|
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 |
United States43835 Posts
On June 05 2018 15:35 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2018 15:26 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2018 15:18 mozoku wrote:On June 05 2018 15:14 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2018 15:08 BigFan wrote:
One interesting thing about this case is that it seemed like this couple drove 100+ kms and passed a lot of bakeries to try and get a cake at this one. Apparently, one of them worked there and knew what he was getting into. Some folks are saying this was done on purpose, aka to net publicity and force the issue. Not sure if that's the case and I'm not sure if the distance etc... is true either, but if it's true, definitely makes you wonder why they did it. Does it matter? Rosa Parks was selected for the mission of refusing to give up her bus seat. She got onto that bus with the express intent of challenging the conductor. The fact that the confrontation was staged doesn't change shit. But somehow this logic doesn't apply to the baker if he consciously chose not to lie to couple about being "busy" for the express purpose of defending his (and others) religious freedom and good conscience? No, because he's the bigot discriminating against people. Do you genuinely not understand why Rosa Parks is a hero and the bus driver who challenged her is not? Come the fuck on man. This is some weird fucking both sides shit you're pulling here. "How can it be okay for a gay man to challenge a bigot if it's not okay for a bigot to challenge a gay man". Did SCOTUS punt the question of Rosa Parks and the bus driver in 2018 (i.e. a vastly more progressive era if it's somehow not obvious what I'm getting at)? Do you think they would have? Obviously a bunch of SCOTUS justices agree with me the this case is a little more complicated than "victim meets bigot." You're so knee-deep in your own shit that you're completely incapable of empathy for a religious person. Glad to know I'm getting lectured by you on tolerance.
You genuinely asked why the "Rosa Parks did it too" logic couldn't apply to the guy doing the discrimination. Honestly the only way this could even make sense to me is if you're not really sure who Rosa Parks was.
To recap,
BigFan asked if it mattered that the gay guy deliberately sought to provoke a civil rights battle over discrimination against homosexuals
I provided the precedent of Rosa Parks deliberately provoking a civil rights battle, and that nobody would think that undermined the validity of her complaint
You, in total seriousness and without a hint of self awareness, asked why the guy refusing equal treatment to a member of the public wasn't also getting the Rosa Parks treatment because you think that logically they should
Here's the wiki on Rosa Parks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks
Now you've read it surely you can see why the guy who was denying service to a member of the public on the grounds of their sexual orientation wasn't walking in the footsteps of Rosa Parks.
|
On June 05 2018 15:36 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2018 15:35 mozoku wrote:On June 05 2018 15:26 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2018 15:18 mozoku wrote:On June 05 2018 15:14 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2018 15:08 BigFan wrote:
One interesting thing about this case is that it seemed like this couple drove 100+ kms and passed a lot of bakeries to try and get a cake at this one. Apparently, one of them worked there and knew what he was getting into. Some folks are saying this was done on purpose, aka to net publicity and force the issue. Not sure if that's the case and I'm not sure if the distance etc... is true either, but if it's true, definitely makes you wonder why they did it. Does it matter? Rosa Parks was selected for the mission of refusing to give up her bus seat. She got onto that bus with the express intent of challenging the conductor. The fact that the confrontation was staged doesn't change shit. But somehow this logic doesn't apply to the baker if he consciously chose not to lie to couple about being "busy" for the express purpose of defending his (and others) religious freedom and good conscience? No, because he's the bigot discriminating against people. Do you genuinely not understand why Rosa Parks is a hero and the bus driver who challenged her is not? Come the fuck on man. This is some weird fucking both sides shit you're pulling here. "How can it be okay for a gay man to challenge a bigot if it's not okay for a bigot to challenge a gay man". Did SCOTUS punt the question of Rosa Parks and the bus driver in 2018 (i.e. a vastly more progressive era if it's somehow not obvious what I'm getting at)? Do you think they would have? Obviously a bunch of SCOTUS justices agree with me the this case is a little more complicated than "victim meets bigot." You're so knee-deep in your own shit that you're completely incapable of empathy for a religious person. Glad to know I'm getting lectured by you on tolerance. You genuinely asked why the "Rosa Parks did it too" logic couldn't apply to the guy doing the discrimination. Honestly the only way this could even make sense to me is if you're not really sure who Rosa Parks was. To recap, BigFan asked if it mattered that the gay guy deliberately sought to provoke a civil rights battle over discrimination against homosexuals I provided the precedent of Rosa Parks deliberately provoking a civil rights battle, and that nobody would think that undermined the validity of her complaint You, in total seriousness and without a hint of self awareness, asked why the guy refusing equal treatment to a member of the public wasn't also getting the Rosa Parks treatment because you think that logically they should Here's the wiki on Rosa Parks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_ParksNow you've read it surely you can see why the guy who was denying service to a member of the public on the grounds of their sexual orientation wasn't walking in the footsteps of Rosa Parks.
Did you forget the very post you made an hour ago when you chalked the baker's own actions up to "arrogance"?
On June 05 2018 14:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2018 14:06 mierin wrote:On June 05 2018 10:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't really care about the baker (any more than anyone else), there's a lot of legal nuance going on there, but to me there isn't really an issue in the first place. The baker could have turned them away without a SCOTUS case, he just couldn't tell them it was because they were gay.
That's such a stupid thing to be fighting about imo. Apparently this fell his way on what basically amounts to a procedural bias against him so the judges probably did the right thing strictly legally speaking (in the [quasi-]scientific way it's regarded). But considering the massive injustices this country sees every day, no he's pretty low on my priority list. Particularly when the work around for the 'unjust law' is to simply just tell them no and to find another shop, without mentioning that it's because they are gay. This a very good opinion that I feel doesn't get enough coverage. What's the difference between directly discriminating because someone is X, and politely declining said person because you are "busy" or any other range of excuses? Arrogance. Some people think their special snowflake excuse makes them above the law and gives them license to discriminate. They're the stupid ones who put it in writing and then fight it in court. The smart ones are basically impossible to catch. Oddly enough Trump was actually one of the stupid ones when he fought the DoJ over discrimination in housing in the 80s.
Given that I've made my position abundantly clear that I believe that the baker, as well as the couple, have a legitimate grievance in this case (and the fact that a majority of SCOTUS justices apparently tell me that I'm not alone here), what on Earth separates the "Rosa Parks defense" (i.e. contriving a dispute to set up legal precedent for protection of civil liberties) for the baker from your accusation of "arrogance" as motivation for why he didn't say he's busy from the the couple using the "Rosa Parks defense" as a shield from BigFan's accusation that the couple are shit-stirrers.
In your own words, "the fact the confrontation [may have been] staged doesn't change shit."
It's literally ANOTHER double-standard in the same post where you're trying to whatabout/dodge my other point about your hypocrisy on tolerance.
Like, if you don't accept my premise, that's one thing. Fine. You can disagree there. But my premise should be crystal clear to you by now, so I have no idea why you think there's otherwise some legitimate difference between the three cases.
As bad as that is, you're still not making any attempt... after multiple explicit callouts... to walk back your blatant broadstroking of all opponents of same-sex marriage (which doesn't include me btw) as hateful bigots. The fact that xDaunt gets jumped on by half the thread and banned for saying "this guy clearly wanted to meet Allah" yet you're maintaining your position with so far not a peep makes a complete and utter mockery of this thread's claim to objectivity.
|
On June 05 2018 16:35 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2018 15:36 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2018 15:35 mozoku wrote:On June 05 2018 15:26 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2018 15:18 mozoku wrote:On June 05 2018 15:14 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2018 15:08 BigFan wrote:
One interesting thing about this case is that it seemed like this couple drove 100+ kms and passed a lot of bakeries to try and get a cake at this one. Apparently, one of them worked there and knew what he was getting into. Some folks are saying this was done on purpose, aka to net publicity and force the issue. Not sure if that's the case and I'm not sure if the distance etc... is true either, but if it's true, definitely makes you wonder why they did it. Does it matter? Rosa Parks was selected for the mission of refusing to give up her bus seat. She got onto that bus with the express intent of challenging the conductor. The fact that the confrontation was staged doesn't change shit. But somehow this logic doesn't apply to the baker if he consciously chose not to lie to couple about being "busy" for the express purpose of defending his (and others) religious freedom and good conscience? No, because he's the bigot discriminating against people. Do you genuinely not understand why Rosa Parks is a hero and the bus driver who challenged her is not? Come the fuck on man. This is some weird fucking both sides shit you're pulling here. "How can it be okay for a gay man to challenge a bigot if it's not okay for a bigot to challenge a gay man". Did SCOTUS punt the question of Rosa Parks and the bus driver in 2018 (i.e. a vastly more progressive era if it's somehow not obvious what I'm getting at)? Do you think they would have? Obviously a bunch of SCOTUS justices agree with me the this case is a little more complicated than "victim meets bigot." You're so knee-deep in your own shit that you're completely incapable of empathy for a religious person. Glad to know I'm getting lectured by you on tolerance. You genuinely asked why the "Rosa Parks did it too" logic couldn't apply to the guy doing the discrimination. Honestly the only way this could even make sense to me is if you're not really sure who Rosa Parks was. To recap, BigFan asked if it mattered that the gay guy deliberately sought to provoke a civil rights battle over discrimination against homosexuals I provided the precedent of Rosa Parks deliberately provoking a civil rights battle, and that nobody would think that undermined the validity of her complaint You, in total seriousness and without a hint of self awareness, asked why the guy refusing equal treatment to a member of the public wasn't also getting the Rosa Parks treatment because you think that logically they should Here's the wiki on Rosa Parks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_ParksNow you've read it surely you can see why the guy who was denying service to a member of the public on the grounds of their sexual orientation wasn't walking in the footsteps of Rosa Parks. Did you forget the very post you made an hour ago when you chalked the baker's own actions up to "arrogance"? Show nested quote +On June 05 2018 14:12 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2018 14:06 mierin wrote:On June 05 2018 10:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't really care about the baker (any more than anyone else), there's a lot of legal nuance going on there, but to me there isn't really an issue in the first place. The baker could have turned them away without a SCOTUS case, he just couldn't tell them it was because they were gay.
That's such a stupid thing to be fighting about imo. Apparently this fell his way on what basically amounts to a procedural bias against him so the judges probably did the right thing strictly legally speaking (in the [quasi-]scientific way it's regarded). But considering the massive injustices this country sees every day, no he's pretty low on my priority list. Particularly when the work around for the 'unjust law' is to simply just tell them no and to find another shop, without mentioning that it's because they are gay. This a very good opinion that I feel doesn't get enough coverage. What's the difference between directly discriminating because someone is X, and politely declining said person because you are "busy" or any other range of excuses? Arrogance. Some people think their special snowflake excuse makes them above the law and gives them license to discriminate. They're the stupid ones who put it in writing and then fight it in court. The smart ones are basically impossible to catch. Oddly enough Trump was actually one of the stupid ones when he fought the DoJ over discrimination in housing in the 80s. Given that I've made my position abundantly clear that I believe that the baker, as well as the couple, have a legitimate grievance in this case (and the fact that a majority of SCOTUS justices apparently tell me that I'm not alone here), what on Earth separates the "Rosa Parks defense" (i.e. contriving a dispute for legal reasons) for the baker from your accusation of "arrogance" as motivation for why he didn't say he's busy from the the couple using the "Rosa Parks defense" as a shield from BigFan's accusation that the couple are shit-stirrers. In your own words, "the fact the confrontation [may have been] staged doesn't change shit."
It's literally ANOTHER double-standard in the same post where you're trying to whatabout/dodge my other point about your hypocrisy on tolerance.Like, if you don't accept my premise, that's one thing. Fine. You can disagree there. But my premise should be crystal clear to you by now, so I have no idea why you think there's otherwise some legitimate difference between the three cases. As bad as that is, you're still not making any attempt... after multiple explicit callouts... to walk back your blatant broadstroking of all opponents of same-sex marriage (which doesn't include me btw) as hateful bigots. The fact that xDaunt gets jumped on by half the thread and banned for saying "this guy clearly wanted to meet Allah" yet you're maintaining your position with so far not a peep makes a complete and utter mockery of this thread's claim to objectivity.
Being intolerant of intolerance isn't really a hypocrisy. This has been covered in this thread many times I'm sure, but its absolutely justifiable ideologically.
In this case, however, to focus on the intolerance of the baker is to ignore the baker's right to refuse to make a piece of art for a political cause he disagrees with - which I would say takes precedence over the intolerance.
Also, I'm glad they didn't make a ruling that could be generalized to other areas. The specifics of baking a bespoke cake for a gay wedding don't really generalize very well. It all rests on whether you define a gay wedding differently from a regular wedding and whether the baker was making art or selling a product.
|
Am I missing something with the word 'bigot'? I would have thought that the main reason for someone to be a bigot would be a deeply held religious belief, apparently there's a distinction to be made there.
|
On June 05 2018 17:03 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2018 16:35 mozoku wrote:On June 05 2018 15:36 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2018 15:35 mozoku wrote:On June 05 2018 15:26 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2018 15:18 mozoku wrote:On June 05 2018 15:14 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2018 15:08 BigFan wrote:
One interesting thing about this case is that it seemed like this couple drove 100+ kms and passed a lot of bakeries to try and get a cake at this one. Apparently, one of them worked there and knew what he was getting into. Some folks are saying this was done on purpose, aka to net publicity and force the issue. Not sure if that's the case and I'm not sure if the distance etc... is true either, but if it's true, definitely makes you wonder why they did it. Does it matter? Rosa Parks was selected for the mission of refusing to give up her bus seat. She got onto that bus with the express intent of challenging the conductor. The fact that the confrontation was staged doesn't change shit. But somehow this logic doesn't apply to the baker if he consciously chose not to lie to couple about being "busy" for the express purpose of defending his (and others) religious freedom and good conscience? No, because he's the bigot discriminating against people. Do you genuinely not understand why Rosa Parks is a hero and the bus driver who challenged her is not? Come the fuck on man. This is some weird fucking both sides shit you're pulling here. "How can it be okay for a gay man to challenge a bigot if it's not okay for a bigot to challenge a gay man". Did SCOTUS punt the question of Rosa Parks and the bus driver in 2018 (i.e. a vastly more progressive era if it's somehow not obvious what I'm getting at)? Do you think they would have? Obviously a bunch of SCOTUS justices agree with me the this case is a little more complicated than "victim meets bigot." You're so knee-deep in your own shit that you're completely incapable of empathy for a religious person. Glad to know I'm getting lectured by you on tolerance. You genuinely asked why the "Rosa Parks did it too" logic couldn't apply to the guy doing the discrimination. Honestly the only way this could even make sense to me is if you're not really sure who Rosa Parks was. To recap, BigFan asked if it mattered that the gay guy deliberately sought to provoke a civil rights battle over discrimination against homosexuals I provided the precedent of Rosa Parks deliberately provoking a civil rights battle, and that nobody would think that undermined the validity of her complaint You, in total seriousness and without a hint of self awareness, asked why the guy refusing equal treatment to a member of the public wasn't also getting the Rosa Parks treatment because you think that logically they should Here's the wiki on Rosa Parks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_ParksNow you've read it surely you can see why the guy who was denying service to a member of the public on the grounds of their sexual orientation wasn't walking in the footsteps of Rosa Parks. Did you forget the very post you made an hour ago when you chalked the baker's own actions up to "arrogance"? On June 05 2018 14:12 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2018 14:06 mierin wrote:On June 05 2018 10:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't really care about the baker (any more than anyone else), there's a lot of legal nuance going on there, but to me there isn't really an issue in the first place. The baker could have turned them away without a SCOTUS case, he just couldn't tell them it was because they were gay.
That's such a stupid thing to be fighting about imo. Apparently this fell his way on what basically amounts to a procedural bias against him so the judges probably did the right thing strictly legally speaking (in the [quasi-]scientific way it's regarded). But considering the massive injustices this country sees every day, no he's pretty low on my priority list. Particularly when the work around for the 'unjust law' is to simply just tell them no and to find another shop, without mentioning that it's because they are gay. This a very good opinion that I feel doesn't get enough coverage. What's the difference between directly discriminating because someone is X, and politely declining said person because you are "busy" or any other range of excuses? Arrogance. Some people think their special snowflake excuse makes them above the law and gives them license to discriminate. They're the stupid ones who put it in writing and then fight it in court. The smart ones are basically impossible to catch. Oddly enough Trump was actually one of the stupid ones when he fought the DoJ over discrimination in housing in the 80s. Given that I've made my position abundantly clear that I believe that the baker, as well as the couple, have a legitimate grievance in this case (and the fact that a majority of SCOTUS justices apparently tell me that I'm not alone here), what on Earth separates the "Rosa Parks defense" (i.e. contriving a dispute for legal reasons) for the baker from your accusation of "arrogance" as motivation for why he didn't say he's busy from the the couple using the "Rosa Parks defense" as a shield from BigFan's accusation that the couple are shit-stirrers. In your own words, "the fact the confrontation [may have been] staged doesn't change shit."
It's literally ANOTHER double-standard in the same post where you're trying to whatabout/dodge my other point about your hypocrisy on tolerance.Like, if you don't accept my premise, that's one thing. Fine. You can disagree there. But my premise should be crystal clear to you by now, so I have no idea why you think there's otherwise some legitimate difference between the three cases. As bad as that is, you're still not making any attempt... after multiple explicit callouts... to walk back your blatant broadstroking of all opponents of same-sex marriage (which doesn't include me btw) as hateful bigots. The fact that xDaunt gets jumped on by half the thread and banned for saying "this guy clearly wanted to meet Allah" yet you're maintaining your position with so far not a peep makes a complete and utter mockery of this thread's claim to objectivity. In this case, however, to focus on the intolerance of the baker is to ignore the baker's right to refuse to make a piece of art for a political cause he disagrees with - which I would say takes precedence over the intolerance.
I'll punt the first part of your post, but this was exactly my point. There isn't sufficient basis from which to conclude the the baker's refusal was born of intolerance or hate, rather than sincerely held religious belief. To assume it is born of hate is itself bias/prejudice/discrimination, and to assume that all opponents of same-sex marriage are hateful bigots while clearly not having made legitimate (or even actively avoiding) attempts to understand how they could, in theory, hold their position and not be (also when, given a certain set of "not entirely outrageous" premises, it could fairly easily be argued opposing same-sex marriage is morally correct) is the same sort of intolerance that KwarK and others purport to be fighting against.
|
Sincerely held religious beliefs that some people are to be considered unnatural should really be called what they are. Unsubstantiated claims about things the claimant knows Jack shit about.
|
On June 05 2018 15:35 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2018 15:26 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2018 15:18 mozoku wrote:On June 05 2018 15:14 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2018 15:08 BigFan wrote:
One interesting thing about this case is that it seemed like this couple drove 100+ kms and passed a lot of bakeries to try and get a cake at this one. Apparently, one of them worked there and knew what he was getting into. Some folks are saying this was done on purpose, aka to net publicity and force the issue. Not sure if that's the case and I'm not sure if the distance etc... is true either, but if it's true, definitely makes you wonder why they did it. Does it matter? Rosa Parks was selected for the mission of refusing to give up her bus seat. She got onto that bus with the express intent of challenging the conductor. The fact that the confrontation was staged doesn't change shit. But somehow this logic doesn't apply to the baker if he consciously chose not to lie to couple about being "busy" for the express purpose of defending his (and others) religious freedom and good conscience? No, because he's the bigot discriminating against people. Do you genuinely not understand why Rosa Parks is a hero and the bus driver who challenged her is not? Come the fuck on man. This is some weird fucking both sides shit you're pulling here. "How can it be okay for a gay man to challenge a bigot if it's not okay for a bigot to challenge a gay man". Did SCOTUS punt the question of Rosa Parks and the bus driver in 2018 (i.e. a vastly more progressive era if it's somehow not obvious what I'm getting at)? Do you think they would have? Obviously a bunch of SCOTUS justices agree with me the this case is a little more complicated than "victim meets bigot." You're so knee-deep in your own shit that you're completely incapable of empathy for a religious person. Glad to know I'm getting lectured by you on tolerance.
Or they are sick of religion being invoked when convenient because of the power it holds. Discrimination, opting out of taxes, opting out of healthcare mandates etc.
Some of us religious folk are also sick of people using our religion as a mace they can bludgeon other people with. The way the religious right acts now a days is barely recognizeable as Christianity.
|
On June 05 2018 17:16 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2018 17:03 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 05 2018 16:35 mozoku wrote:On June 05 2018 15:36 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2018 15:35 mozoku wrote:On June 05 2018 15:26 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2018 15:18 mozoku wrote:On June 05 2018 15:14 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2018 15:08 BigFan wrote:
One interesting thing about this case is that it seemed like this couple drove 100+ kms and passed a lot of bakeries to try and get a cake at this one. Apparently, one of them worked there and knew what he was getting into. Some folks are saying this was done on purpose, aka to net publicity and force the issue. Not sure if that's the case and I'm not sure if the distance etc... is true either, but if it's true, definitely makes you wonder why they did it. Does it matter? Rosa Parks was selected for the mission of refusing to give up her bus seat. She got onto that bus with the express intent of challenging the conductor. The fact that the confrontation was staged doesn't change shit. But somehow this logic doesn't apply to the baker if he consciously chose not to lie to couple about being "busy" for the express purpose of defending his (and others) religious freedom and good conscience? No, because he's the bigot discriminating against people. Do you genuinely not understand why Rosa Parks is a hero and the bus driver who challenged her is not? Come the fuck on man. This is some weird fucking both sides shit you're pulling here. "How can it be okay for a gay man to challenge a bigot if it's not okay for a bigot to challenge a gay man". Did SCOTUS punt the question of Rosa Parks and the bus driver in 2018 (i.e. a vastly more progressive era if it's somehow not obvious what I'm getting at)? Do you think they would have? Obviously a bunch of SCOTUS justices agree with me the this case is a little more complicated than "victim meets bigot." You're so knee-deep in your own shit that you're completely incapable of empathy for a religious person. Glad to know I'm getting lectured by you on tolerance. You genuinely asked why the "Rosa Parks did it too" logic couldn't apply to the guy doing the discrimination. Honestly the only way this could even make sense to me is if you're not really sure who Rosa Parks was. To recap, BigFan asked if it mattered that the gay guy deliberately sought to provoke a civil rights battle over discrimination against homosexuals I provided the precedent of Rosa Parks deliberately provoking a civil rights battle, and that nobody would think that undermined the validity of her complaint You, in total seriousness and without a hint of self awareness, asked why the guy refusing equal treatment to a member of the public wasn't also getting the Rosa Parks treatment because you think that logically they should Here's the wiki on Rosa Parks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_ParksNow you've read it surely you can see why the guy who was denying service to a member of the public on the grounds of their sexual orientation wasn't walking in the footsteps of Rosa Parks. Did you forget the very post you made an hour ago when you chalked the baker's own actions up to "arrogance"? On June 05 2018 14:12 KwarK wrote:On June 05 2018 14:06 mierin wrote:On June 05 2018 10:45 GreenHorizons wrote:
I don't really care about the baker (any more than anyone else), there's a lot of legal nuance going on there, but to me there isn't really an issue in the first place. The baker could have turned them away without a SCOTUS case, he just couldn't tell them it was because they were gay.
That's such a stupid thing to be fighting about imo. Apparently this fell his way on what basically amounts to a procedural bias against him so the judges probably did the right thing strictly legally speaking (in the [quasi-]scientific way it's regarded). But considering the massive injustices this country sees every day, no he's pretty low on my priority list. Particularly when the work around for the 'unjust law' is to simply just tell them no and to find another shop, without mentioning that it's because they are gay. This a very good opinion that I feel doesn't get enough coverage. What's the difference between directly discriminating because someone is X, and politely declining said person because you are "busy" or any other range of excuses? Arrogance. Some people think their special snowflake excuse makes them above the law and gives them license to discriminate. They're the stupid ones who put it in writing and then fight it in court. The smart ones are basically impossible to catch. Oddly enough Trump was actually one of the stupid ones when he fought the DoJ over discrimination in housing in the 80s. Given that I've made my position abundantly clear that I believe that the baker, as well as the couple, have a legitimate grievance in this case (and the fact that a majority of SCOTUS justices apparently tell me that I'm not alone here), what on Earth separates the "Rosa Parks defense" (i.e. contriving a dispute for legal reasons) for the baker from your accusation of "arrogance" as motivation for why he didn't say he's busy from the the couple using the "Rosa Parks defense" as a shield from BigFan's accusation that the couple are shit-stirrers. In your own words, "the fact the confrontation [may have been] staged doesn't change shit."
It's literally ANOTHER double-standard in the same post where you're trying to whatabout/dodge my other point about your hypocrisy on tolerance.Like, if you don't accept my premise, that's one thing. Fine. You can disagree there. But my premise should be crystal clear to you by now, so I have no idea why you think there's otherwise some legitimate difference between the three cases. As bad as that is, you're still not making any attempt... after multiple explicit callouts... to walk back your blatant broadstroking of all opponents of same-sex marriage (which doesn't include me btw) as hateful bigots. The fact that xDaunt gets jumped on by half the thread and banned for saying "this guy clearly wanted to meet Allah" yet you're maintaining your position with so far not a peep makes a complete and utter mockery of this thread's claim to objectivity. In this case, however, to focus on the intolerance of the baker is to ignore the baker's right to refuse to make a piece of art for a political cause he disagrees with - which I would say takes precedence over the intolerance. I'll punt the first part of your post, but this was exactly my point. There isn't sufficient basis from which to conclude the the baker's refusal was born of intolerance or hate, rather than sincerely held religious belief. To assume it is born of hate is itself bias/prejudice/discrimination, and to assume that all opponents of same-sex marriage are hateful bigots while clearly not having made legitimate (or even actively avoiding) attempts to understand how they could, in theory, hold their position and not be (also when, given a certain set of "not entirely outrageous" premises, it could fairly easily be argued opposing same-sex marriage is morally correct) is the same sort of intolerance that KwarK and others purport to be fighting against.
Sorry, but just because you sincerely believe gays are going to burn in everlasting hell doesn't make that belief any less hateful. If I sincerely believed that choosing mozoku as your user name on online forums was performing an atrocious act of evil, and evil of this kind should be combated, it'd not matter to you whether I sincerely believed that, or was just using that "belief" as a shield to hide my hateful ideas of discriminating against mozokus behind.
|
I'm conflicted about religion and the practice of it.
On one hand I think it's a good way to lead your life if that conviction works for you: there's a community that will embrace you, there's clear rules on the do's and don'ts, truths about being human (humanity) can reveal itself through the stories, it's the essence of the culture your region resides in (doesn't matter if you're an atheist, you still express and hold a lot of Christian values in the West).
On the other it's one that clearly can discriminate other members of society (non-group members or group-members that collide with your convictions), which is kind of unacceptable in our current form of Western civilization.
But I prefer to view our current multicultural format like this:
Micro-(sub)cultures everywhere tied to microcommunites. Everybody has their place somehow (in an idealized format; I know about the systemic racism in Alabama or Kentucky or wherever else, please don't remind me), everybody has A community this person can be comfortable in. This community should be large enough for the person to do what he wants. This doesn't mean that his values won't clash with other communities, but that shouldn't be an issue, because the communities are segregated.
Little aside, for those who might find random trains of thought interesting:
+ Show Spoiler +Multiculturalism is segregatory by nature. Nobody can be a hippie and a venture capitalist and a Muslim (please prove me wrong, I'd love to see a Muslim hippie venture capitalist). Immigrants will generally speaking bond more easily with people from their own region (people who share their language, habits, religion, food, ...), it shouldn't be this way necessarily (if you look at an ideal multicultural society where everybody can be everybody's neighbor and there shouldn't ever be a conflict based on personal conviction), but it's deeply etched in our mental states.
Something like sexuality or expression thereof (or attributes linked to sexuality, like gender) also permeates (sub)cultures, but the difference is that culture is largely a social (interpersonal) expression, while sexuality (being part of it) is a highly personal one, only shared with the people you choose to share it with (if any). It seems like these aspects of humanity are at odds with each other. Somehow, being homosexual and being Christian or Muslim shouldn't be possible because of the environment you're exposed to, but it does happen, even though the doctrines dictate it's forbidden (I'm not sure it's explicitly stated in both religions, but I'm assuming it is. If anything, it's the general consensus in both religions).
But I think a fully integrated, ideal, multicultural society needs not only separation of church and state (and have everybody practicing their culture accepting that initial separation), but also having individual expression being separated (like sexuality, or appearance), which becomes another cultural phenomenon next to religion and "state affairs". It's nobody's business to tell you how you should look (unless you subscribed to a certain professional etiquette: the house rules so to speak) or how to express yourself private. I'd say we're doing a pretty good job in the West of doing so already. We have swingers clubs, porn (conventions), bdsm clubs (are they called clubs?), etc. And we also have metalheads, skaters, jocks, businessmen, bikers, ... so our level of personal expression (personal freedom) is already pretty high, albeit still not completely eradicated because of the strong influence religion still has on society. But now back to my point...
Because society is so fragmented in subcultures it's nearly always possible to realize your intention in your community or another community that shares certain values of yours.
Another side point, about what I think is the problem of multiculturalism...
+ Show Spoiler +The big problem is inter-communal conflict. It's probably the greatest single weakness of a large, nationwide (or even hemisphere spanning) society. People sharing the same values (let's say how these values are acquired isn't important for now even though I know they are) will stick together. I think we will come to a point where, for instance, a white supremacist community won't exist anymore (it'll take a long time and a few more generations, and a lot of exposure to different cultures and good exposure, not just perpetuation of bigoted stereotyping), or perhaps it's statistically impossible to eradicate certain social groups (based on the psychological profile or each individual in that group), I don't know anymore.
We can come to a point in time where, even with communities holding vastly different values, everyone can achieve what they want because the communities the people reside in are extensive enough it doesn't matter if there's a baker who won't bake a cake for gay people, because for one of those who won't, there will be 20 who will. You can argue that certain convictions shouldn't be held (and I agree with that), but it's unrealistic to demand this of everyone, taking into account everyone's background, their ambitions and their current situation. I can completely understand (and to a certain point accept) why someone having a series of bad experiences with immigrants or foreigners over a number of years can make this person racist. He would be empirically wrong, but it wouldn't invalidate his experiences. He's the statistical outlier that needs to be taken into account. Individuals are not just a statistic, even though they are (this makes sense, no?). In the same vein I can completely understand why a baker with these beliefs, how unfounded they might be (even to a moderate Christian), make the baker not bake that cake.
Communal convictions, which the baker personally ascribes to, or grew up in and is so entwined with his personality, prevented him from baking the cake. It would cause inner conflict. In regards to Rosa Parks it were systemic convictions that caused the incident. It would've been more relatable if people could sit where they wanted, but the busdriver specifically targeted her to move to make place for a white person.
Society is too hyperfragmented and complex to give everyone what they want or to have some general values permeate everywhere. General values like not stealing, killing and raping and wanting to have housing, safety, heat, water and food are shared by everyone. The more nuanced stuff is not only tedious to flesh out because it varies case by case, but becomes unnecessary at a point.
In Belgium, we're a tiny country (very multicultural though, even among our white communities AND even though >50% still identifies as Christian, it's so diluted it couldn't even be called moderate anymore), we "only" have 11 million people to account for and it's such a fucking hassle already. It can't be generalized. Too many people want different things. And we're kind of okay with that.
Our extremes might not be as extreme as in the US, but that's a question of scope imo. 300 million more people and 9804000 km2 more surface area will do that for you.
Also, lastly and very important to consider: from the outside trying to get in (trying to make a baker bake your cake f.e.) is different than trying to get out from the inside (someone that's gay who grew up in an orthodox value system f.e.)
This makes the situation from individual to individual and community to community so much more complex.
|
So according to Danglar Obama is the racist in Trayvon Martin case beause he said the murdered kid could have been his son, and according to Mozoku a biggoted baker who doesn’t want to make a wedding cake because his client is gay is totally like Rosa Park.
Isn’t it a wonderful time to be alive...
|
What do you expect in the era of Trumpian doublespeak? Reverse the meaning of words and all words become meaningless. Discussion cannot be had and whatever "the president" says becomes the gospel truth.
|
You'd think that with causing this whole US-EU divide by leaving Paris/Iran accords and random trade wars, you'd at least want qualified ambassadors with the most important countries there to mend the wounds a little. But the ambassador to Germany decided it was a good idea to tell Breitbart about how much he likes to empower right wing movements in Europe instead.
The German government demanded a formal explanation from the United States on Monday of what, exactly, the new U.S. ambassador in Berlin, Richard Grenell, meant when he promised to use his office to help far-right nationalists inspired by Donald Trump take power across Europe.
In an interview with Breitbart News, published on Sunday, Grenell said he was “excited” by the rise of far-right parties on the continent and wanted “to empower other conservatives throughout Europe, other leaders.”
Grenell was apparently not asked if that group includes the far-right Alternative for Germany — known by its German initials AfD — the largest opposition party in the German parliament, but he did praise Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, a center-right politician who is in coalition with the Freedom Party, which was formed in the 1950s by a former Nazi officer.
A spokesperson for the German foreign ministry told reporters that Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government had “asked the U.S. side for clarification” as to whether the remarks “were made as reported.”
Grenell, a former Fox News pundit whose abrasive Twitter style had already alienated many Germans, tweeted on Monday that it was “ridiculous” to suggest that he would endorse candidates or parties, but stood by his claim to Breitbart that Europe, like America, was “experiencing an awakening from the silent majority — those who reject the elites and their bubble. Led by Trump.”
Leaving aside that Trump was, in fact, elected by a hypervocal minority of American voters, his envoy’s apparent willingness to cast off diplomatic neutrality and meddle in the internal affairs of European countries caused an uproar.
Sevim Dagdelen, a member of the left-wing German opposition party Die Linke, suggested that Grenell had revealed himself to be Trump’s “regime change envoy.”
The leaders of Germany’s Social Democratic Party, the junior coalition partner in Merkel’s government, were similarly unstinting in their condemnation. “Europe’s citizens cannot be told how to vote by a Trump vassal,” the party’s vice chair, Thorsten Schäfer-Gümbel, wrote on Twitter. “A U.S. ambassador who meddles in democratic contests is simply out of place,” he added, perhaps hinting that the ambassador could be asked to go home.
Martin Schulz, the former leader of the Social Democrats, accused Grenell of behaving less like a diplomat than “an extreme-right colonial officer.”
Omid Nouripour, the foreign policy spokesman for Germany’s Green party, told Der Spiegel that “the American people should be able to expect partisan neutrality from their representative in Germany, because he represents all Americans, not just Breitbart and Fox News.”
Guy Verhofstadt, a former prime minister of Belgium who now leads the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, a free-market group in the European Parliament, tweeted: “We have to defend Europe against Trump. It’s not up to his ambassador to influence our elections and steer our society. We respect the sovereignty of the U.S., they have to respect ours.” Verhofstadt added the hashtag #GrenellRaus — “Grenell Out” — to his tweet.
There was, however, one political leader in Berlin on Monday who demonstrated his support for the embattled American ambassador. Israel’s far-right prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, announced at a news conference with Merkel that he had agreed to a brief meeting with Grenell, at the ambassador’s request, before leaving the German capital.
source
|
On June 05 2018 21:09 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:You'd think that with causing this whole US-EU divide by leaving Paris/Iran accords and random trade wars, you'd at least want qualified ambassadors with the most important countries there to mend the wounds a little. But the ambassador to Germany decided it was a good idea to tell Breitbart about how much he likes to empower right wing movements in Europe instead. Show nested quote +The German government demanded a formal explanation from the United States on Monday of what, exactly, the new U.S. ambassador in Berlin, Richard Grenell, meant when he promised to use his office to help far-right nationalists inspired by Donald Trump take power across Europe.
In an interview with Breitbart News, published on Sunday, Grenell said he was “excited” by the rise of far-right parties on the continent and wanted “to empower other conservatives throughout Europe, other leaders.”
Grenell was apparently not asked if that group includes the far-right Alternative for Germany — known by its German initials AfD — the largest opposition party in the German parliament, but he did praise Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, a center-right politician who is in coalition with the Freedom Party, which was formed in the 1950s by a former Nazi officer.
A spokesperson for the German foreign ministry told reporters that Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government had “asked the U.S. side for clarification” as to whether the remarks “were made as reported.”
Grenell, a former Fox News pundit whose abrasive Twitter style had already alienated many Germans, tweeted on Monday that it was “ridiculous” to suggest that he would endorse candidates or parties, but stood by his claim to Breitbart that Europe, like America, was “experiencing an awakening from the silent majority — those who reject the elites and their bubble. Led by Trump.”
Leaving aside that Trump was, in fact, elected by a hypervocal minority of American voters, his envoy’s apparent willingness to cast off diplomatic neutrality and meddle in the internal affairs of European countries caused an uproar.
Sevim Dagdelen, a member of the left-wing German opposition party Die Linke, suggested that Grenell had revealed himself to be Trump’s “regime change envoy.”
The leaders of Germany’s Social Democratic Party, the junior coalition partner in Merkel’s government, were similarly unstinting in their condemnation. “Europe’s citizens cannot be told how to vote by a Trump vassal,” the party’s vice chair, Thorsten Schäfer-Gümbel, wrote on Twitter. “A U.S. ambassador who meddles in democratic contests is simply out of place,” he added, perhaps hinting that the ambassador could be asked to go home.
Martin Schulz, the former leader of the Social Democrats, accused Grenell of behaving less like a diplomat than “an extreme-right colonial officer.”
Omid Nouripour, the foreign policy spokesman for Germany’s Green party, told Der Spiegel that “the American people should be able to expect partisan neutrality from their representative in Germany, because he represents all Americans, not just Breitbart and Fox News.”
Guy Verhofstadt, a former prime minister of Belgium who now leads the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, a free-market group in the European Parliament, tweeted: “We have to defend Europe against Trump. It’s not up to his ambassador to influence our elections and steer our society. We respect the sovereignty of the U.S., they have to respect ours.” Verhofstadt added the hashtag #GrenellRaus — “Grenell Out” — to his tweet.
There was, however, one political leader in Berlin on Monday who demonstrated his support for the embattled American ambassador. Israel’s far-right prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, announced at a news conference with Merkel that he had agreed to a brief meeting with Grenell, at the ambassador’s request, before leaving the German capital. source The fault is thinking the current US government is interested in mending the wounds with the EU.
|
Normally the job of an ambassador is to express and influence other countries for his own countries favour. What is strange is that the ambassador diplomatically overt and crude about it and beleives that it would be in his countries favour to support far right causes..."led by Trump".
|
On June 05 2018 21:18 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Normally the job of an ambassador is to express and influence other countries for his own countries favour. What is strange is that the ambassador diplomatically overt and crude about it and beleives that it would be in his countries favour to support far right causes..."led by Trump".
Strangely enough, the ambassador to the Netherlands is also being criticized this week for making strange comments about how the Dutch should act against Russia (boycot everything). Although he is generally loathed already for calling parts of Holland "no-go zones" and doing a Trump and denying he ever said that when confronted with the video evidence. I think we can safely conclude that US ambassadors to European countries who are not there to strengthen the relationship between those countries and the US, but rather an extension of Trump's bizarre 0-sum interpretation of global politics.
|
I will remind all our EU posters that the US senate confirmed all of these clowns and sent them to your country. It didn't need to be like this.
|
The following happened, in this order:
1. The White House invited the Philadelphia Eagles to come visit.
2. Most of the Eagles said "Hell naw, fuck Trump."
3. Trump started to pout and wanted to come up with a way to reverse the break-up so it looked like he uninvited the Eagles instead of getting turned down by them.
4. Trump turned on Fox News, where reporters were lying about the Eagles players kneeling during the National Anthem (they were actually showing pictures of Eagles players praying long before the game and music started).
5. Trump sees the fake news on Fox, believes it, and decides to uninvite the remaining Eagles players who were actually willing to visit the White House in the first place out of pity for Trump.
https://deadspin.com/fox-news-shows-eagles-players-praying-falsely-implies-1826564582?utm_medium=sharefromsite&utm_source=Deadspin_facebook
|
Is it really wise to piss off the Canada?
|
Yeah, this thing has gone from man baby pitching a fit to the President of the United States straight up lying about American citizens and their actions. Fox is basically slandering them on national TV, using photos of them kneeling for prayer to back up his false claims.
Straight, the Eagles should filing a defamation claim against Fox News.
|
Im sitting here updating system tables for SIMA tarriffs, half my import software clients are American corps losing their shit right now..
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
