to it.
no it really doesn't. they are refusing to sell them anything.
If they are refusing to sell them anything then I retract my earlier comments....I thought this was about only a wedding cake.
it doesn't matter if it's only a wedding cake or something else
I think it will make a difference.
Is the "anything" supported in any record/testimony? I haven't seen where it was "anything" - a custom wedding cake was refused, but other items apparently were offered.
-
I have not been following the case very closely, but I can guarantee you the Supreme Court is not going to look at this narrowly unless it is a 5-4 decision leaning to the conservative side. It is next to impossible for the Court to say that this instance of refusing to sell to a gay couple for their wedding is different than any other store/restaurant/establishment refusing to serve someone based on their sexuality.
I personally think this is the dumbest dispute in the world.
To the baker: gmafb, you are not compromising your morals or religious beliefs by selling a rough ridin' cake to a same-sex couple. Do you really ask all your customers what they are going to do with the stuff you are baking?
To the couple: is the cake that good that you are willing to deal with an obvious bigot? Let your wallet do the talking and boycott the bakery out of business. (Of course I get that this was obviously set up for a legal battle)
-
not confusing - the cake shop discriminated based on sexuality.
I totally agree if it's refusing to sell them like anything....like "no you can't buy that brownie cause gays"....this does have a little nuance to it.
Agreed, and that "nuance" is the whole point of the case. This isn't a tough issue. It is irrelevant whether or not gay marriage was legal in Colorado or legal now. Businesses are free to discriminate against activities, speech, or ideas they disagree regardless of whether they are legal.
-
Agreed, and that "nuance" is the whole point of the case. This isn't a tough issue. It is irrelevant whether or not gay marriage was legal in Colorado or legal now. Businesses are free to discriminate against activities, speech, or ideas they disagree regardless of whether they are legal.
lol what???
-
This is like a white trash walking into the official apparel store of the black panthers and demanding they make him a klansman robe, and when they say no thanks filing a lawsuit.
It's rough ridin' absurd there's litigation over this.
No, it’s more like a gay guy going into a store that sells Klan robes and being unable to buy a Klan robe because he’s gay.
That's not what this is like. The owner says he sells to gay people all the time, and I believe him, though that obviously begs the fun exercise of proving which of your customers are gay....
-
hypothetical: could a bakery owner legally refuse to make a cake with a swastika on it for a neo nazi's 40th bday bash?
not if they sold swastika cakes to non-neo nazis
-
Agreed, and that "nuance" is the whole point of the case. This isn't a tough issue. It is irrelevant whether or not gay marriage was legal in Colorado or legal now. Businesses are free to discriminate against activities, speech, or ideas they disagree regardless of whether they are legal.
lol what???
Take the Westboro Baptist Church, for example. They express views that most people would find repugnant, but legal. They are engaged in lawful protest and advocacy. Should businesses have the right to refuse to provide services in support of these viewpoints that they rightly find offensive? Absolutely.
-
This is like a white trash walking into the official apparel store of the black panthers and demanding they make him a klansman robe, and when they say no thanks filing a lawsuit.
It's rough ridin' absurd there's litigation over this.
No, it’s more like a gay guy going into a store that sells Klan robes and being unable to buy a Klan robe because he’s gay.
That's not what this is like. The owner says he sells to gay people all the time, and I believe him, though that obviously begs the fun exercise of proving which of your customers are gay....
He would say the cute ones
-
First amendment. People should vote with their wallets and force these repugnant people out of business, but the government shouldn't force them to perform services against their beliefs.
-
Agreed, and that "nuance" is the whole point of the case. This isn't a tough issue. It is irrelevant whether or not gay marriage was legal in Colorado or legal now. Businesses are free to discriminate against activities, speech, or ideas they disagree regardless of whether they are legal.
lol what???
Take the Westboro Baptist Church, for example. They express views that most people would find repugnant, but legal. They are engaged in lawful protest and advocacy. Should businesses have the right to refuse to provide services in support of these viewpoints that they rightly find offensive? Absolutely.
A business could refuse to serve Westboro but it couldn't refuse to serve all Christians.
-
hypothetical: could a bakery owner legally refuse to make a cake with a swastika on it for a neo nazi's 40th bday bash?
Yes. But if a neo-nazi bought a plain cake and then drew a swastika on it himself, the bakery could not legally refuse to sell him the cake.
-
So presumably the couple was looking to purchase a cake from the options the baker had available. There is no argument they were looking for something that was not in his portfolio, so no artistic element here. They were simply looking to purchase something he likely made for many other people.
So the question is simply, can a business or person refuse to serve another person because they believe that person will use the item in a manner that is counter to their religious beliefs? That is such a ridiculously difficult thing to parse. If the Court answers yes to that question, you would end up with all kinds of crazy scenarios. Probably even instances where the seller claims the buyer was going to use the item for a purpose that violated his/her religious beliefs and the buyer denies it.
And I would appreciate if any discussions about this case clarify that the baker is a "self-proclaimed Christian." No real Christian actually believes their religious values are compromised by serving someone else--even if they disagree with that person's beliefs or practices.
-
I think it's likely the baker attends a church comprised of other like-minded bigots.
-
Agreed, and that "nuance" is the whole point of the case. This isn't a tough issue. It is irrelevant whether or not gay marriage was legal in Colorado or legal now. Businesses are free to discriminate against activities, speech, or ideas they disagree regardless of whether they are legal.
lol what???
Take the Westboro Baptist Church, for example. They express views that most people would find repugnant, but legal. They are engaged in lawful protest and advocacy. Should businesses have the right to refuse to provide services in support of these viewpoints that they rightly find offensive? Absolutely.
no, business should not have that right if they offer the same services to everyone. They should have to sell WBC their standard cakes.
-
hypothetical: could a bakery owner legally refuse to make a cake with a swastika on it for a neo nazi's 40th bday bash?
Yes. But if a neo-nazi bought a plain cake and then drew a swastika on it himself, the bakery could not legally refuse to sell him the cake.
Well yeah, actually they could. Being a neo-Nazi is not a protected classification.
-
The cake dude might allegedly win his case. He's claiming that his cake is art and therefore doesn't have to express his art if chooses so or something like that.
Basically the dude doesn't have a problem baking the cake, he just doesn't want to decorate it like how they want it.
So he might win.
#hottakes
-
hypothetical: could a bakery owner legally refuse to make a cake with a swastika on it for a neo nazi's 40th bday bash?
Yes. But if a neo-nazi bought a plain cake and then drew a swastika on it himself, the bakery could not legally refuse to sell him the cake.
Well yeah, actually they could. Being a neo-Nazi is not a protected classification.
Does the baker have to have a sign that says "We reserve the right to refuse service to neo-nazis"?
-
Agreed, and that "nuance" is the whole point of the case. This isn't a tough issue. It is irrelevant whether or not gay marriage was legal in Colorado or legal now. Businesses are free to discriminate against activities, speech, or ideas they disagree regardless of whether they are legal.
lol what???
Take the Westboro Baptist Church, for example. They express views that most people would find repugnant, but legal. They are engaged in lawful protest and advocacy. Should businesses have the right to refuse to provide services in support of these viewpoints that they rightly find offensive? Absolutely.
no, business should not have that right if they offer the same services to everyone. They should have to sell WBC their standard cakes.
Really? You really believe that? Hey, at least we're getting to the crux of the disagreement. The federal civil rights act of 1964 only prohibits discrimination based upon race, color, religion, or national origin. Some states have expanded this to other protected classifications. But no state has ever said that a business has no right to refuse service to any customer for any reason. Would you consider that freedom?
-
hypothetical: could a bakery owner legally refuse to make a cake with a swastika on it for a neo nazi's 40th bday bash?
Yes. But if a neo-nazi bought a plain cake and then drew a swastika on it himself, the bakery could not legally refuse to sell him the cake.
Well yeah, actually they could. Being a neo-Nazi is not a protected classification.
Does the baker have to have a sign that says "We reserve the right to refuse service to neo-nazis"?
Unless there any specific state laws I'm not aware of, those sorts of signs are completely unnecessary.
-
So, a business can refuse to serve someone because the person is wearing a red shirt, and the business owner does not like red?
-
So, a business can refuse to serve someone because the person is wearing a red shirt, and the business owner does not like red?
Absolutely. I don't think they'll be in business long with that mindset, but it sure isn't illegal.
-
So, a business can refuse to serve someone because the person is wearing a red shirt, and the business owner does not like red?
Absolutely. I don't think they'll be in business long with that mindset, but it sure isn't illegal.
What if they just don’t like how red shirts look on black people. You know, like, they would totally serve black people, but wearing a red shirt with their skin tone just offends the baker’s fashion sense.
-
Agreed, and that "nuance" is the whole point of the case. This isn't a tough issue. It is irrelevant whether or not gay marriage was legal in Colorado or legal now. Businesses are free to discriminate against activities, speech, or ideas they disagree regardless of whether they are legal.
lol what???
Take the Westboro Baptist Church, for example. They express views that most people would find repugnant, but legal. They are engaged in lawful protest and advocacy. Should businesses have the right to refuse to provide services in support of these viewpoints that they rightly find offensive? Absolutely.
no, business should not have that right if they offer the same services to everyone. They should have to sell WBC their standard cakes.
Really? You really believe that? Hey, at least we're getting to the crux of the disagreement. The federal civil rights act of 1964 only prohibits discrimination based upon race, color, religion, or national origin. Some states have expanded this to other protected classifications. But no state has ever said that a business has no right to refuse service to any customer for any reason. Would you consider that freedom?
Well you'd be discriminating WBC based on their religion
-
I have very conflicting feelings on this (and similar situations). Ultimately I don't really feel comfortable forcing business owners into transactions with people they don't want to do business with, but damn that leaves a lot open for horrible people like this baker.
-
I have very conflicting feelings on this (and similar situations). Ultimately I don't really feel comfortable forcing business owners into transactions with people they don't want to do business with, but damn that leaves a lot open for horrible people like this baker.
I have similar feelings, but we tried the totally free market approach in the 60s and 70s and it became obvious that too many people are just total assholes for it to work.
-
A private business should absolutely be able to refuse to service to anyone they want for any reason.
-
I have very conflicting feelings on this (and similar situations). Ultimately I don't really feel comfortable forcing business owners into transactions with people they don't want to do business with, but damn that leaves a lot open for horrible people like this baker.
I have similar feelings, but we tried the totally free market approach in the 60s and 70s and it became obvious that too many people are just total assholes for it to work.
Do you really think this a significant problem in this day and age? Gays are really having trouble finding a florist or a baker for their wedding (or would, without these overreaching laws)? Black people are being denied service on the pretense that the owner doesn't like their shirt color? It seems to me that we've reached the opposite end of the spectrum, or at least there is a more realistic risk that we are headed that direction, where businesses are being forced to participate in activities, ideas, and speech they disagree with.
-
A private business should absolutely be able to refuse to service to anyone they want for any reason.
I'm ok with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. K thanks. Let's leave that in place and everybody chill the eff out about gay weddings.
-
I'd like to open a business (not sure what kind yet) that does not serve people who are not wearing pants. And then when people wearing leggings come in, I am not going to serve them.
-
I am the most pro blgt person I know (like seriously) and I'm not really sure where I stand on the whole should this guy be forced by the government to make a wedding cake for them. he says he's happy to make them absolutely anything other than that and that his religious beliefs simply do not allow him to support a marriage between two men and that in making them this very specific cake he feels like he in a way would be doing that. he'll happily make them a regular cake or brownies or whatever, just not that one thing. it's interesting to think about. I don't think it's as simple as this guy is a bigot. dunno.
-
I simply cannot wrap my head around this gay couple wanting to force a guy diametrically opposed to their entire way of life to sell them something they can buy any other place.
It is such a bizarre premise.
-
I simply cannot wrap my head around this gay couple wanting to force a guy diametrically opposed to their entire way of life to sell them something they can buy any other place.
It is such a bizarre premise.
Would you tell Rosa Parks to just ride another bus? (If there had been other buses that would allow her to ride in front.)
-
Not that false analogy again :facepalm:
-
Not that false analogy again :facepalm:
To people that don't think gay people are evil.... It's very much the same
-
I guess if you can't get served at a lunch counter due to your race, you should just go to another lunch counter.
-
I guess if you can't get served at a lunch counter due to your race, you should just go to another lunch counter.
this and the rosa parks stuff are both horrible analogies. take five minutes and actually think about the differences between the two. I can't believe you guys are making me side with fsd.
-
I have very conflicting feelings on this (and similar situations). Ultimately I don't really feel comfortable forcing business owners into transactions with people they don't want to do business with, but damn that leaves a lot open for horrible people like this baker.
I have similar feelings, but we tried the totally free market approach in the 60s and 70s and it became obvious that too many people are just total assholes for it to work.
Do you really think this a significant problem in this day and age? Gays are really having trouble finding a florist or a baker for their wedding (or would, without these overreaching laws)? Black people are being denied service on the pretense that the owner doesn't like their shirt color? It seems to me that we've reached the opposite end of the spectrum, or at least there is a more realistic risk that we are headed that direction, where businesses are being forced to participate in activities, ideas, and speech they disagree with.
Despite your premise that times are so much different now, you offer a soundbyte that would apply equally to a white motel owner in the 1970s deep south.
-
If the grooms were planning to put a sign next to the cake that said "Wedding cake provided by XYZ Baker". Then, yes I agree that the baker has the right to refuse to be associated with the wedding. As far as I know, they weren't planning on doing that.
-
I have very conflicting feelings on this (and similar situations). Ultimately I don't really feel comfortable forcing business owners into transactions with people they don't want to do business with, but damn that leaves a lot open for horrible people like this baker.
I have similar feelings, but we tried the totally free market approach in the 60s and 70s and it became obvious that too many people are just total assholes for it to work.
Do you really think this a significant problem in this day and age? Gays are really having trouble finding a florist or a baker for their wedding (or would, without these overreaching laws)? Black people are being denied service on the pretense that the owner doesn't like their shirt color? It seems to me that we've reached the opposite end of the spectrum, or at least there is a more realistic risk that we are headed that direction, where businesses are being forced to participate in activities, ideas, and speech they disagree with.
1962 isn't that long ago.... We are a loooooong way from this nor being a problem.
-
I guess if you can't get served at a lunch counter due to your race, you should just go to another lunch counter.
this and the rosa parks stuff are both horrible analogies. take five minutes and actually think about the differences between the two. I can't believe you guys are making me side with fsd.
Would a refusal to make a cake for an interracial or black couple be a better analogy?
-
I guess if you can't get served at a lunch counter due to your race, you should just go to another lunch counter.
this and the rosa parks stuff are both horrible analogies. take five minutes and actually think about the differences between the two. I can't believe you guys are making me side with fsd.
Would a refusal to make a cake for an interracial or black couple be a better analogy?
If you are a strict mormon living pre-2013 or even just take the Book of Mormon literally then that is a spot on analogy: https://www.alternet.org/belief/mormon-church-dark-skin-sign-gods-curse-no-longer
-
Hell dammit gay dudes don't pervert Christmas commercialization. Create your own celebration. Criminey sakes.....
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/new-christmas-book-depicts-black-santa-husband-article-1.3676640
-
Seems off topic, but I agree Reno, everyone else should be telling the same lies that I tell my children.
-
I don't even understand the supposed "nuance" in this case. Private businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone they want for any reason. Just as the ultra Christian wants the right to refuse to bake cakes for gay people, I would want the right to refuse to service to neo-Nazis, Westboro Baptist members or terrible humans like K-S-U-Wildcats and Roy Moore in my business.
-
I don't even understand the supposed "nuance" in this case. Private businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone they want for any reason. Just as the ultra Christian wants the right to refuse to bake cakes for gay people, I would want the right to refuse to service to neo-Nazis, Westboro Baptist members or terrible humans like K-S-U-Wildcats and Roy Moore in my business.
Anyone? Black? Jew? Old? Woman?
-
I don't even understand the supposed "nuance" in this case. Private businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone they want for any reason. Just as the ultra Christian wants the right to refuse to bake cakes for gay people, I would want the right to refuse to service to neo-Nazis, Westboro Baptist members or terrible humans like K-S-U-Wildcats and Roy Moore in my business.
So unlike K-S-U, you disagree with a major part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
-
Yea, I get the “let businesses decide” folks, but bless their hearts most of them forget there are plenty of mumped up people and business owners out there who absolutely will go full KKK if given the legal authority.
-
I don't even understand the supposed "nuance" in this case. Private businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone they want for any reason. Just as the ultra Christian wants the right to refuse to bake cakes for gay people, I would want the right to refuse to service to neo-Nazis, Westboro Baptist members or terrible humans like K-S-U-Wildcats and Roy Moore in my business.
So unlike K-S-U, you disagree with a major part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In 1964 I think it was absolutely necessary. I'm not saying racism is gone but I think if a business is outed as a place that doesn't serve people of color in today's world of social media, they will be boycotted.
I also don't think businesses should be required to be handicap accessible.
-
I don't even understand the supposed "nuance" in this case. Private businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone they want for any reason. Just as the ultra Christian wants the right to refuse to bake cakes for gay people, I would want the right to refuse to service to neo-Nazis, Westboro Baptist members or terrible humans like K-S-U-Wildcats and Roy Moore in my business.
So unlike K-S-U, you disagree with a major part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In 1964 I think it was absolutely necessary. I'm not saying racism is gone but I think if a business is outed as a place that doesn't serve people of color in today's world of social media, they will be boycotted.
I also don't think businesses should be required to be handicap accessible.
Depends where the business is. I'm sure a bunch of coastal types would angrily tweet, but that doesn't really affect an Alabama restauranteurs business. In terms of his local patrons, it might actually be a boon.
Nice bonus #hottake taking aim at disabled folks, too!
-
I don't even understand the supposed "nuance" in this case. Private businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone they want for any reason. Just as the ultra Christian wants the right to refuse to bake cakes for gay people, I would want the right to refuse to service to neo-Nazis, Westboro Baptist members or terrible humans like K-S-U-Wildcats and Roy Moore in my business.
So unlike K-S-U, you disagree with a major part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In 1964 I think it was absolutely necessary. I'm not saying racism is gone but I think if a business is outed as a place that doesn't serve people of color in today's world of social media, they will be boycotted.
One, I think you're taking a pretty extreme case for your example, and two, I think you're pretty naive as to how much people still think people of color, gays, and women are inferior.
-
I don't even understand the supposed "nuance" in this case. Private businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone they want for any reason. Just as the ultra Christian wants the right to refuse to bake cakes for gay people, I would want the right to refuse to service to neo-Nazis, Westboro Baptist members or terrible humans like K-S-U-Wildcats and Roy Moore in my business.
So unlike K-S-U, you disagree with a major part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In 1964 I think it was absolutely necessary. I'm not saying racism is gone but I think if a business is outed as a place that doesn't serve people of color in today's world of social media, they will be boycotted.
I also don't think businesses should be required to be handicap accessible.
1964 was not that long ago. Just look at the Trump voters.
-
Generally I am a libertarian, but even I think that we need the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Maybe places like those trampoline parks shouldn't be required to have too much handicap parking though.
-
I'm not saying racism is gone but I think if a business is outed as a place that doesn't serve people of color in today's world of social media, they will be boycotted.
Batt BcKee have you ever been in the political facebook thread?
-
I guess if you can't get served at a lunch counter due to your race, you should just go to another lunch counter.
this and the rosa parks stuff are both horrible analogies. take five minutes and actually think about the differences between the two. I can't believe you guys are making me side with fsd.
Would a refusal to make a cake for an interracial or black couple be a better analogy?
It's a better one, but it's still not a good one and since I can't really think of a good one, I'd say this case actually is pretty nuanced or unique or whatever word you want to use.
as for bad analogies, how's this one- a Christian rock band is taking requests at a show and declines to play a song about sex and the devil or something and now they're in court over it and the court has decided that they also have to play songs like that because some person at their show wanted them to and if they don't then they can't keep playing shows.
his feeling is that it's not the people he has problem with, it's the message and it's one that he has deeply felt religious beliefs against. he also doesn't make cakes celebrating divorce. he say's he has also turned down homophobic type cakes because he doesn't agree with the message. should he also have to make pro kkk cakes? what about cakes celebrating the holocaust? can he say no to those? can he say no to anything?
-
I guess if you can't get served at a lunch counter due to your race, you should just go to another lunch counter.
this and the rosa parks stuff are both horrible analogies. take five minutes and actually think about the differences between the two. I can't believe you guys are making me side with fsd.
Would a refusal to make a cake for an interracial or black couple be a better analogy?
It's a better one, but it's still not a good one and since I can't really think of a good one, I'd say this case actually is pretty nuanced or unique or whatever word you want to use.
as for bad analogies, how's this one- a Christian rock band is taking requests at a show and declines to play a song about sex and the devil or something and now they're in court over it and the court has decided that they also have to play songs like that because some person at their show wanted them to and if they don't then they can't keep playing shows.
the bottom line is that it's not the people he has problem with, it's the message. should he also have to make pro kkk cakes? what about cakes celebrating the holocaust? can he say no to those?
A Christian rock band singing songs is clear artistic expression, which they have a right to refuse. This case is about a guy refusing to sell a gay couple anything because they were gay.
[/quote]Cole said the dispute did not involve words or speech. “The only thing the baker knew about these customers was that they were gay,” he said. “There was no request for a design. There was no request for message. He refused to sell any wedding cake. And that’s identity-based discrimination.”[/quote]
basically, if they'd ask for a cake that depicted something like raw gay sex, he would have been well within his rights to decline. But he refused to sell them anything based on their sexual orientation.
-
as for bad analogies, how's this one- a Christian rock band is taking requests at a show and declines to play a song about sex and the devil or something and now they're in court over it and the court has decided that they also have to play songs like that because some person at their show wanted them to and if they don't then they can't keep playing shows.
A Christian rock band would not have a devil worshiping song in their repertoire. It would be more like if a devil worshiper asked them to play one of their God loving songs. They would probably do it.
-
I guess if you can't get served at a lunch counter due to your race, you should just go to another lunch counter.
this and the rosa parks stuff are both horrible analogies. take five minutes and actually think about the differences between the two. I can't believe you guys are making me side with fsd.
Would a refusal to make a cake for an interracial or black couple be a better analogy?
It's a better one, but it's still not a good one and since I can't really think of a good one, I'd say this case actually is pretty nuanced or unique or whatever word you want to use.
as for bad analogies, how's this one- a Christian rock band is taking requests at a show and declines to play a song about sex and the devil or something and now they're in court over it and the court has decided that they also have to play songs like that because some person at their show wanted them to and if they don't then they can't keep playing shows.
the bottom line is that it's not the people he has problem with, it's the message. should he also have to make pro kkk cakes? what about cakes celebrating the holocaust? can he say no to those?
A Christian rock band singing songs is clear artistic expression, which they have a right to refuse. This case is about a guy refusing to sell a gay couple anything because they were gay.
Cole said the dispute did not involve words or speech. “The only thing the baker knew about these customers was that they were gay,” he said. “There was no request for a design. There was no request for message. He refused to sell any wedding cake. And that’s identity-based discrimination.”
basically, if they'd ask for a cake that depicted something like raw gay sex, he would have been well within his rights to decline. But he refused to sell them anything based on their sexual orientation.
the case isn't actually about that, because the guy sells things to gays/lesbians/etc stuff from his store all the time and has done so for years. what he doesn't do by choice is make wedding cakes for gay weddings. he has said numerous times that he would have been more than happy to sell them anything else in the store or make them something else, but cakes for gays weddings is just something he chooses not to do. he also doesn't make cakes for divorces and has according to him turned down offers to make cakes that were anti gay/homophobic in nature.
-
Also wouldn't do Halloween cakes
-
to explain this another way....
if my wife and I went into this guys store and said that we wanted him to make a cake for our gay friends wedding, he would tell us no and sorry but he can't and won't do that.
if a gay couple went into this guys store and said that they wanted him to make a cake for their straight friends wedding, he'd say so sure no problem.
also like lib says, he also won't do Halloween cakes because again religion.
-
If you really think that the issue involved here, I hope you understand how ridiculously difficult it would be for the Supreme Court to announce a rule along the lines that you can refuse to sell to certain classes of people if they INTEND TO USE the product in a way that offends you.
-
It's interesting that MichiCat continues to change the facts of the case to support his argument, even after a number of people have told him he's wrong.
-
to explain this another way....
if my wife and I went into this guys store and said that we wanted him to make a cake for our gay friends wedding, he would tell us no and sorry but he can't and won't do that.
if a gay couple went into this guys store and said that they wanted him to make a cake for their straight friends wedding, he'd so sure no problem.
Like yea, let’s take this. What if the gay couple said they wanted it for their wedding and after getting turned down say, “oh, actually I meant my straight friend’s wedding.” Could the baker say, no way, I know what you are going to use this for mommy. (He wouldn’t say the last part but would definitely be thinking it)
-
I also hope you realize that if the Supreme Court decides this is ok, it would be perfectly fine for store owners to divide their merchandise into "For everyone" and "Not for gays" sections and put for example all the wedding stuff in the "Not for gays" section.
-
the dude and not that anyone here seems to care, would have also happily sold them a premade already on the shelf wedding cake for their gay wedding. he just wasn't willing to create one specifically for their gay wedding. again not that anyone seems to care about specifics or actually thinking about what happened in any detail within this thread.
-
If you really think that the issue involved here, I hope you understand how ridiculously difficult it would be for the Supreme Court to announce a rule along the lines that you can refuse to sell to certain classes of people if they INTEND TO USE the product in a way that offends you.
that and really none of what you're talking about today is what's being argued. I'd google the case and read an article or maybe even two/three. mix up your sources and then form some new thoughts on the subject.
-
to explain this another way....
if my wife and I went into this guys store and said that we wanted him to make a cake for our gay friends wedding, he would tell us no and sorry but he can't and won't do that.
if a gay couple went into this guys store and said that they wanted him to make a cake for their straight friends wedding, he'd say so sure no problem.
I doubt he'd sell the gay couple a cake for a straight wedding but regardless I still think the baker in your scenario is in the wrong and discriminating gays.
Also, he won't sell Halloween cakes to anyone, so there's no discrimination by refusing a request for a Halloween cake. He'll sell wedding cakes to anyone but gays - that's the issue here. If he refused to sell wedding cakes to anyone there wouldn't be a problem.
the dude and not that anyone here seems to care, would have also happily sold them a premade already on the shelf wedding cake for their gay wedding. he just wasn't willing to create one specifically for their gay wedding. again not that anyone seems to care about specifics or actually thinking about what happened in any detail within this thread.
do you have a link confirming this? Because this link says no designs were discussed:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-wedding-cake-20171205-story.html
Cole said the dispute did not involve words or speech. “The only thing the baker knew about these customers was that they were gay,” he said. “There was no request for a design. There was no request for message. He refused to sell any wedding cake. And that’s identity-based discrimination.”
(granted that is the ACLU lawyer but I would be interested to see the other side)
-
to explain this another way....
if my wife and I went into this guys store and said that we wanted him to make a cake for our gay friends wedding, he would tell us no and sorry but he can't and won't do that.
if a gay couple went into this guys store and said that they wanted him to make a cake for their straight friends wedding, he'd say so sure no problem.
I doubt he'd sell the gay couple a cake for a straight wedding but regardless I still think the baker in your scenario is in the wrong and discriminating gays.
Also, he won't sell Halloween cakes to anyone, so there's no discrimination by refusing a request for a Halloween cake. He'll sell wedding cakes to anyone but gays - that's the issue here. If he refused to sell wedding cakes to anyone there wouldn't be a problem.
the dude and not that anyone here seems to care, would have also happily sold them a premade already on the shelf wedding cake for their gay wedding. he just wasn't willing to create one specifically for their gay wedding. again not that anyone seems to care about specifics or actually thinking about what happened in any detail within this thread.
do you have a link confirming this? Because this link says no designs were discussed:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-wedding-cake-20171205-story.html
Cole said the dispute did not involve words or speech. “The only thing the baker knew about these customers was that they were gay,” he said. “There was no request for a design. There was no request for message. He refused to sell any wedding cake. And that’s identity-based discrimination.”
(granted that is the ACLU lawyer but I would be interested to see the other side)
any wedding cake, he still would have sold them something else
-
If you really think that the issue involved here, I hope you understand how ridiculously difficult it would be for the Supreme Court to announce a rule along the lines that you can refuse to sell to certain classes of people if they INTEND TO USE the product in a way that offends you.
that and really none of what you're talking about today is what's being argued. I'd google the case and read an article or maybe even two/three. mix up your sources and then form some new thoughts on the subject.
Yes, please explain. I have not read anything suggesting the gay couple requested a particular custom design. And if your argument is that there is a distinction between having already baked a cake and baking the SAME rough ridin' cake knowing it is going to be used for a particular purpose, then I'd like to hear why that should be any different than a restaurant saying they will not sell any catering to be used at a gay wedding but they're welcome to take whatever they want from the buffet.
-
to explain this another way....
if my wife and I went into this guys store and said that we wanted him to make a cake for our gay friends wedding, he would tell us no and sorry but he can't and won't do that.
if a gay couple went into this guys store and said that they wanted him to make a cake for their straight friends wedding, he'd so sure no problem.
Like yea, let’s take this. What if the gay couple said they wanted it for their wedding and after getting turned down say, “oh, actually I meant my straight friend’s wedding.” Could the baker say, no way, I know what you are going to use this for mommy. (He wouldn’t say the last part but would definitely be thinking it)
Also, I want to hear someone explain what line you are proposing to draw here. This is not about the news story, it is about your own hypothetical.
-
Did they want a gay (two guys) wedding cake topper? Or just a plain wedding cake which could have been for any wedding if you looked at it?
-
to explain this another way....
if my wife and I went into this guys store and said that we wanted him to make a cake for our gay friends wedding, he would tell us no and sorry but he can't and won't do that.
if a gay couple went into this guys store and said that they wanted him to make a cake for their straight friends wedding, he'd say so sure no problem.
I doubt he'd sell the gay couple a cake for a straight wedding but regardless I still think the baker in your scenario is in the wrong and discriminating gays.
Also, he won't sell Halloween cakes to anyone, so there's no discrimination by refusing a request for a Halloween cake. He'll sell wedding cakes to anyone but gays - that's the issue here. If he refused to sell wedding cakes to anyone there wouldn't be a problem.
the dude and not that anyone here seems to care, would have also happily sold them a premade already on the shelf wedding cake for their gay wedding. he just wasn't willing to create one specifically for their gay wedding. again not that anyone seems to care about specifics or actually thinking about what happened in any detail within this thread.
do you have a link confirming this? Because this link says no designs were discussed:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-wedding-cake-20171205-story.html
Cole said the dispute did not involve words or speech. “The only thing the baker knew about these customers was that they were gay,” he said. “There was no request for a design. There was no request for message. He refused to sell any wedding cake. And that’s identity-based discrimination.”
(granted that is the ACLU lawyer but I would be interested to see the other side)
he absolutely would sell a gay couple a cake for a straight wedding because he has no problems with straight weddings and he has no problem sellingng things to gay couples. now he wouldn't make and sell them a cake for Halloween or for a divorce just like he wouldn't make and sell a cake like that to a straight couple. it's the design and the theme and not the person or people. he is dividing between a straight wedding cake and a gay wedding cake. so in that way, the gay wedding cake is like a Halloween cake or a divorce cake to him. he won't explicitly and with knowledge make one.
while no designs were discussed, that's just because the convo didn't make it that far. the couple came into his shop with one of their moms and started looking through one of his design books. he came over and asked what he could help them with and they said they wanted him to make a cake for their wedding and he stopped them and said that he couldn't do that. they got mad and left. the link saying that he would sell off the shelf cakes for gay weddings, but not design or make one explicitly for one is below. it's towards the end.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/05/us/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-cake.html
-
How come all you folks are so clueless about the facts of the case? The law arises from the facts. Ex facto jus oritur.
-
I wonder if this guy would make a Ramadan cake? Kwanza cake? Bar mitzvah cake? Quinceañera cake?
-
I wonder if he would bake an anti-Trump cake for Strzok.
-
I wonder if this guy would make a Ramadan cake? Kwanza cake? Bar mitzvah cake? Quinceañera cake?
Assuming he's not just a bigot (spoiler: he is), I'm sure he would not make a cake for a couple celebrating their son's first birthday if they did not have him in wedlock. The interview process must be exhausting as he runs through all the scenarios with the customers to make sure they are not living in sin according to the Bible.
Of course, again, this is all assuming he's not just singling out this one thing because it grosses him out.
-
I wonder if he would bake an anti-Trump cake for Strzok.
Assuming the cake is for Strzok's mistress, probably not.
-
I wonder if this guy would make a Ramadan cake? Kwanza cake? Bar mitzvah cake? Quinceañera cake?
Assuming he's not just a bigot (spoiler: he is), I'm sure he would not make a cake for a couple celebrating their son's first birthday if they did not have him in wedlock.
Is there something in the bible about not celebrating a childs 1st birthday?
-
Yes. Or, at least as much as there is about celebrating a gay couple's wedding.
-
I wonder if this guy would make a Ramadan cake? Kwanza cake? Bar mitzvah cake? Quinceañera cake?
Assuming he's not just a bigot (spoiler: he is), I'm sure he would not make a cake for a couple celebrating their son's first birthday if they did not have him in wedlock.
Is there something in the bible about not celebrating a childs 1st birthday?
There are religions that prohibit celebrating birthdays
-
he absolutely would sell a gay couple a cake for a straight wedding because he has no problems with straight weddings and he has no problem sellingng things to gay couples. now he wouldn't make and sell them a cake for Halloween or for a divorce just like he wouldn't make and sell a cake like that to a straight couple. it's the design and the theme and not the person or people. he is dividing between a straight wedding cake and a gay wedding cake. so in that way, the gay wedding cake is like a Halloween cake or a divorce cake to him. he won't explicitly and with knowledge make one.
Yes, this is really all he has to stand on, and it's a difficult argument when the ingredients and process to create a "gay wedding cake" could be identical to the ingredients of a "straight wedding cake" or an interracial wedding cake. allowing him to distinguish between a "straight wedding cake" and "gay wedding cake"
Also lol at the Trump attorney:
Kristen K. Waggoner, a lawyer for Mr. Phillips, said the state should not be able to force him to endorse same-sex marriage in violation of his religious principles. But she took a different position about whether a baker could refuse to create a cake for an interracial marriage.
Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco, the Trump administration lawyer, also said that it would be harder to justify discrimination against interracial couples than gay ones. “Race is particularly unique,” Mr. Francisco said.
That distinction did not seem to sit well with some justices. And David D. Cole, a lawyer for the couple, said it would relegate gay and lesbian couples to “second-class status.”
while no designs were discussed, that's just because the convo didn't make it that far. the couple came into his shop with one of their moms and started looking through one of his design books. he came over and asked what he could help them with and they said they wanted him to make a cake for their wedding and he stopped them and said that he couldn't do that. they got mad and left. the link saying that he would sell off the shelf cakes for gay weddings, but not design or make one explicitly for one is below. it's towards the end.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/05/us/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-cake.html
thanks for that link. IMO selling only off-the-shelf pre-made wedding cakes for a gay wedding is a bit like a butcher only selling nearly-expired meat for a gay wedding but whatevs
-
to explain this another way....
if my wife and I went into this guys store and said that we wanted him to make a cake for our gay friends wedding, he would tell us no and sorry but he can't and won't do that.
if a gay couple went into this guys store and said that they wanted him to make a cake for their straight friends wedding, he'd say so sure no problem.
I doubt he'd sell the gay couple a cake for a straight wedding but regardless I still think the baker in your scenario is in the wrong and discriminating gays.
Also, he won't sell Halloween cakes to anyone, so there's no discrimination by refusing a request for a Halloween cake. He'll sell wedding cakes to anyone but gays - that's the issue here. If he refused to sell wedding cakes to anyone there wouldn't be a problem.
the dude and not that anyone here seems to care, would have also happily sold them a premade already on the shelf wedding cake for their gay wedding. he just wasn't willing to create one specifically for their gay wedding. again not that anyone seems to care about specifics or actually thinking about what happened in any detail within this thread.
do you have a link confirming this? Because this link says no designs were discussed:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-wedding-cake-20171205-story.html
Cole said the dispute did not involve words or speech. “The only thing the baker knew about these customers was that they were gay,” he said. “There was no request for a design. There was no request for message. He refused to sell any wedding cake. And that’s identity-based discrimination.”
(granted that is the ACLU lawyer but I would be interested to see the other side)
he absolutely would sell a gay couple a cake for a straight wedding because he has no problems with straight weddings and he has no problem sellingng things to gay couples. now he wouldn't make and sell them a cake for Halloween or for a divorce just like he wouldn't make and sell a cake like that to a straight couple. it's the design and the theme and not the person or people. he is dividing between a straight wedding cake and a gay wedding cake. so in that way, the gay wedding cake is like a Halloween cake or a divorce cake to him. he won't explicitly and with knowledge make one.
while no designs were discussed, that's just because the convo didn't make it that far. the couple came into his shop with one of their moms and started looking through one of his design books. he came over and asked what he could help them with and they said they wanted him to make a cake for their wedding and he stopped them and said that he couldn't do that. they got mad and left. the link saying that he would sell off the shelf cakes for gay weddings, but not design or make one explicitly for one is below. it's towards the end.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/05/us/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-cake.html
Colorado's administrative decision - yeah its on the Alliance Defending Freedom site, but anyway: http://www.adfmedia.org/files/MasterpieceDecision.pdf
Findings of Fact:
6. Phillips informed Complainants that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. Phillips told the men, “I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.”
I wonder how much the conflict in Colorado law at the time could factor, although I guess that's not a point that's really being argued and would probably only serve as an eject button. Public Accomodation law denotes orientation as a protected class, yet Colorado's constitution and other statues outlined valid marriage - and thus weddings - as heterosexual.
-
Wait, the guy would make a gay shower cake, but not a gay wedding cake?
-
He’ll also do every gay anniversary (except for the 0 anniversary obviously).
-
Wait, the guy would make a gay shower cake, but not a gay wedding cake?
We may disagree on a lot of things in this thread but at least we can all hopefully agree that this cake guy is a complete dumbass.
-
Wait, the guy would make a gay shower cake, but not a gay wedding cake?
We may disagree on a lot of things in this thread but at least we can all hopefully agree that this cake guy is a complete dumbass.
sadly his business probably increased from all this
-
Wait, the guy would make a gay shower cake, but not a gay wedding cake?
We may disagree on a lot of things in this thread but at least we can all hopefully agree that this cake guy is a complete dumbass.
it just goes against an incredibly strong held religious belief of his. i don't believe in god or religion or whatever and i am super pro gay marriage, but in a weird way i kind of admire the guy for having his opinion and not swaying on it. i guess i also just don't feel like it comes from a bad place with him. maybe I'm wrong and maybe I'm weird too but i kind of think crap are were really going to force this guy to do this? the more i learned about the case and what actually happened etc the more i feel like i just want him to be able to run his business the way he sees fit and make the cakes he feels like he can as a human being. is he weird as hell for not being willing to make a halloween cake? sure. is not making gay wedding cakes a little insensitive to gay couples? sure. but i think it's also insensitive to force this guy by law to make them.
-
Wait, the guy would make a gay shower cake, but not a gay wedding cake?
We may disagree on a lot of things in this thread but at least we can all hopefully agree that this cake guy is a complete dumbass.
sadly his business probably increased from all this
it didn't. he stopped making custom wedding cakes altogether and his business dropped 40%. he's had to lay off employees. don't let any of that get in the way of the uninformed and incorrect points you're trying to make though.
-
Wait, the guy would make a gay shower cake, but not a gay wedding cake?
We may disagree on a lot of things in this thread but at least we can all hopefully agree that this cake guy is a complete dumbass.
it just goes against an incredibly strong held religious belief of his. i don't believe in god or religion or whatever and i am super pro gay marriage, but in a weird way i kind of admire the guy for having his opinion and not swaying on it. i guess i also just don't feel like it comes from a bad place with him. maybe I'm wrong and maybe I'm weird too but i kind of think crap are were really going to force this guy to do this? the more i learned about the case and what actually happened etc the more i feel like i just want him to be able to run his business the way he sees fit and make the cakes he feels like he can as a human being. is he weird as hell for not being willing to make a halloween cake? sure. is not making gay wedding cakes a little insensitive to gay couples? sure. but i think it's also insensitive to force this guy by law to make them.
I get all that I just think he's pretty dumb guy who isn't very good at thinking logically.
I also think it's outrageous that you're ok with him given the slippery slope precedent it provides but I do not think you are a dumbass at all.
-
FYI, here's a link to a transcript of the oral argument:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-111_f314.pdf (https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-111_f314.pdf)
-
I simply cannot wrap my head around this gay couple wanting to force a guy diametrically opposed to their entire way of life to sell them something they can buy any other place.
It is such a bizarre premise.
Dude is really good at making cakes
-
Wait, the guy would make a gay shower cake, but not a gay wedding cake?
We may disagree on a lot of things in this thread but at least we can all hopefully agree that this cake guy is a complete dumbass.
it just goes against an incredibly strong held religious belief of his. i don't believe in god or religion or whatever and i am super pro gay marriage, but in a weird way i kind of admire the guy for having his opinion and not swaying on it. i guess i also just don't feel like it comes from a bad place with him. maybe I'm wrong and maybe I'm weird too but i kind of think crap are were really going to force this guy to do this? the more i learned about the case and what actually happened etc the more i feel like i just want him to be able to run his business the way he sees fit and make the cakes he feels like he can as a human being. is he weird as hell for not being willing to make a halloween cake? sure. is not making gay wedding cakes a little insensitive to gay couples? sure. but i think it's also insensitive to force this guy by law to make them.
This guy has the strongly held belief that:
1) Two gay guys should not get married
2) It is ok to celebrate the intent of two gay guys to get married
-
Gay couple: we’re getting married!
Baker: Yay! I’m so happy for you. For the sake of my religion I hope it falls apart before it’s completely official but congrats!
-
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/03/22/pastor-claims-christians-can-cure-homosexuals-by-baking-them-cake/
Supposedly this Pastor claims that you can pray over a cake, and the Holy Ghost will be infused in it. The offering of such a cake to a gay person is a good will gesture (?). I am confused. Didn't know cake could be so complicated. Regular non descript cakes, artistic cakes, and now Holy Cakes.
-
Wait, the guy would make a gay shower cake, but not a gay wedding cake?
We may disagree on a lot of things in this thread but at least we can all hopefully agree that this cake guy is a complete dumbass.
it just goes against an incredibly strong held religious belief of his. i don't believe in god or religion or whatever and i am super pro gay marriage, but in a weird way i kind of admire the guy for having his opinion and not swaying on it. i guess i also just don't feel like it comes from a bad place with him. maybe I'm wrong and maybe I'm weird too but i kind of think crap are were really going to force this guy to do this? the more i learned about the case and what actually happened etc the more i feel like i just want him to be able to run his business the way he sees fit and make the cakes he feels like he can as a human being. is he weird as hell for not being willing to make a halloween cake? sure. is not making gay wedding cakes a little insensitive to gay couples? sure. but i think it's also insensitive to force this guy by law to make them.
I get all that I just think he's pretty dumb guy who isn't very good at thinking logically.
I also think it's outrageous that you're ok with him given the slippery slope precedent it provides but I do not think you are a dumbass at all.
I'm not 100% Ok with it but I'm also not 100% ok with the other side either. I guess I could also say that I think it's outrageous that you're ok with the government forcing him to make the cake given the slippery slope precedent it provides. Should he have to make a devil worshipping cake? Should he have to make a kkk cake? Should he have to make a cake for a religion he doesn't agree with or a cake celebrating the holocaust or 9/11. What if he's a broncos fan and hates the raiders and a raider fan wants him to make a cake of a raider pissing on a bronco? Does he have to do that? You're ok with a precedent that says this guys has no control of the type of cakes he makes? Somebody wants a cake of a 50 year old man rough ridin' a two year old and they want it made out of cheese. This guy has to make it?
-
Wait, the guy would make a gay shower cake, but not a gay wedding cake?
We may disagree on a lot of things in this thread but at least we can all hopefully agree that this cake guy is a complete dumbass.
it just goes against an incredibly strong held religious belief of his. i don't believe in god or religion or whatever and i am super pro gay marriage, but in a weird way i kind of admire the guy for having his opinion and not swaying on it. i guess i also just don't feel like it comes from a bad place with him. maybe I'm wrong and maybe I'm weird too but i kind of think crap are were really going to force this guy to do this? the more i learned about the case and what actually happened etc the more i feel like i just want him to be able to run his business the way he sees fit and make the cakes he feels like he can as a human being. is he weird as hell for not being willing to make a halloween cake? sure. is not making gay wedding cakes a little insensitive to gay couples? sure. but i think it's also insensitive to force this guy by law to make them.
I get all that I just think he's pretty dumb guy who isn't very good at thinking logically.
I also think it's outrageous that you're ok with him given the slippery slope precedent it provides but I do not think you are a dumbass at all.
I'm not 100% Ok with it but I'm also not 100% ok with the other side either. I guess I could also say that I think it's outrageous that you're ok with the government forcing him to make the cake given the slippery slope precedent it provides. Should he have to make a devil worshipping cake? Should he have to make a kkk cake? Should he have to make a cake for a religion he doesn't agree with or a cake celebrating the holocaust or 9/11. What if he's a broncos fan and hates the raiders and a raider fan wants him to make a cake if a raider pissing on a bronco? Does he have to do that?
I'm going to try one last time to respond to your hypotheticals because you have yet to respond to mine, but here goes:
It is EASY to draw a line between being asked to do something you DO NOT DO and something that you do for some people but not others. That is what is going on here. The couple never discussed specific designs, so the question presented to the Supreme Court is whether the baker should be able to create a wedding cake for straight couples but not create the SAME CAKE for others.
It is NOT EASY to draw a line between what a person INTENDS TO DO with the product you create. Presumably if the gay couple said "actually, this was for a straight wedding, not ours" you could have a situation where the baker says, "I don't believe you, I'm not doing it because I think you are going to use it in your wedding."
-
So to answer your scenarios, no, he would not have to make a cake with a Klansman on it unless he already sells those cakes to everyone but people who he suspects are KKK members. Same for devil worshipers.
-
I feel like the overarching problem for some of you people is that this guys differentiates between two cakes that might be the same cake when he knows before he makes them that one is going to be for a straight wedding and one is going to be for a gay wedding. It's an interesting concept and without a doubt takes at minimum fifteen seconds to think about.
-
And if your argument is that there is a distinction between having already baked a cake and baking the SAME rough ridin' cake knowing it is going to be used for a particular purpose, then I'd like to hear why that should be any different than a restaurant saying they will not sell any catering to be used at a gay wedding but they're welcome to take whatever they want from the buffet.
:impatient:
-
I've thought about this issue as much as I care to. (Somewhere between 15 seconds and 15 minutes.) My conclusion: There are super easy practical solutions for each side. For example, LIE! Both sides are wrong for being hard headed dumbasses for not employing one. Neither is right. And to put an end to this, they need to have a beer together with Trump ASAP.
-
And if your argument is that there is a distinction between having already baked a cake and baking the SAME rough ridin' cake knowing it is going to be used for a particular purpose, then I'd like to hear why that should be any different than a restaurant saying they will not sell any catering to be used at a gay wedding but they're welcome to take whatever they want from the buffet.
:impatient:
To be fair, you've said a bunch of dumb crap so far and I didn't feel like it made sense to respond to all of it. Explain whatever it is that you want to know in a different way, because I read the above twice and still don't get what you're asking.
-
Wait, the guy would make a gay shower cake, but not a gay wedding cake?
We may disagree on a lot of things in this thread but at least we can all hopefully agree that this cake guy is a complete dumbass.
it just goes against an incredibly strong held religious belief of his. i don't believe in god or religion or whatever and i am super pro gay marriage, but in a weird way i kind of admire the guy for having his opinion and not swaying on it. i guess i also just don't feel like it comes from a bad place with him. maybe I'm wrong and maybe I'm weird too but i kind of think crap are were really going to force this guy to do this? the more i learned about the case and what actually happened etc the more i feel like i just want him to be able to run his business the way he sees fit and make the cakes he feels like he can as a human being. is he weird as hell for not being willing to make a halloween cake? sure. is not making gay wedding cakes a little insensitive to gay couples? sure. but i think it's also insensitive to force this guy by law to make them.
I get all that I just think he's pretty dumb guy who isn't very good at thinking logically.
I also think it's outrageous that you're ok with him given the slippery slope precedent it provides but I do not think you are a dumbass at all.
I'm not 100% Ok with it but I'm also not 100% ok with the other side either. I guess I could also say that I think it's outrageous that you're ok with the government forcing him to make the cake given the slippery slope precedent it provides. Should he have to make a devil worshipping cake? Should he have to make a kkk cake? Should he have to make a cake for a religion he doesn't agree with or a cake celebrating the holocaust or 9/11. What if he's a broncos fan and hates the raiders and a raider fan wants him to make a cake of a raider pissing on a bronco? Does he have to do that? You're ok with a precedent that says this guys has no control of the type of cakes he makes? Somebody wants a cake of a 50 year old man rough ridin' a two year old and they want it made out of cheese. This guy has to make it?
I think all your examples are clear artistic expression (depending on the design you have in mind) that could be refused and are also not for people protected by anti-discrimination laws. (the devil worshippers might be). IMO a theoretical custom cake is not yet artistic expression.
I'm reading the court arguments, it's pretty interesting.
-
If somebody tells him that they want him to make a generic cake that he makes all the time that they are then going to use to throw in the face of the pope, can he refuse to make it?
-
In Kill Bill, Beatrix Kiddo had Hattori Hanzo make her a sword for the specific purpose of killing Bill.
-
It just now occurred to me that she did not even use that sword to kill him. That is, the sword did not deliver the fatal blow.
-
Is Hattori Hanzo any more right or wrong to make Beatrix Kiddo a sword for the specific purpose of killing Bill depending on whether or not the sword delivers the fatal blow?
-
And if your argument is that there is a distinction between having already baked a cake and baking the SAME rough ridin' cake knowing it is going to be used for a particular purpose, then I'd like to hear why that should be any different than a restaurant saying they will not sell any catering to be used at a gay wedding but they're welcome to take whatever they want from the buffet.
:impatient:
To be fair, you've said a bunch of dumb crap so far and I didn't feel like it made sense to respond to all of it. Explain whatever it is that you want to know in a different way, because I read the above twice and still don't get what you're asking.
:jerk:
Ok, here you go.
You think this case is special because even if the baker is making the same exact cake he would make for a straight couple's wedding, he knows it is going to be used at a gay couple's wedding. That is an extraordinarily difficult distinction to make, as illustrated by the following examples. Tell me which is protected and which is not:
1. Man walks into the same bakery and asks for a wedding cake. He picks one from a stock portfolio and before icing is put on the cake the man asks if the baker could please write: congratulations Jason and Mike. The baker asks if the cake is going to be used at a gay wedding. Man says no, but being suspicious the baker refuses to finish or sell the cake.
2. A Mormon painter has a website advertising that he will turn photographs into paintings that people send in. One picture is of a black man praying. The Mormon refuses to paint the picture explaining that he believes black people are cursed that it is an affront to him to depict one talking to god.
3. Man orders 30 trays of Chick-Fil-A catering. Before making the food, Chick-Fil-A asks him to sign a form saying the food will not be used at a gay wedding.
-
This is going to come down to Justice Kennedy. Yes, Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in the gay marriage case (Obergefell v. Hodges), but his opinion also contained the following caveat: "[T]hose who adhere to religious doctrines may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned,” and he made clear that they are protected in this mission by the First Amendment.
Note that this is NOT an issue of federal law. The issue is whether the Colorado law under which the baker was punished violates the Constitution. There is no federal law prohibiting the baker from doing what he did. Laws that classify on the basis of sexual orientation appear to receive heightened (intermediate, specifically) scrutiny by SCOTUS, although this is not clearly settled. (Ironically, this was first introduced by a case that invalidated a provision in the Colorado constitution that denied certain benefits to gays). So Colorado will need to show that the law furthers an "important" government interest by means that are "substantially related" to that interest.
But of course the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution means that the Colorado law cannot conflict with established federal law, in any case. And part of the punishment levied against the baker required that he train his staff on how to comply with the law, meaning he could be forced to instruct his staff on how his deeply held religious beliefs are discriminatory. The problem here is that the First Amendment enjoys special solicitude in the constellation of constitutional freedoms, and it could be argued that this amounts to "compelled speech" or "viewpoint discrimination," both of which are mighty oaks and big :nono:'s in free speech jurisprudence. Add in the sincerely held belief element in this case, and I think there's a path forward for Justice Kennedy to side with the baker. I think it could be possible to invalidate that portion of the Colorado law and reverse the judgment, with further proceedings possible. The sincerely held belief element has well-established doctrine that should prevent the type of arbitrary hypos that have been suggested in this thread and elsewhere. There must be a real and long-held tradition of adherence to the idea by a real and long-existing religious group.
-
What if I am a baker who makes commitment ceremony cakes, but I don't believe in marriage so I will not let you buy one of my commitment ceremony cakes to use at your wedding? Is that ok?
-
What if I am a baker who makes commitment ceremony cakes, but I don't believe in marriage so I will not let you buy one of my commitment ceremony cakes to use at your wedding? Is that ok?
Under both Colorado law and federal law, that is perfectly fine.
-
How could you square the sincerely help belief with the baker’s willingness to make a gay wedding shower cake?
-
How could you square the sincerely help belief with the baker’s willingness to make a gay wedding shower cake?
Didn't it say "shower," not "wedding shower"? Could have referred to a baby shower, or any other bullshit.
-
And I think you’re discounting how sincerely Chick-fil-a hates gay marriage.
-
How could you square the sincerely help belief with the baker’s willingness to make a gay wedding shower cake?
Didn't it say "shower," not "wedding shower"? Could have referred to a baby shower, or any other bullshit.
:lol:
Let’s assume he meant wedding shower when speaking to the gay couple about their gay wedding. At least answer the hypo.
-
I mean, I’d also be interested how it squares with the baker being ok celebrating a gay couple having a child together if he’s sincerely against gay marriage.
-
How could you square the sincerely help belief with the baker’s willingness to make a gay wedding shower cake?
Didn't it say "shower," not "wedding shower"? Could have referred to a baby shower, or any other bullshit.
:lol:
Let’s assume he meant wedding shower when speaking to the gay couple about their gay wedding. At least answer the hypo.
Why deal with hypos when we could deal with the actual facts?
As the couple’s brief says, Mr Phillips told the men that it is his “standard business practice not to provide cakes for same-sex weddings”. While happy to “sell the couple other baked goods, including ‘birthday cakes, shower cakes, … cookies and brownies’”, he draws the line at nuptials: “I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings”.
So, should we also assume he meant gay-wedding birthday cakes, gay-wedding cookies, and gay-wedding brownies? noscitur a sociis, bitch.
-
I mean, I’d also be interested how it squares with the baker being ok celebrating a gay couple having a child together if he’s sincerely against gay marriage.
We're talking about a state that banned gay marriage until the Supreme Court overturned it in 1996 (going with this date from memory, maybe give or take a year). Some people think marriage is sacred, yet they may also support a gay couple raising a child in need. I do think religious types treat marriage as a sacred religious ceremony. But don't get mad at me; I'm just trying to educate you about the law.
-
Also, there is no Constitutional principle that requires individuals to be consistent with the application of their beliefs. The Constitution only targets arbitrary actions of governments. If this is indeed an expression of a deeply held religious belief, the government cannot require him to be perfectly consistent in how he expresses those beliefs. And for good reason. Remember, this is a case about a state law versus Constitutional law.
-
How could you square the sincerely help belief with the baker’s willingness to make a gay wedding shower cake?
Didn't it say "shower," not "wedding shower"? Could have referred to a baby shower, or any other bullshit.
:lol:
Let’s assume he meant wedding shower when speaking to the gay couple about their gay wedding. At least answer the hypo.
Why deal with hypos when we could deal with the actual facts?
As the couple’s brief says, Mr Phillips told the men that it is his “standard business practice not to provide cakes for same-sex weddings”. While happy to “sell the couple other baked goods, including ‘birthday cakes, shower cakes, … cookies and brownies’”, he draws the line at nuptials: “I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings”.
So, should we also assume he meant gay-wedding birthday cakes, gay-wedding cookies, and gay-wedding brownies? noscitur a sociis, bitch.
Could have referred to a baby shower
noscitur a sociis, bitch
-
What are you trying to communicate?
-
Also, there is no Constitutional principle that requires individuals to be consistent with the application of their beliefs. The Constitution only targets arbitrary actions of governments. If this is indeed an expression of a deeply held religious belief, the government cannot require him to be perfectly consistent in how he expresses those beliefs. And for good reason. Remember, this is a case above a state law versus Constitutional law.
I think you are (purposely?) missing the point. Surely you would agree with me that the justices would not determine the baker had a "sincerely held belief" if he baked a cake for a gay wedding the week before. I mean, obviously they're not requiring him to be consistent with the commands of Jesus or else he'd be DOA in his stance.
It is not much of a leap to suggest the same reasoning would apply to his willingness to support other gay-wedding related celebrations when inquiring as to whether he sincerely holds the belief he espouses on gay marriage.
-
What are you trying to communicate?
You're trying to tell me to look at context when interpreting the word "shower" while simultaneously suggesting the baker could have been discussing making a baby shower cake for a couple he knew was getting married but had no idea whether they had children or not.
-
Also, there is no Constitutional principle that requires individuals to be consistent with the application of their beliefs. The Constitution only targets arbitrary actions of governments. If this is indeed an expression of a deeply held religious belief, the government cannot require him to be perfectly consistent in how he expresses those beliefs. And for good reason. Remember, this is a case above a state law versus Constitutional law.
I think you are (purposely?) missing the point. Surely you would agree with me that the justices would not determine the baker had a "sincerely held belief" if he baked a cake for a gay wedding the week before. I mean, obviously they're not requiring him to be consistent with the commands of Jesus or else he'd be DOA in his stance.
It is not much of a leap to suggest the same reasoning would apply to his willingness to support other gay-wedding related celebrations when inquiring as to whether he sincerely holds the belief he espouses on gay marriage.
Is there any allegation that he had baked a cake for a gay wedding the week before? No? So how is that relevant to this case?
Is it much of a leap? That's arguable. I do think it's reasonable to consider that a religious person may take umbrage with the gay marriage ceremony--which is an actual religious ritual in many Christian faiths that don't endorse homosexuality--while being OK with providing baked goods for other peripheral celebrations that do not involve a religious sacrament.
-
What are you trying to communicate?
You're trying to tell me to look at context when interpreting the word "shower" while simultaneously suggesting the baker could have been discussing making a baby shower cake for a couple he knew was getting married but had no idea whether they had children or not.
There are like a bajillion ridiculous "showers" that people celebrate. He also had no clue if either of them had a birthday coming up, or had a hankering for cookies. What's your point?
-
We're getting a bit off-track. My point in this aside is that there is no real reason to assume he meant wedding shower. And even if he did, that is in no way a "gotcha!"
-
There's a killer comeback dangling out there for you, but I'm not going to help you out, since you've been so rude to me...
-
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/andrew-sullivan-let-him-have-his-cake.html (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/andrew-sullivan-let-him-have-his-cake.html)
-
Will the gay marriage wedding cake take down the goE libtard contingency????
-
There's a killer comeback dangling out there for you, but I'm not going to help you out, since you've been so rude to me...
Hey buddy, I've been nothing but a gentleman; just asking you to think through the issues a bit deeper. SCOTUS is not going to approach this as the narrow legal question you framed, and that is why they ask hypotheticals during oral argument just like I am now. And (future) pro tip: I can assure you the justices would be none too pleased if the attorney on the other side said "that's not the facts here, so why would you ask me that"?
-
I'm extremely interested in this evidentiary hearing that Catostrophe thinks the SCOTUS is putting on. Maybe MichiCat could put on his revised version of the story too!
-
There's a killer comeback dangling out there for you, but I'm not going to help you out, since you've been so rude to me...
Hey buddy, I've been nothing but a gentleman; just asking you to think through the issues a bit deeper. SCOTUS is not going to approach this as the narrow legal question you framed, and that is why they ask hypotheticals during oral argument just like I am now. And (future) pro tip: I can assure you the justices would be none too pleased if the attorney on the other side said "that's not the facts here, so why would you ask me that"?
Oral arguments can be interesting, but they rarely have any bearing on the eventual outcome. Nor do they give any insight into the eventual rule of law the Court lays down. That's all done after multiple drafts are circulated and the vote is taken. And I really do think that is how SCOTUS will approach the legal question. It will be narrow. I'm not an advocate for one of the parties, and you, sir, are not an Associate Justice of the Honorable Court. So, it's really best that we stick to the facts, rather than wrestle with extreme hypos. The justices ask those questions to get some ideas for crafting rules that can be reliably applied by the lower courts. It has nothing to do with anything other than that.
-
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/andrew-sullivan-let-him-have-his-cake.html (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/andrew-sullivan-let-him-have-his-cake.html)
The last 3 paragraphs are good, but the close:
In other words, if the liberals were more liberal, and the Christians more Christian, this case would never have existed. It tells you a great deal about the decadence of our culture that it does.
-
In any event, it's an interesting and a close case, and it should be the blockbuster First Amendment case of 2018. P excited.
-
There's a killer comeback dangling out there for you, but I'm not going to help you out, since you've been so rude to me...
Hey buddy, I've been nothing but a gentleman; just asking you to think through the issues a bit deeper. SCOTUS is not going to approach this as the narrow legal question you framed, and that is why they ask hypotheticals during oral argument just like I am now. And (future) pro tip: I can assure you the justices would be none too pleased if the attorney on the other side said "that's not the facts here, so why would you ask me that"?
Blah blah blah. The justices ask those questions to get some ideas for crafting rules that can be reliably applied by the lower courts. Blah blah.
Glad we agree!
-
Also, there is no Constitutional principle that requires individuals to be consistent with the application of their beliefs. The Constitution only targets arbitrary actions of governments. If this is indeed an expression of a deeply held religious belief, the government cannot require him to be perfectly consistent in how he expresses those beliefs. And for good reason. Remember, this is a case above a state law versus Constitutional law.
I think you are (purposely?) missing the point. Surely you would agree with me that the justices would not determine the baker had a "sincerely held belief" if he baked a cake for a gay wedding the week before. I mean, obviously they're not requiring him to be consistent with the commands of Jesus or else he'd be DOA in his stance.
It is not much of a leap to suggest the same reasoning would apply to his willingness to support other gay-wedding related celebrations when inquiring as to whether he sincerely holds the belief he espouses on gay marriage.
Is there any allegation that he had baked a cake for a gay wedding the week before? No? So how is that relevant to this case?
Is it much of a leap? That's arguable. I do think it's reasonable to consider that a religious person may take umbrage with the gay marriage ceremony--which is an actual religious ritual in many Christian faiths that don't endorse homosexuality--while being OK with providing baked goods for other peripheral celebrations that do not involve a religious sacrament.
So, presumably the cake would be served at the reception which is a "peripheral celebration" to the wedding. I haven't been to any weddings where they served cake during the actual ceremony.
-
Don't PRESUMABLY anything with Spracne. He deals only in FACTS, Mrs. Gooch.
-
Don't PRESUMABLY anything with Spracne. He deals only in FACTS, Mrs. Gooch.
OK, maybe during gay weddings they do eat cake. I haven't actually attended one.
-
I think all that matters is that the baker sincerely thought they were going to get married and have gay sex on top of the cake.
-
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/andrew-sullivan-let-him-have-his-cake.html (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/andrew-sullivan-let-him-have-his-cake.html)
The last 3 paragraphs are good, but the close:
In other words, if the liberals were more liberal, and the Christians more Christian, this case would never have existed. It tells you a great deal about the decadence of our culture that it does.
IRL Catastrophe completely agrees with those last 3 paragraphs. Maybe not the rest of the article, but yea this dispute is disappointing for a lot of reasons.
-
A lot of libs might have their hearts in the right places, but unfortunately have a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal issue at play here. You should listen to what Spracne is saying.
-
He's right, everyone. This is just a case about whether a Colorado statute is constitutional.
Marbury v. Madison was just a case about legality of judicial appointments.
Brown v. Board of Education was just a case about school segregation.
Roe v. Wade was just a case about whether some chick could get an abortion.
-
It wasn't like Hattori Hanzo made just a regular old sword specifically for the purpose of killing Bill. He said that he was going to make the best sword he ever made. There is absolutely no ambiguity that he wanted Beatrix Kiddo to kill Bill with that particular sword he made.
-
I can’t believe this thread is still going on. Has anyone had their mind changed yet?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I can’t believe this thread is still going on. Has anyone had their mind changed yet?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Welcome to the pit. You must be new here.
-
He's right, everyone. This is just a case about whether a Colorado statute is constitutional.
Marbury v. Madison was just a case about legality of judicial appointments.
Brown v. Board of Education was just a case about school segregation.
Roe v. Wade was just a case about whether some chick could get an abortion.
Every case sets a precedent, that's true. But this one will be drawn as narrowly as possible. Do you really think this case will be as ground-breaking as those? No. That's not this Court. Nor is this that moment. And Marbury was a total ninja coup from the nascent days of the Republic.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
I can’t believe this thread is still going on. Has anyone had their mind changed yet?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I've learned a lot
-
Nor to Christian homeowners.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/rohrabacher-says-it%e2%80%99s-ok-to-not-sell-homes-to-gay-people/ar-AAxMWwW
-
Nor to Christian homeowners.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/rohrabacher-says-it%e2%80%99s-ok-to-not-sell-homes-to-gay-people/ar-AAxMWwW
The Federal Fair Housing Act does not list sexual orientation as a protected class. Rorebacher expressed he is not in support of a proposed bill in Congress that is trying to expand the Act's protected Class. The Congressman believes Christians should not be forced to sell their homes to gays. My neanderthal sayz yes, but it's fruitless do be so. Things like this backfire on people like Roarbacker. Money I guess should be the only factor. However I will not ever sell my home to tattooed dudes or dudettes.
-
The times when I have bought and sold houses, the sexual orientation of the other party was not disclosed to me.
-
Try to imagine hating gay people so much that you won't sell your house to one.
-
Try to imagine hating gay people so much that you won't sell your house to one.
Then imagine saying it’s because of Jesus/Bible
-
That’s just nuts.
-
I mean, that’s gotta be mental illness or something.
-
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-baker-who-denied-same-sex-couple-a-wedding-cake/
Good. Hallelujah
-
Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you
unless they are gay and want cake...
the word of the lord
-
Man, pretty disappointing punt from the Supreme Court. I was all excited to get some good jurisprudence on this issue. They didn't even touch the validity of the Colorado Law.
-
do I still have to sell my house to Ace and Gary?
-
do I still have to sell my house to Ace and Gary?
Are you an artist who designed and built the house?
-
do I still have to sell my house to Ace and Gary?
Are you an artist who designed and built the house?
A baker is not an artist, either.
-
Unfortunately the Supreme Court’s opinion doesn’t even go that far. Your only clear path is if you refuse to sell to Ace & Gary and local authorities are very mean about your religion when they determine whether you were improperly discriminating.
-
Yeah I need someone to give me a quick rundown on why the Supremes think the state being mean to the guy means he gets to break the law.
-
do I still have to sell my house to Ace and Gary?
Yes. Unless you burn it.
-
I think you have to sell common things and merchandise to all regardless of their sexual affiliations on choice of personal interconnectivity. A person who provides special services or creates specialty things like a decorative cake should be able to choose who they contract with. If I made Trump pies, I should not be forced to make Obama or Clinton pies.
-
I think you have to sell common things and merchandise to all regardless of their sexual affiliations on choice of personal interconnectivity. A person who provides special services or creates specialty things like a decorative cake should be able to choose who they contract with. If I made Trump pies, I should not be forced to make Obama or Clinton pies.
But you should be forced to sell your Trump pies to never-Trumpers.
-
Yeah I need someone to give me a quick rundown on why the Supremes think the state being mean to the guy means he gets to break the law.
probably the same general principle as how if the state does not provide due process in a murder trial, the murderer gets to murder.
-
I’m still of the opinion that private businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone they want and for any reason.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Yeah I need someone to give me a quick rundown on why the Supremes think the state being mean to the guy means he gets to break the law.
probably the same general principle as how if the state does not provide due process in a murder trial, the murderer gets to murder.
Similar. The rule is a pretty sound one given the extra protections afforded for sincerely held beliefs. It just feels very forced in this case. Certainly nothing even close to raising to due process concerns.
-
Yeah, its the National Review, but overall probably the best light review of the decision:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/masterpiece-cakeshop-ruling-religious-liberty-victory/
-
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/07/01/tennessee-hardware-store-no-gays-allowed-sign/29552615/
-
Did they ask him to make a cake showing a couple of guys giving each other blow jobs? Or was it just a regular wedding cake that could have been for any wedding?
They are equating it to a cake with an anti-gay message, but did the requested cake have a pro-gay message written on it?
-
Did they ask him to make a cake showing a couple of guys giving each other blow jobs? Or was it just a regular wedding cake that could have been for any wedding?
They are equating it to a cake with an anti-gay message, but did the requested cake have a pro-gay message written on it?
The guy in the link is just a tool that sells tools and doesn't want gay people to use tools.
-
Did they ask him to make a cake showing a couple of guys giving each other blow jobs? Or was it just a regular wedding cake that could have been for any wedding?
They are equating it to a cake with an anti-gay message, but did the requested cake have a pro-gay message written on it?
The article Woogy posted is actually pretty helpful if you ignore the overtly partisan remarks. The decision was purely procedural. The Supreme Court didn't want to touch the speech issue directly, instead they determined the hearing/decision was not made fairly. For the purposes of the court's opinion, the distinctions you are asking about as far as types of cakes wouldn't have made a difference in the outcome.
-
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/07/01/tennessee-hardware-store-no-gays-allowed-sign/29552615/
And cases like this are exactly why most of the liberal-leaning judges were fine with punting on the cake case.
-
What test is applied to insure a customer is not gay?
-
What test is applied to insure a customer is not gay?
the flag test
http://amyxhardware.com/
-
Bit of a wackycat08 moment for me in that post :blush:
-
They’re making another run at the Colorado baker. The liberal fascists just can’t let it go. https://pjmedia.com/faith/christian-baker-again-under-fire-for-refusing-transgender-cake-despite-supreme-court-win/ (https://pjmedia.com/faith/christian-baker-again-under-fire-for-refusing-transgender-cake-despite-supreme-court-win/)
-
Facebook
-
I wish they wouldn’t single out that guy, but this is really the Supreme Court’s fault for punting on the issues that mattered. This was obviously going to happen.
-
It's primarily the fault of liberal fascists and their proxies on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. This sort of bullshit harassment should never get to the Supreme Court. Maybe in a few years the case will return to the Supreme Court where Kavanaugh can assist in providing a less nuanced defense of religious liberty and freedom of speech. That would be a, ahem, delicious irony.
But I suspect some fascist will simply torch this poor guy's shop long before that happens.
-
Yea idk what you mean by liberal fascists but the SCOTUS Republicans (& some Dems) basically said, “try it again guys.”
-
By liberal fascists, I mean the liberals fascists who are trying to force a poor guy to bake a rough ridin' cake celebrating something that violates his religion because everyone must be made to conform the fascists' beliefs. Those liberal fascists.
-
Lol
-
People want to force FB to promote AJ
-
the Forcing of trying to make this dude make specific cakes is hilarious.
-
They're all loving it. Especially the baker.
-
the Forcing of trying to make this dude make specific cakes is hilarious.
If you’re bigoted against religious people, yes I can see how this would be a riot.
-
This has to have helped his business right?
-
Free markets
-
No doubt. I think it’s having the opposite effect then the loons want
-
This is what religious discrimination actually looks like, fwiw.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/members-group-giving-food-water-migrants-convicted-misdemeanors-n960816
-
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/another-b-c-woman-forced-out-of-business-in-transgender-male-genitalia-waxing-case/ (https://www.thepostmillennial.com/another-b-c-woman-forced-out-of-business-in-transgender-male-genitalia-waxing-case/)
-
bubbles4ksu
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/another-b-c-woman-forced-out-
Fearful Racists who are afraid of Truth and honesty. Go to Somalia, or Mississippi.
-
https://theintercept.com/2020/02/04/reversal-conviction-border-volunteers-gruesome-logic/
Christians win