|
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 September 08 2017 11:59 Lmui wrote:
Places that want talent (Big tech like Apple, Google etc.) make good use of H1Bs, since the people they hire are in high demand regardless of where in the world they work whereas shit like disney hiring h1Bs to replace IT staff is kinda inexcusable, especially since the staff were training their replacements
I'd argue the other way around, because devs are in high demand outsourcing some of the work is completely excusable, after all the official goal of the visa is supposed to be avoid labour shortages / high labour cost.
If there'd be a horde of impoverished IT personnel lining up for jobs I'd consider it controversial, but I don't think that's the case anyway
|
On September 08 2017 12:24 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 11:59 Danglars wrote:Coming this fall: Can Colorado force Masterpiece Cakeshop to bake that same-sex wedding cake? The Justice Department of the Trump Administration files an amicus curiae in support of the baker today. How surprising. Trump, Sessions and the rest of family dickhead didn't strike me at all as homophobes and discriminating based on sexuality. No really. Totally unexpected. edit: read through the paper, jesus fucking christ are these people retarded. I frequent TL, so i've seen my fair share of mental gymnastics of people trying to win an argument by simply throwing all kinds of stupid shit and hope that something sticks, but that's another pay grade. Trying to paint the baker as some kind of "artist" "who can't be forced to do his work, like a writer can't be forced to write" (note that these things have nothing in common, not to mention that quite a few of that guys cakes look pretty ass), really? It's relatively easy. You got A: freedom to say what you want, and to say nothing if you don't want. You B: are not allowed to deny service based on sexuality, religion and whatnot. There. Solved. Denying service isn't covered by any freedoms. You can complain, if you deny service, you break the law. No, baking a cake is not art (it can be, but not in this case). No, baking a cake isn't "a form of religious expression", especially not if you do it commercially. Also not if you decide to not use alcohol etc in your cake. But hey. I wonder how religious people would react if it went the other way around. Somebody who's muslim, not serving kebop or whatever to someone who wears a cross around their necks. Wouldn't that be a funny shitstorm.
so would you be persuaded if he were a sculptor who did bronzes for married couples?
is it a crime to make a bad cake? like if the cake is noticeably worse than usual?
|
On September 08 2017 12:49 IgnE wrote:
so would you be persuaded if he were a sculptor who did bronzes for married couples?
is it a crime to make a bad cake? like if the cake is noticeably worse than usual?
Nah, it would be petty and laughable, and would obviously come with bad reputation.
Being a sculptor doesn't make a difference at all. To be clear. He's offering a service. He's not allowed to deny said service. He's not creating "art". He might very well feel that he's "expressing himself" through his cakes, nobody gives a shit - he isn't. He makes cake to order.
edit: in regards to the sculptor: still not creating art. Which doesn't matter anyway because "creating art" doesn't top "discrimination" - the only thing that would is somehow being infringed on your right of speech (or lack of). Which isn't the case. You can still have your opinions, nobody gives a shit if you believe in an invisible imaginary friend.
I don't understand why there is a discussion at all.
|
It might be petty, but would his reputation be any worse than it is now? I don't see how it's much worse than refusing service all together. So why don't bigots just make bad cakes?
So a sculptor who offers to do bronzes through a commercial storefront is not doing art? Can anyone be a professional artist?
|
On September 08 2017 12:56 IgnE wrote:
It might be petty, but would his reputation be any worse than it is now? I don't see how it's much worse than refusing service all together. So why don't bigots just make bad cakes?
So a sculptor who offers to do bronzes through a commercial storefront is not doing art? Can anyone be a professional artist?
Is fixing a car art?
Or building a wall?
|
Could be yeah. I wouldn't want someone who hates me fixing my car though.
|
What's the alternative, let him discriminate as he pleases?
edit: btw, point me to an artistic car mechanic please
|
in Germany there's the legal category of "non personal business"(Massengeschäft), if whoever you sell your stuff to doesn't make any difference for your business you've got no ground to discrimnate. So I guess for both cakes and statues it makes no difference who buys them. You get money, they get the product, nothing to discriminate.
A different story would be a loan because you care about the individual you deal with. This seems fairly straight forward I think
|
On September 08 2017 13:05 Nyxisto wrote:
in Germany there's the legal category of "non personal business"(Massengeschäft), if whoever you sell your stuff to doesn't make any difference for your business you've got no ground to discrimnate. So I guess for both cakes and statues it makes no difference who buys them. You get money, they get the product, nothing to discriminate.
A different story would be a loan because you care about the individual you deal with. This seems fairly straight forward I think
I fail to see the difference, honestly. Denying a loan based on sexuality is as illegal there as it is in a non personal business.
Maybe i'm misunderstanding.
edit: the only thing that i could come up with, and even that is borderline, is denying a homosexual to spend blood. And even that is, again, possibly not entirely legal (no idea honestly)
|
On September 08 2017 10:32 Plansix wrote:
On a lighter note. Wikileaks has always been trash, but this is a whole new level of stupid.
So apparently back when my company was first starting out, Sony was a partner. Because of that some of our very first pitch decks and business strategy documents can be found on Wikileaks because of the hack. 
|
On September 08 2017 13:04 m4ini wrote:
What's the alternative, let him discriminate as he pleases?
edit: btw, point me to an artistic car mechanic please
I was just asking if 1) you think there are professional artists who do art as a commercial venture like sculpting, for example, and 2) if you would be persuaded by the brief's argument in the case of an artist. You are making a weird argument about whether cake making is art if you don't even think that there at least are some artists somewhere who could discriminate based on the fact that they do art. Otherwise why even talk about whether it is art at all? But you are like a bulldog on this "what is and isn't art?" question.
I think the more interesting question here is what exactly does the baker have to do to make good on his service requirement. Is there a quality check?
|
On September 08 2017 13:07 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 13:05 Nyxisto wrote:
in Germany there's the legal category of "non personal business"(Massengeschäft), if whoever you sell your stuff to doesn't make any difference for your business you've got no ground to discrimnate. So I guess for both cakes and statues it makes no difference who buys them. You get money, they get the product, nothing to discriminate.
A different story would be a loan because you care about the individual you deal with. This seems fairly straight forward I think I fail to see the difference, honestly. Denying a loan based on sexuality is as illegal there as it is in a non personal business. Maybe i'm misunderstanding.
Sure, but denying you a loan based on your personal income or behaviour isn't, and if everybody had legal recourse they'd sue the shit out of everybody because they didn't get a loan. That would be impractical
It's not about people who don't get loans because of sexual discrimination, which is really bad, it's just that discrimination might happen for very valid reasons frequently, making the law bad
|
edit: oops, misclicked, was supposed to be an edit
|
On September 08 2017 13:09 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 13:04 m4ini wrote:
What's the alternative, let him discriminate as he pleases?
edit: btw, point me to an artistic car mechanic please I was just asking if 1) you think there are professional artists who do art as a commercial venture like sculpting, for example, and 2) if you would be persuaded by the brief's argument in the case of an artist. You make a weird argument about whether cake making is art if you don't think that there at least exist some artists somewhere who could discriminate based on the fact that they do art. Otherwise why even talk about whether it is art at all? But you are like a bulldog on this "what is and isn't art?" question. I think the more interesting question here is what exactly does the baker have to do to make good on his service requirement. Is there a quality check?
You're asking a dumb question, is what you do. Yes, there is a quality check. If people get food poisoning, or get a whiff that something is off and have the cake tested for substances that shouldn't be in there, you get in trouble.
Just tasting "off"? Again. Makes you petty and laughable, and really no difference to what's happening the other way around, but not illegal.
There are professional artists, of course. No, you're not "artistic" if you do something to order. In regards to your sculptor: if i go to one, ask him to come up with something to make my doorway more impressive, and he does: that's artistic.
If i tell him what to do, and he's doing it to my specifications because i'm too dumb to do it - who is the artist?
And i'm not making the argument that cake is art. Did you read the paper?
Sure, but denying you a loan based on your personal income or behaviour isn't, and if everybody had legal recourse they'd sue the shit out of everybody because they didn't get a loan. That would be impractical
.. i'm still failing to see the connection you're trying to make. Denying a loan has a base in reality. If you're poor as fuck, i won't give you money. That's not discriminating, that's me actively not losing money. Denying service because an invisible imagination allegedly said something 2000 years ago is a tiny bit different.
|
On September 08 2017 13:14 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 13:09 IgnE wrote:On September 08 2017 13:04 m4ini wrote:
What's the alternative, let him discriminate as he pleases?
edit: btw, point me to an artistic car mechanic please I was just asking if 1) you think there are professional artists who do art as a commercial venture like sculpting, for example, and 2) if you would be persuaded by the brief's argument in the case of an artist. You make a weird argument about whether cake making is art if you don't think that there at least exist some artists somewhere who could discriminate based on the fact that they do art. Otherwise why even talk about whether it is art at all? But you are like a bulldog on this "what is and isn't art?" question. I think the more interesting question here is what exactly does the baker have to do to make good on his service requirement. Is there a quality check? You're asking a dumb question, is what you do. Yes, there is a quality check. If people get food poisoning, or get a whiff that something is off and have the cake tested for substances that shouldn't be in there, you get in trouble. Just tasting "off"? Again. Makes you petty and laughable, and really no difference to what's happening the other way around, but not illegal. There are professional artists, of course. No, you're not "artistic" if you do something to order. In regards to your sculptor: if i go to one, ask him to come up with something to make my doorway more impressive, and he does: that's artistic. If i tell him what to do, and he's doing it to my specifications because i'm too dumb to do it - who is the artist? And i'm not making the argument that cake is art. Did you read the paper?
You are making the argument that cake isn't art, rather than that whether it is or is not art, the baker cannot discriminate. I find that curious.
I don't think it's a dumb question. I'm concretizing the problem. All this abstract discrimination talk doesn't seem to answer the question of whether you would want a made-to-order cake from someone who hates you and what such a person might do to spite you.
|
On September 08 2017 13:20 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 13:14 m4ini wrote:On September 08 2017 13:09 IgnE wrote:On September 08 2017 13:04 m4ini wrote:
What's the alternative, let him discriminate as he pleases?
edit: btw, point me to an artistic car mechanic please I was just asking if 1) you think there are professional artists who do art as a commercial venture like sculpting, for example, and 2) if you would be persuaded by the brief's argument in the case of an artist. You make a weird argument about whether cake making is art if you don't think that there at least exist some artists somewhere who could discriminate based on the fact that they do art. Otherwise why even talk about whether it is art at all? But you are like a bulldog on this "what is and isn't art?" question. I think the more interesting question here is what exactly does the baker have to do to make good on his service requirement. Is there a quality check? You're asking a dumb question, is what you do. Yes, there is a quality check. If people get food poisoning, or get a whiff that something is off and have the cake tested for substances that shouldn't be in there, you get in trouble. Just tasting "off"? Again. Makes you petty and laughable, and really no difference to what's happening the other way around, but not illegal. There are professional artists, of course. No, you're not "artistic" if you do something to order. In regards to your sculptor: if i go to one, ask him to come up with something to make my doorway more impressive, and he does: that's artistic. If i tell him what to do, and he's doing it to my specifications because i'm too dumb to do it - who is the artist? And i'm not making the argument that cake is art. Did you read the paper? You are making the argument that cake isn't art, rather than that whether it is or is not art, the baker cannot discriminate. I find that curious. I don't think it's a dumb question. I'm concretizing the problem. All this abstract discrimination talk doesn't seem to answer the question of whether you would want a made-to-order cake from someone who hates you and what such a person might do to spite you.
Who gives a shit? Even if they decided just to actively fuck with him because they knew he'd deny it, that doesn't change a thing. I'm pretty sure that they don't actually want a cake anymore. They want black on white that he's not allowed to discriminate.
Again, you conveniently skipped that question: all your weird deflection to "purposely making a shitty cake" doesn't really answer the question as to what they're supposed to do. Just be okay with that guy?
|
On September 08 2017 13:17 m4ini wrote:
.. i'm still failing to see the connection you're trying to make. Denying a loan has a base in reality. If you're poor as fuck, i won't give you money. That's not discriminating, that's me actively not losing money. Denying service because an invisible imagination allegedly said something 2000 years ago is a tiny bit different.
yes, exactly. That's why I brought up the distinction. When you hand out a loan anti-discrimination law does not apply because it conceivable matters who you are as a person. No such information is required when somebody buys a cake. That's when anti-discrimination law ought to apply.
|
I skipped what question now?
|
On September 08 2017 13:26 IgnE wrote:
I skipped what question now?
What's the alternative, let him discriminate as he pleases?
edit: btw, point me to an artistic car mechanic please
all your weird deflection to "purposely making a shitty cake" doesn't really answer the question as to what they're supposed to do. Just be okay with that guy?
yes, exactly. That's why I brought up the distinction. When you hand out a loan anti-discrimination law does not apply because it conceivable matters who you are as a person. No such information is required when somebody buys a cake. That's when anti-discrimination law ought to apply.
Sigh. 5:30am, i'm not entirely there by the looks. Yeah, i'm with you now.
|
On September 08 2017 13:26 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 13:17 m4ini wrote:
.. i'm still failing to see the connection you're trying to make. Denying a loan has a base in reality. If you're poor as fuck, i won't give you money. That's not discriminating, that's me actively not losing money. Denying service because an invisible imagination allegedly said something 2000 years ago is a tiny bit different. yes, exactly. That's why I brought up the distinction. When you hand out a loan anti-discrimination law does not apply because it conceivable matters who you are as a person. No such information is required when somebody buys a cake. That's when anti-discrimination law ought to apply.
The idea is that for non-personal business, you are not allowed to not serve anyone, for any reason. If you sell stuff to the public, no matter who wants to buy it, is allowed to buy it. (This does not mean that you have to serve a drunk guy who is insulting everyone at your restaurant.) If you sell pink designer bottles, and i come to your store with enough money to buy them, you are not allowed to tell me "No, i don't like your face, no bottles for you"
If you do stuff where the person who gets it actually matters, you are allowed to discriminate for some reasons, but not for other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
