US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7189

On March 24 2017 23:26 LightSpectra wrote:


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?

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.

On March 24 2017 23:28 Mercy13 wrote:


Those aren't protected classes.

On March 24 2017 23:33 KwarK wrote:
And there is no such thing as a business that is entitled only to provide service in line with their religious beliefs. You either provide services to the general public or you do not. And if you do provide them to the general public then your religious beliefs are legally outranked by non discrimination against protected classes. They had to be, religious objections formed the heart of objections to the civil rights movement.

On March 24 2017 23:35 Artisreal wrote:
Point is that it's arbitrary to use "christian belief" as an argument for exclusion. Above all because you should love all people and preach forgiveness, you can even argue that excluding people from services is unchristian in itself on that presumption.

On March 24 2017 23:12 KwarK wrote:

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.

On March 24 2017 23:37 LightSpectra wrote:


Well then we must disagree here. I think only under the most critical of scenarios should one be forced to violate their religious beliefs. I wouldn't draft a Quaker to fight on the front lines, I wouldn't make Hindus have to load their guns by using their teeth to rip ammo cartridges sealed with pork grease.

On March 24 2017 23:39 KwarK wrote:

Who the hell is drafting Christians into the army gay cake baking corps?

What the fuck are you talking about right now?

On March 24 2017 23:31 LightSpectra wrote:


But what KwarK was saying earlier is that your protected class isn't a license to force people to wipe your ass.

Clearly the intent here isn't discriminatory. It's not just a smoke screen, as if it it were "I'd service gay people, but [only under preposterous conditions that would result in me never servicing gay people]".

On March 24 2017 23:42 LightSpectra wrote:


To me it's quite obvious that if a baker were to provide top-notch service to a gay couple but stop short only at making a wedding cake, that the intent is not to discriminate against gay people. I don't think it's at all comparable to forcing white supremacists to stop discriminating against black people. The intent there was to cause as much suffering as possible to black people. Making them betray their "religious beliefs" (if they were truly genuine and not just the best legal argument they could grasp) was for the good of civilization. That is not the case for the baker.

On March 24 2017 23:16 KwarK wrote:

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 23:45 KwarK wrote:

The government is not drafting Christians into gay bakeries. That's not what is happening here. Your comparison with the government drafting Quakers into the military or making Hindus (Hindus? Really?) load pork grease ammo with their teeth makes no sense unless you're trying to compare it with gay bakery conscription. Are you trying to compare it with gay bakery conscription? Is that what you think is happening in America?

Christians are deciding they want to open up bakeries that serve the general public with the deliberate exclusion of gays.

If there were press gangs forcing Christians into gay bakeries then you might have an argument.

On March 24 2017 23:45 Krikkitone wrote:


Except its not "for gay customers".. I imagine there would be no problem if Michelle ordered a custom birthday cake for her legal spouse Jane. Or if Michelle and Jane wanted to order a custom wedding cake for their son Smith marrying the neighbor Tiffany.

The argument the baker is making is that a marriage between a man and a woman is different than a marriage between two men or two women, and they only offer custom cakes for one of those events, because they object to the other one.

for a protected class example (that doesn't even go up against another protected class)
Say an intactivist baker that refused to make a custom cake for celebrating a Bris (even though they made cakes celebrating Barmitzvahs and "It's a boy/girl" cakes celebrating the birth).

Your asking them to custom make something for an event they consider deeply wrong/even barbaric.

On March 24 2017 22:19 mahrgell wrote:
Well... I think this discussion isn't entirely honest by both sides, with very different interpretations of what health care insurance should do.
And I often feel both sides exactly know those differences, but to score political points (or "win" forum discussions) they pretend they would not know about it and interpret everything the other side says in their own interpretation which makes it obviously bullocks.


In the end, insurances are always about risk balancing. In the event of harm, you won't bankrupt over medical bills. But which risks should be balanced?

Interpretation A:
All the risks to society should be rebalanced to everyone. Pretty much what is used in most of Europe. Mens won't get pregnant, still their premium includes the rebalance cost for it. I don't go skiing, but still pay for all those idiots breaking their legs every winter and needing a rescue chopper, then surgery and 4 weeks in hospital etc.
This system also is often combined with a must-have insurance, as with the payment measured by societal averages the correct "play" would often be to only join the insurance when you are in a phase where your personal risks are above those averages. (e.g. before trying to get pregnant or going on a 3 week skiing vacation)
So there will always be participants in the system for which the insurance is, on a personal level, +EV, and some for which it is -EV.
The issue with preexisting conditions only touches changes of plans (which still exist in some, although less impactful forms) but as you are forced into insurance at all times, most minimum needs should generally be covered.

Interpretation B:
Everyones insurance rebalances only his own personal risks. Now you only manage your own risks. This is not to share risks amongst the society but just make sure you don't bankrupt over medical bills and smoothen your health expenses over time. It is up to you if you want to be insured against sport accidents, pregnancy related issues, various forms of cancer etc.
With this model there is absolutely no need to force participation in the model. As the premium is (or should be, if the insurer is doing his job) calculated on your personal risk levels it is up to you what you want to be covered and if you want any insurance at all. In any case, for every participant the insurance always should be +- 0 EV (ignoring the profit margin for the insurer)
Also the issue with preexisting conditions is a much larger one in this model, as you may simply be without any cover at all, if you gambled wrong here.


Now living under A and knowing it's benefit I admittedly prefer A. But I can actually accept that people may consider the goal of health insurance to be different and favor the solution of B.
But what is dishonest is to take someones argument for B, then measure it against the goals of A and then declare victory over this person and its points. Or vice versa.
So before you go at each others throats of whether you consider it fair that this or that should be covered... Maybe you should argue first about the goal of health insurance,and at what level risks should be redistributed. At a societal level or only on a personal one.