Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Cutlass, Aug 14, 2018.
Of course you do, because you're a bigot too and bigots project constantly.
The pizza place that refused to cater a gay wedding ended up out of business. The market usually handles this kind of stuff on its own. The government needs to step in when it's systematic, as was the case of segregation, housing discrimination, health care providers (pharmacists refusing to fill medications for example), government employees (refusing to grant marriage licenses). Pizza and cake discrimination isn't really a systematic issue.
It's not mutually exclusive. We got a whole thread of 'em ourselves.
Definitely right on the problem back in the day. Thankfully we're not in that time. This is one of those few and far between times where the free market solution would actually work though since majority opinion doesn't lie on the business owner's side.
Personally I just laugh at the short sightedness of people who make the "religious freedom to discriminate" argument. It's only chasing rational people away.
This whole thing is reflective of the longer-term rhetorical bait-and-switch that has taken place here. The cultural shift is pretty awesome- it's no longer really socially acceptable to openly hate gays. I remember well arguing with conservatives back in the 2000s. Back then it was all about how bigotry against gay people was actually entirely justified. Now we've retreated into "we have the right to be bigots!" This is a very effective rhetorical tactic because it muddies the waters and makes it possible to frame people who want to be treated equally as the real bigots (or in the galaxybrainest take I've seen in some time, they're both bigots - is this peak centrism?).
All people who call other people bigots, are projecting
i love the internet
You forget, it's a basic premise of society. Everybody is without exception. It's sort of like original sin for people who don't call it original sin.
Either way, it's an old debate in modern legal clothes. In what ways are you allowed to be an intentionally spewing butthole to the people you interact with before society either tells you to shut up or be impoverished. Which is progress! We'll still feed you(generally) rather than hang you from a tree(generally).
The issue is with their exemption from having to stun cattle before slaughter. An exemption that was given specifically for ritual slaughter of animals.
Right, the studies I managed to get my hands on related to pain, fear, and distress in the animal. I don't care about stunning, it's a method, not a goal. Unless, of course, it's all about how squeamish remote and largely disinterested lay opinions feel on the matter when possessing a dearth of facts and measured observations. Which let's be real, it probably is. I think I heard it called "doxa" recently? It was a good, if bitter, use of the word.
Look, the issue is that you have a regulation for businesses, and then you grant an exemption to that regulation because it offends the way some deity or deities commanded its followers to slaughter animals.
If the regulation makes no sense then just abolish it. What I said, and is true, is that the US granted an exemption to a business regulation to satisfy some religious sensibility. I don't see that as any less crazy than allowing a baker to choose not to make cakes of some theme that offends his own religious sensibilities.
Do you recognize that you are citing an example to support your "market handles on its own" theory that represents the exact opposite of your theory? If "the market" had been allowed to operate "on its own" the pizza making bigots would almost certainly still be in business.
You also reference the government "stepping in" on housing discrimination, which provides a very good example for supporting the plaintiff's and lawyers in these cases. They are, indeed, "set-ups." When the government "stepped in" on housing discrimination the backlash promptly got us Richard Nixon, who appointed an attorney general who openly proclaimed that enforcing the new civil rights act was a low priority, at best. Without good people "setting up" ready made cases through the civil courts there would have been no enforcement at all.
The market may "handle this stuff," but it doesn't do it "on its own."
I'd think that I wasn't clear in my post, except that you seem to be the only one who didn't get it.
"You're a bigot if you don't let people legally discriminate against a protected class in the market" is the most interesting position I've read today. The day is young, though.
I find it very boring, since it is basically a constant chant.
The argument is weakened by the explanation of why the colors were chosen. We'll see though. It might be abstract enough to compel service.
This is something that has always puzzled me about this case. I've now read the Supreme Court opinion, and it makes no mention of it.
The baker sheltered behind the First Amendment, claiming Colorado shouldn't dictate how he should use his "artistic talents." However, I find no reference that the couple requested him to "design, decorate, and sell a gay-wedding-themed cake." Admittedly, if such a cake were requested, I would agree with Farm Boy and the Supreme Court when they say the State cannot compel an artiste to create his art in a particular government-approve fashion.
However, most wedding cakes are pretty standard, to wit: white, circular, with ascending tiers. Most are not original creations but are mere copies of tens of thousands of previous, generic wedding cakes. The baking of these cakes is as artistic as tuning a carburetor.
Not quite the right takeaway of my opinion, not sure if any of our usual "I read what I want into what you say and then argue with it because I'm a liar" winners are involved - I think the state can pretty clearly compel an artist to provide his services to a protected class. The issue is public tolerance. It probably wouldn't compel him to bake a symbol-less(other than color) red, white, and black cake for a Nazi anniversary party to celebrate the opening of Auschwitz or whatever, but those aren't a protected class. It also probably wouldn't require him to decorate a cake for sale with a depiction of homosexual sex. Or probably even just two plastic dudes on top of the cake. It pretty clearly will compel him to sell a sheet cake to a black person, or a woman, or a trans person, or a gay person. It pretty clearly will compel him to sell a sheet cake for a gay wedding. The increment being argued is if he can be compelled to knowingly bake a cake, not take one off the rack, with color symbolism directly in opposition to a sincerely held religious belief. It's a legit question I suppose. I think the SCOTUS ruling pertained to the hack job the Colorado Human Rights Commission churned out last time rather than directly on the issue. I'd expect a deflect like that again, if it's even meaningfully taken up. Which it might not be?
I don't find "I sincerely believe you to be unworthy because of how you were born" to be a compelling argument towards this being a nuanced, questionable issue. Their sincere belief is the problem.
That's not a particularly interesting rephrase.
World is full of people who hate each other because of what they believe.
Law will have to address that. Which it appears to be doing. Oftentimes, everyone involved is a buttmunch, but thus is precedent born. Reasonable people who all think like me wouldn't be fighting over this. Hell, if everyone thought like I do all the time there would probably be a lot less fights over things in general. Maybe we should just do that*.
*That's super sarcastic.
Separate names with a comma.