|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 04 2015 09:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 09:35 cLutZ wrote: Just so long as you understand that that involves people being sent to jail or killed for disagreeing with you. No it doesn't? You can't go to jail in a civil case and not one is going to die because of a civil case. You are just wrong. you can go to jail for willful violation of a civil court order.
|
I don't know why companies should even have the right to deny people service in the first place. Every company is dependent on public services. Businesses depend on publicly maintained streets, publicly run garbage disposal and hire publicly educated staff. All paid for by citizens no matter what their gender,ethnicity or sexual orientation is. Why should businesses be any more privileged than the average citizen who has no say to which businesses his money goes?
|
On April 04 2015 09:57 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 09:47 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 09:43 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 09:37 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 09:35 cLutZ wrote: Just so long as you understand that that involves people being sent to jail or killed for disagreeing with you. No it doesn't? You can't go to jail in a civil case and not one is going to die because of a civil case. You are just wrong. You still haven't explained the method of retrieving the money or shutting down the pizzeria that doesn't involve guns. You really don't understand how law works, so I am going to stop responding to your increasingly foolish comments. No, YOU don't understand how the law works. Every law is enforced, in the end, by the threat of imprisonment carried out by a police force. Thus, you should understand that you are deciding between that and the other social evil you are outlawing. In civil law, for instance, a contract is you consenting to have the courts adjudicate disputes between the two parties in this manner, or in tort law we have determined that this is a better result than allowing people to go around injuring people without making financial remissions.
I'd have to side with plansix on this one; you're wrong clutz. It's utter nonsense to use the eventual fallback of imprisonment to say that every issue forces people to be jailed or killed. That's just plain BS.
|
On April 04 2015 10:07 Nyxisto wrote: I don't know why companies should even have the right to deny people service in the first place. Every company is dependent on public services. Businesses depend on publicly maintained streets, publicly run garbage disposal and hire publicly educated staff. All paid for by citizens no matter what their gender,ethnicity or sexual orientation is. Why should businesses be any more privileged than the average citizen who has no say to which businesses his money goes? hint hint, they're not, at least not in regards to refusing service.
|
On April 04 2015 10:05 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 09:37 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 09:35 cLutZ wrote: Just so long as you understand that that involves people being sent to jail or killed for disagreeing with you. No it doesn't? You can't go to jail in a civil case and not one is going to die because of a civil case. You are just wrong. you can go to jail for willful violation of a civil court order. You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings.
|
It's a bad argument anyway, as business owners they probably pay more in taxes than any one of their customers. In that case refusing service only hurts their bottom line.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On April 04 2015 09:38 Lord Tolkien wrote:Anyways, I would like to bring up the ongoing issue of Yemen. Show nested quote +The Romans had a name for Yemen. They called it Arabia Felix - Happy Arabia - because of its lush, rain-fed mountain scenery.
Today that epithet sounds tragically inappropriate.
Already the poorest country in the Middle East, wracked by soaring unemployment, dwindling oil and water reserves and home to the most dangerous branch of al-Qaeda, now Yemen is being torn apart by war of many sides.
The Saudi-led air strikes began last month, raining down precision-guided missiles on a rebel group called the Houthis who swept down from their mountain stronghold in the far north six months ago, taking town after town, and pushing out the UN-recognised President Hadi.
That alarmed the Saudis and the other Gulf Arab states, especially as they suspect the hand of Iran as being behind the Houthis' spectacular blitzkrieg.
How else, Saudis keep saying to me, could an impoverished group of tribesmen get the training, the weapons and the money to take over half the country?
There's a sectarian angle here too. The Houthi rebels are Zaidi Shias, representing about a third of the population. The Saudi rulers are suspicious of Shias, many of whom look to Iran for spiritual leadership.
Saudi Arabia is a predominately Sunni Muslim country and the Saudis are starting to think they're getting encircled by proxies of Iran wherever they look: in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and now Yemen.
Enough, they said, drawing a line in the sand. At a secret summit in a Saudi palace last month they threw together a 10-nation coalition in a belated and possibly doomed Gulf Arab attempt to turn back the Houthi takeover of Yemen and restore their ally to power.
Change of presidents
But in fact the Houthis largely owe their military success to someone much closer to home. They've formed an alliance of convenience, a sort of pact with the devil, with the very man who tried to bomb them out of existence five years ago.
Ali Abdullah Saleh ruled first North Yemen, then a unified Yemen, for 35 years, until he was forced out of power by the Arab Spring protests.
He refused to believe that Yemen was better off without him. So he set about wrecking the peaceful political transition of power that Yemen's friends had worked so hard to engineer.
Whole units of the Republican Guard remained loyal to him, bombs went off and towns were fought over.
President Hadi who replaced him, an elderly, genial southerner, has been no match for Saleh's machinations. He must be rueing the day he agreed to let his predecessor stay on in Yemen.
I interviewed Saleh once, in his fortified palace in the capital, Sanaa. It did not go well.
Speaking in Arabic without a translator, I asked him what he wanted his legacy to be.
The unification of North and South Yemen, of course, he replied, this was his crowning achievement. I thought I would soften him up by asking what benefits this had brought, but the way I said it in Arabic came out as 'well what was the point of that?'
What? he barked, glaring at me furiously, summoning his official translator, and looking pointedly at his watch.
Effective fighters
As president, Saleh fought six short wars against the Houthis until it ended in an uneasy truce. Now he's cynically using them to destroy those who he sees as usurping his power.
The Houthis are fierce, effective fighters, used to living on little in the black, volcanic mountains that straddle the Saudi-Yemeni border.
When I visited them in their stronghold city of Saada my girlfriend and I were woken on our first morning by a burst of heavy machinegun fire from a pickup truck outside in the street.
"It is celebration," said the man on reception, unfazed. Later we met a pair of brothers who took us out to the mountains to show off their skills with a Kalashnikov.
Chewing the narcotic qat leaf and racing across the desert in a beaten-up old car, they thought it was the biggest joke to swap places behind the wheel while driving at 60 miles an hour.
Their shooting was every bit as wild as their driving and before long a farmer emerged, shouting and cursing. "What the hell are you doing?" he said. "Bullets are coming down all around my sheep!"
Sunni fanatics
I have no idea what dizzy heights those two rose to after that in Yemen's tribal hierarchy, but the Houthis and their allies are now in control of most of the important parts of Yemen, despite more than a week of airstrikes.
If those fail to dislodge them then the Saudis have not ruled out a ground invasion, but everyone knows that carries enormous risks of getting bogged down into a vulnerable army of occupation.
Instead, the Houthis face a more dangerous foe - the jihadists of al-Qaeda. The jihadists are Sunni fanatics and they hate all Shias, including the Houthis.
In Yemen, al-Qaeda seems to be the only force capable of confronting the rebels on the ground.
On Thursday, their ranks were swollen by a jailbreak of dozens of convicted al-Qaeda fighters. Soon they will be rallying the Sunni tribes to join forces and fight the Houthis from the North.
And all the while, the Americans look on from afar, in despair.
Until just a few weeks ago they thought they had a reliable partner in President Hadi. President Obama even held up Yemen as a shining example of a counter-terrorism partnership.
Now that partnership has crumbled to dust, and so too have Yemen's immediate hopes of emerging from this intractable nightmare. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32178058Fighting in Yemen is intensifying.
I was always found it bizarre that islamist terrorism occurs almost entirely by sunni muslims instead of shia muslims yet we are geopolitically aligned with sunni muslim nations.
|
On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 10:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 09:37 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 09:35 cLutZ wrote: Just so long as you understand that that involves people being sent to jail or killed for disagreeing with you. No it doesn't? You can't go to jail in a civil case and not one is going to die because of a civil case. You are just wrong. you can go to jail for willful violation of a civil court order. You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing.
|
On April 04 2015 10:18 Introvert wrote: It's a bad argument anyway, as business owners they probably pay more in taxes than any one of their customers. In that case refusing service only hurts their bottom line.
the underlying point is that businesses depend on society. They don't exist in a vacuum, so there are limitations to their freedom, religious or whatever. Providing an environment for businesses to flourish is a communal task, and so they have to play by the rules.
|
There is no logical way to discuss how restaurants should be forced to host weddings.
|
The rules are the things under discussion. And they do have limitations. Quite a few in fact. There are lots of lots of laws in this country, and many of them apply to business.
But going the tax route doesn't work. The businesses (and/or their owners) contribute just as much as everyone else.
That's all.
|
On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 09:37 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 09:35 cLutZ wrote: Just so long as you understand that that involves people being sent to jail or killed for disagreeing with you. No it doesn't? You can't go to jail in a civil case and not one is going to die because of a civil case. You are just wrong. you can go to jail for willful violation of a civil court order. You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Edit: Was incorrect.
|
On April 04 2015 10:18 Livelovedie wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 04 2015 09:38 Lord Tolkien wrote:Anyways, I would like to bring up the ongoing issue of Yemen. Show nested quote +The Romans had a name for Yemen. They called it Arabia Felix - Happy Arabia - because of its lush, rain-fed mountain scenery.
Today that epithet sounds tragically inappropriate.
Already the poorest country in the Middle East, wracked by soaring unemployment, dwindling oil and water reserves and home to the most dangerous branch of al-Qaeda, now Yemen is being torn apart by war of many sides.
The Saudi-led air strikes began last month, raining down precision-guided missiles on a rebel group called the Houthis who swept down from their mountain stronghold in the far north six months ago, taking town after town, and pushing out the UN-recognised President Hadi.
That alarmed the Saudis and the other Gulf Arab states, especially as they suspect the hand of Iran as being behind the Houthis' spectacular blitzkrieg.
How else, Saudis keep saying to me, could an impoverished group of tribesmen get the training, the weapons and the money to take over half the country?
There's a sectarian angle here too. The Houthi rebels are Zaidi Shias, representing about a third of the population. The Saudi rulers are suspicious of Shias, many of whom look to Iran for spiritual leadership.
Saudi Arabia is a predominately Sunni Muslim country and the Saudis are starting to think they're getting encircled by proxies of Iran wherever they look: in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and now Yemen.
Enough, they said, drawing a line in the sand. At a secret summit in a Saudi palace last month they threw together a 10-nation coalition in a belated and possibly doomed Gulf Arab attempt to turn back the Houthi takeover of Yemen and restore their ally to power.
Change of presidents
But in fact the Houthis largely owe their military success to someone much closer to home. They've formed an alliance of convenience, a sort of pact with the devil, with the very man who tried to bomb them out of existence five years ago.
Ali Abdullah Saleh ruled first North Yemen, then a unified Yemen, for 35 years, until he was forced out of power by the Arab Spring protests.
He refused to believe that Yemen was better off without him. So he set about wrecking the peaceful political transition of power that Yemen's friends had worked so hard to engineer.
Whole units of the Republican Guard remained loyal to him, bombs went off and towns were fought over.
President Hadi who replaced him, an elderly, genial southerner, has been no match for Saleh's machinations. He must be rueing the day he agreed to let his predecessor stay on in Yemen.
I interviewed Saleh once, in his fortified palace in the capital, Sanaa. It did not go well.
Speaking in Arabic without a translator, I asked him what he wanted his legacy to be.
The unification of North and South Yemen, of course, he replied, this was his crowning achievement. I thought I would soften him up by asking what benefits this had brought, but the way I said it in Arabic came out as 'well what was the point of that?'
What? he barked, glaring at me furiously, summoning his official translator, and looking pointedly at his watch.
Effective fighters
As president, Saleh fought six short wars against the Houthis until it ended in an uneasy truce. Now he's cynically using them to destroy those who he sees as usurping his power.
The Houthis are fierce, effective fighters, used to living on little in the black, volcanic mountains that straddle the Saudi-Yemeni border.
When I visited them in their stronghold city of Saada my girlfriend and I were woken on our first morning by a burst of heavy machinegun fire from a pickup truck outside in the street.
"It is celebration," said the man on reception, unfazed. Later we met a pair of brothers who took us out to the mountains to show off their skills with a Kalashnikov.
Chewing the narcotic qat leaf and racing across the desert in a beaten-up old car, they thought it was the biggest joke to swap places behind the wheel while driving at 60 miles an hour.
Their shooting was every bit as wild as their driving and before long a farmer emerged, shouting and cursing. "What the hell are you doing?" he said. "Bullets are coming down all around my sheep!"
Sunni fanatics
I have no idea what dizzy heights those two rose to after that in Yemen's tribal hierarchy, but the Houthis and their allies are now in control of most of the important parts of Yemen, despite more than a week of airstrikes.
If those fail to dislodge them then the Saudis have not ruled out a ground invasion, but everyone knows that carries enormous risks of getting bogged down into a vulnerable army of occupation.
Instead, the Houthis face a more dangerous foe - the jihadists of al-Qaeda. The jihadists are Sunni fanatics and they hate all Shias, including the Houthis.
In Yemen, al-Qaeda seems to be the only force capable of confronting the rebels on the ground.
On Thursday, their ranks were swollen by a jailbreak of dozens of convicted al-Qaeda fighters. Soon they will be rallying the Sunni tribes to join forces and fight the Houthis from the North.
And all the while, the Americans look on from afar, in despair.
Until just a few weeks ago they thought they had a reliable partner in President Hadi. President Obama even held up Yemen as a shining example of a counter-terrorism partnership.
Now that partnership has crumbled to dust, and so too have Yemen's immediate hopes of emerging from this intractable nightmare. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32178058Fighting in Yemen is intensifying. I was always found it bizarre that islamist terrorism occurs almost entirely by sunni muslims instead of shia muslims yet we are geopolitically aligned with sunni muslim nations. sunni is much more common than shia, so that accounts for a lot (maybe all) of that difference. As to geopolitical alignment, that's more an accident of history I'd say. If history had turned out a little different, I could easily see US allied with Iran and against Saudis. Seeing as neither one would be an alliance of true friendship and values, but simply someone to ally with in the area.
|
On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 09:37 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 09:35 cLutZ wrote: Just so long as you understand that that involves people being sent to jail or killed for disagreeing with you. No it doesn't? You can't go to jail in a civil case and not one is going to die because of a civil case. You are just wrong. you can go to jail for willful violation of a civil court order. You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. they are likely to issue an injunction saying not to discriminate, and if they refuse, then they will likely shut down the business.
|
On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 09:37 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 09:35 cLutZ wrote: Just so long as you understand that that involves people being sent to jail or killed for disagreeing with you. No it doesn't? You can't go to jail in a civil case and not one is going to die because of a civil case. You are just wrong. you can go to jail for willful violation of a civil court order. You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner.
The whole thing started because this actually happened in a different state than Indiana (not pizza, cake, I think).
|
On April 04 2015 10:48 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 09:37 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 09:35 cLutZ wrote: Just so long as you understand that that involves people being sent to jail or killed for disagreeing with you. No it doesn't? You can't go to jail in a civil case and not one is going to die because of a civil case. You are just wrong. you can go to jail for willful violation of a civil court order. You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. they are likely to issue an injunction saying not to discriminate, and if they refuse, then they will likely shut down the business. Edit: All Right, I looked up the case and stand corrected. I was 100% incorrect. I was not aware of the cake case in Colorado. Not really that upset about it either.
On April 04 2015 10:50 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 09:37 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 09:35 cLutZ wrote: Just so long as you understand that that involves people being sent to jail or killed for disagreeing with you. No it doesn't? You can't go to jail in a civil case and not one is going to die because of a civil case. You are just wrong. you can go to jail for willful violation of a civil court order. You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. The whole thing started because this actually happened in a different state than Indiana (not pizza, cake, I think).
You are correct and I was wrong about the facts of the case. I still don't feel bad for them, as I have zero tolerance for homophobic people.
|
On April 04 2015 10:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 10:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 09:37 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 09:35 cLutZ wrote: Just so long as you understand that that involves people being sent to jail or killed for disagreeing with you. No it doesn't? You can't go to jail in a civil case and not one is going to die because of a civil case. You are just wrong. you can go to jail for willful violation of a civil court order. You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. they are likely to issue an injunction saying not to discriminate, and if they refuse, then they will likely shut down the business. Edit: All Right, I looked up the case and stand corrected. I was 100% incorrect. I was not aware of the cake case in Colorado. Not really that upset about it either. Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 10:50 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 09:37 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 09:35 cLutZ wrote: Just so long as you understand that that involves people being sent to jail or killed for disagreeing with you. No it doesn't? You can't go to jail in a civil case and not one is going to die because of a civil case. You are just wrong. you can go to jail for willful violation of a civil court order. You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. The whole thing started because this actually happened in a different state than Indiana (not pizza, cake, I think). You are correct and I was wrong about the facts of the case. I still don't feel bad for them, as I have zero tolerance for homophobic people. lmao, that's such sjw bullshit. god forbid people don't feel comfortable in a group of people they can't relate to.
|
On April 04 2015 10:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 10:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 09:37 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 09:35 cLutZ wrote: Just so long as you understand that that involves people being sent to jail or killed for disagreeing with you. No it doesn't? You can't go to jail in a civil case and not one is going to die because of a civil case. You are just wrong. you can go to jail for willful violation of a civil court order. You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. they are likely to issue an injunction saying not to discriminate, and if they refuse, then they will likely shut down the business. Edit: All Right, I looked up the case and stand corrected. I was 100% incorrect. I was not aware of the cake case in Colorado. Not really that upset about it either. Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 10:50 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 09:37 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 09:35 cLutZ wrote: Just so long as you understand that that involves people being sent to jail or killed for disagreeing with you. No it doesn't? You can't go to jail in a civil case and not one is going to die because of a civil case. You are just wrong. you can go to jail for willful violation of a civil court order. You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. The whole thing started because this actually happened in a different state than Indiana (not pizza, cake, I think). You are correct and I was wrong about the facts of the case. I still don't feel bad for them, as I have zero tolerance for homophobic people.
I understand the stance you've taken. With this kind of thing, however, you do have to recite a limiting principle. Does a Jewish baker need to make a "Jihad" cake? Democratic sign-maker have to make signs for Republican candidates? Packers fan make a Bears bumper sticker? If you do use the phrase "protected class" in your answer, it should also contain a definition of what a protected class is and why thats a good definition.
|
Here in Germany the 'equal treatment' law only applies if there is no factual or reasonable objection and the discrimination happens repeatedly. So orders which are in itself discriminatory probably fall into the first category.
It's really a common sense thing. If you run a racist club that only allows white people in you're doing something illegal. If a person goes into a bakery and wants a Swastika cake that's not going to hold up in a court.
|
On April 04 2015 11:12 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 10:54 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 09:37 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 09:35 cLutZ wrote: Just so long as you understand that that involves people being sent to jail or killed for disagreeing with you. No it doesn't? You can't go to jail in a civil case and not one is going to die because of a civil case. You are just wrong. you can go to jail for willful violation of a civil court order. You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. they are likely to issue an injunction saying not to discriminate, and if they refuse, then they will likely shut down the business. Edit: All Right, I looked up the case and stand corrected. I was 100% incorrect. I was not aware of the cake case in Colorado. Not really that upset about it either. On April 04 2015 10:50 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 09:37 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 09:35 cLutZ wrote: Just so long as you understand that that involves people being sent to jail or killed for disagreeing with you. No it doesn't? You can't go to jail in a civil case and not one is going to die because of a civil case. You are just wrong. you can go to jail for willful violation of a civil court order. You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. The whole thing started because this actually happened in a different state than Indiana (not pizza, cake, I think). You are correct and I was wrong about the facts of the case. I still don't feel bad for them, as I have zero tolerance for homophobic people. I understand the stance you've taken. With this kind of thing, however, you do have to recite a limiting principle. Does a Jewish baker need to make a "Jihad" cake? Democratic sign-maker have to make signs for Republican candidates? Packers fan make a Bears bumper sticker? If you do use the phrase "protected class" in your answer, it should also contain a definition of what a protected class is and why thats a good definition.
well i think it would be pretty easy to draw a line in regards to terrorists and hate groups. the rest would be fuzzy though. still though there doesn't have to be an objective line it can be handled on a case to case basis
|
|
|
|