|
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 |
Norway28553 Posts
That line of speech is a bit more of an extreme example of speech than homosexuality is of sexual orientation, so even if you equate the principles you might still consider those two different. Imo refusing service to someone tweeting something like 'fags disgust me' is a more fair comparison. Should that be allowed?
|
One case is discriminating against what someone is. Swap gay for black, disabled, woman, or anything else and it's the same deal. Speech is a choice, and we have a fabulous expression about what you do when you don't have anything nice to say to someone.
|
On July 20 2023 20:47 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2023 20:22 Acrofales wrote:On July 20 2023 19:49 BlackJack wrote:On July 20 2023 19:10 Acrofales wrote:On July 20 2023 18:26 BlackJack wrote:On July 06 2023 02:10 Melliflue wrote:On July 05 2023 21:11 Gorsameth wrote:On July 05 2023 19:59 Melliflue wrote:
This works both ways though. If you get your news from a right-wing source then you will see Farage's claims but little to nothing about Coutts financial requirements. Similarly if you use left-wing sources then you may never have seen Farage's initial claims but would have seen an article giving Coutts' side of the story, emphasising the missed financial requirements.
I don't like Farage at all but he claims Coutts have only now decided to enfore this financial requirement despite him violating it for most of the last 10 years. Apparently many people fail to meet the financial requirements for keeping an account with them but do not have their accounts closed.
He also claims that NatWest (Coutts' parent company) only offered him an account after the he went public.
I don't know what has happened. I do not trust Farage, but neither can I trust Coutts. I find it very strange that left-wing people are uncritically accepting the word of a bank exclusively for the wealthy. If a prominent left-wing person was in a similar position I expect the response here would be that Coutts are using the financial requirements as an excuse/a cover for a politically motivated action. If Farage's initial reaction hadn't been a lie then perhaps people would be more willing to believe his later explanations. Well they wouldn't because of his entire history of lies but you get my point I hope. And its always "but if this happened to the left they would do the same" and it is so rarely true. My point was not that people should have believed Farage. He is a conman with a long history of deceit. My point was that people were very quick to believe the bank. (It was not even an official statement from the bank. The BBC article quoted "people familiar with Coutts' move".) For example, Wombat went from disbelieving Farage to fully believing Coutts. How many people in this thread would normally believe Coutts/NatWest? I wouldn't. The BBC journalist who wrote that article has since tweeted that people have been in touch to say their accounts haven't been suspended despite failing to meet the financial requirements. I should show the same critical thinking about the people claiming Farage is lying as I do about Farage (part of which is considering their history of honesty/integrity where Farage falls very short but banks don't fare well either.) Btw, I am appalled (but sadly not surprised) that politicians and "news" outlets like GB News ran with the story. An update to this by the way. Farage obtained internal documents that revealed Coutts did freeze him out due to his controversial opinions and had been looking to do so for a while. The minimum wealth threshold seems more of a cover story. https://www.politico.eu/article/why-britains-most-prestigious-bank-cancelled-nigel-farage/ You should be full on Coutts' side of this, though, right? Must be hard to be a conservative and suddenly find yourself fighting against the right of a business to choose whom they do business with. I'm just overall delighted. An unscrupulous bank and one of the biggest assholes in politics in a shitslinging contest. My favorite type of distraction from actual issues. I think anyone with common sense should find this extremely unsavory. Whether it should be "allowed" is another question. Sorry blackjack, crossposting this from the UK thread, but I agree totally that this is extremely unsavory. I just don't think it's more unsavory than a cakeshop refusing to sell boutique cakes for a gay wedding. I know Introvert was cheering the cake shop's rights to choose whom to do business with. I didn't want to assume your position on that, and I didn't want to discuss it in the UK thread, because it's got nothing to do with UK politics, but do you agree with Introvert on this? And if so, why is making a decision to choose whom to do business with based on gender less unsavory than based on political opinion? I always thought the cake shop lost that case but google tells me they won so it’s safe to say I don’t know the story well. I don’t think refusing service to a homosexual couple on religious grounds is any less unsavory than refusing service to someone for their speech.
The cake case is also a speech case.
|
On July 20 2023 21:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
That line of speech is a bit more of an extreme example of speech than homosexuality is of sexual orientation, so even if you equate the principles you might still consider those two different. Imo refusing service to someone tweeting something like 'fags disgust me' is a more fair comparison. Should that be allowed?
BJ merely said "their speech", regardless of how hateful or innocuous it was. Your phrase even uses a slur! But the question wasn't "should that be allowed"; the question was whether or not turning away a pro-gay cake is just as acceptable as turning away an anti-Jew (or anti-gay, to use your example) cake.
|
Norway28553 Posts
On July 20 2023 21:41 NewSunshine wrote:
One case is discriminating against what someone is. Swap gay for black, disabled, woman, or anything else and it's the same deal. Speech is a choice, and we have a fabulous expression about what you do when you don't have anything nice to say to someone.
I mean, I agree, I'm just trying to illustrate that people worrying about the apparent erosion of free speech (for the record, I'm not really convinced this is happening, just that religion has lost the power to define what should fly and other forms of speech are now less tolerated) usually arent primarily concerned that people arent allowed to express support for the holocaust. The fact that speech isnt an absolute value is exactly why it is a bit harder to police, imo, but usually when i discuss this with people (and it makes up a not insignificant part if my curriculum as a teacher), people overwhelmingly agree that direct threats should be illegal but that opinions, even unsavory ones, should be legal (even if best kept to oneself). While the question of should you be allowed to deny service is different from if it should be illegal, i still think it is interesting to discuss where this line should go: I certainly think a cake baker should be allowed to refuse drawing a swastika, but i dont like the idea of refusing service to someone wearing a maga hat.
|
On July 19 2023 23:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2023 17:12 Gorsameth wrote:On July 19 2023 15:53 Acrofales wrote:On July 19 2023 14:37 Sermokala wrote:On July 19 2023 11:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 19 2023 07:50 Sermokala wrote:
And again we have calls to abandon democracy, the only tool available to solve problems. Revolutionary socialism is democratic. You may want to look into it more? You cannot realistically expect to derail a system that has been going on for more than 250 years by complaining things arn't happening fast enough for your liking. It's not about my "liking" (though yesterday isn't soon enough for the US to stop having slaves "to my liking"), it's about the overwhelming scientific consensus that says things aren't happening fast enough to even just reasonably mitigate an impending global ecological catastrophe. I'm also under no illusion that complaining about it is a fix (that's Democrats'/their supporters' strategy as was covered with tracking who the police kill) If you call to abandon electoralism you are calling to abandon democracy seeing how that is how democracy works in the country, maybe you want to look into that more? It does not matter your opinion on if a thing is happening fast enough or slow enough. If you take any second to realize the effect of what you advocate for and what would happen if people followed what you ask you will see that you are the one slowing it down and giving republicans more and more wins to peel back any progress we might find. If people like you voted for, or at least the brand of politics you represent, hillary than we wouldn't have lost abortion rights. We are asking you to fix the house we live in and stop trying to burn it down. Your solutions are to make things worse and they end at that. On July 19 2023 13:40 Mohdoo wrote:On July 19 2023 07:50 Sermokala wrote:
And again we have calls to abandon democracy, the only tool available to solve problems. Revolutionary socialism only provides a framework to help republicans win elections and make things worse in america and the world.
At some point you need to embrace reality and recognize that the only way to avoid things getting worse is by participating in the system. You cannot realistically expect to derail a system that has been going on for more than 250 years by complaining things arn't happening fast enough for your liking.
Have you ever thought that centrist dems never do anything the left wants beacuse they can't expect leftist dems to actualy go out and vote to support them? Surrendering your power to get anything done for the sake of your ideals helps no one. The real useful idiots in american politics are the far left. Democracy is not intrinsically good. Democracy is riddled with issues we are all deeply aware of. Citing something as not being democratic does not indicate it is a bad thing. It just means it isn’t democratic. I also don’t think GH is using revolution in the sense he is being interpreted as. I think he is using is to describe complete and total rejection of what is being pushed. There are an enormous number of people who would PREFER straight up government funded “insurance” where it is simply shaved off of billionaires. Many people would prefer many such things, but they have been conditioned to keep their heads down and just accept what they are being told is all they get. Many of the centrist dems you are describing would not hesitate to wave a magic wand and poof we have socialized medicine funded by billionaires and mega corps. It’s just that they have this bizarre idea in their heads that corruption and stuff and profits and stuff means you can’t have it. And so you should just roll over and take the abuse. This is the critical moment that needs re-wiring. The moment where people say “that’s how it is”. No, this isn’t some god-chosen, fixed parameter. This entire society we have is just a series of coincidences and mistakes and good ideas and bad ideas and weird ideas, and many other things. It could have gone 99999999 other ways. It could have been much worse or much better. We have no reason to treat our current reality in some special way. It isn’t special. It’s just what we’ve got right now. Citing something as not being democratic makes it a bad thing when you are operating in a democracy. If I start saying soccer is stupid then it won't help the soccer team I'm on win a game. The problem with the scope you're describing ignores the fundamental aspects of democracy you need to understand if you want to get done. When you get GH's everywhere that refuse to support you then you must go to the right to get the support for doing anything. There is no "re-wiring" basic electoral logic, there is no "That's how it is" its a constant gambit to go from generating political capitol to spending it. People like GH love to ruin any sort of political capitol for the change they want and then grumble about things being worse than they could be if they actually wanted anything to get better. It is rather hard to make reality any better if you reject it as a concept from the beginning. We have every reason to treat our current situation as the status quo and to endevor to make it better. At the end of the day we exist in a very tribal system of the people who want to make things better vs the people who want to make things worse, and GH is on the team that wants to make things worse. Why is it undemocratic to want to tear down the current democratic system and replace it entirely with a new, different, but also democratic system? I mean, sure, you can look at socialist states in the past and say they weren't democratic, but that is not the type of revolution GH wants, so why argue against that? In fact, from what GH has said he *does* want, it sounds more democratic than the current system. + Show Spoiler +I could be entirely wrong here (and please correct me if I am) but the way I read this the argument from Sermokala isn't that the new different system won't be democratic. But that the way to get there, aka by tearing down the current system, would be. If we all agree that Democrats are unlikely to ever get to this new, better, system. (which we can probably agree on would be better if fully implemented) then how do you get there? Through democratic means would require a new party which means fighting the Democrats, which means Republicans win by default for however many years it takes to switch left leaning voters from Democrats to Socialists. which means untold suffering and destruction of civil liberties and rights that would set America back to the 1800's. (and that is assuming there is a democratic system left after the first few Republican administrations, we all see their ever increasing relationship with strait up fascism) + Show Spoiler +So if we want to avoid handing Republicans a Fascist States of America what democratic means of implementing revolutionary socialism are left?
We have had this discussion here multiple times before. The problem is never the end result, we can all agree on a hundred things America should do and implement to be a 'better' nation for all.
The problem is always how to get there without praying a revolution just happens to work out how you want it despite all the myriad of unknowns and powerful opposing forces.
That is where the discussion should take place that I'm not seeing. Not what the end result will be, but how to get from A to B. If it were the case that a new socialist party formed, and Democrats were going to lose, it wouldn't be because there is finally a party that is determined to make things better for the masses, it would be because of those stubborn Democrats that'd rather lose/elect a Republican than suck it up and vote for making things better. The notion that a socialist party would lead to Republican dominance is indicative of just how hopeless the Democrat's party actually is. They'd rather hand the reigns to fascists than vote for socialists.
I'm glad we have GH on the record saying that he would rather see the nation be controlled by the fascists than vote democrat, and sees no reason why he would have any sort of responsibility for this outcome.
|
|
|
On July 20 2023 23:37 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2023 23:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 19 2023 17:12 Gorsameth wrote:On July 19 2023 15:53 Acrofales wrote:On July 19 2023 14:37 Sermokala wrote:On July 19 2023 11:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 19 2023 07:50 Sermokala wrote:
And again we have calls to abandon democracy, the only tool available to solve problems. Revolutionary socialism is democratic. You may want to look into it more? You cannot realistically expect to derail a system that has been going on for more than 250 years by complaining things arn't happening fast enough for your liking. It's not about my "liking" (though yesterday isn't soon enough for the US to stop having slaves "to my liking"), it's about the overwhelming scientific consensus that says things aren't happening fast enough to even just reasonably mitigate an impending global ecological catastrophe. I'm also under no illusion that complaining about it is a fix (that's Democrats'/their supporters' strategy as was covered with tracking who the police kill) If you call to abandon electoralism you are calling to abandon democracy seeing how that is how democracy works in the country, maybe you want to look into that more? It does not matter your opinion on if a thing is happening fast enough or slow enough. If you take any second to realize the effect of what you advocate for and what would happen if people followed what you ask you will see that you are the one slowing it down and giving republicans more and more wins to peel back any progress we might find. If people like you voted for, or at least the brand of politics you represent, hillary than we wouldn't have lost abortion rights. We are asking you to fix the house we live in and stop trying to burn it down. Your solutions are to make things worse and they end at that. On July 19 2023 13:40 Mohdoo wrote:On July 19 2023 07:50 Sermokala wrote:
And again we have calls to abandon democracy, the only tool available to solve problems. Revolutionary socialism only provides a framework to help republicans win elections and make things worse in america and the world.
At some point you need to embrace reality and recognize that the only way to avoid things getting worse is by participating in the system. You cannot realistically expect to derail a system that has been going on for more than 250 years by complaining things arn't happening fast enough for your liking.
Have you ever thought that centrist dems never do anything the left wants beacuse they can't expect leftist dems to actualy go out and vote to support them? Surrendering your power to get anything done for the sake of your ideals helps no one. The real useful idiots in american politics are the far left. Democracy is not intrinsically good. Democracy is riddled with issues we are all deeply aware of. Citing something as not being democratic does not indicate it is a bad thing. It just means it isn’t democratic. I also don’t think GH is using revolution in the sense he is being interpreted as. I think he is using is to describe complete and total rejection of what is being pushed. There are an enormous number of people who would PREFER straight up government funded “insurance” where it is simply shaved off of billionaires. Many people would prefer many such things, but they have been conditioned to keep their heads down and just accept what they are being told is all they get. Many of the centrist dems you are describing would not hesitate to wave a magic wand and poof we have socialized medicine funded by billionaires and mega corps. It’s just that they have this bizarre idea in their heads that corruption and stuff and profits and stuff means you can’t have it. And so you should just roll over and take the abuse. This is the critical moment that needs re-wiring. The moment where people say “that’s how it is”. No, this isn’t some god-chosen, fixed parameter. This entire society we have is just a series of coincidences and mistakes and good ideas and bad ideas and weird ideas, and many other things. It could have gone 99999999 other ways. It could have been much worse or much better. We have no reason to treat our current reality in some special way. It isn’t special. It’s just what we’ve got right now. Citing something as not being democratic makes it a bad thing when you are operating in a democracy. If I start saying soccer is stupid then it won't help the soccer team I'm on win a game. The problem with the scope you're describing ignores the fundamental aspects of democracy you need to understand if you want to get done. When you get GH's everywhere that refuse to support you then you must go to the right to get the support for doing anything. There is no "re-wiring" basic electoral logic, there is no "That's how it is" its a constant gambit to go from generating political capitol to spending it. People like GH love to ruin any sort of political capitol for the change they want and then grumble about things being worse than they could be if they actually wanted anything to get better. It is rather hard to make reality any better if you reject it as a concept from the beginning. We have every reason to treat our current situation as the status quo and to endevor to make it better. At the end of the day we exist in a very tribal system of the people who want to make things better vs the people who want to make things worse, and GH is on the team that wants to make things worse. Why is it undemocratic to want to tear down the current democratic system and replace it entirely with a new, different, but also democratic system? I mean, sure, you can look at socialist states in the past and say they weren't democratic, but that is not the type of revolution GH wants, so why argue against that? In fact, from what GH has said he *does* want, it sounds more democratic than the current system. + Show Spoiler +I could be entirely wrong here (and please correct me if I am) but the way I read this the argument from Sermokala isn't that the new different system won't be democratic. But that the way to get there, aka by tearing down the current system, would be. If we all agree that Democrats are unlikely to ever get to this new, better, system. (which we can probably agree on would be better if fully implemented) then how do you get there? Through democratic means would require a new party which means fighting the Democrats, which means Republicans win by default for however many years it takes to switch left leaning voters from Democrats to Socialists. which means untold suffering and destruction of civil liberties and rights that would set America back to the 1800's. (and that is assuming there is a democratic system left after the first few Republican administrations, we all see their ever increasing relationship with strait up fascism) + Show Spoiler +So if we want to avoid handing Republicans a Fascist States of America what democratic means of implementing revolutionary socialism are left?
We have had this discussion here multiple times before. The problem is never the end result, we can all agree on a hundred things America should do and implement to be a 'better' nation for all.
The problem is always how to get there without praying a revolution just happens to work out how you want it despite all the myriad of unknowns and powerful opposing forces.
That is where the discussion should take place that I'm not seeing. Not what the end result will be, but how to get from A to B. If it were the case that a new socialist party formed, and Democrats were going to lose, it wouldn't be because there is finally a party that is determined to make things better for the masses, it would be because of those stubborn Democrats that'd rather lose/elect a Republican than suck it up and vote for making things better. The notion that a socialist party would lead to Republican dominance is indicative of just how hopeless the Democrat's party actually is. They'd rather hand the reigns to fascists than vote for socialists. I'm glad we have GH on the record saying that he would rather see the nation be controlled by the fascists than vote democrat, and sees no reason why he would have any sort of responsibility for this outcome.
This reminds of Baldwin's quote: "If any white man in the world says give me liberty or give me death, the entire white world applauds. When a black man says exactly the same thing word for word, he is judged a criminal and treated like one. And everything possible is done to make an example of this bad n***er so there won't be any more like him."
While this sort of thing typically works on Democrats/"progressives" because for them the humanity of the slaves the US keeps, and untracked people killed by police, and trans people, and potentially pregnant people having bodily autonomy, and a whole slew of other rights and dignities the US regularly deprives (or is actively stripping) people of can wait indefinitely, but global ecological catastrophe can't/won't.
So either Democrats and their supporters pull their head out, recognize the fierce urgency of now, and stop working with Republicans/fascists to obstruct socialists, or they don't and condemn future generations to an ecological hellscape (without countless rights). Meanwhile people will keep losing rights along the way, with Biden criminalizing striking for rail workers as an example, even when Democrats win.
At least I know which side of that you are on.
|
Northern Ireland23759 Posts
On July 21 2023 00:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2023 23:37 Sermokala wrote:On July 19 2023 23:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 19 2023 17:12 Gorsameth wrote:On July 19 2023 15:53 Acrofales wrote:On July 19 2023 14:37 Sermokala wrote:On July 19 2023 11:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 19 2023 07:50 Sermokala wrote:
And again we have calls to abandon democracy, the only tool available to solve problems. Revolutionary socialism is democratic. You may want to look into it more? You cannot realistically expect to derail a system that has been going on for more than 250 years by complaining things arn't happening fast enough for your liking. It's not about my "liking" (though yesterday isn't soon enough for the US to stop having slaves "to my liking"), it's about the overwhelming scientific consensus that says things aren't happening fast enough to even just reasonably mitigate an impending global ecological catastrophe. I'm also under no illusion that complaining about it is a fix (that's Democrats'/their supporters' strategy as was covered with tracking who the police kill) If you call to abandon electoralism you are calling to abandon democracy seeing how that is how democracy works in the country, maybe you want to look into that more? It does not matter your opinion on if a thing is happening fast enough or slow enough. If you take any second to realize the effect of what you advocate for and what would happen if people followed what you ask you will see that you are the one slowing it down and giving republicans more and more wins to peel back any progress we might find. If people like you voted for, or at least the brand of politics you represent, hillary than we wouldn't have lost abortion rights. We are asking you to fix the house we live in and stop trying to burn it down. Your solutions are to make things worse and they end at that. On July 19 2023 13:40 Mohdoo wrote:On July 19 2023 07:50 Sermokala wrote:
And again we have calls to abandon democracy, the only tool available to solve problems. Revolutionary socialism only provides a framework to help republicans win elections and make things worse in america and the world.
At some point you need to embrace reality and recognize that the only way to avoid things getting worse is by participating in the system. You cannot realistically expect to derail a system that has been going on for more than 250 years by complaining things arn't happening fast enough for your liking.
Have you ever thought that centrist dems never do anything the left wants beacuse they can't expect leftist dems to actualy go out and vote to support them? Surrendering your power to get anything done for the sake of your ideals helps no one. The real useful idiots in american politics are the far left. Democracy is not intrinsically good. Democracy is riddled with issues we are all deeply aware of. Citing something as not being democratic does not indicate it is a bad thing. It just means it isn’t democratic. I also don’t think GH is using revolution in the sense he is being interpreted as. I think he is using is to describe complete and total rejection of what is being pushed. There are an enormous number of people who would PREFER straight up government funded “insurance” where it is simply shaved off of billionaires. Many people would prefer many such things, but they have been conditioned to keep their heads down and just accept what they are being told is all they get. Many of the centrist dems you are describing would not hesitate to wave a magic wand and poof we have socialized medicine funded by billionaires and mega corps. It’s just that they have this bizarre idea in their heads that corruption and stuff and profits and stuff means you can’t have it. And so you should just roll over and take the abuse. This is the critical moment that needs re-wiring. The moment where people say “that’s how it is”. No, this isn’t some god-chosen, fixed parameter. This entire society we have is just a series of coincidences and mistakes and good ideas and bad ideas and weird ideas, and many other things. It could have gone 99999999 other ways. It could have been much worse or much better. We have no reason to treat our current reality in some special way. It isn’t special. It’s just what we’ve got right now. Citing something as not being democratic makes it a bad thing when you are operating in a democracy. If I start saying soccer is stupid then it won't help the soccer team I'm on win a game. The problem with the scope you're describing ignores the fundamental aspects of democracy you need to understand if you want to get done. When you get GH's everywhere that refuse to support you then you must go to the right to get the support for doing anything. There is no "re-wiring" basic electoral logic, there is no "That's how it is" its a constant gambit to go from generating political capitol to spending it. People like GH love to ruin any sort of political capitol for the change they want and then grumble about things being worse than they could be if they actually wanted anything to get better. It is rather hard to make reality any better if you reject it as a concept from the beginning. We have every reason to treat our current situation as the status quo and to endevor to make it better. At the end of the day we exist in a very tribal system of the people who want to make things better vs the people who want to make things worse, and GH is on the team that wants to make things worse. Why is it undemocratic to want to tear down the current democratic system and replace it entirely with a new, different, but also democratic system? I mean, sure, you can look at socialist states in the past and say they weren't democratic, but that is not the type of revolution GH wants, so why argue against that? In fact, from what GH has said he *does* want, it sounds more democratic than the current system. + Show Spoiler +I could be entirely wrong here (and please correct me if I am) but the way I read this the argument from Sermokala isn't that the new different system won't be democratic. But that the way to get there, aka by tearing down the current system, would be. If we all agree that Democrats are unlikely to ever get to this new, better, system. (which we can probably agree on would be better if fully implemented) then how do you get there? Through democratic means would require a new party which means fighting the Democrats, which means Republicans win by default for however many years it takes to switch left leaning voters from Democrats to Socialists. which means untold suffering and destruction of civil liberties and rights that would set America back to the 1800's. (and that is assuming there is a democratic system left after the first few Republican administrations, we all see their ever increasing relationship with strait up fascism) + Show Spoiler +So if we want to avoid handing Republicans a Fascist States of America what democratic means of implementing revolutionary socialism are left?
We have had this discussion here multiple times before. The problem is never the end result, we can all agree on a hundred things America should do and implement to be a 'better' nation for all.
The problem is always how to get there without praying a revolution just happens to work out how you want it despite all the myriad of unknowns and powerful opposing forces.
That is where the discussion should take place that I'm not seeing. Not what the end result will be, but how to get from A to B. If it were the case that a new socialist party formed, and Democrats were going to lose, it wouldn't be because there is finally a party that is determined to make things better for the masses, it would be because of those stubborn Democrats that'd rather lose/elect a Republican than suck it up and vote for making things better. The notion that a socialist party would lead to Republican dominance is indicative of just how hopeless the Democrat's party actually is. They'd rather hand the reigns to fascists than vote for socialists. I'm glad we have GH on the record saying that he would rather see the nation be controlled by the fascists than vote democrat, and sees no reason why he would have any sort of responsibility for this outcome. This reminds of Baldwin's quote: "If any white man in the world says give me liberty or give me death, the entire white world applauds. When a black man says exactly the same thing word for word, he is judged a criminal and treated like one. And everything possible is done to make an example of this bad n***er so there won't be any more like him." While this sort of thing typically works on Democrats/"progressives" because for them the humanity of the slaves the US keeps, and untracked people killed by police, and trans people, and potentially pregnant people having bodily autonomy, and a whole slew of other rights and dignities the US regularly deprives (or is actively stripping) people of can wait indefinitely, but global ecological catastrophe can't/won't. So either Democrats and their supporters pull their head out, recognize the fierce urgency of now, and stop working with Republicans/fascists to obstruct socialists, or they don't and condemn future generations to an ecological hellscape (without countless rights). Meanwhile people will keep losing rights along the way, with Biden criminalizing striking for rail workers as an example, even when Democrats win. At least I know which side of that you are on.
Here’s a pretty damn open-ended question, why in your opinion is the overtly reactionary right making all these kind of gains in the last decade+ and why has the vague equivalent over in the left wing not done so?
Not just in terms of tangible political influence, but in some of the wider culture?
Have some theories on this but curious as to your thoughts as someone better read and more invested in this domain
|
On July 21 2023 00:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2023 23:37 Sermokala wrote:On July 19 2023 23:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 19 2023 17:12 Gorsameth wrote:On July 19 2023 15:53 Acrofales wrote:On July 19 2023 14:37 Sermokala wrote:On July 19 2023 11:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 19 2023 07:50 Sermokala wrote:
And again we have calls to abandon democracy, the only tool available to solve problems. Revolutionary socialism is democratic. You may want to look into it more? You cannot realistically expect to derail a system that has been going on for more than 250 years by complaining things arn't happening fast enough for your liking. It's not about my "liking" (though yesterday isn't soon enough for the US to stop having slaves "to my liking"), it's about the overwhelming scientific consensus that says things aren't happening fast enough to even just reasonably mitigate an impending global ecological catastrophe. I'm also under no illusion that complaining about it is a fix (that's Democrats'/their supporters' strategy as was covered with tracking who the police kill) If you call to abandon electoralism you are calling to abandon democracy seeing how that is how democracy works in the country, maybe you want to look into that more? It does not matter your opinion on if a thing is happening fast enough or slow enough. If you take any second to realize the effect of what you advocate for and what would happen if people followed what you ask you will see that you are the one slowing it down and giving republicans more and more wins to peel back any progress we might find. If people like you voted for, or at least the brand of politics you represent, hillary than we wouldn't have lost abortion rights. We are asking you to fix the house we live in and stop trying to burn it down. Your solutions are to make things worse and they end at that. On July 19 2023 13:40 Mohdoo wrote:On July 19 2023 07:50 Sermokala wrote:
And again we have calls to abandon democracy, the only tool available to solve problems. Revolutionary socialism only provides a framework to help republicans win elections and make things worse in america and the world.
At some point you need to embrace reality and recognize that the only way to avoid things getting worse is by participating in the system. You cannot realistically expect to derail a system that has been going on for more than 250 years by complaining things arn't happening fast enough for your liking.
Have you ever thought that centrist dems never do anything the left wants beacuse they can't expect leftist dems to actualy go out and vote to support them? Surrendering your power to get anything done for the sake of your ideals helps no one. The real useful idiots in american politics are the far left. Democracy is not intrinsically good. Democracy is riddled with issues we are all deeply aware of. Citing something as not being democratic does not indicate it is a bad thing. It just means it isn’t democratic. I also don’t think GH is using revolution in the sense he is being interpreted as. I think he is using is to describe complete and total rejection of what is being pushed. There are an enormous number of people who would PREFER straight up government funded “insurance” where it is simply shaved off of billionaires. Many people would prefer many such things, but they have been conditioned to keep their heads down and just accept what they are being told is all they get. Many of the centrist dems you are describing would not hesitate to wave a magic wand and poof we have socialized medicine funded by billionaires and mega corps. It’s just that they have this bizarre idea in their heads that corruption and stuff and profits and stuff means you can’t have it. And so you should just roll over and take the abuse. This is the critical moment that needs re-wiring. The moment where people say “that’s how it is”. No, this isn’t some god-chosen, fixed parameter. This entire society we have is just a series of coincidences and mistakes and good ideas and bad ideas and weird ideas, and many other things. It could have gone 99999999 other ways. It could have been much worse or much better. We have no reason to treat our current reality in some special way. It isn’t special. It’s just what we’ve got right now. Citing something as not being democratic makes it a bad thing when you are operating in a democracy. If I start saying soccer is stupid then it won't help the soccer team I'm on win a game. The problem with the scope you're describing ignores the fundamental aspects of democracy you need to understand if you want to get done. When you get GH's everywhere that refuse to support you then you must go to the right to get the support for doing anything. There is no "re-wiring" basic electoral logic, there is no "That's how it is" its a constant gambit to go from generating political capitol to spending it. People like GH love to ruin any sort of political capitol for the change they want and then grumble about things being worse than they could be if they actually wanted anything to get better. It is rather hard to make reality any better if you reject it as a concept from the beginning. We have every reason to treat our current situation as the status quo and to endevor to make it better. At the end of the day we exist in a very tribal system of the people who want to make things better vs the people who want to make things worse, and GH is on the team that wants to make things worse. Why is it undemocratic to want to tear down the current democratic system and replace it entirely with a new, different, but also democratic system? I mean, sure, you can look at socialist states in the past and say they weren't democratic, but that is not the type of revolution GH wants, so why argue against that? In fact, from what GH has said he *does* want, it sounds more democratic than the current system. + Show Spoiler +I could be entirely wrong here (and please correct me if I am) but the way I read this the argument from Sermokala isn't that the new different system won't be democratic. But that the way to get there, aka by tearing down the current system, would be. If we all agree that Democrats are unlikely to ever get to this new, better, system. (which we can probably agree on would be better if fully implemented) then how do you get there? Through democratic means would require a new party which means fighting the Democrats, which means Republicans win by default for however many years it takes to switch left leaning voters from Democrats to Socialists. which means untold suffering and destruction of civil liberties and rights that would set America back to the 1800's. (and that is assuming there is a democratic system left after the first few Republican administrations, we all see their ever increasing relationship with strait up fascism) + Show Spoiler +So if we want to avoid handing Republicans a Fascist States of America what democratic means of implementing revolutionary socialism are left?
We have had this discussion here multiple times before. The problem is never the end result, we can all agree on a hundred things America should do and implement to be a 'better' nation for all.
The problem is always how to get there without praying a revolution just happens to work out how you want it despite all the myriad of unknowns and powerful opposing forces.
That is where the discussion should take place that I'm not seeing. Not what the end result will be, but how to get from A to B. If it were the case that a new socialist party formed, and Democrats were going to lose, it wouldn't be because there is finally a party that is determined to make things better for the masses, it would be because of those stubborn Democrats that'd rather lose/elect a Republican than suck it up and vote for making things better. The notion that a socialist party would lead to Republican dominance is indicative of just how hopeless the Democrat's party actually is. They'd rather hand the reigns to fascists than vote for socialists. I'm glad we have GH on the record saying that he would rather see the nation be controlled by the fascists than vote democrat, and sees no reason why he would have any sort of responsibility for this outcome. This reminds of Baldwin's quote: "If any white man in the world says give me liberty or give me death, the entire white world applauds. When a black man says exactly the same thing word for word, he is judged a criminal and treated like one. And everything possible is done to make an example of this bad n***er so there won't be any more like him." While this sort of thing typically works on Democrats/"progressives" because for them the humanity of the slaves the US keeps, and untracked people killed by police, and trans people, and potentially pregnant people having bodily autonomy, and a whole slew of other rights and dignities the US regularly deprives (or is actively stripping) people of can wait indefinitely, but global ecological catastrophe can't/won't. So either Democrats and their supporters pull their head out, recognize the fierce urgency of now, and stop working with Republicans/fascists to obstruct socialists, or they don't and condemn future generations to an ecological hellscape (without countless rights). Meanwhile people will keep losing rights along the way, with Biden criminalizing striking for rail workers as an example, even when Democrats win. At least I know which side of that you are on.
Is the Democratic party really that incompetent though? Whenever they do have majority, they seem to get things done. And when they fail, I don't think it's for a lack of trying. Am I seeing this wrong?
"Included in the bill, supporters are quick to highlight, are measures to foster job creation, raise taxes on large corporations and the wealthy, allow Medicare to negotiate down some prescription drug costs, expand the Affordable Care Act health care program and invest in combating climate change by implementing tax credits for clean energy initiatives, among other things."
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-democrats-pass-climate-tax-health-care-bill/story?id=88067862
|
If we want the Democrats to work with socialists, we have to first elect socialists. We have to start local and build up a socialist coalition that eventually spreads to the national level. It takes a long ass time and in the mean time we have to vote for the least bad option to make sure we don't wake up to find ourselves in the christo-fascist hellscape the Republicans want.
The tea party did exactly this and carried that momentum into MAGA. They pulled the Republican party so far right they seem batshit insane to anyone outside their information silos. Using election politics to effect change is possible and in a democracy it's important, but I'm one of the few leftists who seem to understand that. Most are like GH who refuse to coalition build and get socialists in power and then complain when none of the people in power have socialist values.
|
|
|
On July 21 2023 01:20 StasisField wrote:
If we want the Democrats to work with socialists, we have to first elect socialists. We have to start local and build up a socialist coalition that eventually spreads to the national level. It takes a long ass time and in the mean time we have to vote for the least bad option to make sure we don't wake up to find ourselves in the christo-fascist hellscape the Republicans want.
The tea party did exactly this and carried that momentum into MAGA. They pulled the Republican party so far right they seem batshit insane to anyone outside their information silos. Using election politics to effect change is possible and in a democracy it's important, but I'm one of the few leftists who seem to understand that. Most are like GH who refuse to coalition build and get socialists in power and then complain when none of the people in power have socialist values.
This is related to Wombat's question about why right-wing reactionaries in both parties have been so successful whereas socialists have struggled.
It's in part because for the last 100+ years socialists have been doing what you're suggesting, Democrats and Republicans (capitalists generally) have worked together to undermine and stop socialists at every turn by any means necessary, up to and beyond outright assassinating their leaders domestically and abroad.
While that's how Democrats treat socialists, when it comes to right-wing reactionaries, they elected a guy that laments he can't hang out with segregationists in DC anymore to the highest office in the land.
I'm not saying we don't have to start local and build a socialist coalition that builds to national prevalence and international solidarity (or that socialists haven't been doing that for 100+ years in the US against the threats of imprisonment, torture, death, etc by Democrats and Republicans) I'm pointing out that "leftists" have to know this isn't the first time and lessons were learned along the way and noted.
Everything wasn't interpreted unanimously and I'm open to alternative perspectives that incorporate that history, but what is nonsensical is moving forward with strategies oblivious to that history and its implications to building a successful movement today.
One resounding lesson found especially in the works of Black socialists, is the futility of electoralism in that process. I use 60+ years of unparalleled support from Black people for Democrats in exchange for endless promises to address the racial wealth gap from Democrats with 0 actual progress on it as a clear example. It's not alone though with perpetuating slavery 150+ years after the civil war and just never even trying to accurately keep track of how many people the police kill being a couple others I've highlighted recently.
The point of the "First they came for the socialists..." quote people have sprinkled in this thread is that things like these are just going to keep piling on top of each other (even when Democrats do manage to occasionally mitigate the pile's growth rate) until they reach you and your families and it'll be too late then. That he regretted not listening to the socialists when he had the chance and spent the rest of his life (after surviving a concentration camp) trying to make up for it. Including things like meeting with Ho Chi Minh and vigorously opposing the Vietnam War much to the consternation of Democrats and Republicans in the US.
The quote is about fascists (and is applicable as such to US politics imo) but it's not just the fascists we have to worry about (not that socialists doing the bidding of Democrats would even necessarily keep Democrats from losing to the fascists anyway), the regular old capitalists are marching us off an ecological cliff that in the most literal sense can't be put off indefinitely by Democrats like the humanity of the slaves in the US and countless others are.
Don't end up like Niemöller and drag the rest of us down with you.
|
On July 20 2023 22:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2023 21:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
That line of speech is a bit more of an extreme example of speech than homosexuality is of sexual orientation, so even if you equate the principles you might still consider those two different. Imo refusing service to someone tweeting something like 'fags disgust me' is a more fair comparison. Should that be allowed? BJ merely said "their speech", regardless of how hateful or innocuous it was. Your phrase even uses a slur! But the question wasn't "should that be allowed"; the question was whether or not turning away a pro-gay cake is just as acceptable as turning away an anti-Jew (or anti-gay, to use your example) cake.
Key words being "their speech." If you're making the cake baker draw swastikas and shit it no longer is the patron's speech. Now it's compelled speech for the cake baker.
From my very brief reading into the latest SCOTUS case involving the web designer, this is why the web designer won. The people on the left that disagree with the ruling and think the web designer should have to design a website in support of gay marriage probably would simultaneously be against a web designer that's forced to design a website that says gay marriage is a sin. So essentially "compelled speech is bad unless I agree with what is being said." If you're looking for the hypocrisy or double standard to call out, there it is.
|
I think vast majority of web designers would not be opposed to work on this task - why would you want to use the one of the few who doesn't want to work for you?
I know I wouldn't order a cake from someone who openly doesn't want to do that, especially if there are other bakeries avalaible, as the cake's quality could be so-so. People usually don't do terrible good job when they're forced against their will.
|
|
|
Ah, ok. I heard it for the first time here, so I had no idea if it's true or not.
But my main idea stays the same - while I'm not sure about all possible repercussions of legally allowing to refuse service on ideological grounds (I guess one could make parallels with racial segregation?), I feel that as long as there are other alternatives it makes not sense for customer to force someone to do what they're really uncomfortable with, just in spite.
This bakery (or theoretical web designer, etc) is losing out on 5-10% of its income, it's their loss.
|
|
|
On July 21 2023 05:15 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2023 22:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 20 2023 21:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
That line of speech is a bit more of an extreme example of speech than homosexuality is of sexual orientation, so even if you equate the principles you might still consider those two different. Imo refusing service to someone tweeting something like 'fags disgust me' is a more fair comparison. Should that be allowed? BJ merely said "their speech", regardless of how hateful or innocuous it was. Your phrase even uses a slur! But the question wasn't "should that be allowed"; the question was whether or not turning away a pro-gay cake is just as acceptable as turning away an anti-Jew (or anti-gay, to use your example) cake. Key words being "their speech." If you're making the cake baker draw swastikas and shit it no longer is the patron's speech. Now it's compelled speech for the cake baker. From my very brief reading into the latest SCOTUS case involving the web designer, this is why the web designer won. The people on the left that disagree with the ruling and think the web designer should have to design a website in support of gay marriage probably would simultaneously be against a web designer that's forced to design a website that says gay marriage is a sin. So essentially "compelled speech is bad unless I agree with what is being said." If you're looking for the hypocrisy or double standard to call out, there it is.
Would you mind answering the question I asked you in the earlier post, where I presented you the two scenarios? Are these two equally justified?
On July 20 2023 21:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2023 20:47 BlackJack wrote:On July 20 2023 20:22 Acrofales wrote:On July 20 2023 19:49 BlackJack wrote:On July 20 2023 19:10 Acrofales wrote:On July 20 2023 18:26 BlackJack wrote:On July 06 2023 02:10 Melliflue wrote:On July 05 2023 21:11 Gorsameth wrote:On July 05 2023 19:59 Melliflue wrote:
This works both ways though. If you get your news from a right-wing source then you will see Farage's claims but little to nothing about Coutts financial requirements. Similarly if you use left-wing sources then you may never have seen Farage's initial claims but would have seen an article giving Coutts' side of the story, emphasising the missed financial requirements.
I don't like Farage at all but he claims Coutts have only now decided to enfore this financial requirement despite him violating it for most of the last 10 years. Apparently many people fail to meet the financial requirements for keeping an account with them but do not have their accounts closed.
He also claims that NatWest (Coutts' parent company) only offered him an account after the he went public.
I don't know what has happened. I do not trust Farage, but neither can I trust Coutts. I find it very strange that left-wing people are uncritically accepting the word of a bank exclusively for the wealthy. If a prominent left-wing person was in a similar position I expect the response here would be that Coutts are using the financial requirements as an excuse/a cover for a politically motivated action. If Farage's initial reaction hadn't been a lie then perhaps people would be more willing to believe his later explanations. Well they wouldn't because of his entire history of lies but you get my point I hope. And its always "but if this happened to the left they would do the same" and it is so rarely true. My point was not that people should have believed Farage. He is a conman with a long history of deceit. My point was that people were very quick to believe the bank. (It was not even an official statement from the bank. The BBC article quoted "people familiar with Coutts' move".) For example, Wombat went from disbelieving Farage to fully believing Coutts. How many people in this thread would normally believe Coutts/NatWest? I wouldn't. The BBC journalist who wrote that article has since tweeted that people have been in touch to say their accounts haven't been suspended despite failing to meet the financial requirements. I should show the same critical thinking about the people claiming Farage is lying as I do about Farage (part of which is considering their history of honesty/integrity where Farage falls very short but banks don't fare well either.) Btw, I am appalled (but sadly not surprised) that politicians and "news" outlets like GB News ran with the story. An update to this by the way. Farage obtained internal documents that revealed Coutts did freeze him out due to his controversial opinions and had been looking to do so for a while. The minimum wealth threshold seems more of a cover story. https://www.politico.eu/article/why-britains-most-prestigious-bank-cancelled-nigel-farage/ You should be full on Coutts' side of this, though, right? Must be hard to be a conservative and suddenly find yourself fighting against the right of a business to choose whom they do business with. I'm just overall delighted. An unscrupulous bank and one of the biggest assholes in politics in a shitslinging contest. My favorite type of distraction from actual issues. I think anyone with common sense should find this extremely unsavory. Whether it should be "allowed" is another question. Sorry blackjack, crossposting this from the UK thread, but I agree totally that this is extremely unsavory. I just don't think it's more unsavory than a cakeshop refusing to sell boutique cakes for a gay wedding. I know Introvert was cheering the cake shop's rights to choose whom to do business with. I didn't want to assume your position on that, and I didn't want to discuss it in the UK thread, because it's got nothing to do with UK politics, but do you agree with Introvert on this? And if so, why is making a decision to choose whom to do business with based on gender less unsavory than based on political opinion? I always thought the cake shop lost that case but google tells me they won so it’s safe to say I don’t know the story well. I don’t think refusing service to a homosexual couple on religious grounds is any less unsavory than refusing service to someone for their speech. Are you saying that refusing service for the following two cakes is equally justified: "I don't want to make a wedding cake for you because you're gay and the cake mentions two guys' names on it and has two little groom figurines" (client's sexual orientation) vs. "I don't want to make a party cake for you because you're a Nazi celebrating the Holocaust and the cake has a swastika and 'Jews should die' on it" (client's speech)
|
On July 21 2023 11:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2023 05:15 BlackJack wrote:On July 20 2023 22:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 20 2023 21:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
That line of speech is a bit more of an extreme example of speech than homosexuality is of sexual orientation, so even if you equate the principles you might still consider those two different. Imo refusing service to someone tweeting something like 'fags disgust me' is a more fair comparison. Should that be allowed? BJ merely said "their speech", regardless of how hateful or innocuous it was. Your phrase even uses a slur! But the question wasn't "should that be allowed"; the question was whether or not turning away a pro-gay cake is just as acceptable as turning away an anti-Jew (or anti-gay, to use your example) cake. Key words being "their speech." If you're making the cake baker draw swastikas and shit it no longer is the patron's speech. Now it's compelled speech for the cake baker. From my very brief reading into the latest SCOTUS case involving the web designer, this is why the web designer won. The people on the left that disagree with the ruling and think the web designer should have to design a website in support of gay marriage probably would simultaneously be against a web designer that's forced to design a website that says gay marriage is a sin. So essentially "compelled speech is bad unless I agree with what is being said." If you're looking for the hypocrisy or double standard to call out, there it is. Would you mind answering the question I asked you in the earlier post, where I presented you the two scenarios? Are these two equally justified? Show nested quote +On July 20 2023 21:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 20 2023 20:47 BlackJack wrote:On July 20 2023 20:22 Acrofales wrote:On July 20 2023 19:49 BlackJack wrote:On July 20 2023 19:10 Acrofales wrote:On July 20 2023 18:26 BlackJack wrote:On July 06 2023 02:10 Melliflue wrote:On July 05 2023 21:11 Gorsameth wrote:On July 05 2023 19:59 Melliflue wrote:
This works both ways though. If you get your news from a right-wing source then you will see Farage's claims but little to nothing about Coutts financial requirements. Similarly if you use left-wing sources then you may never have seen Farage's initial claims but would have seen an article giving Coutts' side of the story, emphasising the missed financial requirements.
I don't like Farage at all but he claims Coutts have only now decided to enfore this financial requirement despite him violating it for most of the last 10 years. Apparently many people fail to meet the financial requirements for keeping an account with them but do not have their accounts closed.
He also claims that NatWest (Coutts' parent company) only offered him an account after the he went public.
I don't know what has happened. I do not trust Farage, but neither can I trust Coutts. I find it very strange that left-wing people are uncritically accepting the word of a bank exclusively for the wealthy. If a prominent left-wing person was in a similar position I expect the response here would be that Coutts are using the financial requirements as an excuse/a cover for a politically motivated action. If Farage's initial reaction hadn't been a lie then perhaps people would be more willing to believe his later explanations. Well they wouldn't because of his entire history of lies but you get my point I hope. And its always "but if this happened to the left they would do the same" and it is so rarely true. My point was not that people should have believed Farage. He is a conman with a long history of deceit. My point was that people were very quick to believe the bank. (It was not even an official statement from the bank. The BBC article quoted "people familiar with Coutts' move".) For example, Wombat went from disbelieving Farage to fully believing Coutts. How many people in this thread would normally believe Coutts/NatWest? I wouldn't. The BBC journalist who wrote that article has since tweeted that people have been in touch to say their accounts haven't been suspended despite failing to meet the financial requirements. I should show the same critical thinking about the people claiming Farage is lying as I do about Farage (part of which is considering their history of honesty/integrity where Farage falls very short but banks don't fare well either.) Btw, I am appalled (but sadly not surprised) that politicians and "news" outlets like GB News ran with the story. An update to this by the way. Farage obtained internal documents that revealed Coutts did freeze him out due to his controversial opinions and had been looking to do so for a while. The minimum wealth threshold seems more of a cover story. https://www.politico.eu/article/why-britains-most-prestigious-bank-cancelled-nigel-farage/ You should be full on Coutts' side of this, though, right? Must be hard to be a conservative and suddenly find yourself fighting against the right of a business to choose whom they do business with. I'm just overall delighted. An unscrupulous bank and one of the biggest assholes in politics in a shitslinging contest. My favorite type of distraction from actual issues. I think anyone with common sense should find this extremely unsavory. Whether it should be "allowed" is another question. Sorry blackjack, crossposting this from the UK thread, but I agree totally that this is extremely unsavory. I just don't think it's more unsavory than a cakeshop refusing to sell boutique cakes for a gay wedding. I know Introvert was cheering the cake shop's rights to choose whom to do business with. I didn't want to assume your position on that, and I didn't want to discuss it in the UK thread, because it's got nothing to do with UK politics, but do you agree with Introvert on this? And if so, why is making a decision to choose whom to do business with based on gender less unsavory than based on political opinion? I always thought the cake shop lost that case but google tells me they won so it’s safe to say I don’t know the story well. I don’t think refusing service to a homosexual couple on religious grounds is any less unsavory than refusing service to someone for their speech. Are you saying that refusing service for the following two cakes is equally justified: "I don't want to make a wedding cake for you because you're gay and the cake mentions two guys' names on it and has two little groom figurines" (client's sexual orientation) vs. "I don't want to make a party cake for you because you're a Nazi celebrating the Holocaust and the cake has a swastika and 'Jews should die' on it" (client's speech)
If the cake baker offers a cake with a template “Congratulations Name and Name” and they refuse service because the couple is gay then that’s not as justifiable. If they offer cakes with a template of “Your Message Here (max. 160 characters)” or something then I think they are equally justified in rejecting any message they find objectionable. I don’t see how you would rank the justifiableness of forcing someone to write messages that you demand they write.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
