Count Dankula is now a member/supporter of UKIP.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

RikuoAmero:
There is no restriction on being both pro-LGBT and pro-guns.

I think you're misunderstanding the statement.

There is no restriction on supporting both positions in principle, that much should be clear. However, in a US Presidential election, you cannot draw up a list of your policy positions and vote for that. One candidate supports position A but not position B; the other candidate supports position B, but not position A. The voter has to prioritise which of the two positions is more compelling to them in order to choose who gets their vote.

That's what Saelune is arguing, as I understand it, and it's perfectly true. Plenty of Trump voters may not personally hold the views he does on immigrants, or LGBT people... but in order to vote for him, they must have prioritised other things over those issues. And that's a perfectly fair point of criticism.

Here Comes Tomorrow:

But that doesn't reflect on the individual's political views. It's not a zero sum. You wonder why people are shifting right on the political spectrum it's shit like this.

With respect, when you're deciding who gets your vote, it is zero sum. A vote bolsters the candidate's mandate for their entire platform, not just whichever parts the voter personally cares about.

Here Comes Tomorrow:
But that doesn't reflect on the individual's political views.

So? Personal views matter less than actions and consequences. Voting is the most important political action that a common individual can take in a democracy, and it is zero-sum.

WolvDragon:

CaitSeith:

WolvDragon:
snip

Then don't put words on Saelune's mouth either. Are you here to discuss in good will or not?

When did I put words in Saelune's mouth Cait?

When Saelune didn't call/implied Mexicans was a race, but you replied as if that was the case.

CaitSeith:

WolvDragon:

CaitSeith:

Then don't put words on Saelune's mouth either. Are you here to discuss in good will or not?

When did I put words in Saelune's mouth Cait?

When Saelune didn't call/implied Mexicans was a race, but you replied as if that was the case.

He/She called mexicans non white, if that's not implying that they're part of a race idk what is.

I've been thinking a lot about Jim Crowe laws lately. I wonder how people got to the spot where they thought it was okay for that to happen. Because I look at the decision on Colorado and California bakers who denied partial service to homosexuals, and the judges comments on both cases about respecting people's religion. This would be how they got Jim Crowe right?

The people of the time of Jim Crowe believed that minorities were lesser people. Following the judges principles, wouldn't that mean, if you reignited this belief again, you could ban minorities from your store? The only thing stopping is the anti-discrimination law which they already managed to circumvent.

Trump uses the fact that some people are out of work and turns it into an immigraction issue. He turns the protestation of treatment of minorities into a Free Speech and Nationalistic issue (where you should definitely not think for yourself.) I personally would think that a lot of people are angry about stuff and Trump turns that into blaming someone else (and not themselves). He even joked that if Kim doesnt denuclearise the Korean Pennisula, he'd find some way to blame it on others.

I am beginning to understand the generalised "Trump voter." They want their problems fixed and for someone else to do it. If that carries some unsavoury steps that you can turn a blind eye to, so be it.

Samtemdo8:

At times, the bar on what you consider entertainment is mildly concerning to me. ;p

trunkage:
I've been thinking a lot about Jim Crowe laws lately. I wonder how people got to the spot where they thought it was okay for that to happen. Because I look at the decision on Colorado and California bakers who denied partial service to homosexuals, and the judges comments on both cases about respecting people's religion. This would be how they got Jim Crowe right?

Jim Crow stemmed from the fact that back then rather then move out of a neighbourhood when black people move in, whites just didn't let them move in in the first place. A much forgotten part of Jim Crow is that it followed blacks everywhere they went, and new cities in the north and west where implementing racial segregation until the early 60s, with a noteworthy example being San Fransico doing so just a few years before it was banned at the federal level.

As for the cake, this couldn't have anything less to do with Jim Crow. What is being denied isn't the sale of products, they where free to buy anything in stock, and in the case of the incident that started all this this was even flat out stated by the management. What was denied, was a request for an art commission in the form of a wedding cake. These type of commissions of works of art have the right to be denied for any reason at all, or none, so long as it does not violate an agreement that is currently in effect. The judgement on the case is going to be pretty simple, since anything that declares it illegal will be a massive civil rights violation for artists, potentially (likely I'd dare say) an unconstitutional one. One does not have the right to force an artists to accept a commission request, their rights to accept or reject commission offers trumps that of the potential customer.

WolvDragon:

CaitSeith:

WolvDragon:

As I already stated, some voted for him because they're tired of voting for establishment politicians, some voted for him because they thought he was gonna protect their blue-collar jobs. Do you really think the two time Obama voters who voted for Trump are suddenly gonna be bigots?

Are you implying that the McCain and Romney voters are bigots though? Anyways, no matter for whom anyone voted beforehand. Those who voted for Trump as an anti-establishment/pro-blue collar candidate still considered that accepting his open bigotry was a fair price (and they heard it directly from Trump himself, so they weren't uninformed nor lied to).

The consequences from their votes are undeniably the same as if they had been bigots, and that matters much more than any pejorative.

Another typical escapist user twisting my words because they think they found some hidden meaning behind my oh so clear statements. No honey not all of them are bigots nor do I think a majority are bigots and if you been paying attention to my posts this entire thread, I been defending Trump voters from Saelune's generalization. But please continue to put words in my mouth when I didnt. I'm tired of people on the escapist asking such dumb questions and think I implied some sort of deeper message. How about you just read what I post and don't fucking over think it! I never said Romney or McCain voters, that's on you!

'Another typical escapist user'...

1. Don't generalize while complaining about people generalizing.

2. You're an escapist user too, and not a new one by your own admition.

Zontar:
As for the cake, this couldn't have anything less to do with Jim Crow. What is being denied isn't the sale of products, they where free to buy anything in stock, and in the case of the incident that started all this this was even flat out stated by the management. What was denied, was a request for an art commission in the form of a wedding cake. These type of commissions of works of art have the right to be denied for any reason at all, or none, so long as it does not violate an agreement that is currently in effect. The judgement on the case is going to be pretty simple, since anything that declares it illegal will be a massive civil rights violation for artists, potentially (likely I'd dare say) an unconstitutional one. One does not have the right to force an artists to accept a commission request, their rights to accept or reject commission offers trumps that of the potential customer.

You're wrong. Literally the ruling about the wedding cake from the supreme court was that the state messed up and didn't take into account his "sincerely held religious beliefs." It wasn't definitive about someone being able to deny service to a gay couple, it was more about the state not taking his views into account and actively going overboard with how it approached the issue. So these will be things taken into account next time someone tries to use religion to discriminate but we don't have a precedence.

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

CaitSeith:

Are you implying that the McCain and Romney voters are bigots though? Anyways, no matter for whom anyone voted beforehand. Those who voted for Trump as an anti-establishment/pro-blue collar candidate still considered that accepting his open bigotry was a fair price (and they heard it directly from Trump himself, so they weren't uninformed nor lied to).

The consequences from their votes are undeniably the same as if they had been bigots, and that matters much more than any pejorative.

Another typical escapist user twisting my words because they think they found some hidden meaning behind my oh so clear statements. No honey not all of them are bigots nor do I think a majority are bigots and if you been paying attention to my posts this entire thread, I been defending Trump voters from Saelune's generalization. But please continue to put words in my mouth when I didnt. I'm tired of people on the escapist asking such dumb questions and think I implied some sort of deeper message. How about you just read what I post and don't fucking over think it! I never said Romney or McCain voters, that's on you!

'Another typical escapist user'...

1. Don't generalize while complaining about people generalizing.

2. You're an escapist user too, and not a new one by your own admition.

Ok I admit I was out of line by that comment, but this is like the third time some one on this site states that I said something when nothing of the fact was stated. It's annoying frankly. Also it's funny how you use one of my favorite movies against me, touche Saelune.

Agema:

Saelune:
As I said earlier, I think it is more offensive to think people were tricked by Trump than to just be that bigoted.

No.

Let me give an example. A friend of mine told me a story about his mother-in-law. About ten years ago, he and his wife had to talk to her out of voting for the BNP, which she thought she might vote for because she liked the leaflet that came through, promising various stuff including healthcare, jobs for British workers, etc. which all seemed great to her, because she's British. Right?

The problem was that the BNP are far right nationalists, and the mother-in-law is black. She might consider herself British, but the BNP do not. However, they don't advertise that on the election leaflets, do they? She didn't much read newspapers, or watch the TV, and so she had no idea of the true nature of the BNP. Ultimately a lot of people joined or voted for the BNP for similar reasons - mostly a combination of strenuous efforts by the BNP to conceal its racist and fascist nature, and a lack of seeking information from other sources.

In many cases, people may vote for a party simply because every else does - they are fairly clueless about it all, but all their mates and relatives vote X, so they do to. Is just what everyone does, isn't it? They might vote for a party because they're highly religious and the local religious representative tells them to. They might vote for a party because that's what their parents did, and they're not sufficiently advanced into independent, adult thinking to make up their own minds. And so on.

I am saying you have to be REEEEEEEEEALLY stupid to vote for Trump and not know he was a horrible bigot. Like, the entire Republican party is basically as bigoted as Trump, but they atleast yeah, I can see people falling for it. But not Trump, I mean, the 'best' part about Trump is how he is just outing the entire party. I mean, if they were not as bigoted as him, they would have thrown him under the bus long ago, but do they? No. They whine a bit, usually quietly and in places Trump wont see, and that's it, cause they know he is doing alot of what they wish they could have done before. Even McCain took getting terminal cancer to complain...in his book....which you can buy.

Being a bigot cause your parents are a bigot does not excuse it.

But I mean, we live in a world where people think voting for someone is not supporting them. So maybe.

Worgen:

You're wrong. Literally the ruling about the wedding cake from the supreme court was that the state messed up and didn't take into account his "sincerely held religious beliefs." It wasn't definitive about someone being able to deny service to a gay couple, it was more about the state not taking his views into account and actively going overboard with how it approached the issue. So these will be things taken into account next time someone tries to use religion to discriminate but we don't have a precedence.

Wow, America is really screwed up. What type of fucking country actually has its laws allow artists to be forced to take commission requests they don't want? Jesus this is something even backwater democracies (liberty wise) like Canada or the UK have down. How is there a basic freedom that we have that you people don't?

WolvDragon:

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

Another typical escapist user twisting my words because they think they found some hidden meaning behind my oh so clear statements. No honey not all of them are bigots nor do I think a majority are bigots and if you been paying attention to my posts this entire thread, I been defending Trump voters from Saelune's generalization. But please continue to put words in my mouth when I didnt. I'm tired of people on the escapist asking such dumb questions and think I implied some sort of deeper message. How about you just read what I post and don't fucking over think it! I never said Romney or McCain voters, that's on you!

'Another typical escapist user'...

1. Don't generalize while complaining about people generalizing.

2. You're an escapist user too, and not a new one by your own admition.

Ok I admit I was out of line by that comment, but this is like the third time some one on this site states that I said something when nothing of the fact was stated. It's annoying frankly. Also it's funny how you use one of my favorite movies against me, touche Saelune.

People twist my words all the time.

Look I don't want to be mad at you, I considered our views to be very much in line, but you are working way too hard to defend people who do not deserve defending. Save your empathy for the people Trump is stomping on, like the children Trump is separating from their parents and throwing into basically internment camps, not the people who voted for Trump cause of his 'tough views on immigration' that got us here.

Zontar:

Worgen:

You're wrong. Literally the ruling about the wedding cake from the supreme court was that the state messed up and didn't take into account his "sincerely held religious beliefs." It wasn't definitive about someone being able to deny service to a gay couple, it was more about the state not taking his views into account and actively going overboard with how it approached the issue. So these will be things taken into account next time someone tries to use religion to discriminate but we don't have a precedence.

Wow, America is really screwed up. What type of fucking country actually has its laws allow artists to be forced to take commission requests they don't want? Jesus this is something even backwater democracies (liberty wise) like Canada or the UK have down. How is there a basic freedom that we have that you people don't?

The type of country that said 'Separate but equal' was not equal.

Saelune:
The type of country that said 'Separate but equal' was not equal.

Which one you talking about? Not sure if it's the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, South Africa, Switzerland, or Zimbabwe since they all did that.

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

Saelune:
'Another typical escapist user'...

1. Don't generalize while complaining about people generalizing.

2. You're an escapist user too, and not a new one by your own admition.

Ok I admit I was out of line by that comment, but this is like the third time some one on this site states that I said something when nothing of the fact was stated. It's annoying frankly. Also it's funny how you use one of my favorite movies against me, touche Saelune.

People twist my words all the time.

Look I don't want to be mad at you, I considered our views to be very much in line, but you are working way too hard to defend people who do not deserve defending. Save your empathy for the people Trump is stomping on, like the children Trump is separating from their parents and throwing into basically internment camps, not the people who voted for Trump cause of his 'tough views on immigration' that got us here.

"Mad at me?" I'm not concerned if someone on the internet is mad at me. I just think that generalizing people is bullshit and it needs to stop. I look at people as individuals, not some collectivist group that share everything about each other.

And yes this is the part where I can happily side with you, because seperating kids from their parents, even if their undocumented, is barbaric. Just shows you how heartless Trump and his admiminstration is truly are. First DACA, now this, incredible.

Zontar:

Worgen:

You're wrong. Literally the ruling about the wedding cake from the supreme court was that the state messed up and didn't take into account his "sincerely held religious beliefs." It wasn't definitive about someone being able to deny service to a gay couple, it was more about the state not taking his views into account and actively going overboard with how it approached the issue. So these will be things taken into account next time someone tries to use religion to discriminate but we don't have a precedence.

Wow, America is really screwed up. What type of fucking country actually has its laws allow artists to be forced to take commission requests they don't want? Jesus this is something even backwater democracies (liberty wise) like Canada or the UK have down. How is there a basic freedom that we have that you people don't?

Should minorities be excluded if someone doesn't wanna do them a service?

Zontar:

Saelune:
The type of country that said 'Separate but equal' was not equal.

Which one you talking about? Not sure if it's the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, South Africa, Switzerland, or Zimbabwe since they all did that.

You know I mean the US.

WolvDragon:

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

Ok I admit I was out of line by that comment, but this is like the third time some one on this site states that I said something when nothing of the fact was stated. It's annoying frankly. Also it's funny how you use one of my favorite movies against me, touche Saelune.

People twist my words all the time.

Look I don't want to be mad at you, I considered our views to be very much in line, but you are working way too hard to defend people who do not deserve defending. Save your empathy for the people Trump is stomping on, like the children Trump is separating from their parents and throwing into basically internment camps, not the people who voted for Trump cause of his 'tough views on immigration' that got us here.

"Mad at me?" I'm not concerned if someone on the internet is mad at me. I just think that generalizing people is bullshit and it needs to stop. I look at people as individuals, not some collectivist group that share everything about each other.

And yes this is the part where I can happily side with you, because seperating kids from their parents, even if their undocumented, is barbaric. Just shows you how heartless Trump and his admiminstration is truly are. First DACA, now this, incredible.

I also am not concerned with people who hate me for standing up to evil bigots like Trump and those who support him and those like him. I don't feel bad about hurting their feelings, or offending them, cause their feelings are not more valid than the feelings of those they oppress. My point in saying that though was to clarify I do not think you are a right-wing Trump supporter, cause speaking of people twisting my words, alot of people who hate my views try to twist it to seem I think anyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi. In this case I think you're a left-winger who tries too hard to be nice to people who do not deserve your kindness.

I am not generalizing. 100% of Trump voters, by voting for him, are culpable for his bigoted views. Unless any of them had a gun aimed at their head and if they did not vote for Trump they would be literally murdered, there is no justification for voting Trump. They each on their individual level are at fault for supporting him. Whether they did it because they used their free will to vote for him because they genuinly hate minorities, or because they have been brainwashed by their family to hate minorities, it does not matter.

And if someone voted for Trump cause he said they would get their mining job back, they knew it would be at the cost of the rights of others, and they did not care cause 'Got mine, fuck yours' which is not ok.

Saelune:

WolvDragon:

Saelune:
People twist my words all the time.

Look I don't want to be mad at you, I considered our views to be very much in line, but you are working way too hard to defend people who do not deserve defending. Save your empathy for the people Trump is stomping on, like the children Trump is separating from their parents and throwing into basically internment camps, not the people who voted for Trump cause of his 'tough views on immigration' that got us here.

"Mad at me?" I'm not concerned if someone on the internet is mad at me. I just think that generalizing people is bullshit and it needs to stop. I look at people as individuals, not some collectivist group that share everything about each other.

And yes this is the part where I can happily side with you, because seperating kids from their parents, even if their undocumented, is barbaric. Just shows you how heartless Trump and his admiminstration is truly are. First DACA, now this, incredible.

I also am not concerned with people who hate me for standing up to evil bigots like Trump and those who support him and those like him. I don't feel bad about hurting their feelings, or offending them, cause their feelings are not more valid than the feelings of those they oppress. My point in saying that though was to clarify I do not think you are a right-wing Trump supporter, cause speaking of people twisting my words, alot of people who hate my views try to twist it to seem I think anyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi. In this case I think you're a left-winger who tries too hard to be nice to people who do not deserve your kindness.

I am not generalizing. 100% of Trump voters, by voting for him, are culpable for his bigoted views. Unless any of them had a gun aimed at their head and if they did not vote for Trump they would be literally murdered, there is no justification for voting Trump. They each on their individual level are at fault for supporting him. Whether they did it because they used their free will to vote for him because they genuinly hate minorities, or because they have been brainwashed by their family to hate minorities, it does not matter.

And if someone voted for Trump cause he said they would get their mining job back, they knew it would be at the cost of the rights of others, and they did not care cause 'Got mine, fuck yours' which is not ok.

You know what maybe you do got a point. Maybe I am too nice to right wingers. In the end some will always defend their team, and will attack the left no matter what. I like to believe there's some people in the right who are at least consistent and saner then those rapid ultra conservatives who treat politics as a sport. You know the hyper partisan ones. The thing is though calling people nazis, even for the slightest conservative view point they have hurts the left. But in the end, some on the right are just gonna call us commies, socialists, nazis, whatever no matter what.

Zontar:

Worgen:

You're wrong. Literally the ruling about the wedding cake from the supreme court was that the state messed up and didn't take into account his "sincerely held religious beliefs." It wasn't definitive about someone being able to deny service to a gay couple, it was more about the state not taking his views into account and actively going overboard with how it approached the issue. So these will be things taken into account next time someone tries to use religion to discriminate but we don't have a precedence.

Wow, America is really screwed up. What type of fucking country actually has its laws allow artists to be forced to take commission requests they don't want? Jesus this is something even backwater democracies (liberty wise) like Canada or the UK have down. How is there a basic freedom that we have that you people don't?

Why, its the type of county that has proven it can't be trusted to not be dicks to people based on certain things. In the US we have a thing called protected classes, these include race, age, genetic information, veteran status, religion/creed, national origin and sex. This means that if you have a facility that is open to the public such as a hotel, restaurant, theater or retail store then you aren't allowed to discriminate on people who come in based on any of those criteria.

WolvDragon:

Should minorities be excluded if someone doesn't wanna do them a service?

Artists shouldn't be forced to take commissions that go against their values.

Worgen:

Why, its the type of county that has proven it can't be trusted to not be dicks to people based on certain things.

Not really an American thing, that's more in the "human experience" category.

In the US we have a thing called protected classes, these include race, age, genetic information, veteran status, religion/creed, national origin and sex. This means that if you have a facility that is open to the public such as a hotel, restaurant, theater or retail store then you aren't allowed to discriminate on people who come in based on any of those criteria.

That doesn't really justify removing the right of artists to refuse commission requests that go against their values. Again, how is it that Canada and the UK, which are quickly headed towards tyranny, have more protection of the rights of those that create then the country people jokingly call "freedomland"?

Zontar:

WolvDragon:

Should minorities be excluded if someone doesn't wanna do them a service?

Artists shouldn't be forced to take commissions that go against their values.

Except it wasn't a commission that went against an artist's values. Setting aside the entire artistry categorization for the sake of argument[1], taking a commission that goes against an artist's values necessarily entails that the work itself is at odds with those values.

To use a clean-cut example, that could adequately be represented as a purely SFW artist refusing to take commissions to draw pornographic images. In such cases, the artist objects because the content of the proposed product is objectionable to them. The instance you're talking about, however, would be refusing to take a commission not because of the content of the product, but because of the nature of the people asking for it. More specifically, the artist doesn't want to take the commission not because of any issue with the product, but because he didn't like the demographics of the people who wanted to commission it. By all indications, they'd be perfectly happy taking an otherwise identical commission if the demographics of the commissioners had been different. Continuing with the artist example, this would be roughly equivalent to "I'm sorry, but I don't draw for black people". That's not artistic expression or artistic freedom.

You could make a far better case that it's freedom of association, but it's not a form of freedom of association that is protected by law.

[1] It's questionable at best whether any chef truly qualifies in the intended spirit of that term. See also why figure skaters are usually better described as athletes than artists

Zontar:

WolvDragon:

Should minorities be excluded if someone doesn't wanna do them a service?

Artists shouldn't be forced to take commissions that go against their values.

Becuase Jim Crowe. That's why I made that allusion. If you can't understand why Jim Crowe is bad, I can't help you. You seem to grasp it above, but now that we are putting into actual practice, you balk. Go read some of the comments from the video. Some people can't buy groceries in America becuase of how they look, even when they are protected class. Imagine if they weren't.

I can understand not wanting to force people to do things. This is a situation where a party on one side is going to be forced to do something, which ever decision you make.

Plus, honestly, if this guy was Muslim claiming religious freedoms, not Christian, would there be an outcry? Probably but about Muslims being the worst

Zontar:

Worgen:

Why, its the type of county that has proven it can't be trusted to not be dicks to people based on certain things.

Not really an American thing, that's more in the "human experience" category.

In the US we have a thing called protected classes, these include race, age, genetic information, veteran status, religion/creed, national origin and sex. This means that if you have a facility that is open to the public such as a hotel, restaurant, theater or retail store then you aren't allowed to discriminate on people who come in based on any of those criteria.

That doesn't really justify removing the right of artists to refuse commission requests that go against their values. Again, how is it that Canada and the UK, which are quickly headed towards tyranny, have more protection of the rights of those that create then the country people jokingly call "freedomland"?

Except it does, because in the past here even after jim crow laws we would have towns outright deny service to certain groups, mostly based on skin color. These laws are here to protect minorities from the majority. The cake case was about allowing gays into the protected minority class since there sure as hell been a lot of discrimination against them in the past, but as I said before, the supreme court only ruled on how the state treated the case, not what the case was about. Because freedom doesn't mean the freedom to harass and oppress the minority no matter how much that may bug you.

trunkage:
Plus, honestly, if this guy was Muslim claiming religious freedoms, not Christian, would there be an outcry? Probably but about Muslims being the worst

Or, God forbid, what if it was one of the "good people" "Blood and Soil" Nazis who was refused a cake? We'd never hear the end of "PC gone mad" and such.

Zontar:

WolvDragon:

Should minorities be excluded if someone doesn't wanna do them a service?

Artists shouldn't be forced to take commissions that go against their values.

"Wedding cakes" were not against the "artists" values.

Worgen:

Zontar:
As for the cake, this couldn't have anything less to do with Jim Crow. What is being denied isn't the sale of products, they where free to buy anything in stock, and in the case of the incident that started all this this was even flat out stated by the management. What was denied, was a request for an art commission in the form of a wedding cake. These type of commissions of works of art have the right to be denied for any reason at all, or none, so long as it does not violate an agreement that is currently in effect. The judgement on the case is going to be pretty simple, since anything that declares it illegal will be a massive civil rights violation for artists, potentially (likely I'd dare say) an unconstitutional one. One does not have the right to force an artists to accept a commission request, their rights to accept or reject commission offers trumps that of the potential customer.

You're wrong. Literally the ruling about the wedding cake from the supreme court was that the state messed up and didn't take into account his "sincerely held religious beliefs." It wasn't definitive about someone being able to deny service to a gay couple, it was more about the state not taking his views into account and actively going overboard with how it approached the issue. So these will be things taken into account next time someone tries to use religion to discriminate but we don't have a precedence.

I really hope the whole cake issue doesn't upend Civil Rights for everyone. Imagine all that hard work Dr. King and everyone in the Civil Rights movement went through to pass such a landmark legislation, gone because of the supreme court. I don't trust the Supreme Court to protect the Civil Rights Act, and I don't trust congress, escpically with Trump in charge, to craft a new Civil Rights bill should the supreme court repeal the civil rights act.

WolvDragon:

Worgen:

Zontar:
As for the cake, this couldn't have anything less to do with Jim Crow. What is being denied isn't the sale of products, they where free to buy anything in stock, and in the case of the incident that started all this this was even flat out stated by the management. What was denied, was a request for an art commission in the form of a wedding cake. These type of commissions of works of art have the right to be denied for any reason at all, or none, so long as it does not violate an agreement that is currently in effect. The judgement on the case is going to be pretty simple, since anything that declares it illegal will be a massive civil rights violation for artists, potentially (likely I'd dare say) an unconstitutional one. One does not have the right to force an artists to accept a commission request, their rights to accept or reject commission offers trumps that of the potential customer.

You're wrong. Literally the ruling about the wedding cake from the supreme court was that the state messed up and didn't take into account his "sincerely held religious beliefs." It wasn't definitive about someone being able to deny service to a gay couple, it was more about the state not taking his views into account and actively going overboard with how it approached the issue. So these will be things taken into account next time someone tries to use religion to discriminate but we don't have a precedence.

I really hope the whole cake issue doesn't upend Civil Rights for everyone. Imagine all that hard work Dr. King and everyone in the Civil Rights movement went through to pass such a landmark legislation, gone because of the supreme court. I don't trust the Supreme Court to protect the Civil Rights Act, and I don't trust congress, escpically with Trump in charge, to craft a new Civil Rights bill should the supreme court repeal the civil rights act.

A bigger worry is that he gets to choose another supreme court judge and tips the majority even more conservative. That would be the only way something like that would really happen. Even if the court did rule against the gay couple it would really depend on the majority opinion and it would probably be a 5v4 decision which would mean it could be revisited.

WolvDragon:

CaitSeith:

WolvDragon:

When did I put words in Saelune's mouth Cait?

When Saelune didn't call/implied Mexicans was a race, but you replied as if that was the case.

He/She called mexicans non white, if that's not implying that they're part of a race idk what is.

As a white Mexican, I see the distinction, but I don't appreciate the difference in this context.

Zontar:
Artists shouldn't be forced to take commissions that go against their values.

Depends.

It is reasonable to ask whether refusal to provide goods or services creates an unreasonable restriction on a person's ability to go about normal business. So for instance if a cake provider (or all local cake providers) refuses to supply for LGBT customers and the next nearest is 200 miles away, that amounts to denying LGBT people fair and reasonable access to cakes. This significantly harms the discriminated-against minority's ability to operate in a free, fair and equal basis to the rest of society.

Now imagine it's something really serious, like banking services.

Zontar:

WolvDragon:

Should minorities be excluded if someone doesn't wanna do them a service?

Artists shouldn't be forced to take commissions that go against their values.

Baking a wedding cake is against a wedding cake baker's values?

Avnger:

Zontar:

WolvDragon:

Should minorities be excluded if someone doesn't wanna do them a service?

Artists shouldn't be forced to take commissions that go against their values.

Baking a wedding cake is against a wedding cake baker's values?

My opinion on the wedding cake thing is...well, look, if a cake baker doesn't want to bake a cake for someone for whatever reason, you can't exactly force them to bake the cake. They're not an employer of the person deciding whether to hire or fire them, and they're not a cop deciding whether to arrest them or let them go. They're a cake baker who is providing a service and a product and who enjoys the same general right to refuse to provide that service or product to people based on whatever they feel like.

The key thing here is that you can always go to another cake shop. You might be offended by the rude cake baker, but honestly, it's his loss if he refuses to bake wedding cakes for gay people. He's just throwing out good business, and he'll suffer for it, the same as the people who refused to cater to Irish or Jewish people eventually suffered for it when their competitors took their market. Now if we were talking some industry where there's a near-monopoly and the person can't find a better deal elsewhere - like, say, utilities pricing, or getting a bank loan, or law enforcement - then none of that applies. The injustice wrought by locking a person out of a significant and necessary community service - like keeping the lights on or getting a mortgage or being able to call the cops without being shot - far outweighs the injustice wrought to the business by being compelled to do business with someone contrary to their values.

Basically, it depends on how vital the service is and what alternatives are available. I could see myself supporting a law saying that it would only be illegal to refuse to bake cakes for people if you were the only cake baker within a reasonable distance. But other than that? If I was a US cake baker and Donald Trump came in asking for the greatest and most bigly wedding cake in the history of bakery, I would want to have the right to tell him to take his wallet and buy a dildo to go fuck himself with.

bastardofmelbourne:

Avnger:

Zontar:

Artists shouldn't be forced to take commissions that go against their values.

Baking a wedding cake is against a wedding cake baker's values?

My opinion on the wedding cake thing is...well, look, if a cake baker doesn't want to bake a cake for someone for whatever reason, you can't exactly force them to bake the cake. They're not an employer of the person deciding whether to hire or fire them, and they're not a cop deciding whether to arrest them or let them go. They're a cake baker who is providing a service and a product and who enjoys the same general right to refuse to provide that service or product to people based on whatever they feel like.

The key thing here is that you can always go to another cake shop. You might be offended by the rude cake baker, but honestly, it's his loss if he refuses to bake wedding cakes for gay people. He's just throwing out good business, and he'll suffer for it, the same as the people who refused to cater to Irish or Jewish people eventually suffered for it when their competitors took their market. Now if we were talking some industry where there's a near-monopoly and the person can't find a better deal elsewhere - like, say, utilities pricing, or getting a bank loan, or law enforcement - then none of that applies. The injustice wrought by locking a person out of a significant and necessary community service - like keeping the lights on or getting a mortgage or being able to call the cops without being shot - far outweighs the injustice wrought to the business by being compelled to do business with someone contrary to their values.

Basically, it depends on how vital the service is and what alternatives are available. I could see myself supporting a law saying that it would only be illegal to refuse to bake cakes for people if you were the only cake baker within a reasonable distance. But other than that? If I was a US cake baker and Donald Trump came in asking for the greatest and most bigly wedding cake in the history of bakery, I would want to have the right to tell him to take his wallet and buy a dildo to go fuck himself with.

If the baker had beef with that particular gay couple, there wouldn't be an issue. There's always another cake shop...until there isn't. There's always another grocery store or gas station...until there isn't.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here