Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Supreme Court Sides with baker who turned away gay couple

Collapse
X
Collapse
First Prev Next Last
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Appeal to emotion:

    What if you had a Strudle shop in Nazi Germany, and Joseph Goebels requested a giant strudle shaped like a swastika? When you told him that you weren’t really into Nazism, he said tough! The request has been made and you must comply!
    Livin the dream

    Comment


    • WuDrWu
      WuDrWu commented
      Editing a comment
      My God, that is brilliant wufan.

    • wufan
      wufan commented
      Editing a comment
      Nah. Just an example of why appeal to emotion isn’t persuasive.

  • #92
    All of this boils down to the fact that we live in an impolite society that chooses not to respect the rights, beliefs, opinions of others. Of course CB is the epitome of that, but that's only a message board ruse.

    If the gay respected the Christian, he would apologize, internalize his hurt, and move to another vendor. If the Christian respected the gay, he would attempt to accommodate the customer while carefully explaining that due to his religious beliefs, he cannot in good conscience create a pie depicting male-on-male action. If the customer gets pissed the vendor would again apologize, remind him that God loves him and offer a discount on cakes that are ready-made with instructions on how to create his own wedding cake fantasy at home.

    I commented earlier about "checking out the Old Testament" for discovering the crux of the issue. My point was that Christianity takes a fairly strong negative opinion on homosexuality; homosexuals know and attempt to challenge it at every turn because... **** Them!

    As we speak, a Satanic monument is being erected in a Minnesota memorial park next to a Christian one because, well... **** Them!

    Everybody's a troll now.


    T


    ...

    Comment


    • #93
      Originally posted by Rocky Mountain Shock View Post
      I do agree with the point that some use their minority status to bully non-minorities. Absolutely it happens, and it shouldn't. I also believe the vast majority of the time laws work like they should. It's easy to not notice--or to simply ignore--something when it's working right. But it's far more noticeable, and costly, when occasionally it doesn't.

      I also believe that this world would be a helluva lot better place if we put ourselves in someone else's shoes and tried to understand their viewpoint before we go making judgments on them. Our society is slowly losing its ability to empathize. Imagine yourself in a place where the vast majority of citizens were gay. You're a straight guy getting married to a girl (OH the scandal!!!!). It wasn't until the past few years you actually had the legal right to marry her. You probably spent most of your life afraid to admit to anyone else that you're a "breeder" because your family might disown you or you'd lose friends. You probably feel ashamed. You finally had the courage to tell everyone you want to marry this girl, and all you want is a baker to make you a cake for the wedding. It's not like you're stealing from him--you're willing to pay him good money and you like the work he does. But he says he won't serve your kind. He's gay and his religion, whatever it is, won't allow him to participate in a detestable wedding of breeders.

      When the tables are turned it's more difficult to criticize. I absolutely feel bad for the baker too. That dude has strong religious beliefs and I don't want him to feel compelled to violate them. But to say the gay couple isn't deserving of equal treatment because the baker is entitled to run his business as he wants is a strange argument. The issue here is religious rights versus gay rights. Thankfully, it's not gay rights versus "I own a business so I can basically do whatever the hell I want."
      Your scenario cannot occur as homosexuality implies non-breeding. If there's no breeding there cannot be a civilization where breeders are the minority. Homosexuality, once extremely specialized, is a fashionable lifestyle in 2018. I suspect the massive growth in the "gay population" is a product of a very bored, very rebellious, advanced civilization. Coming home and telling mom and pops that you are gay is the ultimate nose ring. Everybody's mind is blown. But even that's not having much of an effect anymore. There are countless stories of parents taking little Billie Bob to the doc to have his genitals lopped off because today, he decided he's really Billie Jean. We live in a weird time.


      T


      ...

      Comment


      • #94
        Originally posted by C0|dB|00ded View Post

        Your scenario cannot occur as homosexuality implies non-breeding. If there's no breeding there cannot be a civilization where breeders are the minority. Homosexuality, once extremely specialized, is a fashionable lifestyle in 2018. I suspect the massive growth in the "gay population" is a product of a very bored, very rebellious, advanced civilization. Coming home and telling mom and pops that you are gay is the ultimate nose ring. Everybody's mind is blown. But even that's not having much of an effect anymore. There are countless stories of parents taking little Billie Bob to the doc to have his genitals lopped off because today, he decided he's really Billie Jean. We live in a weird time.


        T


        ...
        I don’t think “traditional” homosexuality is growing. The % of the population that is ONLY attracted to the same sex remains ~ 2%, which is about the same that it was 60 years ago.

        OTOH, when you are speaking of long term bisexuality, that appears to be on the rise (though I have no stats to back it up). I think this is due to the theory that gender is a social construct, therefore I can be whatever I want. Hence the nose ring “homosexuals”. If you don’t live in a flyover state, the ultimate parental FU is “Mom, Dad, I’m a conservative.”
        Livin the dream

        Comment


        • #95
          Obama's fault.
          Kung Wu say: "If Chuck Norris had a coach, his name would be Gregg Marshall."

          Comment


          • #96
            The ACLU backs away from free speech in favor of equity.

            https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-acl...ion-1529533065

            Cuz you know...speech is violence.
            Livin the dream

            Comment


            • #97
              Originally posted by wufan View Post
              The ACLU backs away from free speech in favor of equity.

              https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-acl...ion-1529533065

              Cuz you know...speech is violence.
              It is true that the ACLU does not support Conservstive causes.

              Comment


              • Anthroshock
                Anthroshock commented
                Editing a comment
                "After the tragic violence at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, on August 12, these questions take on renewed urgency. Many have asked in particular why the ACLU, of which I am national legal director, represented Jason Kessler, the organizer of the rally, in challenging Charlottesville’s last-minute effort to revoke his permit."

                https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speec...nd-free-speech

            • #98
              Originally posted by Shockm View Post

              It is true that the ACLU does not support Conservstive causes.
              That has not previously been the case.
              Livin the dream

              Comment


              • #99
                Originally posted by wufan View Post
                The ACLU backs away from free speech in favor of equity.

                https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-acl...ion-1529533065

                Cuz you know...speech is violence.
                I think this post is somewhat misleading. I don't think they are backing away "in favor" of equality. The news is that they have released guidelines about how they will balance their defense of free speech and their defense of marginalized groups. You can read the actual document here: http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...article_inline

                A key quote which shows they still recognize the importance of defending people they disagree with:
                At the same time, not defending such speech from official suppression may also have harmful impacts, depending on the breadth or viewpoint-based character of the suppression, the precedent that allowing suppression might create for the rights of other speakers, and the impact on the credibility of the ACLU as a staunch and principled defender of free speech. Many of these impacts will be difficult if not impossible to measure, and none of them should be dispositive.
                It's ultimately possible that they drastically change their stance on certain things, but that's not how I read this current set of guidelines. The only use of the word "violence" is in relation to their stance that they won't defend free speech that is meant to incite violence (since that speech is not protected anyway). It has nothing to do with a believe that "you know...speech is violence" and everything to do with the belief that free speech rights will sometimes conflict with advocating for marginalized groups.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Kung Wu View Post
                  Obama's fault.



                  T


                  ...

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by jdshock View Post

                    I think this post is somewhat misleading. I don't think they are backing away "in favor" of equality. The news is that they have released guidelines about how they will balance their defense of free speech and their defense of marginalized groups. You can read the actual document here: http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...article_inline

                    A key quote which shows they still recognize the importance of defending people they disagree with:


                    It's ultimately possible that they drastically change their stance on certain things, but that's not how I read this current set of guidelines. The only use of the word "violence" is in relation to their stance that they won't defend free speech that is meant to incite violence (since that speech is not protected anyway). It has nothing to do with a believe that "you know...speech is violence" and everything to do with the belief that free speech rights will sometimes conflict with advocating for marginalized groups.
                    I haven’t read the full document yet, but I don’t believe that free speech can ever conflict with equality. I’m open to discussion on that thought process, but if you are ever concerned about how bad speech can impact someone, then you’ve already limited free speech advocacy.
                    Livin the dream

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by wufan View Post

                      I haven’t read the full document yet, but I don’t believe that free speech can ever conflict with equality. I’m open to discussion on that thought process, but if you are ever concerned about how bad speech can impact someone, then you’ve already limited free speech advocacy.
                      Just as the first thing that comes to mind: if you have a government employee who gets fired for publicly discussing their support for re-segregation. The ACLU has an interest in defending the fired employee under free speech grounds. The speech, however, is an attempt to legitimize a viewpoint that the ACLU specifically fights against. If the government employee had not been fired, the ACLU might have brought suit suggesting unequal treatment of black people by government officials. But even aside from the actual conflict, defending such a person certainly delegitimizes the ACLU when they go to bat for marginalized groups and makes them a less convincing authority on those matters.

                      I understand that one of your biggest beliefs is that words can never hurt people. I couldn't really disagree with you more on the subject. That said, I hope you'd at least agree that from a business perspective, the ACLU is in a position where they have these two causes they fight for (free speech and marginalized groups) and even if there's a perceived conflict between the two causes from donors, the ACLU has to tread lightly so as not to lose half of their support.

                      Comment


                      • Perceived marginalized groups. This crap is so out of hand.

                        Comment


                        • jdshock
                          jdshock commented
                          Editing a comment
                          Literally no one said anything about that before you did.

                          In case you're truly interested in adding something to the discussion, one of the points in my post stated that the ACLU clearly has a business interest in dealing with "perceived" conflicts between supporting free speech rights and supporting marginalized groups (e.g., defending a nazi that wants to protest against 50% of the work the ACLU does).

                        • WuDrWu
                          WuDrWu commented
                          Editing a comment
                          jdshock said above "Literally no one said anything about that before you did."

                          Above that jdshock said " But even aside from the actual conflict, defending such a person certainly delegitimizes the ACLU when they go to bat for MARGINALIZED GROUPS (all capped for clarity) and makes them a less convincing authority on those matters."

                          You actually said marginalized groups, then accused me of bringing it up. SMH

                      • Originally posted by jdshock View Post

                        Just as the first thing that comes to mind: if you have a government employee who gets fired for publicly discussing their support for re-segregation. The ACLU has an interest in defending the fired employee under free speech grounds. The speech, however, is an attempt to legitimize a viewpoint that the ACLU specifically fights against. If the government employee had not been fired, the ACLU might have brought suit suggesting unequal treatment of black people by government officials. But even aside from the actual conflict, defending such a person certainly delegitimizes the ACLU when they go to bat for marginalized groups and makes them a less convincing authority on those matters.

                        I understand that one of your biggest beliefs is that words can never hurt people. I couldn't really disagree with you more on the subject. That said, I hope you'd at least agree that from a business perspective, the ACLU is in a position where they have these two causes they fight for (free speech and marginalized groups) and even if there's a perceived conflict between the two causes from donors, the ACLU has to tread lightly so as not to lose half of their support.
                        There’s no reason that the ACLU can’t defend someone that was fired for potentially racist comments and defend someone on the grounds that they were discriminated against. Both of those ideals can co-exist. It is illegal to act against the law. It is not illegal to debate the law. The ACLU should recognize that and fight for individual liberties! Anything less than that is a cop out and demonstrates that we are complicit to a State that seeks to control what one THINKS aloud. If they fear losing donors, then they aren’t appropriately selling their ideals, or worse yet, there isn’t a market for free speech protection.
                        Last edited by wufan; 1 day ago.
                        Livin the dream

                        Comment


                        • jdshock, on speech and harm, it’s not that someone’s words can’t cause stress in someone’s life...it absolutely can. The fact is however, that speech that isn’t harassing doesn’t cause long term stress, and if it does, then that individual has a condition that needs treatment. Most likely, this condition is PTSD. The cure to PTSD? Consistent low dose exposure to the stressor in a safe environment.

                          If we empathize with the victim and ban people from being harmful, then we have a gov deciding what is appropriate thought and interaction. Punishment for such offenses, when the gov is involved, is jail or fine by threat of gun. What happens to people that are arrested for such actions? Probably high levels of stress, which is unhealthy. The ends create a greater problem and are against the constitution to boot. Now you’ve got a bunch of convicts suffering from PTSD, and even the ACLU has abandoned them. The constitution, which promises unalienable rights to its citizens, has been violated, and all the sudden moderate republicans are aligning with the alt-right in throwing over the government in an attempt to create an ethnic-state.

                          So is free speech harmful? Yep, but it’s far more harmful when stifled.
                          Livin the dream

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X