|
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 March 24 2017 22:23 LightSpectra wrote:
I've yet to hear any explanation from libertarians/laissez-fairists for how very poor people are supposed to have ANY kind of health care under a free-market system.
Do you really, honestly, truly believe that once all of the taxes and regulations in the health industry are obliterated, that people living under the poverty line will be able to afford insurance and preventative care? Or do you think that private charities will sufficiently be able to pick up the tab? Or will America turn into a magical Randian utopia where poverty no longer exists? Seriously, just let me know. I have nothing to respond to, not even the faintest clue of what you really believe.
Every time I bring this up Danglars throws a fit because I'm allegedly just moralizing about how evil Republicans are. But that's really not the case. I legitimately don't know what Rand Paul and Paul Ryan and Grover Norquist expect to happen if Medicaid/care are totally phased out.
Please, LightSpectra, under the perfection of an absolute free market there would be nobody living under the poverty line unless they chose to do so, so your question is invalid.
|
On March 24 2017 21:59 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2017 06:38 KwarK wrote:On March 23 2017 21:28 LightSpectra wrote: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? Since when were Nazis a protected class? Nobody is advocating that we end all discrimination against the third Reich. If a black person asked for a swastika cake, would the Jewish baker be forced to make it because race is a protected class? I guess your response would be, "No, because being black has nothing to do with the swastika cake." And I would reply, "Sweet Cakes by Melissa did not refuse service to the gay people, they only refused to bake a cake that contradicted their own religious beliefs."
Your confusion seems to be that you think a wedding cake for a gay wedding and a wedding cake for a straight wedding are inherently different products. My understanding of the whole bakery situation was that the gay couple wanted a completely standard wedding cake, a cake that the bakery would have happily sold them if they were straight, so they can't claim the product was against their religious beliefs.
|
On March 24 2017 22:43 ThaddeusK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2017 21:59 LightSpectra wrote:On March 24 2017 06:38 KwarK wrote:On March 23 2017 21:28 LightSpectra wrote: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? Since when were Nazis a protected class? Nobody is advocating that we end all discrimination against the third Reich. If a black person asked for a swastika cake, would the Jewish baker be forced to make it because race is a protected class? I guess your response would be, "No, because being black has nothing to do with the swastika cake." And I would reply, "Sweet Cakes by Melissa did not refuse service to the gay people, they only refused to bake a cake that contradicted their own religious beliefs." Your confusion seems to be that you think a wedding cake for a gay wedding and a wedding cake for a straight wedding are inherently different products. My understanding of the whole bakery situation was that the gay couple wanted a completely standard wedding cake, a cake that the bakery would have happily sold them if they were straight, so they can't claim the product was against their religious beliefs.
You're mistaken. The bakers in question (Sweet Cakes by Melissa) had lots of pre-made wedding cakes. They knew the gay couple, they had sold them baked goods before. What they refused was to custom-make a cake that was specifically celebratory of gay marriage.
Let's be clear here, I would not defend a merchant that said "I'm not serving LGBT people at all, period, end of story." What I'm defending is the notion that one should have the right of their religious liberty to not have to custom-make something that offends their beliefs. Suppose there was a Muslim catering service; if you were of some protected class, do you think it'd be right to force them to serve you pork and cocktails?
|
On March 24 2017 22:46 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2017 22:43 ThaddeusK wrote:On March 24 2017 21:59 LightSpectra wrote:On March 24 2017 06:38 KwarK wrote:On March 23 2017 21:28 LightSpectra wrote: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? Since when were Nazis a protected class? Nobody is advocating that we end all discrimination against the third Reich. If a black person asked for a swastika cake, would the Jewish baker be forced to make it because race is a protected class? I guess your response would be, "No, because being black has nothing to do with the swastika cake." And I would reply, "Sweet Cakes by Melissa did not refuse service to the gay people, they only refused to bake a cake that contradicted their own religious beliefs." Your confusion seems to be that you think a wedding cake for a gay wedding and a wedding cake for a straight wedding are inherently different products. My understanding of the whole bakery situation was that the gay couple wanted a completely standard wedding cake, a cake that the bakery would have happily sold them if they were straight, so they can't claim the product was against their religious beliefs. You're mistaken. The bakers in question (Sweet Cakes by Melissa) had lots of pre-made wedding cakes. They knew the gay couple, they had sold them baked goods before. What they refused was to custom-make a cake that was specifically celebratory of gay marriage.
Tbh I've never seen a detailed description of the cake that was declined, was there something about the physical object that celebrated gay marriage or was it just the intended use of the cake that celebrated gay marriage?
|
I believe it was the use of two plastic grooms on the top of the cake that SCbM found objectionable, but I may be confusing that with the other bakers (Masterpiece Cakeshop).
|
On March 24 2017 22:46 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2017 22:43 ThaddeusK wrote:On March 24 2017 21:59 LightSpectra wrote:On March 24 2017 06:38 KwarK wrote:On March 23 2017 21:28 LightSpectra wrote: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? Since when were Nazis a protected class? Nobody is advocating that we end all discrimination against the third Reich. If a black person asked for a swastika cake, would the Jewish baker be forced to make it because race is a protected class? I guess your response would be, "No, because being black has nothing to do with the swastika cake." And I would reply, "Sweet Cakes by Melissa did not refuse service to the gay people, they only refused to bake a cake that contradicted their own religious beliefs." Your confusion seems to be that you think a wedding cake for a gay wedding and a wedding cake for a straight wedding are inherently different products. My understanding of the whole bakery situation was that the gay couple wanted a completely standard wedding cake, a cake that the bakery would have happily sold them if they were straight, so they can't claim the product was against their religious beliefs. You're mistaken. The bakers in question (Sweet Cakes by Melissa) had lots of pre-made wedding cakes. They knew the gay couple, they had sold them baked goods before. What they refused was to custom-make a cake that was specifically celebratory of gay marriage. Let's be clear here, I would not defend a merchant that said "I'm not serving LGBT people at all, period, end of story." What I'm defending is the notion that one should have the right of their religious liberty to not have to custom-make something that offends their beliefs. Suppose there was a Muslim catering service; if you were of some protected class, do you think it'd be right to force them to serve you pork and cocktails?
If it's on the menu, dah?
|
So long as "celebratory of gay marriage" is understood as what it truly was, namely the cake was to have "Rachel and Laurel" on the top of the cake. Yeah, way to shove it in the baker's face!
This can be found at page 5 of the final order of the Oregon Bureau of Labor here.
Edit: Actually, it appears they didn't even get to cake design before service was denied.
|
On March 24 2017 22:56 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2017 22:46 LightSpectra wrote:On March 24 2017 22:43 ThaddeusK wrote:On March 24 2017 21:59 LightSpectra wrote:On March 24 2017 06:38 KwarK wrote:On March 23 2017 21:28 LightSpectra wrote: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? Since when were Nazis a protected class? Nobody is advocating that we end all discrimination against the third Reich. If a black person asked for a swastika cake, would the Jewish baker be forced to make it because race is a protected class? I guess your response would be, "No, because being black has nothing to do with the swastika cake." And I would reply, "Sweet Cakes by Melissa did not refuse service to the gay people, they only refused to bake a cake that contradicted their own religious beliefs." Your confusion seems to be that you think a wedding cake for a gay wedding and a wedding cake for a straight wedding are inherently different products. My understanding of the whole bakery situation was that the gay couple wanted a completely standard wedding cake, a cake that the bakery would have happily sold them if they were straight, so they can't claim the product was against their religious beliefs. You're mistaken. The bakers in question (Sweet Cakes by Melissa) had lots of pre-made wedding cakes. They knew the gay couple, they had sold them baked goods before. What they refused was to custom-make a cake that was specifically celebratory of gay marriage. Let's be clear here, I would not defend a merchant that said "I'm not serving LGBT people at all, period, end of story." What I'm defending is the notion that one should have the right of their religious liberty to not have to custom-make something that offends their beliefs. Suppose there was a Muslim catering service; if you were of some protected class, do you think it'd be right to force them to serve you pork and cocktails? If it's on the menu, dah?
Presumably a Muslim catering service would not have pork and cocktails on their menu, just as "gay wedding cake" was not on the menu at Melissa's.
On March 24 2017 22:57 farvacola wrote:So long as "celebratory of gay marriage" is understood as what it truly was, namely the cake was to have "Rachel and Laurel" on the top of the cake. Yeah, way to shove it in the bakers face! This can be found at page 5 of the final order of the Oregon Bureau of Labor here.
Considering the defendant was well aware that the cake was intended to be for a wedding, I don't see what's unclear about this.
|
On March 24 2017 21:00 Acrofales wrote:
What the hell? Why cut maternity care? Isn't the GOP the pro-life party?
We won't fund your abortions! But if you get pregnant, we won't cover any essential care you need either.
Not to mention cutting mammograms is herpaderp stupid. Regular preventive mammograms SAVE money (and of course, a lot of misery).
E: If I were slightly more callous, I would wish for this to pass and the GOP to implode over the angry people who suddenly lost their oh-so-hated Obamacare coverage.
"Why should I have to pay for it if it doesn't benefit me?" and "It won't affect me because my lot and I have money."
|
On March 24 2017 22:53 LightSpectra wrote:
I believe it was the use of two plastic grooms on the top of the cake that SCbM found objectionable, but I may be confusing that with the other bakers (Masterpiece Cakeshop).
Do you have a source for this? I did some googling, and it looks like the Masterpiece Cakeshop and SCbM cases both involved a complete denial of service, not a refusal to decorate cakes in a specific way.
My understanding is that courts can't force people to make statements, so it would be unconstitutional for a law to require someone to put a swastika on a cake. Or for that matter, to force someone to write "hurray for gay marriage!" on a cake.
The cases I am aware of where unlawful discrimination was found all involve a refusal to serve based upon a membership in a protected class, not refusal to decorate a cake in a certain way.
|
So when will they vote on the bill?
|
On March 24 2017 23:05 Mohdoo wrote:
So when will they vote on the bill?
I saw that they want to do it in the afternoon. Like 4 or 5 eastern.
|
On March 24 2017 23:03 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2017 22:53 LightSpectra wrote:
I believe it was the use of two plastic grooms on the top of the cake that SCbM found objectionable, but I may be confusing that with the other bakers (Masterpiece Cakeshop). Do you have a source for this? I did some googling, and it looks like the Masterpiece Cakeshop and SCbM cases both involved a complete denial of service, not a refusal to decorate cakes in a specific way. My understanding is that courts can't force people to make statements, so it would be unconstitutional for a law to require someone to put a swastika on a cake. Or for that matter, to force someone to write "hurray for gay marriage!" on a cake. The cases I am aware of where unlawful discrimination was found all involve a refusal to serve based upon a membership in a protected class, not refusal to decorate a cake in a certain way.
If that's the case, then I agree with the court. Maybe I just misremembered how the case went down.
As I said before, I would not defend a complete refusal to service LGBT people. But I think that's substantially different from a cake with a "hurray for gay marriage!" decoration.
|
United States43545 Posts
On March 24 2017 21:59 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2017 06:38 KwarK wrote:On March 23 2017 21:28 LightSpectra wrote: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? Since when were Nazis a protected class? Nobody is advocating that we end all discrimination against the third Reich. If a black person asked for a swastika cake, would the Jewish baker be forced to make it because race is a protected class? I guess your response would be, "No, because being black has nothing to do with the swastika cake." And I would reply, "Sweet Cakes by Melissa did not refuse service to the gay people, they only refused to bake a cake that contradicted their own religious beliefs."
And somewhere in there there is a line where objection to the service is just a smokescreen for objection to the protected class. If you were to argue that it's not discrimination against gay people to refuse to host same sex weddings because you'll happily a heterosexual wedding between two gay people, as long as it's a gay man and a lesbian woman getting married, you'd probably lose.
I don't know why you're not getting this. If you object to the content, fine. If you object to the protected class status of the customer, not fine. If your objection to the content is purely a smokescreen for an objection to the protected class status, probably not fine, let the lawyers argue it.
If a black person asks a Jewish baker for a swastika cake and the Jewish baker says "fuck off nigger, we don't want your kind here", probably about the race of the customer. If he says "that's really tasteless, I'm not baking that", probably not about the race of the customer. If he bakes swastika cakes for white guys all the time and refuses to bake regular cakes for black guys all the time then it was probably about the race of the customer, no matter why he refuses.
|
On March 24 2017 23:03 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2017 22:53 LightSpectra wrote:
I believe it was the use of two plastic grooms on the top of the cake that SCbM found objectionable, but I may be confusing that with the other bakers (Masterpiece Cakeshop). Do you have a source for this? I did some googling, and it looks like the Masterpiece Cakeshop and SCbM cases both involved a complete denial of service, not a refusal to decorate cakes in a specific way. My understanding is that courts can't force people to make statements, so it would be unconstitutional for a law to require someone to put a swastika on a cake. Or for that matter, to force someone to write "hurray for gay marriage!" on a cake. The cases I am aware of where unlawful discrimination was found all involve a refusal to serve based upon a membership in a protected class, not refusal to decorate a cake in a certain way. Yes, all of the cases at issue regard flat denials of service, though the protected class status of homosexuals is an unsettled legal matter and will likely continue to be legally unclear given the remand of the Gavin Grimm Transgender bathroom case. If same sex orientation were afforded suspect classification status, these lawsuits would resolve fairly quickly as religious objections do not override the protections of the 14th Amendment.
|
Kwark, it doesn't sound like we really disagree on anything, except whether it's a smokescreen in order to discriminate against a protected class. I didn't think it was since SCbM (to my recollection at least, but perhaps I'm wrong) did not refuse to service their gay customers, only to custom-make them a cake with objectionable content.
|
United States43545 Posts
On March 24 2017 22:46 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2017 22:43 ThaddeusK wrote:On March 24 2017 21:59 LightSpectra wrote:On March 24 2017 06:38 KwarK wrote:On March 23 2017 21:28 LightSpectra wrote: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? Since when were Nazis a protected class? Nobody is advocating that we end all discrimination against the third Reich. If a black person asked for a swastika cake, would the Jewish baker be forced to make it because race is a protected class? I guess your response would be, "No, because being black has nothing to do with the swastika cake." And I would reply, "Sweet Cakes by Melissa did not refuse service to the gay people, they only refused to bake a cake that contradicted their own religious beliefs." Your confusion seems to be that you think a wedding cake for a gay wedding and a wedding cake for a straight wedding are inherently different products. My understanding of the whole bakery situation was that the gay couple wanted a completely standard wedding cake, a cake that the bakery would have happily sold them if they were straight, so they can't claim the product was against their religious beliefs. You're mistaken. The bakers in question (Sweet Cakes by Melissa) had lots of pre-made wedding cakes. They knew the gay couple, they had sold them baked goods before. What they refused was to custom-make a cake that was specifically celebratory of gay marriage. Let's be clear here, I would not defend a merchant that said "I'm not serving LGBT people at all, period, end of story." What I'm defending is the notion that one should have the right of their religious liberty to not have to custom-make something that offends their beliefs. Suppose there was a Muslim catering service; if you were of some protected class, do you think it'd be right to force them to serve you pork and cocktails?
You're not getting this.
People in protected classes can't demand that everyone else wipe their asses for them. They can only demand that they not be discriminated against ON THE BASIS OF THEIR CLASS. If a Muslim wouldn't get pork for anyone then they don't have to get it for anyone. If a Muslim gets pork only for able bodied people then they have to start getting pork for disabled people too. That's all.
Nobody is saying that protected class membership is a superpower that compels obedience from businesses. You're a member of several protected classes, as is everyone else. No matter what your race, religion, gender, sexual preference, age, disability status etc you are protected from discrimination on those grounds.
|
United States43545 Posts
On March 24 2017 23:09 LightSpectra wrote:
Kwark, it doesn't sound like we really disagree on anything, except whether it's a smokescreen in order to discriminate against a protected class. I didn't think it was since SCbM (to my recollection at least, but perhaps I'm wrong) did not refuse to service their gay customers, only to custom-make them a cake with objectionable content.
If you'd write Michael and Jane on a cake but not Michelle and Jane on a cake then it's clear that the objection is to the sexual orientation of the customer. You can refuse to customize cakes for everyone but saying "we'll customize cakes for all customers as long as the names are opposite genders" is about as useful as saying "I'll photograph weddings for all customers as long as everyone at the wedding is white". There is no question about what the objection was, they didn't want to make a cake for gay customers. Which is fine, unless you're running a bakery which makes cakes for the general public. If you're running a bakery then you fucking make the cake and you deal with it.
|
On March 24 2017 23:12 KwarK wrote:
If a Muslim wouldn't get pork for anyone then they don't have to get it for anyone. If a Muslim gets pork only for able bodied people then they have to start getting pork for disabled people too. That's all.
And if SCbM only make cakes for weddings that are in line with their Christian beliefs? i.e. they don't just refuse to make weddings for same-sex couples, but also for polygamists, for incestuous couples, for a master and a concubine?
|
At that point, they likely no longer qualify as a place of public accommodation and this controversy would never have arisen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
