EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 7183
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
But if it does pass gl with the senate, then back to the house after amendments. Mccain basically said he's a no without major changes. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On March 23 2017 15:25 plasmidghost wrote: I'm betting that the health care bill fails by a mild margin, unless they delay the vote or get some significant changes, which most likely isn't going to happen This round is seriously over. Next round they must rethink what conservatives can stomach, what Trump will agree to support, and available compromises on one side or another. It fails the house or fails reconciliation. | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On March 23 2017 16:38 plasmidghost wrote: And this is going to tank Trump hard if it fails or passes in its current form, maybe he'll even drop below 30% approval rating, and if the FBI does have proof of collusion, it might get even lower than Nixon's all-time low of 22% I don't know about approval rating. Each week brings some new news story or controversy which affects polls separately from past weeks. And Democrats with their media allies seem absolutely committed to beating him to the bottom at every turn. But he will suffer for ever having gotten behind this, pass or fail. If not polling, at least his pull with the legislature and connection to his voting base. Hell, this election has brought to the fore intangibles that aren't precisely polled nor fully comprehended with pundits. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18489 Posts
On March 23 2017 11:23 KwarK wrote: No? She offers a service to members of the public and as such must not discriminate against members of the public on the grounds of those. If she didn't want to offer the service then she shouldn't have offered it. Nobody anywhere is forcing me to hold a gay wedding because I'm not in the wedding business. If you have a strongly held belief that interferes with your ability to treat other humans with basic respect and decency then customer service probably isn't the job for you. Discrimination would be saying "you have to bake a cake for gays because you're a Christian, bwaahahahahahaaa!!!". What happened here is saying "you have to bake a cake for gays because you're a baker who makes cakes". The religion of the person offering the service doesn't come into it. Honestly, I think a better example would be a Satanist wanting to buy liturgical art. Is a Catholic shop owner allowed to not sell Jesus statues for Satanic rituals, on the grounds that their art is specifically meant for Christian rituals? In other words, is the intended purpose of the object at all relevant? What if I claim I will burn the artist's work in a religious offering. Is he allowed to object because he doesn't want his art to be destroyed? If you look at the borders there are always grey areas. And imho, cakes and flowers for gay weddings are in that grey area. My personal opinion is that you should just not be a dumbass, and that by everybody involved using some common sense and common decency this can all be resolved. But inevitably some of these cases will go before court. And that's what happened. My personal opinion is that wedding cakes should be baked for gay couples, and satanists should get their Jesus statues on Amazon. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18489 Posts
Could it be because the Wisconsin shooter isn't brown? | ||
|
LemOn
United Kingdom8629 Posts
Trump is so transparent I'm surprised people keep pretending to be surprised , his Twitter strategy is known for years. Also how do approval ratings matter? It's pretty much irrelevant until mid terms no? And you never know what will happen in 4 years , DNC are so retarded they might hand it to him again on a silver platter even if he will have low approval ratings | ||
|
farvacola
United States18876 Posts
On March 23 2017 11:17 KwarK wrote: Would have to leave it to the lawyers to answer the specifics but my understanding is that whatever reason you give is pretty much taken at face value unless there is evidence otherwise. But employment demographics etc are reported to the gov for that reason. While they can't prove that the reason given in a specific case isn't valid unless you were stupid enough to write in an email that you don't hire blacks or whatever what they can do is demonstrate a bias through statistics. Typically, workplace discrimination cases follow a formula; plaintiff makes an allegation of discrimination, likely through Title VII or its state law equivalent. This allegation needs to be supported by some kind of factual basis, and normally, this is where most Title VII claims die, particularly since pleading standards (i.e. what your complaint needs to say in order for you get into federal court at all) have become more strict since two famous SC cases were decided back around '08-'09, Twombly and Iqbal. Should a plaintiff's complaint pass pleading muster and allege a claim accompanied by sufficient facts, the defendant than has the burden as to producing evidence that defendant didn't discriminate. Given that these cases usually deal in unlawful terminations, defendant basically needs to provide good evidence indicating that it had a sufficient, nondiscriminatory reason for discharge. A proper showing here shifts the burden back to the plaintiff, who then must show that the defendant's proffered reason for discharge is merely a pretext intended to hide discrimination. Suing under Title II, however, is another story, mostly because discrimination in the context of consumer transactions is significantly less likely to be documented than discrimination in employment. Title II of the CRA pertains to places of public accommodation, and though it does expressly prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion, getting a religious discrimination claim through is going to be tough given all of the evidentiary issues previously described. Furthermore, it's not entirely clear how federal law regards the question as to whether a religious cake baker ought be forced to bake cakes allegedly contrary to his religion. In fact, the Supreme Court is still mulling over the cert petition in the Colorado cakeshop case, which would be the first to place the issue squarely before the court. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18876 Posts
| ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
LightSpectra
United States3533 Posts
On March 23 2017 13:39 OuchyDathurts wrote: Christians aren't refusing to make homosexual couples cakes because of the content of the cakes. They're just cakes, they presumably aren't cakes of dicks and depictions of gay sex, they're just plain boring wedding cakes. They're refusing to make cakes because of their dislike of the person ordering it. You're demonstrably false because the baker that's been in the news knew the homosexual couple and made them cakes before. Where the line was drawn was a cake that celebrated gay marriage, since that was against their religious beliefs. Or would you force a Jewish baker to make a swastika cake too? | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
| ||
|
Trainrunnef
United States601 Posts
On March 23 2017 21:36 Artisreal wrote: very fitting comparison of a hate laden ideology versus equal right for every loving couple Even then its an inaccurate comparison. They just wanted a wedding cake. so it would be the equivalent of a Jewish person making a cake for a neo-nazi, which as someone previously pointed out is not a protected class. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35174 Posts
| ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
As for Trump's tweet about UK... shockingly measured, though I'd bet my car he was 'counseled' not to tweet nonsense. The brimstone will still come; it will just wait until his next safe space rally. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States3533 Posts
On March 23 2017 21:36 Artisreal wrote: very fitting comparison of a hate laden ideology versus equal right for every loving couple Sorry, who here is arguing against "equal right for every loving couple"? I love my wife, does that give me special rights to force others to betray their religious beliefs too? I really, really, really love my wife -- do I get to force Muslims to serve us a cocktail in honor of our marriage? | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On March 23 2017 22:16 On_Slaught wrote: Got my popcorn ready for the drama today. I can't help but laugh at the administrations attempts to appeal to the Freedom Caucus; every single admission and change for them makes the bill cover less people faster and will raise premiums for many even higher. The end result will be that either they lose the moderate voters and the bill fails anyways in a historic repudiation of a parties own president and speaker or the bill is more damaging when its passed. Is there any way Ryan and Trump come out of this without shit on their face? As for Trump's tweet about UK... shockingly measured, though I'd bet my car he was 'counseled' not to tweet nonsense. The brimstone will still come; it will just wait until his next safe space rally. He sure had brimstone for Colin Kaepernick at his last rally. He threatened to tweet at any NFL owner who takes him. But maybe Trump's priorities have shifted since then. | ||
| ||
