Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[martinuzz]

to be fair, I think case 1 is legit (private shop owner should be able to refuse service for whatever reason)

I disagree. Private shop owners should not be allowed to discriminate by refusing a paying LGBT customer just like they're not allowed to discriminate by refusing service to a black customer or jewish customer. Religious freedom should not include the right to discriminate.

[smirk]

to be fair, I think case 1 is legit (private shop owner should be able to refuse service for whatever reason)

I disagree. Private shop owners should not be allowed to discriminate by refusing a paying LGBT customer just like they're not allowed to discriminate by refusing service to a black customer or jewish customer. Religious freedom should not include the right to discriminate.

Yup; protected classes and all that. It's funny, 'cause the bakers could've just refused for non-specific reasons; if they'd just said "we can't do that, sorry" or muttered something about schedule conflicts there would've been no problem, but they wanted people to know it was specifically religious. Which, again, is discrimination against a protected class, and therefor illegal.

[LoSboccacc]

That's only gonna breed 'sorry my schedule is full for that period' - or a lesser quality service if the shop owner wants to be a total dick. what's up with good old "bring your money elsewhere?" & "vote with your wallet"? This sounds like the epitome of self entitlements: I want to be served by this guy, like my money makes him my slave.

[Criptfeind]

Yeah it really is entitlement to have people forced to treat you like a real person instead of a second class citizen, cutting you out of any part of society they wish. The much better way to handle it is to just separate the Queers out. Your employer treating you lesser because of your orientation? Get another job. All the shops treating you different? Shop somewhere else. This is perfectly sustainable because there's both an unlimited amount of jobs and shopping choices of equal quality in all geographical locations. Maybe we can set up separate drinking fountains next.

Vote with your dollars, and remember people there's no such thing as a history to learn from. And the current situation is soooo bad and rife with people purposefully fucking up their service that it's basically pointless to think it could get worse.

[Frumple]

There's no need to breed that, though. Just about everyone that's going to do something like that already is. Been doing it for generations.

But no, not so much entitlement. Closer to stuff like safety regulations, saying, "You want to do business in this country, there's stuff you don't do." Not really coming from the consumer's end. Buncha' reasons for it but the exact ones don't really matter that much.

... though vote with your wallet or take your money elsewhere isn't actually always an option. Sometimes that guy's the only one available to serve, and it's pretty well known along our history where that's locking down one service or another that's pretty vital for the area in question. S'a part of why discrimination laws came to be, though only a part.

And cript snarkninja'd me but a'ight. Not going through the effort of typing that on a tablet and not posting it after.

[TheBiggerFish]

What was it President Obama said? When Trump succeeds, America succeeds?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/16/the-gop-s-anti-lgbt-anti-women-religious-freedom-law-on-steroids.html

Oh God.  Whhyyyyyyyyy.

...Does the Supreme Court issue declarative judgements?

[Lord Shonus]

Sometimes that guy's the only one available to serve

Or that particular business is reputed to be the best at what they do, or there's some tradition ("This family's gotten our wedding cakes from this place for forty years, and I'm making enough fuss by marrying another guy instead of a girl that I don't want to change anything else", for example) involved, or the other local businesses charge too much, or...

There's no good reason to allow discrimination for any reason that won't directly harm your business (things like banning known cheats from a casino or shoplifters from a carryout) and doing so is fundamentally Un-American.

[TheBiggerFish]

Whenever you have to claim it's not violating First Amendment rights, it's probably violating First Amendment rights.

Can 2016 stop, I want off...

[Dozebôm Lolumzalěs]

What was it President Obama said? When Trump succeeds, America succeeds?
's a r
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/16/the-gop-s-anti-lgbt-anti-women-religious-freedom-law-on-steroids.html

Y'know one thing I absolutely hate? The names people give these things. It's not about giving me a right to torture people, it's about "religious freedom"! It's not legalized discrimination, it's "First Amendment Defense"! What you call things is really powerful, and when you call things this you basically get a free pass to deflect whatever arguments come at you and still end out on top. It's the rhetorical equivalent of "No you!"


I've never actually seen Fox News yet. Today in the morning it was on.
"I don't understand why people criticize Donald Trump, I remember in 2008 by this date Obama hadn't picked anybody yet!"
"Yeah, everyone's criticizing Trump for taking to long, and yet he's filling out all those important positions faster than Obama!"
And similar "Give Trump a chance!" rhetoric.

WTF?! I don't think anyone is criticizing Trump for taking him too long, I've seen people criticize him for making filling the presidential cabinet a free-for-all clusterfuck, and for filling each position with the worst people that could ever possibly be in that position, but not about "taking too long"

OH MY GOD IT'S STILL PLAYING IN THE BACKGROUND

THEY'RE CRITICIZING OBAMA FOR SAYING FAKE NEWS AND PROPAGANDA SHOULD BE FILTERED OUT BECAUSE IT'S "CENSORSHIP" WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE

As you said, they're calling it by another name. If Obama were making a law that said "no propaganda," then I'd criticize him, but he's recommending to the private companies that can do whatever the fuck they want that they crush the opposition remove fake news.

[Sergarr]

OH MY GOD IT'S STILL PLAYING IN THE BACKGROUND

THEY'RE CRITICIZING OBAMA FOR SAYING FAKE NEWS AND PROPAGANDA SHOULD BE FILTERED OUT BECAUSE IT'S "CENSORSHIP" WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE

That's actually pretty reasonable - there's currently no objective and reliable method for determining whenever the news are indeed "fake" or "propaganda", it's basically all subjective, and filtering out certain news based on subjective opinions is, indeed, censorship, because there's no way we could certainly know that they're doing it because they're fake or because they simply don't like them.

Now, if we had such a method for determining whenever something is objectively truthful, then we could talk about suppressing fake propaganda news without the fear of it being abused for censorship.

[Lord Shonus]

It is extremely easy to prove that news is fake. If all the reports come from one source, and that source is a site that has never published non-fake news, it is fake.

[Sergarr]

I'm fairly sure that, while all such news are fake, not all fake news fall under that criteria.

[Lord Shonus]

Those are, however, exactly what Obama is trying to get Facebook and the like to deal with.

[TempAcc]

Its a fair bit more complex than that. Sure, there's always those pie in the sky non ironic onion types, but what about stuff like wikileaks, which sometimes makes stuff public that can be verified with enough effort, but not easily? What happens when the government, specially one ran by, say, the Trump administration, gets to say what news is fake and what is not? Do people really want a ministry of truth?

What exactly guarantees that those kind of outlets (which, mind you, are almost always indepedently run and not connected to of the stablished big media, the very same big media that has shown us a few weeks ago that it is completely ok with spreading propaganda as fact) won't be smashed under the glorious government ran news filter in favor of whatever the fuck it wants you to know and think about?

[Lord Shonus]

Those. Are. Not. What. Are. Being. Attacked.