|
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 December 05 2017 04:09 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 04:02 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2017 04:00 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 03:49 Logo wrote:On December 05 2017 03:47 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 03:33 brian wrote: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. 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. 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. Yet the Colorado commission sees no issues discriminating against religious customers based on the cakes they want made.
You're so preoccupied by being afraid what might happen to group xyz you sympathize with that you're oblivious to the same thing actually happening to group zyx right now.
And that's giving you the good faith bullshit you don't deserve.
It's basically an affirming stance on sexual freedom against a restricting stance from religious fundamentalists who want to lessen the freedom of others. Surely you must, again, stand on the other side of freedom. The one that restricts the other side's freedom.
How predictable you are.
|
On December 05 2017 04:55 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 04:54 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 04:43 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 04:31 Logo wrote:On December 05 2017 04:28 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 04:27 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 04:21 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 04:19 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 04:15 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 04:10 mozoku wrote:
[quote]
This ignores all nuance of the case. The baker has already offered to sell all other regular baked goods. It only declines to sell wedding cakes, as a wedding has religious meaning to a Christian.
It's not hard to imagine that if you're a Christian baker and you legitimately believe a gay marriage will condemn the participants to Hell, that it's your religious duty not to abet it. Forcing the baker to make the cake is a legitimate infringement on religious beliefs there.
If the baker refuses to sell anything to gays, then obviously there's no case. But that isn't what's happening. and while you’re getting deep into nuance, you’re not quite nailing it. that the bakery sells to other gays doesn’t prove innocence. the question is why the bakery doesn’t service this customers. does the bakery sell wedding cakes? yea. to the gay couple? no. if being gay was a protected class, this is illegal. hands down. having sold to gays before is irrelevant. On December 05 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Religion or creed is a protected class. On principle, you disagree with the Colorado commission discriminating against religious individuals that were turned down seeking cakes more in tune with their religious beliefs. your first sentence is correct, though it has no bearing on either your second sentence or your earlier question. they were not denied on the basis of being christian. Neither were the gay couple denied on the basis of being gay. assuming the bakery serves wedding cakes(it does), not serving wedding cakes to gay couples has no other reason. but i don’t have the time or inclination to tell you how and when discrimination is discrimination. their religious beliefs driving them to this conclusion does not change the conclusion. i don’t even think this was discrimination in the first place. even though i’d like it to be. that’s just not how the law works. It sells pre-made wedding cakes to gay couples. You’re discriminating based on message against religious customers and for gay customers, and content with government privileging certain groups. You’re just lucky the bureaucrats in charge agree with who you think deserve to be discriminated against. you again demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. that or Kwark’s got you nailed, and you don’t like protected classes. My guess is he's trying to treat gay marriage as a thing that's separate from marriage. But that's not an actual thing. It's just marriage. he’s trying to say if we can say we aren’t baking cakes against gay marriage that we can’t say we must bake cakes for gay marriage. which is asinine. even if this was remotely the correct argument, in order to make it you’d have to believe homophobia was the exclusive domain of christians, so much so that they are synonymous. ‘Religion and creed is a protected class.’ which is hilarious in its own right. not remotely applicable in the conversation, but hilarious. You literally defended bakeries refusing service to religious buyers wanting a cake celebrating a biblical message on marriage and attacked bakeries refusing service to gay buyers wanting a cake celebrating their gay marriage. It you can justify that in your mind, maybe I’ll have to reconsider my views on certain Trump supporters and Moore supporters. no, i didn’t. you just have no idea what you are talking about.
You did. You’ve offered no reason for it yet, but you did.
On December 05 2017 04:43 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 04:31 Logo wrote:On December 05 2017 04:28 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 04:27 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 04:21 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 04:19 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 04:15 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 04:10 mozoku wrote: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? This ignores all nuance of the case. The baker has already offered to sell all other regular baked goods. It only declines to sell wedding cakes, as a wedding has religious meaning to a Christian. It's not hard to imagine that if you're a Christian baker and you legitimately believe a gay marriage will condemn the participants to Hell, that it's your religious duty not to abet it. Forcing the baker to make the cake is a legitimate infringement on religious beliefs there. If the baker refuses to sell anything to gays, then obviously there's no case. But that isn't what's happening. and while you’re getting deep into nuance, you’re not quite nailing it. that the bakery sells to other gays doesn’t prove innocence. the question is why the bakery doesn’t service this customers. does the bakery sell wedding cakes? yea. to the gay couple? no. if being gay was a protected class, this is illegal. hands down. having sold to gays before is irrelevant. On December 05 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 03:55 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 03:47 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
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. Religion or creed is a protected class. On principle, you disagree with the Colorado commission discriminating against religious individuals that were turned down seeking cakes more in tune with their religious beliefs. your first sentence is correct, though it has no bearing on either your second sentence or your earlier question. they were not denied on the basis of being christian. Neither were the gay couple denied on the basis of being gay. assuming the bakery serves wedding cakes(it does), not serving wedding cakes to gay couples has no other reason. but i don’t have the time or inclination to tell you how and when discrimination is discrimination. their religious beliefs driving them to this conclusion does not change the conclusion. i don’t even think this was discrimination in the first place. even though i’d like it to be. that’s just not how the law works. It sells pre-made wedding cakes to gay couples. You’re discriminating based on message against religious customers and for gay customers, and content with government privileging certain groups. You’re just lucky the bureaucrats in charge agree with who you think deserve to be discriminated against. you again demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. that or Kwark’s got you nailed, and you don’t like protected classes. My guess is he's trying to treat gay marriage as a thing that's separate from marriage. But that's not an actual thing. It's just marriage. he’s trying to say if we can say we aren’t baking cakes against gay marriage that we can’t say we must bake cakes for gay marriage. which is asinine. even if this was remotely the correct argument, in order to make it you’d have to believe homophobia was the exclusive domain of christians, so much so that they are synonymous. ‘Religion and creed is a protected class.’ which is hilarious in its own right. not remotely applicable in the conversation, but hilarious.
The Colorado civil rights commission has done so, and all you can do is dissemble. Literally. You must admit that not all protected classes are treated equal in your mind, as pointed out in the article. You can be forced to bake a cake celebrating gay marriage, but can refuse to bake a cake offering a different religious view of gay marriage. That’s usually called discrimination on the basis of message, but like your compatriots from the other side, it can stare you right in the face and you can refuse to address it or offer a defense.
|
On December 05 2017 05:03 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 04:09 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 04:02 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2017 04:00 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 03:49 Logo wrote:On December 05 2017 03:47 Danglars wrote: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. 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? Religion is a protected class, so that would be illegal. Yet the Colorado commission sees no issues discriminating against religious customers based on the cakes they want made. You're so preoccupied by being afraid what might happen to group xyz you sympathize with that you're oblivious to the same thing actually happening to group zyx right now. And that's giving you the good faith bullshit you don't deserve. It's basically an affirming stance on sexual freedom against a restricting stance from religious fundamentalists who want to lessen the freedom of others. Surely you must, again, stand on the other side of freedom. The one that restricts the other side's freedom. How predictable you are.
You predictably do not offer a relevant opinion to the matter at hand, and subsist in calling others phobic. If I can call your cake affirming or restricting, do I get to tell you to make it?
|
On December 05 2017 05:04 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 04:55 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 04:54 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 04:43 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 04:31 Logo wrote:On December 05 2017 04:28 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 04:27 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 04:21 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 04:19 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 04:15 brian wrote:
[quote]
and while you’re getting deep into nuance, you’re not quite nailing it. that the bakery sells to other gays doesn’t prove innocence. the question is why the bakery doesn’t service this customers. does the bakery sell wedding cakes? yea. to the gay couple? no.
if being gay was a protected class, this is illegal. hands down. having sold to gays before is irrelevant.
[quote]
your first sentence is correct, though it has no bearing on either your second sentence or your earlier question. they were not denied on the basis of being christian. Neither were the gay couple denied on the basis of being gay. assuming the bakery serves wedding cakes(it does), not serving wedding cakes to gay couples has no other reason. but i don’t have the time or inclination to tell you how and when discrimination is discrimination. their religious beliefs driving them to this conclusion does not change the conclusion. i don’t even think this was discrimination in the first place. even though i’d like it to be. that’s just not how the law works. It sells pre-made wedding cakes to gay couples. You’re discriminating based on message against religious customers and for gay customers, and content with government privileging certain groups. You’re just lucky the bureaucrats in charge agree with who you think deserve to be discriminated against. you again demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. that or Kwark’s got you nailed, and you don’t like protected classes. My guess is he's trying to treat gay marriage as a thing that's separate from marriage. But that's not an actual thing. It's just marriage. he’s trying to say if we can say we aren’t baking cakes against gay marriage that we can’t say we must bake cakes for gay marriage. which is asinine. even if this was remotely the correct argument, in order to make it you’d have to believe homophobia was the exclusive domain of christians, so much so that they are synonymous. ‘Religion and creed is a protected class.’ which is hilarious in its own right. not remotely applicable in the conversation, but hilarious. You literally defended bakeries refusing service to religious buyers wanting a cake celebrating a biblical message on marriage and attacked bakeries refusing service to gay buyers wanting a cake celebrating their gay marriage. It you can justify that in your mind, maybe I’ll have to reconsider my views on certain Trump supporters and Moore supporters. no, i didn’t. you just have no idea what you are talking about. You did. You’ve offered no reason for it yet, but you did. Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 04:43 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 04:31 Logo wrote:On December 05 2017 04:28 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 04:27 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 04:21 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 04:19 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 04:15 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 04:10 mozoku wrote: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? This ignores all nuance of the case. The baker has already offered to sell all other regular baked goods. It only declines to sell wedding cakes, as a wedding has religious meaning to a Christian. It's not hard to imagine that if you're a Christian baker and you legitimately believe a gay marriage will condemn the participants to Hell, that it's your religious duty not to abet it. Forcing the baker to make the cake is a legitimate infringement on religious beliefs there. If the baker refuses to sell anything to gays, then obviously there's no case. But that isn't what's happening. and while you’re getting deep into nuance, you’re not quite nailing it. that the bakery sells to other gays doesn’t prove innocence. the question is why the bakery doesn’t service this customers. does the bakery sell wedding cakes? yea. to the gay couple? no. if being gay was a protected class, this is illegal. hands down. having sold to gays before is irrelevant. On December 05 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 03:55 brian wrote:
[quote]
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. Religion or creed is a protected class. On principle, you disagree with the Colorado commission discriminating against religious individuals that were turned down seeking cakes more in tune with their religious beliefs. your first sentence is correct, though it has no bearing on either your second sentence or your earlier question. they were not denied on the basis of being christian. Neither were the gay couple denied on the basis of being gay. assuming the bakery serves wedding cakes(it does), not serving wedding cakes to gay couples has no other reason. but i don’t have the time or inclination to tell you how and when discrimination is discrimination. their religious beliefs driving them to this conclusion does not change the conclusion. i don’t even think this was discrimination in the first place. even though i’d like it to be. that’s just not how the law works. It sells pre-made wedding cakes to gay couples. You’re discriminating based on message against religious customers and for gay customers, and content with government privileging certain groups. You’re just lucky the bureaucrats in charge agree with who you think deserve to be discriminated against. you again demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. that or Kwark’s got you nailed, and you don’t like protected classes. My guess is he's trying to treat gay marriage as a thing that's separate from marriage. But that's not an actual thing. It's just marriage. he’s trying to say if we can say we aren’t baking cakes against gay marriage that we can’t say we must bake cakes for gay marriage. which is asinine. even if this was remotely the correct argument, in order to make it you’d have to believe homophobia was the exclusive domain of christians, so much so that they are synonymous. ‘Religion and creed is a protected class.’ which is hilarious in its own right. not remotely applicable in the conversation, but hilarious. The Colorado civil rights commission has done so, and all you can do is dissemble. Literally. You must admit that not all protected classes are treated equal in your mind, as pointed out in the article. You can be forced to bake a cake celebrating gay marriage, but can refuse to bake a cake offering a different religious view of gay marriage. That’s usually called discrimination on the basis of message, but like your compatriots from the other side, it can stare you right in the face and you can refuse to address it or offer a defense.
where did i? and no, they haven’t, and no, i haven’t. i am fully against all discrimination against protected classes. fully. homophobia is not a protected class, and as such, it is not discrimination.
just because they are also christian has no relevance. your argument is so weak it should be laughed at. being denied on the basis of homophobia is not to be denied on the basis of religion. try a different angle. to steal a page from your book, ‘You can do better.’
|
United States43540 Posts
On December 05 2017 05:04 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 04:55 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 04:54 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 04:43 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 04:31 Logo wrote:On December 05 2017 04:28 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 04:27 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 04:21 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 04:19 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 04:15 brian wrote:
[quote]
and while you’re getting deep into nuance, you’re not quite nailing it. that the bakery sells to other gays doesn’t prove innocence. the question is why the bakery doesn’t service this customers. does the bakery sell wedding cakes? yea. to the gay couple? no.
if being gay was a protected class, this is illegal. hands down. having sold to gays before is irrelevant.
[quote]
your first sentence is correct, though it has no bearing on either your second sentence or your earlier question. they were not denied on the basis of being christian. Neither were the gay couple denied on the basis of being gay. assuming the bakery serves wedding cakes(it does), not serving wedding cakes to gay couples has no other reason. but i don’t have the time or inclination to tell you how and when discrimination is discrimination. their religious beliefs driving them to this conclusion does not change the conclusion. i don’t even think this was discrimination in the first place. even though i’d like it to be. that’s just not how the law works. It sells pre-made wedding cakes to gay couples. You’re discriminating based on message against religious customers and for gay customers, and content with government privileging certain groups. You’re just lucky the bureaucrats in charge agree with who you think deserve to be discriminated against. you again demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. that or Kwark’s got you nailed, and you don’t like protected classes. My guess is he's trying to treat gay marriage as a thing that's separate from marriage. But that's not an actual thing. It's just marriage. he’s trying to say if we can say we aren’t baking cakes against gay marriage that we can’t say we must bake cakes for gay marriage. which is asinine. even if this was remotely the correct argument, in order to make it you’d have to believe homophobia was the exclusive domain of christians, so much so that they are synonymous. ‘Religion and creed is a protected class.’ which is hilarious in its own right. not remotely applicable in the conversation, but hilarious. You literally defended bakeries refusing service to religious buyers wanting a cake celebrating a biblical message on marriage and attacked bakeries refusing service to gay buyers wanting a cake celebrating their gay marriage. It you can justify that in your mind, maybe I’ll have to reconsider my views on certain Trump supporters and Moore supporters. no, i didn’t. you just have no idea what you are talking about. You did. You’ve offered no reason for it yet, but you did. Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 04:43 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 04:31 Logo wrote:On December 05 2017 04:28 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 04:27 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 04:21 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 04:19 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 04:15 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 04:10 mozoku wrote: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? This ignores all nuance of the case. The baker has already offered to sell all other regular baked goods. It only declines to sell wedding cakes, as a wedding has religious meaning to a Christian. It's not hard to imagine that if you're a Christian baker and you legitimately believe a gay marriage will condemn the participants to Hell, that it's your religious duty not to abet it. Forcing the baker to make the cake is a legitimate infringement on religious beliefs there. If the baker refuses to sell anything to gays, then obviously there's no case. But that isn't what's happening. and while you’re getting deep into nuance, you’re not quite nailing it. that the bakery sells to other gays doesn’t prove innocence. the question is why the bakery doesn’t service this customers. does the bakery sell wedding cakes? yea. to the gay couple? no. if being gay was a protected class, this is illegal. hands down. having sold to gays before is irrelevant. On December 05 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 03:55 brian wrote:
[quote]
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. Religion or creed is a protected class. On principle, you disagree with the Colorado commission discriminating against religious individuals that were turned down seeking cakes more in tune with their religious beliefs. your first sentence is correct, though it has no bearing on either your second sentence or your earlier question. they were not denied on the basis of being christian. Neither were the gay couple denied on the basis of being gay. assuming the bakery serves wedding cakes(it does), not serving wedding cakes to gay couples has no other reason. but i don’t have the time or inclination to tell you how and when discrimination is discrimination. their religious beliefs driving them to this conclusion does not change the conclusion. i don’t even think this was discrimination in the first place. even though i’d like it to be. that’s just not how the law works. It sells pre-made wedding cakes to gay couples. You’re discriminating based on message against religious customers and for gay customers, and content with government privileging certain groups. You’re just lucky the bureaucrats in charge agree with who you think deserve to be discriminated against. you again demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. that or Kwark’s got you nailed, and you don’t like protected classes. My guess is he's trying to treat gay marriage as a thing that's separate from marriage. But that's not an actual thing. It's just marriage. he’s trying to say if we can say we aren’t baking cakes against gay marriage that we can’t say we must bake cakes for gay marriage. which is asinine. even if this was remotely the correct argument, in order to make it you’d have to believe homophobia was the exclusive domain of christians, so much so that they are synonymous. ‘Religion and creed is a protected class.’ which is hilarious in its own right. not remotely applicable in the conversation, but hilarious. The Colorado civil rights commission has done so, and all you can do is dissemble. Literally. You must admit that not all protected classes are treated equal in your mind, as pointed out in the article. You can be forced to bake a cake celebrating gay marriage, but can refuse to bake a cake offering a different religious view of gay marriage. That’s usually called discrimination on the basis of message, but like your compatriots from the other side, it can stare you right in the face and you can refuse to address it or offer a defense.
Refusing to bake a homophobic cake is not discriminatory against Christianity because homophobia is not a core tenet of Christian religious expression. It's not the religion they're refusing, it's the homophobia. You keep trying to say they're the same thing but they're not. If an atheist requested a homophobic cake they wouldn't ask him his opinion on Jesus before refusing.
You seem to think membership of a protected class gives you immunity from refusal. That's not the case. You can refuse people on the grounds of them being an asshole, you just can't refuse on the grounds of them being Christian.
You're attempting an argument based upon indirect discrimination. Indirect discrimination is when there is a non discriminatory policy that creates a discriminatory output. For example a dress code that defines non straight hair as unprofessional would be discriminatory against African Americans. You seem to be claiming that a policy of not making cakes for homophobes amounts to indirect discrimination against Christians. But homophobia isn't the same thing as Christianity.
|
On December 05 2017 05:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 05:03 Artisreal wrote:On December 05 2017 04:09 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 04:02 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2017 04:00 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 03:49 Logo wrote:On December 05 2017 03:47 Danglars wrote: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. 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? Religion is a protected class, so that would be illegal. Yet the Colorado commission sees no issues discriminating against religious customers based on the cakes they want made. You're so preoccupied by being afraid what might happen to group xyz you sympathize with that you're oblivious to the same thing actually happening to group zyx right now. And that's giving you the good faith bullshit you don't deserve. It's basically an affirming stance on sexual freedom against a restricting stance from religious fundamentalists who want to lessen the freedom of others. Surely you must, again, stand on the other side of freedom. The one that restricts the other side's freedom. How predictable you are. You predictably do not offer a relevant opinion to the matter at hand, and subsist in calling others phobic. If I can call your cake affirming or restricting, do I get to tell you to make it?
I call you amoral, that's all. And the case is pretty good for that judgement.
|
if it helps, discrimination is easier to understand in the context of firing people.
you can fire people for being ineffective. you can fire people for being homophobic.
you CANT fire people for being christians. in colorado, you can’t fire people for being gay.
if you hate gay people, you CAN still fire them for being ineffective.
i’ll leave the rest to you. it’s this last one you seem to have the most trouble with.
|
|
|
On December 05 2017 05:06 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 05:04 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 04:55 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 04:54 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 04:43 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 04:31 Logo wrote:On December 05 2017 04:28 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 04:27 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 04:21 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 04:19 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Neither were the gay couple denied on the basis of being gay. assuming the bakery serves wedding cakes(it does), not serving wedding cakes to gay couples has no other reason. but i don’t have the time or inclination to tell you how and when discrimination is discrimination. their religious beliefs driving them to this conclusion does not change the conclusion. i don’t even think this was discrimination in the first place. even though i’d like it to be. that’s just not how the law works. It sells pre-made wedding cakes to gay couples. You’re discriminating based on message against religious customers and for gay customers, and content with government privileging certain groups. You’re just lucky the bureaucrats in charge agree with who you think deserve to be discriminated against. you again demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. that or Kwark’s got you nailed, and you don’t like protected classes. My guess is he's trying to treat gay marriage as a thing that's separate from marriage. But that's not an actual thing. It's just marriage. he’s trying to say if we can say we aren’t baking cakes against gay marriage that we can’t say we must bake cakes for gay marriage. which is asinine. even if this was remotely the correct argument, in order to make it you’d have to believe homophobia was the exclusive domain of christians, so much so that they are synonymous. ‘Religion and creed is a protected class.’ which is hilarious in its own right. not remotely applicable in the conversation, but hilarious. You literally defended bakeries refusing service to religious buyers wanting a cake celebrating a biblical message on marriage and attacked bakeries refusing service to gay buyers wanting a cake celebrating their gay marriage. It you can justify that in your mind, maybe I’ll have to reconsider my views on certain Trump supporters and Moore supporters. no, i didn’t. you just have no idea what you are talking about. You did. You’ve offered no reason for it yet, but you did. On December 05 2017 04:43 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 04:31 Logo wrote:On December 05 2017 04:28 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 04:27 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 04:21 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 04:19 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 04:15 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 04:10 mozoku wrote:
[quote]
This ignores all nuance of the case. The baker has already offered to sell all other regular baked goods. It only declines to sell wedding cakes, as a wedding has religious meaning to a Christian.
It's not hard to imagine that if you're a Christian baker and you legitimately believe a gay marriage will condemn the participants to Hell, that it's your religious duty not to abet it. Forcing the baker to make the cake is a legitimate infringement on religious beliefs there.
If the baker refuses to sell anything to gays, then obviously there's no case. But that isn't what's happening. and while you’re getting deep into nuance, you’re not quite nailing it. that the bakery sells to other gays doesn’t prove innocence. the question is why the bakery doesn’t service this customers. does the bakery sell wedding cakes? yea. to the gay couple? no. if being gay was a protected class, this is illegal. hands down. having sold to gays before is irrelevant. On December 05 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Religion or creed is a protected class. On principle, you disagree with the Colorado commission discriminating against religious individuals that were turned down seeking cakes more in tune with their religious beliefs. your first sentence is correct, though it has no bearing on either your second sentence or your earlier question. they were not denied on the basis of being christian. Neither were the gay couple denied on the basis of being gay. assuming the bakery serves wedding cakes(it does), not serving wedding cakes to gay couples has no other reason. but i don’t have the time or inclination to tell you how and when discrimination is discrimination. their religious beliefs driving them to this conclusion does not change the conclusion. i don’t even think this was discrimination in the first place. even though i’d like it to be. that’s just not how the law works. It sells pre-made wedding cakes to gay couples. You’re discriminating based on message against religious customers and for gay customers, and content with government privileging certain groups. You’re just lucky the bureaucrats in charge agree with who you think deserve to be discriminated against. you again demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. that or Kwark’s got you nailed, and you don’t like protected classes. My guess is he's trying to treat gay marriage as a thing that's separate from marriage. But that's not an actual thing. It's just marriage. he’s trying to say if we can say we aren’t baking cakes against gay marriage that we can’t say we must bake cakes for gay marriage. which is asinine. even if this was remotely the correct argument, in order to make it you’d have to believe homophobia was the exclusive domain of christians, so much so that they are synonymous. ‘Religion and creed is a protected class.’ which is hilarious in its own right. not remotely applicable in the conversation, but hilarious. The Colorado civil rights commission has done so, and all you can do is dissemble. Literally. You must admit that not all protected classes are treated equal in your mind, as pointed out in the article. You can be forced to bake a cake celebrating gay marriage, but can refuse to bake a cake offering a different religious view of gay marriage. That’s usually called discrimination on the basis of message, but like your compatriots from the other side, it can stare you right in the face and you can refuse to address it or offer a defense. where did i? and no, they haven’t, and no, i haven’t. i am fully against all discrimination against protected classes. fully. homophobia is not a protected class, and as such, it is not discrimination. just because they are also christian has no relevance. your argument is so weak it should be laughed at. being denied on the basis of homophobia is not to be denied on the basis of religion. try a different angle.
Well, it’s in the article. In your view, the Colorado civil rights commissioned errored in not forcing the other bakeries to bake their cakes, backed by fines and documented proof that the bakeries have remedied their behavior. It got lost in your attempt to say the other bakeries weren’t actually discriminating, and saying the contrast had no bearing on the argument.
|
On December 05 2017 04:18 Introvert wrote:Since Nevuk postted about obstruction here is an interesting piece from NRO. The author has been posted here before. Show nested quote +
The smoke is clearing from an explosive Mueller investigation weekend of charges, chattering, and tweets. Before the next aftershock, it might be helpful to make three points about where things stand. In ascending order of importance, they are:
1.) There is a great deal of misinformation in the commentariat about how prosecutors build cases.
2.) For all practical purposes, the collusion probe is over. While the “counterintelligence” cover will continue to be exploited so that no jurisdictional limits are placed on Special Counsel Robert Mueller, this is now an obstruction investigation.
3.) That means it is, as it has always been, an impeachment investigation.
Building a Case
Many analysts are under the misimpression that it is typical for federal prosecutors to accept guilty pleas on minor charges in exchange for cooperation that helps build a case on major charges. From this flawed premise, they reason that Mueller is methodically constructing a major case on Trump by accepting minor guilty pleas from Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos for making false statements, and by indicting Paul Manafort and an associate on charges that have nothing to do with Trump or the 2016 election.
That is simply not how it works, strategically or legally.
As I’ve tried to explain a few times now (see here and here), if a prosecutor has an accomplice cooperator who gives the government incriminating information about the major scheme under investigation, he pressures the accomplice to plead guilty to the major scheme, not to an ancillary process crime — and particularly not to false-statements charges.
Strategically, and for public-relations purposes (which are not inconsequential in a high-profile corruption investigation, just ask Ken Starr), a guilty plea to the major scheme under investigation proves that the major scheme really happened — here, some kind of criminal collusion (i.e., conspiracy) in Russia’s espionage operation against the 2016 election. The guilty-plea allocution, in which the accomplice explains to the court what he and others did to carry out the scheme, puts enormous pressure on other accomplices to come forward and cooperate. In a political corruption case, it can drive public officials out of office.
Justice Department policy calls for prosecutors to indict a defendant on the most serious readily provable charge, not to plead out a case on minor charges to obtain cooperation. The federal sentencing guidelines also encourage this. They allow a judge to sentence the defendant below the often harsh guidelines calculation. This can mean a cooperator gets as little as zero jail time or time-served, no matter how serious the charges. This sentencing leniency happens only if the defendant pleads guilty and provides substantial assistance to the government’s investigation. That is what enables the prosecutor to entice an accomplice to cooperate; the prosecutor does not need to entice cooperation by pleading the case out for a song.
The practice of pressuring a guilty plea to the major charges makes the accomplice a formidable witness at trial. The jury will know that he is facing a potential sentence of perhaps decades in prison unless he discloses everything he knows and tells the truth in his testimony. That is what triggers the prosecutor’s obligation to file the motion that allows the court to sentence under the guidelines-recommended sentence.
Trading a plea on minor charges for cooperation is a foolish gambit that badly damages the prosecutor’s case. It suggests that the cooperator must not have disclosed details about the major scheme. Otherwise the prosecutor would have charged him with it. It implies that the prosecutor is so desperate to make a case on a major target that he gave bad actors a pass on serious charges — something experienced prosecutors know that juries hate.
It is even worse to plead accomplices out on false-statements counts. This establishes that the main thing the jury should know about the accomplice is that he is not to be trusted. That is not how you make someone a strong witness. And unlike the accomplice who pleads guilty to the major scheme, an accomplice who pleads guilty to false statements is looking at a maximum sentence of just five years and a more likely sentence of no time even before he has cooperated — not much of an incentive to disclose everything and tell the truth. A good prosecutor does not front-load the benefits of cooperation; he makes the accomplice earn sentencing leniency by full disclosure and testimony.
The pleas and the indictment have nothing to do with collusion because Mueller has no collusion case.
Bottom line: If the FBI had a collusion case of some kind, after well over a year of intensive investigation, Flynn and Papadopoulos would have been pressured to plead guilty to very serious charges — and those serious offenses would be reflected in the charges lodged against Manafort. Obviously, the pleas and the indictment have nothing to do with collusion because Mueller has no collusion case.
It’s Now an Obstruction Investigation
...
rest here http://amp.nationalreview.com/article/454311/mueller-strategy-obstruction-justice-investigation-leading-impeachment
There’s no basis to conclude the collusion probe, or any other aspect of the probe, is over. We won’t know until the probe is over. We simply don’t know either way.
|
On December 05 2017 05:08 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 05:06 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 05:03 Artisreal wrote:On December 05 2017 04:09 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 04:02 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2017 04:00 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 03:49 Logo wrote:On December 05 2017 03:47 Danglars wrote: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. 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? Religion is a protected class, so that would be illegal. Yet the Colorado commission sees no issues discriminating against religious customers based on the cakes they want made. You're so preoccupied by being afraid what might happen to group xyz you sympathize with that you're oblivious to the same thing actually happening to group zyx right now. And that's giving you the good faith bullshit you don't deserve. It's basically an affirming stance on sexual freedom against a restricting stance from religious fundamentalists who want to lessen the freedom of others. Surely you must, again, stand on the other side of freedom. The one that restricts the other side's freedom. How predictable you are. You predictably do not offer a relevant opinion to the matter at hand, and subsist in calling others phobic. If I can call your cake affirming or restricting, do I get to tell you to make it? I call you amoral, that's all. And the case is pretty good for that judgement.
I offered an argument for why the Colorado civil rights commission is preferentially treating some discrimination. Your best response is calling me phobic and amoral, and trying to establish a standard where someone sits in judgement on affirming messages. Its not an argument, it’s a slur. I’m glad we got that out of the way.
|
|
|
On December 05 2017 05:18 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 05:06 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 05:04 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 04:55 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 04:54 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 04:43 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 04:31 Logo wrote:On December 05 2017 04:28 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 04:27 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 04:21 brian wrote:
[quote]
assuming the bakery serves wedding cakes(it does), not serving wedding cakes to gay couples has no other reason. but i don’t have the time or inclination to tell you how and when discrimination is discrimination. their religious beliefs driving them to this conclusion does not change the conclusion.
i don’t even think this was discrimination in the first place. even though i’d like it to be. that’s just not how the law works.
It sells pre-made wedding cakes to gay couples. You’re discriminating based on message against religious customers and for gay customers, and content with government privileging certain groups. You’re just lucky the bureaucrats in charge agree with who you think deserve to be discriminated against. you again demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. that or Kwark’s got you nailed, and you don’t like protected classes. My guess is he's trying to treat gay marriage as a thing that's separate from marriage. But that's not an actual thing. It's just marriage. he’s trying to say if we can say we aren’t baking cakes against gay marriage that we can’t say we must bake cakes for gay marriage. which is asinine. even if this was remotely the correct argument, in order to make it you’d have to believe homophobia was the exclusive domain of christians, so much so that they are synonymous. ‘Religion and creed is a protected class.’ which is hilarious in its own right. not remotely applicable in the conversation, but hilarious. You literally defended bakeries refusing service to religious buyers wanting a cake celebrating a biblical message on marriage and attacked bakeries refusing service to gay buyers wanting a cake celebrating their gay marriage. It you can justify that in your mind, maybe I’ll have to reconsider my views on certain Trump supporters and Moore supporters. no, i didn’t. you just have no idea what you are talking about. You did. You’ve offered no reason for it yet, but you did. On December 05 2017 04:43 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 04:31 Logo wrote:On December 05 2017 04:28 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 04:27 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 04:21 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 04:19 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 04:15 brian wrote:
[quote]
and while you’re getting deep into nuance, you’re not quite nailing it. that the bakery sells to other gays doesn’t prove innocence. the question is why the bakery doesn’t service this customers. does the bakery sell wedding cakes? yea. to the gay couple? no.
if being gay was a protected class, this is illegal. hands down. having sold to gays before is irrelevant.
[quote]
your first sentence is correct, though it has no bearing on either your second sentence or your earlier question. they were not denied on the basis of being christian. Neither were the gay couple denied on the basis of being gay. assuming the bakery serves wedding cakes(it does), not serving wedding cakes to gay couples has no other reason. but i don’t have the time or inclination to tell you how and when discrimination is discrimination. their religious beliefs driving them to this conclusion does not change the conclusion. i don’t even think this was discrimination in the first place. even though i’d like it to be. that’s just not how the law works. It sells pre-made wedding cakes to gay couples. You’re discriminating based on message against religious customers and for gay customers, and content with government privileging certain groups. You’re just lucky the bureaucrats in charge agree with who you think deserve to be discriminated against. you again demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. that or Kwark’s got you nailed, and you don’t like protected classes. My guess is he's trying to treat gay marriage as a thing that's separate from marriage. But that's not an actual thing. It's just marriage. he’s trying to say if we can say we aren’t baking cakes against gay marriage that we can’t say we must bake cakes for gay marriage. which is asinine. even if this was remotely the correct argument, in order to make it you’d have to believe homophobia was the exclusive domain of christians, so much so that they are synonymous. ‘Religion and creed is a protected class.’ which is hilarious in its own right. not remotely applicable in the conversation, but hilarious. The Colorado civil rights commission has done so, and all you can do is dissemble. Literally. You must admit that not all protected classes are treated equal in your mind, as pointed out in the article. You can be forced to bake a cake celebrating gay marriage, but can refuse to bake a cake offering a different religious view of gay marriage. That’s usually called discrimination on the basis of message, but like your compatriots from the other side, it can stare you right in the face and you can refuse to address it or offer a defense. where did i? and no, they haven’t, and no, i haven’t. i am fully against all discrimination against protected classes. fully. homophobia is not a protected class, and as such, it is not discrimination. just because they are also christian has no relevance. your argument is so weak it should be laughed at. being denied on the basis of homophobia is not to be denied on the basis of religion. try a different angle. Well, it’s in the article. In your view, the Colorado civil rights commissioned errored in not forcing the other bakeries to bake their cakes, backed by fines and documented proof that the bakeries have remedied their behavior. It got lost in your attempt to say the other bakeries weren’t actually discriminating, and saying the contrast had no bearing on the argument.
no, they didn’t. because refusing service on the basis of homophobia is not discrimination. i feel like this should be very clear by now.
|
The fact this went to SCOTUS means the case is likely more complicated than anyone here can hope to reliably predict. I'm sort of baffled by the certainty of a lot of posters here.
A lot of SCOTUS cases come down to a narrow margin between votes anyway.
|
On December 05 2017 05:18 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 04:18 Introvert wrote:Since Nevuk postted about obstruction here is an interesting piece from NRO. The author has been posted here before.
The smoke is clearing from an explosive Mueller investigation weekend of charges, chattering, and tweets. Before the next aftershock, it might be helpful to make three points about where things stand. In ascending order of importance, they are:
1.) There is a great deal of misinformation in the commentariat about how prosecutors build cases.
2.) For all practical purposes, the collusion probe is over. While the “counterintelligence” cover will continue to be exploited so that no jurisdictional limits are placed on Special Counsel Robert Mueller, this is now an obstruction investigation.
3.) That means it is, as it has always been, an impeachment investigation.
Building a Case
Many analysts are under the misimpression that it is typical for federal prosecutors to accept guilty pleas on minor charges in exchange for cooperation that helps build a case on major charges. From this flawed premise, they reason that Mueller is methodically constructing a major case on Trump by accepting minor guilty pleas from Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos for making false statements, and by indicting Paul Manafort and an associate on charges that have nothing to do with Trump or the 2016 election.
That is simply not how it works, strategically or legally.
As I’ve tried to explain a few times now (see here and here), if a prosecutor has an accomplice cooperator who gives the government incriminating information about the major scheme under investigation, he pressures the accomplice to plead guilty to the major scheme, not to an ancillary process crime — and particularly not to false-statements charges.
Strategically, and for public-relations purposes (which are not inconsequential in a high-profile corruption investigation, just ask Ken Starr), a guilty plea to the major scheme under investigation proves that the major scheme really happened — here, some kind of criminal collusion (i.e., conspiracy) in Russia’s espionage operation against the 2016 election. The guilty-plea allocution, in which the accomplice explains to the court what he and others did to carry out the scheme, puts enormous pressure on other accomplices to come forward and cooperate. In a political corruption case, it can drive public officials out of office.
Justice Department policy calls for prosecutors to indict a defendant on the most serious readily provable charge, not to plead out a case on minor charges to obtain cooperation. The federal sentencing guidelines also encourage this. They allow a judge to sentence the defendant below the often harsh guidelines calculation. This can mean a cooperator gets as little as zero jail time or time-served, no matter how serious the charges. This sentencing leniency happens only if the defendant pleads guilty and provides substantial assistance to the government’s investigation. That is what enables the prosecutor to entice an accomplice to cooperate; the prosecutor does not need to entice cooperation by pleading the case out for a song.
The practice of pressuring a guilty plea to the major charges makes the accomplice a formidable witness at trial. The jury will know that he is facing a potential sentence of perhaps decades in prison unless he discloses everything he knows and tells the truth in his testimony. That is what triggers the prosecutor’s obligation to file the motion that allows the court to sentence under the guidelines-recommended sentence.
Trading a plea on minor charges for cooperation is a foolish gambit that badly damages the prosecutor’s case. It suggests that the cooperator must not have disclosed details about the major scheme. Otherwise the prosecutor would have charged him with it. It implies that the prosecutor is so desperate to make a case on a major target that he gave bad actors a pass on serious charges — something experienced prosecutors know that juries hate.
It is even worse to plead accomplices out on false-statements counts. This establishes that the main thing the jury should know about the accomplice is that he is not to be trusted. That is not how you make someone a strong witness. And unlike the accomplice who pleads guilty to the major scheme, an accomplice who pleads guilty to false statements is looking at a maximum sentence of just five years and a more likely sentence of no time even before he has cooperated — not much of an incentive to disclose everything and tell the truth. A good prosecutor does not front-load the benefits of cooperation; he makes the accomplice earn sentencing leniency by full disclosure and testimony.
The pleas and the indictment have nothing to do with collusion because Mueller has no collusion case.
Bottom line: If the FBI had a collusion case of some kind, after well over a year of intensive investigation, Flynn and Papadopoulos would have been pressured to plead guilty to very serious charges — and those serious offenses would be reflected in the charges lodged against Manafort. Obviously, the pleas and the indictment have nothing to do with collusion because Mueller has no collusion case.
It’s Now an Obstruction Investigation
...
rest here http://amp.nationalreview.com/article/454311/mueller-strategy-obstruction-justice-investigation-leading-impeachment There’s no basis to conclude the collusion probe, or any other aspect of the probe, is over. We won’t know until the probe is over. We simply don’t know either way.
it's an interesting read, and an interesting set of claims. but I feel the degree of certainty in the conclusions seems a bit excessive (though not atypical of an opinion piece, people don't like reading bland claims). and of course the source is prone to using people with substantial bias, so it's a touch harder to tell how much credibility to give it all, though it does seem reasonably well argued and thought out.
|
On December 05 2017 05:22 mozoku wrote:
The fact this went to SCOTUS means the case is likely more complicated than anyone here can hope to reliably predict. I'm sort of baffled by the certainty of a lot of posters here.
the only reason it has is because federal law and state law disagree on this particular instance. federally, sexual preference is not protected. in colorado, apparently, it is.
other than that, the facts are very clear. discrimination laws are very simple, despite what you might think reading Danglars’s posts. The SCOTUS argument should be whether discrimination laws are decided by the states or by the federal government. not about the actual content of the case, because it is crystal clear. this is very similar to when SCOTUS had to review gay marriage to begin with. because state and federal law conflicted. the actual content of the case is not relevant, because it’s clearly the correct decision. the reason SCOTUS reviews it is to delineate where the responsibility of upholding these laws falls to, states vs federal government. this is a common theme in supreme court cases. they aren’t there to re-litigate the content of the case. their decision in the marriage equality case was that the state ultimately had the power to decide it on their own, and if the integrity of the supreme court still exists, that is that it’s not just another political cesspool, i imagine they would come to the same decision.
considering how pro-states-rights Danglars is, it should be surprising that he is against this. but since he thinks we’re trying to lessen the freedoms(to discriminate) of white males again, that brings it all back to focus.
|
I'd like to remind you that the republican party has had 6 years to prepare all of this stuff. They appear to not have done any of that preperation. In fact, they kind of remind me of myself, when i have a project due tomorrow, and haven't done anything yet due to laziness.
|
On December 05 2017 05:22 mozoku wrote:
The fact this went to SCOTUS means the case is likely more complicated than anyone here can hope to reliably predict. I'm sort of baffled by the certainty of a lot of posters here.
A lot of SCOTUS cases come down to a narrow margin between votes anyway.
there's a difference in certainty on the ethics of the situation and certainty on what legal outcome the court will decide on (which may well have very little to do with ethics, and be a finely parsed bit of law, plus the usual modest helping of bias from the judges themselves).
|
On December 05 2017 05:22 mozoku wrote:
The fact this went to SCOTUS means the case is likely more complicated than anyone here can hope to reliably predict. I'm sort of baffled by the certainty of a lot of posters here.
A lot of SCOTUS cases come down to a narrow margin between votes anyway.
the surpreme court also had to decide wether prohibiting interracial marriages is constitutional or not... I'd say almost every single one of us nowaday would look back at that and just go "duh" when asked about that
|
Danglars, I don't see how you come to that conclusion looking at the quote train. No one called you phobic, you decided that you was was (homo?)phobic. It's all on you.
I also don't see how the Colorado commission is discriminating against religious customers either, but I admit I am not overly familiar with the case. Criticizing same-sex marriage is not a religious right, unless somehow in the USA there is a religion based upon the criticizing of same-sex religion as a practice of the religion. or religious rights are different from what I commonly understand them to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
