|
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 March 26 2018 17:57 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2018 17:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 26 2018 17:21 Tachion wrote:On March 26 2018 16:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 26 2018 13:21 mierin wrote:On March 26 2018 13:17 IgnE wrote:On March 26 2018 13:13 patrick321 wrote:On March 26 2018 13:03 IgnE wrote:On March 26 2018 12:55 patrick321 wrote:On March 26 2018 12:36 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
He wasn't just asked to bake a cake. You don't do yourself any favors with this sloppy, lazy arguing. He was asked to bake a cake and then decorate it with images symbolic of a gay wedding. He was happy to sell them an undecorated cake.
Was this a hypothetical you're talking about and i missed the opening of it? What you described is not at all how the supreme court case went. No? Can you elaborate? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/27/opinion/gay-wedding-cake.htmlThe reason the nation’s high court is giving the case a second glance is Phillips’s First Amendment claim that he was not, in fact, discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, but on the basis of a particular message: endorsement of same-sex marriage. Phillips made it clear to the gay couple that he would happily sell them other items: birthday cakes, cookies, and so on. He welcomes LGBT customers; he is simply unwilling to use his artistic talents in the service of a message that he deems immoral. www.youtube.com Yet by all accounts, the happy couple did not ask Mr. Phillips for a cake bearing a message with which the baker might disagree — such as “God Bless This Gay Marriage,” as a group of First Amendment scholars hypothesized, or a rainbow flag. That could make for a harder case. Instead, the would-be customers stated only that they were seeking a wedding cake before Mr. Phillips said he could not serve them. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/at-the-supreme-court-the-cake-bakers-reasoning-falls-flat/2017/12/12/8cf321a6-dc60-11e7-b1a8-62589434a581_story.html?utm_term=.3b2eceda1da3I'm sure i read a first-person breakdown of the event from one of the two defendants which confirms but this was the first google result. The first-person one that i recall basically went: 'we'd like to buy a cake' 'who's it for?' 'us!' 'no can do' Your own supporting evidence even affirms that the 'message' the cake artisan disagreed with was the wedding itself and not anything about the cake. So you think he is lying and wouldn't have sold them any cake that they could decorate themselves? I'm curious as to why the "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" on the door of all these places hasn't really been discussed. Could the baker have just refused services on that stance, as opposed to making it open that the reason for refusal of service was that the couple was gay? Because all the liberals fell into Danglars rhetorical trap and refuse to remove themselves from it (and IgnE is having his usual fun). The last 5+ pages were over an argument Danglars wasn't really making. The baker was perfectly within their rights not to sell a gay couple a custom cake for their gay wedding. Which should be the starting point of this conversation. Instead, inexplicably everyone has accepted the false premise that the baker is being forced to provide his service for gay weddings he thinks binds the participants to hell (which outside of established religion would get you committed). The baker CAN LEGALLY REFUSE to provide his service to gay couple's weddings. We really shouldn't have another post presuming the opposite as a starting point. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that it was not legal for the baker to refuse. Then the Colorado Court of Appeals also upheld the lower courts decision. Now the case is in front of the Supreme Court. You can't say that the baker can legally refuse when it was ruled twice against him that he cannot. No, he was within his rights to refuse, and within his rights to refuse on the basis of not providing their service for a gay couple's wedding. What makes it illegal is rubbing their face in it. He just as easily could have just said "No, I chose not to provide you/them service" and it would be over and done with. Just because you don't provide a reason for refusing to provide service does not mean that it's not illegal. This is a myth. Yes, not providing a reason makes it a lot harder to prove that you're discriminating, but if for instance a dentist only ever refuses his services to black people, even if he never states why, he's going to lose that case. You are allowed to refuse services to anyone for any non discriminatory reasons tho. So it all comes back to having to prove it was discriminatory, which quickly becomes difficult if he/she refuses to say why. Of course the baker in this case made it all that much easier by admitting to it.
You're not going to prove it unless he says it. That's the point. The law sufficiently protects his ability to discriminate, what it doesn't protect is his ability to brag about it.
Maybe, MAYBE, if a bunch of gay couples made a point out of pressing the issue by lining up outside and making him refuse gay couple after gay couple's custom wedding cake requests, but that never would have happened if he didn't make a point about telling people why he was refusing to provide his service in the first place. And still might not be enough to prove it.
So from a practical view, the baker is perfectly capable of refusing to provide custom cakes for gay weddings.
|
On March 26 2018 18:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2018 17:57 Excludos wrote:On March 26 2018 17:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 26 2018 17:21 Tachion wrote:On March 26 2018 16:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 26 2018 13:21 mierin wrote:On March 26 2018 13:17 IgnE wrote:On March 26 2018 13:13 patrick321 wrote:On March 26 2018 13:03 IgnE wrote:On March 26 2018 12:55 patrick321 wrote:
[quote]
Was this a hypothetical you're talking about and i missed the opening of it? What you described is not at all how the supreme court case went. No? Can you elaborate? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/27/opinion/gay-wedding-cake.htmlThe reason the nation’s high court is giving the case a second glance is Phillips’s First Amendment claim that he was not, in fact, discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, but on the basis of a particular message: endorsement of same-sex marriage. Phillips made it clear to the gay couple that he would happily sell them other items: birthday cakes, cookies, and so on. He welcomes LGBT customers; he is simply unwilling to use his artistic talents in the service of a message that he deems immoral. www.youtube.com Yet by all accounts, the happy couple did not ask Mr. Phillips for a cake bearing a message with which the baker might disagree — such as “God Bless This Gay Marriage,” as a group of First Amendment scholars hypothesized, or a rainbow flag. That could make for a harder case. Instead, the would-be customers stated only that they were seeking a wedding cake before Mr. Phillips said he could not serve them. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/at-the-supreme-court-the-cake-bakers-reasoning-falls-flat/2017/12/12/8cf321a6-dc60-11e7-b1a8-62589434a581_story.html?utm_term=.3b2eceda1da3I'm sure i read a first-person breakdown of the event from one of the two defendants which confirms but this was the first google result. The first-person one that i recall basically went: 'we'd like to buy a cake' 'who's it for?' 'us!' 'no can do' Your own supporting evidence even affirms that the 'message' the cake artisan disagreed with was the wedding itself and not anything about the cake. So you think he is lying and wouldn't have sold them any cake that they could decorate themselves? I'm curious as to why the "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" on the door of all these places hasn't really been discussed. Could the baker have just refused services on that stance, as opposed to making it open that the reason for refusal of service was that the couple was gay? Because all the liberals fell into Danglars rhetorical trap and refuse to remove themselves from it (and IgnE is having his usual fun). The last 5+ pages were over an argument Danglars wasn't really making. The baker was perfectly within their rights not to sell a gay couple a custom cake for their gay wedding. Which should be the starting point of this conversation. Instead, inexplicably everyone has accepted the false premise that the baker is being forced to provide his service for gay weddings he thinks binds the participants to hell (which outside of established religion would get you committed). The baker CAN LEGALLY REFUSE to provide his service to gay couple's weddings. We really shouldn't have another post presuming the opposite as a starting point. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that it was not legal for the baker to refuse. Then the Colorado Court of Appeals also upheld the lower courts decision. Now the case is in front of the Supreme Court. You can't say that the baker can legally refuse when it was ruled twice against him that he cannot. No, he was within his rights to refuse, and within his rights to refuse on the basis of not providing their service for a gay couple's wedding. What makes it illegal is rubbing their face in it. He just as easily could have just said "No, I chose not to provide you/them service" and it would be over and done with. Just because you don't provide a reason for refusing to provide service does not mean that it's not illegal. This is a myth. Yes, not providing a reason makes it a lot harder to prove that you're discriminating, but if for instance a dentist only ever refuses his services to black people, even if he never states why, he's going to lose that case. You are allowed to refuse services to anyone for any non discriminatory reasons tho. So it all comes back to having to prove it was discriminatory, which quickly becomes difficult if he/she refuses to say why. Of course the baker in this case made it all that much easier by admitting to it. You're not going to prove it unless he says it. That's the point. The law sufficiently protects his ability to discriminate, what it doesn't protect is his ability to brag about it. Maybe, MAYBE, if a bunch of gay couples made a point out of pressing the issue by lining up outside and making him refuse gay couple after gay couple's custom wedding cake requests, but that never would have happened if he didn't make a point about telling people why he was refusing to provide his service in the first place. And still might not be enough to prove it. So from a practical view, the baker is perfectly capable of refusing to provide custom cakes for gay weddings.
This is in contrast to what you said earlier about "No, he was within his rights to refuse, and within his rights to refuse on the basis of not providing their service for a gay couple's wedding." tho. He is, in fact, not within his rights to refuse on the basis of no providing their service for a gay couple's wedding. He would be within his rights to refuse on the basis of "I don't wanna", but that's not what this is about.
|
On March 26 2018 18:10 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2018 18:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 26 2018 17:57 Excludos wrote:On March 26 2018 17:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 26 2018 17:21 Tachion wrote:On March 26 2018 16:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 26 2018 13:21 mierin wrote:On March 26 2018 13:17 IgnE wrote:On March 26 2018 13:13 patrick321 wrote:Yet by all accounts, the happy couple did not ask Mr. Phillips for a cake bearing a message with which the baker might disagree — such as “God Bless This Gay Marriage,” as a group of First Amendment scholars hypothesized, or a rainbow flag. That could make for a harder case. Instead, the would-be customers stated only that they were seeking a wedding cake before Mr. Phillips said he could not serve them. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/at-the-supreme-court-the-cake-bakers-reasoning-falls-flat/2017/12/12/8cf321a6-dc60-11e7-b1a8-62589434a581_story.html?utm_term=.3b2eceda1da3I'm sure i read a first-person breakdown of the event from one of the two defendants which confirms but this was the first google result. The first-person one that i recall basically went: 'we'd like to buy a cake' 'who's it for?' 'us!' 'no can do' Your own supporting evidence even affirms that the 'message' the cake artisan disagreed with was the wedding itself and not anything about the cake. So you think he is lying and wouldn't have sold them any cake that they could decorate themselves? I'm curious as to why the "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" on the door of all these places hasn't really been discussed. Could the baker have just refused services on that stance, as opposed to making it open that the reason for refusal of service was that the couple was gay? Because all the liberals fell into Danglars rhetorical trap and refuse to remove themselves from it (and IgnE is having his usual fun). The last 5+ pages were over an argument Danglars wasn't really making. The baker was perfectly within their rights not to sell a gay couple a custom cake for their gay wedding. Which should be the starting point of this conversation. Instead, inexplicably everyone has accepted the false premise that the baker is being forced to provide his service for gay weddings he thinks binds the participants to hell (which outside of established religion would get you committed). The baker CAN LEGALLY REFUSE to provide his service to gay couple's weddings. We really shouldn't have another post presuming the opposite as a starting point. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that it was not legal for the baker to refuse. Then the Colorado Court of Appeals also upheld the lower courts decision. Now the case is in front of the Supreme Court. You can't say that the baker can legally refuse when it was ruled twice against him that he cannot. No, he was within his rights to refuse, and within his rights to refuse on the basis of not providing their service for a gay couple's wedding. What makes it illegal is rubbing their face in it. He just as easily could have just said "No, I chose not to provide you/them service" and it would be over and done with. Just because you don't provide a reason for refusing to provide service does not mean that it's not illegal. This is a myth. Yes, not providing a reason makes it a lot harder to prove that you're discriminating, but if for instance a dentist only ever refuses his services to black people, even if he never states why, he's going to lose that case. You are allowed to refuse services to anyone for any non discriminatory reasons tho. So it all comes back to having to prove it was discriminatory, which quickly becomes difficult if he/she refuses to say why. Of course the baker in this case made it all that much easier by admitting to it. You're not going to prove it unless he says it. That's the point. The law sufficiently protects his ability to discriminate, what it doesn't protect is his ability to brag about it. Maybe, MAYBE, if a bunch of gay couples made a point out of pressing the issue by lining up outside and making him refuse gay couple after gay couple's custom wedding cake requests, but that never would have happened if he didn't make a point about telling people why he was refusing to provide his service in the first place. And still might not be enough to prove it. So from a practical view, the baker is perfectly capable of refusing to provide custom cakes for gay weddings. This is in contrast to what you said earlier about "No, he was within his rights to refuse, and within his rights to refuse on the basis of not providing their service for a gay couple's wedding." tho. He is, in fact, not within his rights to refuse on the basis of no providing their service for a gay couple's wedding. He would be within his rights to refuse on the basis of "I don't wanna", but that's not what this is about.
For all practical intents and purposes the law doesn't make a distinction until he tells people about it. Which is my core point irrespective of the language we settle on.
EDIT: I'm realizing this isn't sticking for some people because it's never happened to them.
|
On March 26 2018 18:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2018 18:10 Excludos wrote:On March 26 2018 18:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 26 2018 17:57 Excludos wrote:On March 26 2018 17:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 26 2018 17:21 Tachion wrote:On March 26 2018 16:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 26 2018 13:21 mierin wrote:On March 26 2018 13:17 IgnE wrote:So you think he is lying and wouldn't have sold them any cake that they could decorate themselves? I'm curious as to why the "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" on the door of all these places hasn't really been discussed. Could the baker have just refused services on that stance, as opposed to making it open that the reason for refusal of service was that the couple was gay? Because all the liberals fell into Danglars rhetorical trap and refuse to remove themselves from it (and IgnE is having his usual fun). The last 5+ pages were over an argument Danglars wasn't really making. The baker was perfectly within their rights not to sell a gay couple a custom cake for their gay wedding. Which should be the starting point of this conversation. Instead, inexplicably everyone has accepted the false premise that the baker is being forced to provide his service for gay weddings he thinks binds the participants to hell (which outside of established religion would get you committed). The baker CAN LEGALLY REFUSE to provide his service to gay couple's weddings. We really shouldn't have another post presuming the opposite as a starting point. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that it was not legal for the baker to refuse. Then the Colorado Court of Appeals also upheld the lower courts decision. Now the case is in front of the Supreme Court. You can't say that the baker can legally refuse when it was ruled twice against him that he cannot. No, he was within his rights to refuse, and within his rights to refuse on the basis of not providing their service for a gay couple's wedding. What makes it illegal is rubbing their face in it. He just as easily could have just said "No, I chose not to provide you/them service" and it would be over and done with. Just because you don't provide a reason for refusing to provide service does not mean that it's not illegal. This is a myth. Yes, not providing a reason makes it a lot harder to prove that you're discriminating, but if for instance a dentist only ever refuses his services to black people, even if he never states why, he's going to lose that case. You are allowed to refuse services to anyone for any non discriminatory reasons tho. So it all comes back to having to prove it was discriminatory, which quickly becomes difficult if he/she refuses to say why. Of course the baker in this case made it all that much easier by admitting to it. You're not going to prove it unless he says it. That's the point. The law sufficiently protects his ability to discriminate, what it doesn't protect is his ability to brag about it. Maybe, MAYBE, if a bunch of gay couples made a point out of pressing the issue by lining up outside and making him refuse gay couple after gay couple's custom wedding cake requests, but that never would have happened if he didn't make a point about telling people why he was refusing to provide his service in the first place. And still might not be enough to prove it. So from a practical view, the baker is perfectly capable of refusing to provide custom cakes for gay weddings. This is in contrast to what you said earlier about "No, he was within his rights to refuse, and within his rights to refuse on the basis of not providing their service for a gay couple's wedding." tho. He is, in fact, not within his rights to refuse on the basis of no providing their service for a gay couple's wedding. He would be within his rights to refuse on the basis of "I don't wanna", but that's not what this is about. For all practical intents and purposes the law doesn't make a distinction until he tells people about it. Which is my core point irrespective of the language we settle on. EDIT: I'm realizing this isn't sticking for some people because it's never happened to them.
Your statement is like "poisoning your husband isn't illegal, because you usually never get caught". But sure, for all practical intents, that is true as well.
|
On March 26 2018 18:37 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2018 18:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 26 2018 18:10 Excludos wrote:On March 26 2018 18:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 26 2018 17:57 Excludos wrote:On March 26 2018 17:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 26 2018 17:21 Tachion wrote:On March 26 2018 16:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 26 2018 13:21 mierin wrote:On March 26 2018 13:17 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
So you think he is lying and wouldn't have sold them any cake that they could decorate themselves?
I'm curious as to why the "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" on the door of all these places hasn't really been discussed. Could the baker have just refused services on that stance, as opposed to making it open that the reason for refusal of service was that the couple was gay? Because all the liberals fell into Danglars rhetorical trap and refuse to remove themselves from it (and IgnE is having his usual fun). The last 5+ pages were over an argument Danglars wasn't really making. The baker was perfectly within their rights not to sell a gay couple a custom cake for their gay wedding. Which should be the starting point of this conversation. Instead, inexplicably everyone has accepted the false premise that the baker is being forced to provide his service for gay weddings he thinks binds the participants to hell (which outside of established religion would get you committed). The baker CAN LEGALLY REFUSE to provide his service to gay couple's weddings. We really shouldn't have another post presuming the opposite as a starting point. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that it was not legal for the baker to refuse. Then the Colorado Court of Appeals also upheld the lower courts decision. Now the case is in front of the Supreme Court. You can't say that the baker can legally refuse when it was ruled twice against him that he cannot. No, he was within his rights to refuse, and within his rights to refuse on the basis of not providing their service for a gay couple's wedding. What makes it illegal is rubbing their face in it. He just as easily could have just said "No, I chose not to provide you/them service" and it would be over and done with. Just because you don't provide a reason for refusing to provide service does not mean that it's not illegal. This is a myth. Yes, not providing a reason makes it a lot harder to prove that you're discriminating, but if for instance a dentist only ever refuses his services to black people, even if he never states why, he's going to lose that case. You are allowed to refuse services to anyone for any non discriminatory reasons tho. So it all comes back to having to prove it was discriminatory, which quickly becomes difficult if he/she refuses to say why. Of course the baker in this case made it all that much easier by admitting to it. You're not going to prove it unless he says it. That's the point. The law sufficiently protects his ability to discriminate, what it doesn't protect is his ability to brag about it. Maybe, MAYBE, if a bunch of gay couples made a point out of pressing the issue by lining up outside and making him refuse gay couple after gay couple's custom wedding cake requests, but that never would have happened if he didn't make a point about telling people why he was refusing to provide his service in the first place. And still might not be enough to prove it. So from a practical view, the baker is perfectly capable of refusing to provide custom cakes for gay weddings. This is in contrast to what you said earlier about "No, he was within his rights to refuse, and within his rights to refuse on the basis of not providing their service for a gay couple's wedding." tho. He is, in fact, not within his rights to refuse on the basis of no providing their service for a gay couple's wedding. He would be within his rights to refuse on the basis of "I don't wanna", but that's not what this is about. For all practical intents and purposes the law doesn't make a distinction until he tells people about it. Which is my core point irrespective of the language we settle on. EDIT: I'm realizing this isn't sticking for some people because it's never happened to them. Your statement is like "poisoning your husband isn't illegal, because you usually never get caught". But sure, for all practical intents, that is true as well.
People realize this has been happening to black people since *legal* segregation 'ended' right?
I was thinking back to a specific incident I remember happening to my family as a young child and stumbled on an article talking about the guy I actually remember lol.
http://fox2now.com/2014/02/07/restaurant-owner-says-he-doesnt-want-gay-or-black-customers/
The point being the argument Danglars is making isn't about whether the cake makers are being forced by the state to make custom cakes against their will/religious beliefs. The fact of the matter is that they aren't. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to do what they are perfectly capable of doing, which is refusing to provide their service and sending them on their way.
|
On March 26 2018 18:37 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2018 18:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 26 2018 18:10 Excludos wrote:On March 26 2018 18:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 26 2018 17:57 Excludos wrote:On March 26 2018 17:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 26 2018 17:21 Tachion wrote:On March 26 2018 16:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 26 2018 13:21 mierin wrote:On March 26 2018 13:17 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
So you think he is lying and wouldn't have sold them any cake that they could decorate themselves?
I'm curious as to why the "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" on the door of all these places hasn't really been discussed. Could the baker have just refused services on that stance, as opposed to making it open that the reason for refusal of service was that the couple was gay? Because all the liberals fell into Danglars rhetorical trap and refuse to remove themselves from it (and IgnE is having his usual fun). The last 5+ pages were over an argument Danglars wasn't really making. The baker was perfectly within their rights not to sell a gay couple a custom cake for their gay wedding. Which should be the starting point of this conversation. Instead, inexplicably everyone has accepted the false premise that the baker is being forced to provide his service for gay weddings he thinks binds the participants to hell (which outside of established religion would get you committed). The baker CAN LEGALLY REFUSE to provide his service to gay couple's weddings. We really shouldn't have another post presuming the opposite as a starting point. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that it was not legal for the baker to refuse. Then the Colorado Court of Appeals also upheld the lower courts decision. Now the case is in front of the Supreme Court. You can't say that the baker can legally refuse when it was ruled twice against him that he cannot. No, he was within his rights to refuse, and within his rights to refuse on the basis of not providing their service for a gay couple's wedding. What makes it illegal is rubbing their face in it. He just as easily could have just said "No, I chose not to provide you/them service" and it would be over and done with. Just because you don't provide a reason for refusing to provide service does not mean that it's not illegal. This is a myth. Yes, not providing a reason makes it a lot harder to prove that you're discriminating, but if for instance a dentist only ever refuses his services to black people, even if he never states why, he's going to lose that case. You are allowed to refuse services to anyone for any non discriminatory reasons tho. So it all comes back to having to prove it was discriminatory, which quickly becomes difficult if he/she refuses to say why. Of course the baker in this case made it all that much easier by admitting to it. You're not going to prove it unless he says it. That's the point. The law sufficiently protects his ability to discriminate, what it doesn't protect is his ability to brag about it. Maybe, MAYBE, if a bunch of gay couples made a point out of pressing the issue by lining up outside and making him refuse gay couple after gay couple's custom wedding cake requests, but that never would have happened if he didn't make a point about telling people why he was refusing to provide his service in the first place. And still might not be enough to prove it. So from a practical view, the baker is perfectly capable of refusing to provide custom cakes for gay weddings. This is in contrast to what you said earlier about "No, he was within his rights to refuse, and within his rights to refuse on the basis of not providing their service for a gay couple's wedding." tho. He is, in fact, not within his rights to refuse on the basis of no providing their service for a gay couple's wedding. He would be within his rights to refuse on the basis of "I don't wanna", but that's not what this is about. For all practical intents and purposes the law doesn't make a distinction until he tells people about it. Which is my core point irrespective of the language we settle on. EDIT: I'm realizing this isn't sticking for some people because it's never happened to them. Your statement is like "poisoning your husband isn't illegal, because you usually never get caught". But sure, for all practical intents, that is true as well.
Gonna be much easier to get caught doing an action than to get caught having a thought, I reckon.
|
On March 26 2018 10:52 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2018 10:39 zlefin wrote:On March 26 2018 10:30 Sermokala wrote:On March 26 2018 10:18 zlefin wrote:On March 26 2018 10:08 Sermokala wrote:On March 26 2018 10:04 zlefin wrote:On March 26 2018 09:00 Sermokala wrote:On March 26 2018 08:37 Kyadytim wrote:On March 26 2018 08:32 IgnE wrote:
What about a baker who refused to draw a Pepe on a cake? People who want Pepes on a cake aren't a protected class, so that would probably be fine. Same if someone wanted another nation's flag, or an anarchy symbol, or dickbutt on it. I'm interested if people believe this is a special case because gay people are a protected class or if this is just a discrimination of commerce issue for people? What would peoples opinions be if the roles were switched and a specialty "gay wedding" cake shop was asked to create a wedding cake for a christian wedding in a senerio were Christians were a protected class and gay people weren't? As an side for the issue about the slippery slope I think it would definitely depend on our final decision on if a company can independently from a human decide to specialize in specific artistic expressions. If a company isn't allowed to specialize I could see issues from painters refusing to receive commissions of religious art work being discrimination against religious people despite the artist not having any experience or history with religious art work. I don't think joke religions would be much of an issue if we make the distinction between religious traditions from before the birth of the union vs after for the sake of whats a "tradition" and what isn't. And again I firmly believe that there is an important difference between a marriage and a wedding. I'd like some clarification on your proposed "before hte birth of the union" standard. which union are you referring to? and what other effects would there be of such adjudication? sounds like a potentially problematic standard. The union as in the United states of america. As in 21st of June 1788. sorry I've been playing a lot of UG: civil war recently. so religions made after that date don't count as religions, for a number of purposes? which other purposes would they not count as "real" religions for? No but when considering religious traditions from being either real or fake that would be a credible cut off date. Long enough for modern times to respect it as legitimate but not too long as to get into reformation era issues. so that removes mormonism. an odd standard of legitimacy of course, in that has nothing to do with whether the belief is true or not, or how fervently the belief is held. if a standard exists for measuring real/fake, it will be applied in other contexts; as there are a numbe rof other legal contexts where such can and does come up. I'm not talking about Mormonism as a religion I'm talking about religious traditions that recognizably predate june 1788. And the rest of the post I'd ask such as?
since mormonism postdates that, a number of mormon traditions likely postdate that as well.
in terms of other contexts, if a rule establishes some parts of a religion as "fake" for some legal purposes, that would tend to make the whole religion regarded as such; it's hard to say the religion is real, but some parts of it are fake/ineligible for protection, at any rate:
religious accomodation laws
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm
whether a religion should get tax exempt status
|
Really, this is only tangentially about religion.
What it's really about is the pretty well-trodden ground of free speech vs anti-discrimination. All the stuff about religious exemptions misses the point, because the ruling would very likely set precedent for more than just religious cases.
The heart of it is whether someone can be compelled to express speech in support of a protected class by being put in a position where not doing so could be discriminatory. That's a 1st vs 14th amendment issue and not to do with religion at all.
If the above is untrue, that is, you can't be compelled to express such speech, then the second question is whether decorating a cake counts as speech in this case. That one, I guess, would factor in the cake maker's religion among various other factors.
I still think the balance probably comes down in favour of the couple, but I''m glad we're at a point where people recognise it's more complicated than just ranting at the bigoted cake shop owner.
|
On March 26 2018 20:34 Belisarius wrote:
Really, this is only tangentially about religion.
What it's really about is the pretty well-trodden ground of free speech vs discrimination, irrespective of the motives. All the stuff about religious exemptions misses the point, because the ruling would very likely set precedent for more than just religious cases.
The heart of it is whether someone can be compelled to express speech in support of a protected class by being put in a position where not doing so could be discriminatory. That's a 1st vs 14th amendment issue and not to do with religion at all.
If the above is untrue, that is, you can't be compelled to express such speech, then the second question is whether decorating a cake counts as speech in this case. That one, I guess, would factor in the cake maker's religion among various other factors.
I still think the balance probably comes down in favour of the couple, but I''m glad we're at a point where people recognise it's more complicated than just ranting at the bigoted cake shop owner.
Or, conversely, more complex than 'religion wins lol obviously who cares about gay rights?'
Side note; has anything come of the Stormy Daniels shenanigans yet?
|
On March 26 2018 20:47 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2018 20:34 Belisarius wrote:
Really, this is only tangentially about religion.
What it's really about is the pretty well-trodden ground of free speech vs discrimination, irrespective of the motives. All the stuff about religious exemptions misses the point, because the ruling would very likely set precedent for more than just religious cases.
The heart of it is whether someone can be compelled to express speech in support of a protected class by being put in a position where not doing so could be discriminatory. That's a 1st vs 14th amendment issue and not to do with religion at all.
If the above is untrue, that is, you can't be compelled to express such speech, then the second question is whether decorating a cake counts as speech in this case. That one, I guess, would factor in the cake maker's religion among various other factors.
I still think the balance probably comes down in favour of the couple, but I''m glad we're at a point where people recognise it's more complicated than just ranting at the bigoted cake shop owner.
Or, conversely, more complex than 'religion wins lol obviously who cares about gay rights?' Side note; has anything come of the Stormy Daniels shenanigans yet?
I don't think so, and I don't expect anything substantial or unique to come out of the Stormy Daniels fallout. Everyone already knows that Trump cheats on his wives and acts like an immoral douchebag; the Stormy Daniels situation will bother people already bothered by these things, and it won't bother people who already don't care about Trump's misogyny and infidelity. I don't see it having any real political or legal implications.
|
On March 26 2018 21:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2018 20:47 iamthedave wrote:On March 26 2018 20:34 Belisarius wrote:
Really, this is only tangentially about religion.
What it's really about is the pretty well-trodden ground of free speech vs discrimination, irrespective of the motives. All the stuff about religious exemptions misses the point, because the ruling would very likely set precedent for more than just religious cases.
The heart of it is whether someone can be compelled to express speech in support of a protected class by being put in a position where not doing so could be discriminatory. That's a 1st vs 14th amendment issue and not to do with religion at all.
If the above is untrue, that is, you can't be compelled to express such speech, then the second question is whether decorating a cake counts as speech in this case. That one, I guess, would factor in the cake maker's religion among various other factors.
I still think the balance probably comes down in favour of the couple, but I''m glad we're at a point where people recognise it's more complicated than just ranting at the bigoted cake shop owner.
Or, conversely, more complex than 'religion wins lol obviously who cares about gay rights?' Side note; has anything come of the Stormy Daniels shenanigans yet? I don't think so, and I don't expect anything substantial or unique to come out of the Stormy Daniels fallout. Everyone already knows that Trump cheats on his wives and acts like an immoral douchebag; the Stormy Daniels situation will bother people already bothered by these things, and it won't bother people who already don't care about Trump's misogyny and infidelity. I don't see it having any real political or legal implications.
I thought there was something about campaign contributions being used to pay her to shut up during the campaign? Something illegal? Or was that media spin?
|
On March 26 2018 22:00 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2018 21:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 26 2018 20:47 iamthedave wrote:On March 26 2018 20:34 Belisarius wrote:
Really, this is only tangentially about religion.
What it's really about is the pretty well-trodden ground of free speech vs discrimination, irrespective of the motives. All the stuff about religious exemptions misses the point, because the ruling would very likely set precedent for more than just religious cases.
The heart of it is whether someone can be compelled to express speech in support of a protected class by being put in a position where not doing so could be discriminatory. That's a 1st vs 14th amendment issue and not to do with religion at all.
If the above is untrue, that is, you can't be compelled to express such speech, then the second question is whether decorating a cake counts as speech in this case. That one, I guess, would factor in the cake maker's religion among various other factors.
I still think the balance probably comes down in favour of the couple, but I''m glad we're at a point where people recognise it's more complicated than just ranting at the bigoted cake shop owner.
Or, conversely, more complex than 'religion wins lol obviously who cares about gay rights?' Side note; has anything come of the Stormy Daniels shenanigans yet? I don't think so, and I don't expect anything substantial or unique to come out of the Stormy Daniels fallout. Everyone already knows that Trump cheats on his wives and acts like an immoral douchebag; the Stormy Daniels situation will bother people already bothered by these things, and it won't bother people who already don't care about Trump's misogyny and infidelity. I don't see it having any real political or legal implications. I thought there was something about campaign contributions being used to pay her to shut up during the campaign? Something illegal? Or was that media spin?
Thats something for the FEC to figure out (lol, like they have the power/will to do anything).
It has nothing to do with her interview
|
On March 26 2018 22:00 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2018 21:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 26 2018 20:47 iamthedave wrote:On March 26 2018 20:34 Belisarius wrote:
Really, this is only tangentially about religion.
What it's really about is the pretty well-trodden ground of free speech vs discrimination, irrespective of the motives. All the stuff about religious exemptions misses the point, because the ruling would very likely set precedent for more than just religious cases.
The heart of it is whether someone can be compelled to express speech in support of a protected class by being put in a position where not doing so could be discriminatory. That's a 1st vs 14th amendment issue and not to do with religion at all.
If the above is untrue, that is, you can't be compelled to express such speech, then the second question is whether decorating a cake counts as speech in this case. That one, I guess, would factor in the cake maker's religion among various other factors.
I still think the balance probably comes down in favour of the couple, but I''m glad we're at a point where people recognise it's more complicated than just ranting at the bigoted cake shop owner.
Or, conversely, more complex than 'religion wins lol obviously who cares about gay rights?' Side note; has anything come of the Stormy Daniels shenanigans yet? I don't think so, and I don't expect anything substantial or unique to come out of the Stormy Daniels fallout. Everyone already knows that Trump cheats on his wives and acts like an immoral douchebag; the Stormy Daniels situation will bother people already bothered by these things, and it won't bother people who already don't care about Trump's misogyny and infidelity. I don't see it having any real political or legal implications. I thought there was something about campaign contributions being used to pay her to shut up during the campaign? Something illegal? Or was that media spin?
Well, here's one of the primary accusations:
"Trump Organization lawyer Michael Cohen’s $130,000 payout to adult actress Stormy Daniels for her silence over an alleged affair with President Donald Trump violated election law, according to a former top U.S. election official." https://uk.news.yahoo.com/trump-lawyer-michael-cohen-made-083512675.html
Worst case scenario, Cohen stops being one of Trump's lawyers and spokespeople, with the tiniest slap on the wrist. Nothing for Trump, surely.
|
On March 26 2018 22:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2018 22:00 iamthedave wrote:On March 26 2018 21:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 26 2018 20:47 iamthedave wrote:On March 26 2018 20:34 Belisarius wrote:
Really, this is only tangentially about religion.
What it's really about is the pretty well-trodden ground of free speech vs discrimination, irrespective of the motives. All the stuff about religious exemptions misses the point, because the ruling would very likely set precedent for more than just religious cases.
The heart of it is whether someone can be compelled to express speech in support of a protected class by being put in a position where not doing so could be discriminatory. That's a 1st vs 14th amendment issue and not to do with religion at all.
If the above is untrue, that is, you can't be compelled to express such speech, then the second question is whether decorating a cake counts as speech in this case. That one, I guess, would factor in the cake maker's religion among various other factors.
I still think the balance probably comes down in favour of the couple, but I''m glad we're at a point where people recognise it's more complicated than just ranting at the bigoted cake shop owner.
Or, conversely, more complex than 'religion wins lol obviously who cares about gay rights?' Side note; has anything come of the Stormy Daniels shenanigans yet? I don't think so, and I don't expect anything substantial or unique to come out of the Stormy Daniels fallout. Everyone already knows that Trump cheats on his wives and acts like an immoral douchebag; the Stormy Daniels situation will bother people already bothered by these things, and it won't bother people who already don't care about Trump's misogyny and infidelity. I don't see it having any real political or legal implications. I thought there was something about campaign contributions being used to pay her to shut up during the campaign? Something illegal? Or was that media spin? Well, here's one of the primary accusations: "Trump Organization lawyer Michael Cohen’s $130,000 payout to adult actress Stormy Daniels for her silence over an alleged affair with President Donald Trump violated election law, according to a former top U.S. election official." https://uk.news.yahoo.com/trump-lawyer-michael-cohen-made-083512675.html Worst case scenario, Cohen stops being one of Trump's lawyers and spokespeople, with the tiniest slap on the wrist. Nothing for Trump, surely.
Ah, right. So a storm (#heartybellylaugh#imsofunny) in a teacup.
|
Given the state of Trump's legal team, losing Cohen could be a big deal.
|
Remington Outdoor Co., the 200-year-old maker of rifles, handguns and bullets controlled by Cerberus Capital Management, filed for bankruptcy, after the election of a “true friend” to the White House ironically wound up stifling sales. The chapter 11 filing in Delaware bankruptcy court Sunday comes with a revised plan to eliminate $620 million in debt, pay most creditors in full, and hand over most of the company to a group of lenders. Remington, which makes weapons for military, law enforcement, and hunting customers, had already outlined a plan on Feb. 12 to file for bankruptcy and give control to lenders including Franklin Resources Inc. and JPMorgan Asset Management. The filing came after a weekend of marches across the U.S. seeking tighter laws to fight gun violence. Remington said in court filings that its efforts to finance a turnaround were complicated by parties who were reluctant to lend to a gunmaker. After approaching 30 potential lenders, financial adviser Lazard Freres & Co. found “the vast majority” indicated “they were reluctant.” Eight parties who entered into further discussions later declined, and one outside lender who had agreed to provide a $100 million bankruptcy loan changed its mind, according to the filing. Remington’s fortunes took a hit last year after the election of Donald Trump, a self-proclaimed “ true friend” of the gun industry. Gun enthusiasts traditionally stock up on firearms at times when political winds suggest tighter gun control lies ahead. But Hillary Clinton’s defeat erased those fears, leaving retailers stuffed with unsold inventory. Chief Financial Officer Stephen P. Jackson described the reason for the company’s demise as a “significant decline” in sales and revenues in the last year after it had increased production rates to meet demand in 2017 that never materialized. The Madison, North Carolina-based company has 2,700 employees at seven U.S. manufacturing plants, according to court filings. It plans to win bankruptcy court approval of the restructuring by May 3. + Show Spoiler +Reorganization Terms
The turnaround differs slightly from a prior plan already negotiated with lenders that would cut debt by about $700 million and inject $145 million of new capital. The current plan will eliminate $620 million of funded debt in exchange for equity in a new company. Financing to get that done totals $338 million, including a $193 million asset-based loan, a $100 million debtor-in-possession financing loan, and a $45 million “bridge” or “rescue” loan from Remington’s parent company to its operating subsidiaries.
After the outside lender backed out of the $100 million loan, Remington got financing on better terms from its term-loan lenders and secured noteholders, according to the filing. The company seeks to keep fees for the loan under seal, according to a court request.
The reorganization will convert the rescue loan into 17.5 percent of equity in a new company, and the $100 million loan will convert to an exit loan, while the asset-based loan will be repaid in cash, according to court papers. Pre-bankruptcy term loan lenders will get 82.5 percent of the new parent entity, while third lien lenders will get cash and warrants. Current equity will be canceled.
The company has asked to forgo the usual procedure of filing a full schedule of its debts and assets and seek final approval of a plan by May 3.
Several Setbacks
Recent setbacks for Remington have included an aborted public offering in 2011 and an investor revolt after one of its rifles was used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting.
The troubles have been a blow to Cerberus, owned by private-equity billionaire Stephen Feinberg, who has been a prominent Trump supporter. New York-based Cerberus acquired Remington in 2007 and saddled it with almost $1 billion in debt.
After the Sandy Hook shooting, Cerberus announced it would sell the company, as its own agitated investors demanded an exit, but it failed to find a buyer.
Concerns about rising gun violence, mass shootings and accidents have prompted litigation, some of it including Remington. In 2016, the Massachusetts attorney general sought information from the company on complaints and recalls, citing an investigation into its compliance with state laws and regulations on gun safety. Remington has also been sued by individuals claiming some guns are defective, and voluntarily recalled some of its models.
Industry Pressure
The industry came under added pressure in February when a gunman using an AR-15 assault rifle was used in the Stoneman High School mass murder in Parkland, Florida, just days after Remington announced plans for a pre-arranged bankruptcy. That weapon was a Smith & Wesson, made by a unit of American Outdoor Brands Corp.
Remington, which began with a hand-built rifle in 1816, went on to supply more than half the ammunition used by U.S. and its allies in World War I and World War II, according to its website. It currently employs 3,500 people and is among the largest American manufacturers of ammunition and firearms.
More than 11 million firearms were manufactured in the U.S. in 2016, up from fewer than four million a decade ago, according to data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Another pillar of American gun industry, Colt Holding Co., also took a trip through bankruptcy in 2015.
The case is: In re Remington Outdoor Company Inc., 18-10684, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware (Delaware.)
Source
An interesting backdrop to the whole gun debate is that the gun manufactures are filing BK in recent years due to slumping gun sales and being saddled with debt by its owners. As the article cites, Colt filed for BK in the last 5 years as well. As fewer Americans as a whole buy guns, these companies are unable to drive growth that investors require. It is also interesting to see who owns these companies and how they use the guns industry as a wedge issue for a section of voters. Also how few employees these companies have.
Edit: Spoiler added for length
|
Another example of Trump stating bald faced lies on his twitter account. It doesn’t reflect well on his supporters that they take him at his word, and they feel they can trust and rely on him.
|
What do all these top lawyers have to lose? Do lawyers of that caliber only accept jobs that are a slam dunk? I'm curious what would make every single firm stay away.
|
Maybe it's really annoying to work for Trump, and he doesn't pay well enough for it to be worth the hassle. Without any knowledge of law, Trump does sound like a nightmare to be a lawyer for.
|
Actual outcome possibilities aside, many lawyers and firms are strongly turned off by picking up representation mid-case. In many cases, having to come in and pick up pieces already set by prior lawyers is a recipe for complicated conflict of interest and ineffective assistance of counsel problems. On that latter note, word is that Trump is flirting with hanging his hat on the IAC rack, which is even more reason for lawyers to be wary about what they're getting into.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
