| 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. | ||
|
brian
United States9636 Posts
On December 05 2017 03:09 Danglars wrote: Oral arguments on Masterpiece Cakeshop begin tomorrow. false equivalence a+. though i can’t see the progressive win here, sexual preference isn’t a protected class yet is it? but i guess while government has run amok with foregoing all checks and balances there’s no reason the courts can’t make it so. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On December 05 2017 03:33 brian wrote: false equivalence a+. though i can’t see the progressive win here, sexual preference isn’t a protected class yet is it? but i guess while government has run amok with foregoing all checks and balances there’s no reason the courts can’t make it so. sexual preference is not a protected class federally iirc. on a state basis, it varies, some protect it, many do not. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On December 05 2017 03:33 brian wrote: false equivalence a+. though i can’t see the progressive win here, sexual preference isn’t a protected class yet is it? but i guess while government has run amok with foregoing all checks and balances there’s no reason the courts can’t make it so. If the court rules in the cake shops favor, we will see new "religious freedom" laws and arguments pop up nation wide. It will be a new tool to discriminate against gay couples. Just like when the voter's rights act was undone. It will be a state law free for all, driving gay couples to move to blue states. | ||
KwarK
United States43543 Posts
What's next? Making it legal to racially discriminate in employment because it's legal to discriminate against racists? How are these people going through life completely unaware that they're all total fucking idiots? Did nobody tell them? | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
The GOP had originally intended to abolish the AMT. But on Friday, with the clock running out — and money running short — Senate Republicans put the AMT back into their bill. Unfortunately for McConnell, they forgot to lower AMT after doing so. This is a big problem. The Senate bill brings the normal corporate rate down to 20 percent — while leaving the alternative minimum rate at … 20 percent. The legislation would still allow corporations to claim a wide variety of tax credits and deductions — it just renders all them completely worthless. Companies can either take no deductions, and pay a 20 percent rate — or take lots of deductions … and pay a 20 percent rate. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 05 2017 03:33 brian wrote: false equivalence a+. though i can’t see the progressive win here, sexual preference isn’t a protected class yet is it? but i guess while government has run amok with foregoing all checks and balances there’s no reason the courts can’t make it so. Which discrimination do you find legal? When the bakeries don’t like the message (celebratory or antagonistic to gay marriage) or the government commission doesn’t like the message? It really just sounds like you like one flavor of discrimination, in this case shared by people in power against the powerless. Very progressive, I might add. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On December 05 2017 03:47 Danglars wrote: Which discrimination do you find legal? When the bakeries don’t like the message (celebratory or antagonistic to gay marriage) or the government commission doesn’t like the message? It really just sounds like you like one flavor of discrimination, in this case shared by people in power against the powerless. Very progressive, I might add. Do you dislike the protected classes that the US currently has? Basically all these bakery talks are is people saying, in a roundabout way, that sexual orientation and gender identity should be protected classes. It's not that hard and it's not some weird moral quandary. On December 05 2017 03:49 Plansix wrote: That error will be ironed out in the long run and in no way will make it to the final bill. Zero chance. Won't ever happen. But then that means the house cannot pass the Senate's bill version as-is anymore if the reconciliation of the two versions falls apart. | ||
|
IyMoon
United States1249 Posts
On December 05 2017 03:47 Logo wrote: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/senate-gop-accidentally-killed-all-corporate-tax-deductions.html I will die a happy man if they fuck up so hard this is left in | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 05 2017 03:47 Logo wrote: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/senate-gop-accidentally-killed-all-corporate-tax-deductions.html It’s going to conference committee to reconcile it with the House bill that just got rid of the AMT entirely. It’s going back in unchanged. | ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On December 05 2017 03:47 Logo wrote: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/senate-gop-accidentally-killed-all-corporate-tax-deductions.html This is hilarious. Presumably they can still change this when they merge the House and Senate versions though right? But yeah, good example of how the the Filibuster (the intent behind which is really good) has morphed into a rule that says that you need 60 votes to pass well written legislation, but if you are prepared to write extremely shitty law with lots of unintended consequences you only need 51 votes. | ||
|
brian
United States9636 Posts
On December 05 2017 03:47 Danglars wrote: Which discrimination do you find legal? When the bakeries don’t like the message (celebratory or antagonistic to gay marriage) or the government commission doesn’t like the message? It really just sounds like you like one flavor of discrimination, in this case shared by people in power against the powerless. Very progressive, I might add. i find ‘discrimination’ legal when it’s done on any basis not regarding protected classes. i don’t differ from the legal definitions here. if sexual preference were protected, only one of those examples is discrimination. again, i’m pretty sure it’s not, and so neither are. try taking off your partisan blinders. this has nothing at all to do with my own ideals. if it were up to me, yes, sexual orientation would be a protected class in which case only one of these examples is discrimination. people that hate gay marriage are not a protected class. and shouldn’t be. that’s woefully stupid. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On December 05 2017 03:54 KlaCkoN wrote: This is hilarious. Presumably they can still change this when they merge the House and Senate versions though right? But yeah, good example of how the the Filibuster (the intent behind which is really good) has morphed into a rule that says that you need 60 votes to pass well written legislation, but if you are prepared to write extremely shitty law with lots of unintended consequences you only need 51 votes. Yeah they can, but as I said to Plansix it means you can't have a fallback of approving the Senate version. On top of that the AMT was put back in to meet the budget restrictions, if you just drop it then the Senate's version will be over budget. So they now need to find a way to drop the AMT *AND* pay for it. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23619 Posts
On December 05 2017 03:43 KwarK wrote: Wow! They're going with "how can it be wrong to refuse service to homosexuals if it's not wrong to refuse service to homophobes?!" What's next? Making it legal to racially discriminate in employment because it's legal to discriminate against racists? How are these people going through life completely unaware that they're all total fucking idiots? Did nobody tell them? At least once a day, that's why the word "idiot" has no meaning and should just stop being used. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43543 Posts
On December 05 2017 03:47 Danglars wrote: Which discrimination do you find legal? When the bakeries don’t like the message (celebratory or antagonistic to gay marriage) or the government commission doesn’t like the message? It really just sounds like you like one flavor of discrimination, in this case shared by people in power against the powerless. Very progressive, I might add. You're acting as though you just learned about the paradox of tolerance and think it's this new thing nobody has ever heard of before. We're all aware that intolerance towards intolerance is itself intolerant. We're all aware that by forcing people not to discriminate we are in effect discriminating against those that would wish to. Either commit to this shit and come out against protected classes and the civil rights act or shut up. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 05 2017 03:49 Logo wrote: Do you dislike the protected classes that the US currently has? Basically all these bakery talks are is people saying, in a roundabout way, that sexual orientation and gender identity should be protected classes. It's not that hard and it's not some weird moral quandary. No, not really. At issue is custom designs, because it’s uncontested that the cake shop has long served gay and lesbian customers their baked goods. Maybe your “no moral quandary” wants to give your easy moral analysis at the other bakeries allowed to discriminate against religious customers? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On December 05 2017 04:00 Danglars wrote: No, not really. At issue is custom designs, because it’s uncontested that the cake shop has long served gay and lesbian customers their baked goods. Maybe your “no moral quandary” wants to give your easy moral analysis at the other bakeries allowed to discriminate against religious customers? Religion is a protected class, so that would be illegal. Gays do not enjoy that protection due to a failure to update the civil rights act to include them. But hey, if you want to open up Pandora's box just so this baker can avoid feeding people at a gay wedding, that's cool. Just don't come whining to us when 200 "religious freedom" laws appear in red states that all happen to allow discrimination against homosexuals. Because you were warned. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
Wardi Open
PiGosaur Cup
WardiTV Invitational
Replay Cast
The PondCast
WardiTV Invitational
Replay Cast
RongYI Cup
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
