US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2233

On August 25 2015 12:49 Painmaker wrote:
Wait, being a racist is an opinion now?

On August 25 2015 12:51 IgnE wrote:
Um, wat? Sorry bro but you are gonna have to do more than link a wikipedia article that supports what I've been saying.

I guess the next thing you are going to tell me is that the city council couldn't deny a permit to a sex store that wanted to open up in the airport.

the government "may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected . . . freedom of speech" even if he has no entitlement to that benefit, Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593, 597 (1972).

On August 25 2015 13:01 Introvert wrote:
This isn't even the 1950s. There aren't that many cities (if any) where a gay couple isn't going to be able to find one cake shop to do their wedding. And even if you do, it's still not like the racist south- these places refuse to cater certain events (like weddings). They don't ask you your orientation before you stroll up to the counter.

And you blame the gay couple for suing a business when they could have just gone elsewhere. But we now have people advocating for jail time, amazing.

On August 25 2015 13:01 Introvert wrote:
This isn't even the 1950s. There aren't that many cities (if any) where a gay couple isn't going to be able to find one cake shop to do their wedding. And even if you do, it's still not like the racist south- these places refuse to cater certain events (like weddings). They don't ask you your orientation before you stroll up to the counter.

And you blame the gay couple for suing a business when they could have just gone elsewhere. But we now have people advocating for jail time, amazing.

On August 25 2015 13:11 Plansix wrote:

You go to jail if you don't comply with the court order to serve the gay couple. It happens if you decide that you want to go to jail for being a bigot. There is plenty of warning it is going to happen.

On August 25 2015 13:15 Painmaker wrote:



Well. I don't know about jail. But I'm totally up for some kind of consequence other than being judged in the "court of public opnion".

On August 25 2015 13:04 Plansix wrote:
That ruling has nothing to do with issuing a license to a business. Literally nothing. Its not even barely on point. The business isn't speaking. It wants to build a building to hold a Chick-Fil-A. The only thing it is going to associate with is the local utilities when it is being built.

On August 25 2015 13:22 Introvert wrote:




Time doesn't have anything to do with it, there isn't even any practical reason to punish people for this when A) public opinion is changing anyway, and quite rapidly, and B) denial of service is no more than a mild inconvenience. The comparison to the racist south is absurd.

I don't really know what to say, this is more scary than anything.

But I'm happy you're all so quick to lock people up or otherwise shut down their business.

Washington (CNN)Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is calling on President Barack Obama to cancel Chinese President Xi Jinping's September visit to Washington -- channeling Donald Trump's attacks on the United States' biggest Asian trading partner.

In 2013, before he entered the Republican presidential race, Walker met with Xi during a visit to Beijing. There, he reportedly told the Chinese president of Wisconsin's plans to set up a trade and cultural promotion center in the country, and praised the relationship between China and U.S. states.

Walker also supported a company based in Beijing and Milwaukee that helped wealthy Chinese immigrants gain U.S. citizenship.

Walker's Wisconsin public-private economic development arm, meanwhile, is planning a trade venture to China in January, and is joining a larger trade venture as part of a regional group in May.

On August 25 2015 13:24 cLutZ wrote:


You are butchering terms. Your argument is that the government has an interest that outweighs the freedom of speech and freedom of association.

Freedom of association is a term popular in libertarian literature. It is used to describe the concept of absolute freedom to live in a community or be part of an organization whose values or culture are closely related to one's preferences; or, on a more basic level, to associate with any individual or group of one's choosing.

The libertarian concept of freedom of association is often criticized from a moral/ethical context. Under laws in such a system, business owners could refuse service to anyone for whatever reason. Opponents argue that such practices are regressive and would lead to greater prejudice within society. Right-libertarians sympathetic to freedom of association, such as Richard Allen Epstein, respond that in a case of refusing service (which thus is a case of the freedom of contract) unjustified discrimination incurs a cost and therefore a competitive disadvantage. Left-libertarians argue that such refusal would place those businesses at an economic disadvantage to those that provide services to all, making them less profitable and eventually leading them to close down.

Libertarians also argue that freedom of association, in a political context, is merely the extension of the right to determine with whom to associate in one's personal life. For example, somebody who valued good manners or etiquette may not relish associating with someone who was not decent or was uncouth. Or, those opposed to homosexuality may not enjoy associating with gay people. In both instances, a person is voluntarily deciding with whom to associate, based on volition. Libertarians believe that freedom of association, in the political sphere, is not such a fanciful or unrealistic notion[citation needed], since individual human beings already choose with whom they would like to associate based on a variety of reasons.