|
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 18:38 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2018 17:16 mozoku wrote: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.
Some form of this statement came up several times, but it's the same intolerant nonsense that is near-ubiquitous in this thread.
There's is quite clearly an enormous moral difference between these two positions:
1. "I hate gays because I think they're gross. I'm Christian and I see in the Bible that it says somewhere that marriage is between a man and a woman. I try to use that as much as possible to openly discriminate against gays, and I applied that to this gay couple when they asked me to bake their wedding cake because I'm an arrogant dick"
2. "I am devoutly religious and I believe Jesus preaches tolerance for all people. I also believe that God intends for marriage to be between a man and a woman, and that gay marriage is a sin. However, all people sin and Jesus teaches that I am not to judge others. I oppose gay marriage and I pray, for gays' own sake, that gays can follow God's teachings and not participate in same-sex marriages. However, I recognize that each person must make his or her own choices, and I accept gays and treat them as I would any straight person--even if I believe they are making a mistake in their same-sex marriage.
Sins, in my interpretation of the Bible, may result in going to Hell. I am uncomfortable assisting someone going down a path that may result in their eternal suffering, and so baking a cake for a gay wedding is morally traumatic for me."
Whatever you may feel about the latter position, it's one that certainly exists among a significant number of Christians. And it is quite clear neither a bigoted nor hateful view.
The fact that so many of you are actively avoiding acknowledging the latter group exists and assuming all opponents of same-sex marriage are essentially the same as Jim Crow-era racists is not only discriminatory in itself, but it's exactly the same hostile rhetoric that SCOTUS used (in part) to justify in its majority opinion in the baker's favor. "Both parties have the right to dignity, and [the justices] take issue with the fact that the Colorado Commission inappropriately invoked the Holocaust and Civil Rights era racists in their accusations of the baker." Not an exact quote, but it's certainly in the opinion.
Yet I'm the one that gets lambasted by a smorgasboard of the usual me-too posters with snarky one-to-two-liners comments composed of zero arguments and full of misrepresentation.
|
United States24578 Posts
On June 06 2018 10:52 mozoku wrote:
However, I recognize that each person must make his or her own choices, and I accept gays and treat them as I would any straight person--even if I believe they are making a mistake in their same-sex marriage.
Is it treating gay people the same if you won't bake them wedding cakes the way you will for heterosexual couples getting married?
Sins, in my interpretation of the Bible, may result in going to Hell. I am uncomfortable assisting someone going down a path that may result in their eternal suffering, and so baking a cake for a gay wedding is morally traumatic for me." Is the principle here that business workers should not be compelled to do something for another if that act will be traumatic? Is it they can't be compelled if the trauma is due to religious beliefs but not other beliefs? If so, why the difference?
|
United States41984 Posts
It's like mozoku is unaware that there was genuine religious opposition to miscegenation and that literally all these arguments about heartfelt religious opposition have already been decided.
The guys opposing interracial marriage weren't straw man bigots who were incapable of eloquently making a case and said nigger every other word. They were indistinguishable from you.
|
On June 06 2018 10:36 KwarK wrote:
Holy shit! I kept waiting for something to happen but it was just nothing, the guy was just on the phone. Then out of nowhere they all started beating the shit out of him. Guy was lucky to survive, they literally attempted to beat him to death for nothing.
Seems like a classic case of 'do you know who i am?' type of people losing their shit in the face of mild apathy. You can see a critical error in the demeanor of mr handsy bald cop when the guy on the phone doesn't give him his full attention. But how do you get rid of this when the others just blindly follow and cover for the lowest common denominator?
|
On June 06 2018 11:09 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2018 10:36 KwarK wrote:
Holy shit! I kept waiting for something to happen but it was just nothing, the guy was just on the phone. Then out of nowhere they all started beating the shit out of him. Guy was lucky to survive, they literally attempted to beat him to death for nothing. Seems like a classic case of 'do you know who i am?' type of people losing their shit in the face of mild apathy. You can see a critical error in the demeanor of mr handsy bald cop when the guy on the phone doesn't give him his full attention. But how do you get rid of this when the others just blindly follow and cover for the lowest common denominator?
Or as O'Shea Jackson once put it:
But don't let it be a black and a white one
‘Cause they'll slam ya down to the street top
Black police showing out for the white cop
I know this is isn't the answer most people want, but... Abolish the police as we know them
|
On June 06 2018 11:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2018 11:09 Dan HH wrote:On June 06 2018 10:36 KwarK wrote:
Holy shit! I kept waiting for something to happen but it was just nothing, the guy was just on the phone. Then out of nowhere they all started beating the shit out of him. Guy was lucky to survive, they literally attempted to beat him to death for nothing. Seems like a classic case of 'do you know who i am?' type of people losing their shit in the face of mild apathy. You can see a critical error in the demeanor of mr handsy bald cop when the guy on the phone doesn't give him his full attention. But how do you get rid of this when the others just blindly follow and cover for the lowest common denominator? Or as O'Shea Jackson once put it: Show nested quote +But don't let it be a black and a white one
‘Cause they'll slam ya down to the street top
Black police showing out for the white cop I know this is isn't the answer most people want, but... Abolish the police as we know them
Honestly I agree with you. Maybe abolishing the police isn't the exact answer, but all this SJW kneeling at the national anthem stuff isn't working, and will never work. If we want real change, real action has to happen.
|
On June 06 2018 11:28 mierin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2018 11:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2018 11:09 Dan HH wrote:On June 06 2018 10:36 KwarK wrote:
Holy shit! I kept waiting for something to happen but it was just nothing, the guy was just on the phone. Then out of nowhere they all started beating the shit out of him. Guy was lucky to survive, they literally attempted to beat him to death for nothing. Seems like a classic case of 'do you know who i am?' type of people losing their shit in the face of mild apathy. You can see a critical error in the demeanor of mr handsy bald cop when the guy on the phone doesn't give him his full attention. But how do you get rid of this when the others just blindly follow and cover for the lowest common denominator? Or as O'Shea Jackson once put it: But don't let it be a black and a white one
‘Cause they'll slam ya down to the street top
Black police showing out for the white cop I know this is isn't the answer most people want, but... Abolish the police as we know them Honestly I agree with you. Maybe abolishing the police isn't the exact answer, but all this SJW kneeling at the national anthem stuff isn't working, and will never work. If we want real change, real action has to happen.
I mean none of this is a shock to anyone in police leadership. It's not a matter of trying to fix this kind of stuff, they see the problem as officers getting caught and the media not minding their own business, not the officers actions. A significant portion of cops sign up for power and are just waiting for someone to give them a reason (or an opportunity) to abuse it.
They need a dose of their own preferred method of course correction. A rough trip to the penitentiary for a few year stay.
|
United States41984 Posts
As the saying goes, a few bad apples are probably fine and not something we should look into.
|
The long history of black athletes protesting makes me believe the SJW kneeling with have its place in the history books.
|
On June 06 2018 10:57 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2018 10:52 mozoku wrote:
However, I recognize that each person must make his or her own choices, and I accept gays and treat them as I would any straight person--even if I believe they are making a mistake in their same-sex marriage. Is it treating gay people the same if you won't bake them wedding cakes the way you will for heterosexual couples getting married?
Yes, when categorized into the more general case of "I find it morally objectionable to knowingly assist in others' sins."
If you change the context of the sin, the principle is obviously consistent. I don't expect to find many clergymen that are comfortable with assisting adulterers either.
Show nested quote +Sins, in my interpretation of the Bible, may result in going to Hell. I am uncomfortable assisting someone going down a path that may result in their eternal suffering, and so baking a cake for a gay wedding is morally traumatic for me." Is the principle here that business workers should not be compelled to do something for another if that act will be traumatic? Is it they can't be compelled if the trauma is due to religious beliefs but not other beliefs? If so, why the difference?
I've not tried to establish a consistent legal principle, and I consistently and intentionally have ducked the legal question as I'm aware that both a) IANAL and b) rulings such as these often come down to the individual judgment of the justices as much as they do the letter of the law. My only comment on the legal issue is that any ruling would either require objectionable speech compulsion for baker or unfair discrimination against the couple.
I'm still at the point of trying to demonstrate that there can be a legitimate, non-hateful opposition to baking the cake from baker's perspective, and that assuming he's a hateful bigot is morally objectionable and hypocritical for anyone who claims to espouse tolerance as a value.
On June 06 2018 11:02 KwarK wrote:
It's like mozoku is unaware that there was genuine religious opposition to miscegenation and that literally all these arguments about heartfelt religious opposition have already been decided.
The guys opposing interracial marriage weren't straw man bigots who were incapable of eloquently making a case and said nigger every other word. They were indistinguishable from you.
Well they clearly haven't been entirely decided, judging from yesterday's ruling. Or are you telling me that you think a baker with sincere religious beliefs against miscegenation would be legally compelled to bake a cake for an interracial marriage?
In case you somehow haven't noticed, I'm not arguing against legalized same-sex marriages (and personally I support same-sex marriage). Those heartfelt arguments made years ago have nothing to do with your own evident bigotry either, so I'm not sure why they're relevant to the present discussion.
|
United States41984 Posts
On June 06 2018 11:41 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2018 11:02 KwarK wrote:
It's like mozoku is unaware that there was genuine religious opposition to miscegenation and that literally all these arguments about heartfelt religious opposition have already been decided.
The guys opposing interracial marriage weren't straw man bigots who were incapable of eloquently making a case and said nigger every other word. They were indistinguishable from you. Well they clearly haven't been entirely decided, judging from yesterday's ruling. Or are you telling me that you think a baker with sincere religious beliefs against miscegenation would be legally compelled to bake a cake for an interracial marriage?
Just to clarify what you're saying here, we agree that religious discrimination against interracial couples is comparable to religious discrimination against homosexual couples, but I think both are unacceptable whereas you think that both are acceptable?
|
I think that sincere religious opposition to interracial marriage is comparable to sincere religious opposition to same-sex marriage (legally and ethically). As for the latter, I would say that I don't necessarily consider someone a hateful bigot for opposing interracial marriage out of sincere religious belief. There's a non-zero probability that they either are or are not a hateful bigot, and it would be unfair to label them as either without more information.
|
United States41984 Posts
On June 06 2018 11:51 mozoku wrote:
I think that sincere religious opposition to interracial marriage is comparable to sincere religious opposition to same-sex marriage (legally and ethically). As for the latter, I would say that I don't necessarily consider someone a hateful bigot for opposing interracial marriage out of sincere religious belief. There's a non-zero probability that they either are or are not a hateful bigot, and it would be unfair to label them as either without more information.
Should someone who commercially bakes cakes be legally compelled to accept an order for an interracial wedding if they have a genuine religious objection to miscegenation?
|
They can’t legal compel anyone to preform a specific action. But they can bare and fine business for violating anti discrimination laws by offering services they are unwilling to preform fro gay couples.
The end result of these lawsuits won’t be a special exemption for religious expression. It will be that fewer religious folks will make wedding cakes. Just like people who objected to interracial marriage on religious grounds slowly got away from the wedding business. This argument has been had before and freedoms of religious expression didn’t overcome the governments ability to regulate commerce, either at the state or federal level.
|
United States41984 Posts
On June 06 2018 11:54 Plansix wrote:
They can’t legal compel anyone to preform a specific action. But they can bare and fine business for violating anti discrimination laws by offering services they are unwilling to preform fro gay couples.
The end result of these lawsuits won’t be a special exemption for religious expression. It will be that fewer religious folks will make wedding cakes. Just like people who objected to interracial marriage on religious grounds slowly got away from the wedding business.
I know that you can't physically compel a service out of people (except in prison) because we don't have slavery anymore (except in prison). But legally sanctioning someone for not performing a service is what I meant by legally compelling it. Fines are an example of what I was talking about.
|
On June 06 2018 11:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2018 11:54 Plansix wrote:
They can’t legal compel anyone to preform a specific action. But they can bare and fine business for violating anti discrimination laws by offering services they are unwilling to preform fro gay couples.
The end result of these lawsuits won’t be a special exemption for religious expression. It will be that fewer religious folks will make wedding cakes. Just like people who objected to interracial marriage on religious grounds slowly got away from the wedding business. I know that you can't physically compel a service out of people (except in prison) because we don't have slavery anymore (except in prison). But legally sanctioning someone for not performing a service is what I meant by legally compelling it. Fines are an example of what I was talking about.
I agree with you. I’m undercutting the argument that people make about forcing the man to bake a cake. He won’t be forced to bake a wedding cake. He will be fined or prohibited from selling them because he violated the state’s anti discrimination laws.
The specific relief argument is a red herring that some folks likes to throw out there. But it has no place in this argument.
|
United States41984 Posts
k, we good 
|
On June 06 2018 11:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2018 11:51 mozoku wrote:
I think that sincere religious opposition to interracial marriage is comparable to sincere religious opposition to same-sex marriage (legally and ethically). As for the latter, I would say that I don't necessarily consider someone a hateful bigot for opposing interracial marriage out of sincere religious belief. There's a non-zero probability that they either are or are not a hateful bigot, and it would be unfair to label them as either without more information. Should someone who commercially bakes cakes be legally compelled to accept an order for an interracial wedding if they have a genuine religious objection to miscegenation?
My answer is the same as it was for same-sex weddings: I see legitimate moral grievances for the losing party no matter how the question is answered, and I'm not comfortable dictating which party should have to suffer.
In reality, the naive side of me wishes it would mostly be worked out at an individual-level--if you're not comfortable serving all visitors, make your best efforts stay out of the wedding cake business; and if you're a gay/interracial couple, don't seek out the evangelical bakers who might feel morally conflicted by your request. I'm well-aware that that's not a practical solution at the societal-level though (for many reasons).
|
On June 06 2018 11:41 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2018 10:57 micronesia wrote:On June 06 2018 10:52 mozoku wrote:
However, I recognize that each person must make his or her own choices, and I accept gays and treat them as I would any straight person--even if I believe they are making a mistake in their same-sex marriage. Is it treating gay people the same if you won't bake them wedding cakes the way you will for heterosexual couples getting married? Yes, when categorized into the more general case of "I find it morally objectionable to knowingly assist in others' sins."If you change the context of the sin, the principle is obviously consistent. I don't expect to find many clergymen that are comfortable with assisting adulterers either.
This is one of the big key points. Christians show love and compassion to someone practicing an adulterous lifestyle, but maybe they draw the line at throwing a big party saying "Congratulations on the Adultery!" It's one thing to focus on care for the individual, without imparting moral sanction on the practice.
Since this is related to a community I am a part of, I'll bring up this related scripture. who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. + Show Spoiler +
Without getting too deep in theology, some people interpret this to mean that celebrating the practice is enough to run afoul of the biblical command not to give approval to acts condemned by God. That's a command directed at the person giving his/her public approval, not at the friendly or loving relationship between the individuals in the same-sex marriage and the Christian baker.
Is it treating gay people the same if you won't bake them wedding cakes the way you will for heterosexual couples getting married?
Yes, when categorized into the more general case of "I find it morally objectionable to knowingly assist in others' sins.
I was trying to find an alternative phrasing, but I keep coming back this quoted one. The ceremony is a public and religious celebration to the Christian, and easily causes some to find participation identical to giving assent.
|
United States41984 Posts
On June 06 2018 12:05 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2018 11:52 KwarK wrote:On June 06 2018 11:51 mozoku wrote:
I think that sincere religious opposition to interracial marriage is comparable to sincere religious opposition to same-sex marriage (legally and ethically). As for the latter, I would say that I don't necessarily consider someone a hateful bigot for opposing interracial marriage out of sincere religious belief. There's a non-zero probability that they either are or are not a hateful bigot, and it would be unfair to label them as either without more information. Should someone who commercially bakes cakes be legally compelled to accept an order for an interracial wedding if they have a genuine religious objection to miscegenation? My answer is the same as it was for same-sex weddings: I see legitimate moral grievances for the losing party no matter how the question is answered, and I'm not comfortable dictating which party should have to suffer. In reality, the naive side of me wishes it would mostly be worked out at an individual-level--if you're not comfortable serving all visitors, make your best efforts stay out of the wedding cake business; and if you're a gay/interracial couple, don't seek out the evangelical bakers who might feel morally conflicted by your request. I'm well-aware that that's not a practical solution at the societal-level though (for many reasons).
I appreciate you answering seriously. Thank you.
Obviously we disagree entirely but I do appreciate that you're not ignoring the historical context of your argument, and the people who have made it before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
