|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 05 2018 01:08 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2018 01:04 ThaddeusK wrote:On June 05 2018 00:16 Jockmcplop wrote:
There's actually a legitimate debate to be had here, with legitimate points on both sides. It really comes down to whether or not you see a cake as a commissioned piece of art or just a product in a store.
It's more like is providing cakes for gay weddings a different service than providing cakes for straight weddings, the bakers were not objecting to the content of the cake they were to make but to the purpose the cake was for. If they are the same service than the bakers are refusing to provide the service based on the sexual orientation of the customer, if they are different services then it's just a service they choose not to provide. One is clearly discrimination and the other isn't. Yeah I touched on this in the post above. I don't know if US law sees gay marriage as identical to non gay marriage. Certainly in the eyes of the baker it would be different.
It seems worth pointing out that we are not talking about whether or not a person needs to make this cake, but whether a company needs to make this cake.
|
On June 05 2018 01:02 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2018 00:30 Danglars wrote:On June 05 2018 00:16 Jockmcplop wrote:
Yeah no-one has been proven right or wrong here.. There's been a few debates that's all.
I will say that as danglars says, people are very quick to ridicule or minimize the importance of religious beliefs. I think it was made worse in this case because the immediate reaction is normally to think "Its just a cake".
There's actually a legitimate debate to be had here, with legitimate points on both sides. It really comes down to whether or not you see a cake as a commissioned piece of art or just a product in a store.
I know that, as a musician, I wouldn't play a benefit for a cause I disagreed with. I don't know if that's comparable though. Would you afford a Christian musician the right to accept wedding gigs as a regular part of his business, but refuse to perform at gay weddings solely because his religious beliefs say that is sinful endorsement contrary to God’s decrees? I’m a musician that has done weddings and religious events and nonprofit events, but that is not my main employment. I ask because I think it’s a very short hop from “a cause I disagree with” and “a religious ceremony I disagree with.” Of course I would afford them that right. There's a difference here in perception between the selling of a cake and the commissioning of a piece of art. The baker could well insist that he/she are making art, and the fact that these cakes are personalized and commissioned in advance certainly adds weight to that point of view. There's a big difference here though, and its another subtle point. Are the bakers expected to bake a cake for 2 people, or for a specific ceremony? I can't see how they would get away with refusing to serve the customers, but I can understand why they wouldn't want to specifically be involved in the promotion or celebration of a certain type of ceremony. Put another way, I wouldn't play a benefit for a cause I didn't agree with, but I wouldn't kick a tory out of the audience of my band's gig either. The question then becomes whether or not there is a difference between a marriage and a gay marriage, if in law they are the same thing. The more I think about this question, the more I come down on the conservative side of the argument, despite the fact that my intuition tells me the opposite. Also you can call me naive but when it comes to the discrimination faced by some groups in the US, having to walk another 2 blocks to get your wedding cake from a baker who supports you isn't really that bad. Show nested quote +On June 05 2018 00:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Out of curiosity, has a baker ever declined to make a Jesus cake (or some other explicitly pro-Christian cake) because it didn't match with the baker's religious beliefs? I would be surprised if such a "refusal to make a Jesus cake" situation ended up on the news and conservatives were consistent with their "well it's the baker's beliefs, period". I would imagine that there would be a double standard and outrage about "Well Christianity is good and correct/ this baker is just trying to be difficult". I don't think you can use the hypothetical reactions of your opponents to a hypothetical situation as an argument :D
as a minor note (doesn't change much for this case); it can mean a lot more than going 2 blocks. there are parts of the US that are very rural; and those tend to have the most bigotry as well. In places like that having to go to another store could mean having to drive 30+ minutes, maybe well over an hour in some places; depending on how rare that type of store is. and in areas wherein one store might refuse a person service; it'd be much more likely than average for other stores in the area to also want to refuse service on the same grounds, which can make it very hard to find stuff.
|
Christianity has a special and revered status in this country. Danglers framing this as in any way a threat is hilarious. Even if they had lost the case completely Christianity would not have any significant threat to itself. More bigoted members would just have slightly less of a shield when trying to discriminate. If the Baker cited anything elae but his Christian beliefs he would have loat long and hard ages ago.
|
On June 05 2018 01:02 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2018 00:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Out of curiosity, has a baker ever declined to make a Jesus cake (or some other explicitly pro-Christian cake) because it didn't match with the baker's religious beliefs? I would be surprised if such a "refusal to make a Jesus cake" situation ended up on the news and conservatives were consistent with their "well it's the baker's beliefs, period". I would imagine that there would be a double standard and outrage about "Well Christianity is good and correct/ this baker is just trying to be difficult". I don't think you can use the hypothetical reactions of your opponents to a hypothetical situation as an argument :D
Oh, I didn't mean it as an actual argument against anything; I was legitimately curious if that situation reversal had ever actually happened, because I frequently see a double standard that tends to confuse "religious liberty" with "religious liberty as long as it promotes Christianity".
|
#shrugcity
I'm sure it's a little upsetting for the gay couple, and for the others refused under similar circumstances, but the fight is lost and war goes on etc. etc.
Now the question is, can other - less nice - business owners use this as a lever to say their religious freedom to discriminate means they can do all sorts of things. That's the potential danger. Always was. if that doesn't happen, the whole thing was a storm in a teacup.
|
On June 05 2018 01:29 iamthedave wrote:
#shrugcity
I'm sure it's a little upsetting for the gay couple, and for the others refused under similar circumstances, but the fight is lost and war goes on etc. etc.
Now the question is, can other - less nice - business owners use this as a lever to say their religious freedom to discriminate means they can do all sorts of things. That's the potential danger. Always was. if that doesn't happen, the whole thing was a storm in a teacup.
The ruling specifically states that gay couples have the right to seek out services with dignity. It leans on compelling the baker to create the cake and the language used by committee that heard the case.
|
On June 05 2018 01:02 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2018 00:30 Danglars wrote:On June 05 2018 00:16 Jockmcplop wrote:
Yeah no-one has been proven right or wrong here.. There's been a few debates that's all.
I will say that as danglars says, people are very quick to ridicule or minimize the importance of religious beliefs. I think it was made worse in this case because the immediate reaction is normally to think "Its just a cake".
There's actually a legitimate debate to be had here, with legitimate points on both sides. It really comes down to whether or not you see a cake as a commissioned piece of art or just a product in a store.
I know that, as a musician, I wouldn't play a benefit for a cause I disagreed with. I don't know if that's comparable though. Would you afford a Christian musician the right to accept wedding gigs as a regular part of his business, but refuse to perform at gay weddings solely because his religious beliefs say that is sinful endorsement contrary to God’s decrees? I’m a musician that has done weddings and religious events and nonprofit events, but that is not my main employment. I ask because I think it’s a very short hop from “a cause I disagree with” and “a religious ceremony I disagree with.” Of course I would afford them that right. There's a difference here in perception between the selling of a cake and the commissioning of a piece of art. The baker could well insist that he/she are making art, and the fact that these cakes are personalized and commissioned in advance certainly adds weight to that point of view. There's a big difference here though, and its another subtle point. Are the bakers expected to bake a cake for 2 people, or for a specific ceremony? I can't see how they would get away with refusing to serve the customers, but I can understand why they wouldn't want to specifically be involved in the promotion or celebration of a certain type of ceremony. Put another way, I wouldn't play a benefit for a cause I didn't agree with, but I wouldn't kick a tory out of the audience of my band's gig either. The question then becomes whether or not there is a difference between a marriage and a gay marriage, if in law they are the same thing. The more I think about this question, the more I come down on the conservative side of the argument, despite the fact that my intuition tells me the opposite. Also you can call me naive but when it comes to the discrimination faced by some groups in the US, having to walk another 2 blocks to get your wedding cake from a baker who supports you isn't really that bad.
I hope you’ll excuse me for not assuming your answer was obvious. I’ve been taught by experience here that I’m frequently wrong when’s i think one party is seen by all to be obviously in the right.
To the subtle point, the lawyers for the baker/baker himself surrendered the point that he must sell his normal wares for any purchaser. He can’t act on his knowledge that the yellow cupcakes in the window are being purchased for use in a gay wedding.
I respect your willingness to “come down on the conservative side of the argument, despite the fact that my intuition tells me the opposite.” I want America to embody that tradition with respect to rights. If one’s sympathies are on one side or the other, the right conclusion can defy them all in individual cases. That’s key to the civil society. A great deal of my disagreements with Trump are on issues that I generally find myself agreeing with the ideological right side, but do not bear up to examination.
|
|
|
the article makes an important point - scotus basically punted on the freedom of speech issue. the ruling is very narrow and doesn't amount to much more than "don't be a dick" rather than creating any sort of broad precedent for other religious liberty cases.
|
When does midterm season "actually" begin? Feels like stuff is going to start to matter in August with regards to the whole Mueller situation. But based on the rough timeline outlined so far, it seems like we'll already be a couple months since a few big deadlines, such as Flynn.
|
Once the primaries are completed. That is when the majority of voters traditionally start paying attention. So like around August-November.
|
On June 05 2018 03:13 Mohdoo wrote:
When does midterm season "actually" begin? Feels like stuff is going to start to matter in August with regards to the whole Mueller situation. But based on the rough timeline outlined so far, it seems like we'll already be a couple months since a few big deadlines, such as Flynn.
looking at https://www.politico.com/election-results/2018/
it looks to have already begun to some extent; it varies by state alot, as each state has different primary dates. and some states have already had the primaries for congressional positions.
|
On June 05 2018 01:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2018 01:29 iamthedave wrote:
#shrugcity
I'm sure it's a little upsetting for the gay couple, and for the others refused under similar circumstances, but the fight is lost and war goes on etc. etc.
Now the question is, can other - less nice - business owners use this as a lever to say their religious freedom to discriminate means they can do all sorts of things. That's the potential danger. Always was. if that doesn't happen, the whole thing was a storm in a teacup. The ruling specifically states that gay couples have the right to seek out services with dignity. It leans on compelling the baker to create the cake and the language used by committee that heard the case.
Looking at the ruling, I think the Supreme Court is well aware of the potentiates I mentioned (and it is worth pointing out that if they'd found solidly in favour of the gay couple there's the chance of people using the ruling to erode religious liberties, so my worry does go both ways), and decided 'we ain't touching that one', and used this as a way to settle the case without having to wade in on potentially very consequential issues.
I'm fine to trust that justice has been done. Just hope it doesn't snowball into something nastier down the road.
|
On June 04 2018 21:55 Plansix wrote:
I’m going to go out on a limb and say this wouldn’t work. The president commit a crime and then pardon him/herself. That’s isn’t what the founding fathers had in mind.
On another note from this thread earlier today, accepting a pardon requires admitting guilt. If Trump pardons himself for obstructionist justice , it means he committed obstruction of justice.
|
On June 05 2018 04:02 Plansix wrote:On another note from this thread earlier today, accepting a pardon requires admitting guilt. If Trump pardons himself for obstructionist justice , it means he committed obstruction of justice.
I'll go out on a limb and say he doesn't see it that way.
I still doubt he'll actually do it though. Every advisor he has will be telling him not to.
|
He can't preemptively pardon himself though? Wouldn't he have to wait until he is found guilty of something? And afaik you basically can't have a trial for the president while he is president anyways, right?
|
On June 05 2018 04:27 Simberto wrote:
He can't preemptively pardon himself though? Wouldn't he have to wait until he is found guilty of something? And afaik you basically can't have a trial for the president while he is president anyways, right?
Ford did it to Nixon, but that was after it was abundantly clear what he was going to be charged with. And it was after he resigned and no longer had power, so it wasn’t challenged. If Trump pardoned himself, it would need to specifically state what crimes he is receiving the pardon for. And it would be challenged almost instantly.
On a side note, the DOJ produced a memo 4 days before Nixon resigned very clearly stating the president could not pardon himself. It is still on the DOJ website as of this morning.
|
On June 05 2018 04:02 Plansix wrote:On another note from this thread earlier today, accepting a pardon requires admitting guilt. If Trump pardons himself for obstructionist justice , it means he committed obstruction of justice.
Can't he say "Even though the courts say I'm guilty of obstructing justice, that's fake news so I want to pardon myself because the courts are wrong"? That's how he and his supporters will perceive the situation if it comes to that, not that he admits guilt or *actually* committed obstruction of justice.
|
On June 05 2018 04:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2018 04:02 Plansix wrote:On June 04 2018 21:55 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/AP/status/1003618204344872967I’m going to go out on a limb and say this wouldn’t work. The president commit a crime and then pardon him/herself. That’s isn’t what the founding fathers had in mind. On another note from this thread earlier today, accepting a pardon requires admitting guilt. If Trump pardons himself for obstructionist justice , it means he committed obstruction of justice. Can't he say "Even though the courts say I'm guilty of obstructing justice, that's fake news so I want to pardon myself because the courts are wrong"? That's how he and his supporters will perceive the situation if it comes to that, not that he admits guilt or *actually* committed obstruction of justice.
I’m not a big expert on the technical ins and outs of pardons, but I’m sure it needs to be in writing. But to spirit of your question: He can do anything he wants if congress is unwilling to challenge him. Just I can build a shed on my property without a permit, because I know the building inspector doesn’t give a shit until you wire it for electricity.
Trump is testing for push back and to see what congress and others might do. He is gauging the push back for when he finally goes full Nixon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
