|
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 05:22 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 05:18 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[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. 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.
Discriminating based on somebody saying the message is homophobic is absolutely discrimination. If you want to ban speech that’s homophobic (spoken or written or whatever), you’re discriminating on the basis of speech and saying you’re justified in doing so. It should be clear that you’re making a case for societally acceptable discrimination and unequal treatment of some messages on cake:
One message was homophobic and allowed to be discriminated against
One message was pro-gay marriage and prevented from being discriminated against
It’s actually quite easy.
|
On December 05 2017 05:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 05:22 brian wrote:On December 05 2017 05:18 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[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. 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. Discriminating based on somebody saying the message is homophobic is absolutely discrimination. If you want to ban speech that’s homophobic (spoken or written or whatever), you’re discriminating on the basis of speech and saying you’re justified in doing so. It should be clear that you’re making a case for societally acceptable discrimination and unequal treatment of some messages on cake: One message was homophobic and allowed to be discriminated against One message was pro-gay marriage and prevented from being discriminated against It’s actually quite easy.
no, every part of this post is wrong. you do not understand discrimination laws.
|
On December 05 2017 04:52 Danglars 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. Oh, by the way, did you have a response for my question? You thought you had a clear moral case, and article and your follow up questions injected doubts if you were sure.
No? My later questions had nothing to do with what I view as a clear and easy moral choice that sexual orientation should be afforded the same protected status that we offer race, sex, and other metrics.
If you want to ask when something is discrimination against religion (illegal), and when it's discrimination against a view or expression (legal), that's reasonably interesting, but unrelated to the gay marriage case and you could be bringing up any number of examples of protected classes being upheld that aren't based on sexual orientation, religious ones would be particularly practical. But instead you're probably not willing to do any sleuthing into actual examples that are actually related to the matter but instead want to put forth a claim as if it was undeniably true when it's actually just unsubstantiated.
|
On December 05 2017 05:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
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.
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.
Your argument is driven by your fear, not by the merits of the dilemma presented.
I say your response to me can only be seen in light of your fear that I have a valid point. Tell me if I haven’t alleged you’re being driven by a phobia.
|
On December 05 2017 05:33 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 04:52 Danglars 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. Oh, by the way, did you have a response for my question? You thought you had a clear moral case, and article and your follow up questions injected doubts if you were sure. No? My later questions had nothing to do with what I view as a clear and easy moral choice that sexual orientation should be afforded the same protected status that we offer race, sex, and other metrics. If you want to ask when something is discrimination against religion (illegal), and when it's discrimination against a view or expression (legal), that's reasonably interesting, but unrelated to the gay marriage case and you could be bringing up any number of examples of protected classes being upheld that aren't based on sexual orientation, religious ones would be particularly practical. But instead you're probably not willing to do any sleuthing into actual examples that are actually related to the matter but instead want to put forth a claim as if it was undeniably true when it's actually just unsubstantiated.
Nice dodge. I thought you said the moral case was easy, but at every turn, your treatment of the moral case involves ignoring questions and reframing it into your ideological mindset. The actual examples are presented in the article, so I suggest you read and respond to them instead of pretending “actual examples related to the matter” don’t exist. I’m not saying you won’t continue to assert anything inconvenient to your perspective is irrelevant, but I do want to give you a chance to recognize the lines that you must reconcile to your viewpoint. Discrimination based on message presented is absolutely key in this case. They’re picking which cakes can be compelled by state authority to be crafted.
|
On December 05 2017 05:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 05:33 Logo wrote:On December 05 2017 04:52 Danglars 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. Oh, by the way, did you have a response for my question? You thought you had a clear moral case, and article and your follow up questions injected doubts if you were sure. No? My later questions had nothing to do with what I view as a clear and easy moral choice that sexual orientation should be afforded the same protected status that we offer race, sex, and other metrics. If you want to ask when something is discrimination against religion (illegal), and when it's discrimination against a view or expression (legal), that's reasonably interesting, but unrelated to the gay marriage case and you could be bringing up any number of examples of protected classes being upheld that aren't based on sexual orientation, religious ones would be particularly practical. But instead you're probably not willing to do any sleuthing into actual examples that are actually related to the matter but instead want to put forth a claim as if it was undeniably true when it's actually just unsubstantiated. Nice dodge. I thought you said the moral case was easy, but at every turn, your treatment of the moral case involves ignoring questions and reframing it into your ideological mindset. The actual examples are presented in the article, so I suggest you read and respond to them instead of pretending “actual examples related to the matter” don’t exist. I’m not saying you won’t continue to assert anything inconvenient to your perspective is irrelevant, but I do want to give you a chance to recognize the lines that you must reconcile to your viewpoint. Discrimination based on message presented is absolutely key in this case. They’re picking which cakes can be compelled by state authority to be crafted.
So you disagree that sexual orientation should be a protected class? Do you think I have at any point said that it is not an easy moral choice for it *to* be a protected class?
Do you have any examples of religion being used as a protected class that showcases similar limitations (i.e whether or not discriminating against quotes from scripture is the same as discriminating against a religion)? Did you even look?
You are totally hung up on a trivial similarity (cakes) at the expense of the meaningful difference (quoted scripture as religion vs discrimination against gay marriage)
|
United States42009 Posts
Individuals are allowed to discriminate against anything but a protected class.
If I were to ask a baker to make me a cake that said "nigger" on it they could refuse on the grounds that they found the cake grossly offensive. Even if I'm a trans gay Muslim female disabled native American. None of my protected classes are relevant to the reason that they are refusing me the cake.
You can't argue that refusing to bake homophobic cakes is discriminatory against Christianity. Christianity and homophobia are different things. The Christianity is entirely irrelevant to the refusal.
You can argue that refusing to bake homosexual cakes is discriminatory against homosexuals because homosexuality and homosexuality aren't different things. That argument was made and it in the courts.
It's not about pro-gay speech being accepted while anti-gay speech is being oppressed. You keep trying to make this about the state policing expression but it's just not.
|
Oh, this is kinda fun:
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 the 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.
Source
|
Different take on this cake thing. Bakers can refuse to write things on cake and that's acceptable because the government can't compel speech. They cannot refuse to sell a cake.
I will note that there is nothing here about the baker being compelled to write pro gay marriage statements on cakes, just that he not allowed to refuse service to gay customers. Comparable would be a baker refusing to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple. A baker cannot do that. They can, however, refuse to write an anti-interracial marriage on cakes despite people requesting it.
Religious freedom isn't even involved in the complaint the tweet Danglars started this line of discussion with. It's government can compel sales, but cannot compel speech. The bakers were allowed to refuse to write anti gay marriage messages, but if those same people had simply asked for cakes, the bakers almost certainly would not have been allowed to refuse.
|
On December 05 2017 05:57 ticklishmusic wrote:Oh, this is kinda fun: Show nested quote +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 the 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. Source
Pretty sure someone mentioned that a few pages back but it got buried under this cake thing. I really hope this ends up forcing Republicans to hold a full vote in the Senate again, because Republican leadership might have some trouble getting the on the fence Senators to vote for it again. Especially when they made empty promises in exchange for those votes.
On December 05 2017 05:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
|
On December 05 2017 05:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 05:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
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. 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. Your argument is driven by your fear, not by the merits of the dilemma presented. I say your response to me can only be seen in light of your fear that I have a valid point. Tell me if I haven’t alleged you’re being driven by a phobia.
Are you trying to be ironic? This isn't how irony operates. Or perhaps it is, but it certainly isn't humorous.
|
this entire argument ignores the fact that the supreme court isn’t going to re-litigate the content of the case. that it is discrimination in colorado has been decided. whether their state laws trump federal laws is the only question left.
|
United States42009 Posts
On December 05 2017 05:58 Kyadytim wrote:
Different take on this cake thing. Bakers can refuse to write things on cake and that's acceptable because the government can't compel speech. They cannot refuse to sell a cake.
I will note that there is nothing here about the baker being compelled to write pro gay marriage statements on cakes, just that he not allowed to refuse service to gay customers. Comparable would be a baker refusing to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple. A baker cannot do that. They can, however, refuse to write an anti-interracial marriage on cakes despite people requesting it.
Religious freedom isn't even involved in the complaint the tweet Danglars started this line of discussion with. It's government can compel sales, but cannot compel speech. The bakers were allowed to refuse to write anti gay marriage messages, but if those same people had simply asked for cakes, the bakers almost certainly would not have been allowed to refuse.
Sorry but that's not it at all.
If a Christian couple had asked for a cake without asking for an anti-gay message then the bakers could totally refuse, as long as they weren't refusing on the grounds of the religion of the couple. The default is that you can deny service for any reason you like except for membership of protected classes. However, if the couple asked the baker to write "joined as one under God" or whatever on the cake and the baker had refused, citing their Christianity as the reason, he could totally be compelled to do it.
You can compel performance from the provider of a service in a discrimination case, and the performance may require some kind of expression.
Where Danglars goes astray is by insisting that if refusing to bake a gay couple a wedding cake is discriminatory against gays then surely refusing to bake a Christian couple a homophobic cake must be discriminatory against Christians. In the case of the gay cake it was successfully argued that the refusal of the gay cake was a proxy for the refusal of the customers because gay people order gay cakes. In the case of the homophobic cake the argument that refusing homophobic messages is a proxy for refusing Christian customers failed because non Christians can order homophobic cakes and Christians can order non homophobic cakes.
|
On December 05 2017 06:01 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 05:57 ticklishmusic wrote:Oh, this is kinda fun: 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 the 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. Source Pretty sure someone mentioned that a few pages back but it got buried under this cake thing. I really hope this ends up forcing Republicans to hold a full vote in the Senate again, because Republican leadership might have some trouble getting the on the fence Senators to vote for it again. Especially when they made empty promises in exchange for those votes.
Doesn't matter they just needed to get a bill to conference and can fix it there. Why even hold a revote when conference committee can fix it.
|
You guys need to lay off Danglars. He's the only one who is remotely close to correctly framing the cake shop case. Here's the question that was certified by SCOTUS:
Whether applying Colorado’s public-accommodation law to compel artists to create expression that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.
Clearly this is about freedom of religion (free exercise) and freedom of speech.
|
United States42009 Posts
On December 05 2017 06:12 xDaunt wrote:You guys need to lay off Danglars. He's the only one who is remotely close to correctly framing the cake shop case. Here's the question that was certified by SCOTUS: Show nested quote +Whether applying Colorado’s public-accommodation law to compel artists to create expression that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. Clearly this is about freedom of religion (free exercise) and freedom of speech.
Danglars keeps insisting that the problem is that Colorado didn't force bakers to make homophobic cakes and is therefore regulating speech. He's displaying a colossal lack of understanding regarding how protected classes work. In Danglars' view it appears that any member of any protected class, of which we all are, may insist upon service from anyone at any time simply by saying "is it because I'm X?!" when declined.
Colorado didn't force bakers to make homophobic cakes because the refusal was not related to the membership of a protected class of the bakers. Danglars is completely unwilling to accept that a court may find that homophobia and Christianity are not the same thing.
|
On December 05 2017 06:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 05:58 Kyadytim wrote:
Different take on this cake thing. Bakers can refuse to write things on cake and that's acceptable because the government can't compel speech. They cannot refuse to sell a cake.
I will note that there is nothing here about the baker being compelled to write pro gay marriage statements on cakes, just that he not allowed to refuse service to gay customers. Comparable would be a baker refusing to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple. A baker cannot do that. They can, however, refuse to write an anti-interracial marriage on cakes despite people requesting it.
Religious freedom isn't even involved in the complaint the tweet Danglars started this line of discussion with. It's government can compel sales, but cannot compel speech. The bakers were allowed to refuse to write anti gay marriage messages, but if those same people had simply asked for cakes, the bakers almost certainly would not have been allowed to refuse. Sorry but that's not it at all. If a Christian couple had asked for a cake without asking for an anti-gay message then the bakers could totally refuse, as long as they weren't refusing on the grounds of the religion of the couple. The default is that you can deny service for any reason you like except for membership of protected classes. However, if the couple asked the baker to write "joined as one under God" or whatever on the cake and the baker had refused, citing their Christianity as the reason, he could totally be compelled to do it. You can compel performance from the provider of a service in a discrimination case, and the performance may require some kind of expression. Where Danglars goes astray is by insisting that if refusing to bake a gay couple a wedding cake is discriminatory against gays then surely refusing to bake a Christian couple a homophobic cake must be discriminatory against Christians. In the case of the gay cake it was successfully argued that the refusal of the gay cake was a proxy for the refusal of the customers because gay people order gay cakes. In the case of the homophobic cake the argument that refusing homophobic messages is a proxy for refusing Christian customers failed because non Christians can order homophobic cakes and Christians can order non homophobic cakes.
Hmm. Yeah, I definitely didn't have the details right in my previous post. Thanks.
|
if danglars was arguing in good faith they'd be fine with laying off him, but he is not, so they do not.
and as a lawyer xdaunt, you're fully aware of how danglars is arguing.
|
On December 05 2017 06:16 zlefin wrote:
if danglars was arguing in good faith they'd be fine with laying off him, but he is not, so they do not.
If people attacked his arguments more and not the poster he would argue in better faith in return.
|
xdaunt is a lawyer? I weep for The Bar in USA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
