Page 358 of 360 FirstFirst ... 258308348354355356357358359360 LastLast
Results 8,926 to 8,950 of 8978

Thread: U.S. Politics 2017: So much for the tolerant SPPf

  1. #8926
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In your mind
    Posts
    5,681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsman4 View Post
    Straight up question, should a Catholic Church provide Hindu services because someone demands that they perform a Hindu service?
    I think the normal train of logic is that you go to Hindu temple for Hindu services. Meanwhile, bakers should do their jobs.

    Is “no shirt, no shoes, no service” discrimination?
    No.

    Quote Originally Posted by Google translated Bulbasaur entry
    A man like a cuckoo in the stomach is stubborn with the body Some things are going on.

  2. #8927
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    304

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Auraninja View Post
    I think the normal train of logic is that you go to Hindu temple for Hindu services. Meanwhile, bakers should do their jobs.
    They are free not to, especially when it contradicts their right to freedom of expression.

  3. #8928
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In your mind
    Posts
    5,681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scammel View Post
    They are free not to, especially when it contradicts their right to freedom of expression.
    Would it be a freedom of expression for a hospital to not treat gay people?

    I don't think institutions should be allowed to deny services. We had a big problem with that in the 60s when it was black services being denied. Granted, that problem was more mandated, but it doesn't make it more right with gays.
    Last edited by Auraninja; 6th December 2017 at 10:02 PM. Reason: better word choice

    Quote Originally Posted by Google translated Bulbasaur entry
    A man like a cuckoo in the stomach is stubborn with the body Some things are going on.

  4. #8929
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    :noitacoL
    Posts
    4,126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsman4 View Post
    Straight up question, should a Catholic Church provide Hindu services because someone demands that they perform a Hindu service?
    Is that bakery a church or located in a church? I think I missed that detail if so.

    PM me if you want my Discord.
    It's way easier than getting in touch with me on here.

  5. #8930
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    304

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Auraninja View Post
    Would it be a freedom of expression for a hospital to not treat gay people?
    The baker didn't refuse service to a gay customer. They refused to make a product which might arguably be used in a way that constitutes a form of expression.

    Do you think a Muslim artist should be compelled to produce art that depicts Mohammed?

    I don't think institutions should be allowed to deny services.
    A bakery isn't an institution.

  6. #8931
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In your mind
    Posts
    5,681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scammel View Post
    The baker didn't refuse service to a gay customer. They refused to make a product which might arguably be used in a way that constitutes a form of expression.
    Was the baker asked to make a penis cake?

    It's a simple wedding cake from what I've heard. Two men or women on top shouldn't constitute a "form of expression". Traditional wedding cakes have marriage partners on top.

    Do you think a Muslim artist should be compelled to produce art that depicts Mohammed?
    Where might this situation pop up? Was he commissioned to do the piece? Also, this isn't a denial of serviced based on a customer's identity.

    A bakery isn't an institution.
    That was a poor word choice on my behalf. I didn't want to have the word service twice in a sentence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Google translated Bulbasaur entry
    A man like a cuckoo in the stomach is stubborn with the body Some things are going on.

  7. #8932
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Lost as **** tbh
    Posts
    402

    Default

    If you can refuse to make a wedding cake on the grounds that endorses homosexuality and violates your religious conscience, that argument can be made for virtually any other service, such as taking out student or medical loans. In areas where religious fervor is troublingly high like the bible belt, that's tantamount to oppression.

  8. #8933
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    304

    Default

    It's a simple wedding cake from what I've heard. Two men or women on top shouldn't constitute a "form of expression". Traditional wedding cakes have marriage partners on top.
    Therein lies the real question. In the other case I highlighted, there was a request for an explicit statement of support for gay marriage on the cake, but it's not so clear here. Given the social importance of a wedding and the potentially artistic nature of a cake, is there an implied level of personal support, or is it no different from producing serviettes for the tables? Again, for greater minds to decide.

    Also, this isn't a denial of serviced based on a customer's identity.
    Neither is the cake case. The customer could be gay, straight, black, white, Christian, Hindu or whatever - the baker would still have refused to make the cake. The identity of the customer isn't important, it's the nature of the product and the intended use.

    If you can refuse to make a wedding cake on the grounds that endorses homosexuality and violates your religious conscience, that argument can be made for virtually any other service
    A sensible litmus test would appear to be: 'Would a third party assume your personal support for a person/cause on the basis of you providing a service to that person/cause?'

    If your company provides sloganised pens to a political campaign, few people are going to take that as a sign of explicit support for that campaign. If you're a musician performing at a campaign event, it seems reasonable to assume you are at least sympathetic to the cause.
    Last edited by Scammel; 6th December 2017 at 10:50 PM.

  9. #8934
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Lost as **** tbh
    Posts
    402

    Default

    Therein lies the real question. In the other case I highlighted, there was a request for an explicit statement of support for gay marriage on the cake, but it's not so clear here. Given the social importance of a wedding and the potentially artistic nature of a cake, is there an implied level of personal support, or is it no different from producing serviettes for the tables? Again, for greater minds to decide.
    When you're baking cakes as a business, you're not creating them with any other intention save for the goal of making money. Unless all the previous cakes that they've made for heterosexual couples can be construed as explicit endorsements of their marriages, then a wedding cake for a gay couple can't be construed as an endorsement. Which, no reasonable person would assume Wal-Mart is going to make a straight couples wedding cake because they approve - it's because they're getting paid. 99.9% of the time their position is going to be neutral. You can't claim violation of conscience on what is an inherently amoral operation.

    I don't think a reasonable person would assume explicit support considering a bakery serves wedding cakes to thousands of different couples, thousands of people they do not and cannot afford to take a moral opinion on considering that would make business extremely difficult.
    Last edited by Baba Yaga; 7th December 2017 at 2:07 AM.

  10. #8935
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Verdant Court, Arbor Area
    Posts
    760

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsman4 View Post
    Straight up question, should a Catholic Church provide Hindu services because someone demands that they perform a Hindu service?

    Is “no shirt, no shoes, no service” discrimination?
    I think you’ve misunderstood the way Anti-discrimination laws work.

    First, they usually exempt religious organisations, so they wouldn’t apply to the Catholic Church itself. The Supreme Court has already ruled federal civil rights statutes only apply to religious bodies where the roles are fully secular.

    Second, it’s usually based on whether or not a person in a protected class is treated “less favourably” then a person not within that class and the treatment is becasue of their membership in the protected class. In your example the church isn’t not providing Hindu services becasue of it the fact the people are Hindu’s, it’s doing so becasue it’s not a Hindu place of worship.

    The closest I can think of to your example in real life is an Australian Discrimination case against the Church of Latter Day Saints regarding the provision of Samoan speaking wards: https://jade.io/article/318080.

    Third, “no shirt, no shoes ect” wouldn’t be in question becasue dress is generally not a protected class, unless it’s associated with religion or cultural practices. Even then the reason for the discrimination in that case is public health and saftey.

  11. #8936
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pikachu52 View Post
    I think you’ve misunderstood the way Anti-discrimination laws work.

    First, they usually exempt religious organisations, so they wouldn’t apply to the Catholic Church itself. The Supreme Court has already ruled federal civil rights statutes only apply to religious bodies where the roles are fully secular.

    Second, it’s usually based on whether or not a person in a protected class is treated “less favourably” then a person not within that class and the treatment is becasue of their membership in the protected class. In your example the church isn’t not providing Hindu services becasue of it the fact the people are Hindu’s, it’s doing so becasue it’s not a Hindu place of worship.

    The closest I can think of to your example in real life is an Australian Discrimination case against the Church of Latter Day Saints regarding the provision of Samoan speaking wards: https://jade.io/article/318080.

    Third, “no shirt, no shoes ect” wouldn’t be in question becasue dress is generally not a protected class, unless it’s associated with religion or cultural practices. Even then the reason for the discrimination in that case is public health and saftey.
    We’re not calling for discrimination, contrary to what you people have repeatedly claimed. We’re simply asking for an exemption from a particular event that we cannot put our stamp of approval on because it violates our beliefs. I use the example of a Hindu going to a Catholic Church and asking for a Hindu service to demonstrate that there’s a difference between denial of service entirely that is discrimination and not providing a particular service because you don’t provide the service in question. People who are drafted must serve in the military, but pacifists are given exemptions to combat roles.

    Besides, the better question is why would homosexuals want to order a wedding cake from a Christian business that doesn’t believe in your viewpoint to begin with?
    I believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. I can't thank Him enough for all He has done in my life.

    The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us that are saved it is the power of God.-First Corinthians 1:18

  12. #8937
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    *sigh* Ohio
    Posts
    7,850

    Default

    You're asking that a specific protected group of people should be subjected to worse treatment than everyone else. What this sets a standard for is several potential things LGBT people could lose.

    You don't have to hate the person for who they are, but if you're okay with them losing equal status then that still counts.

    Plus like he said, if it's a purely secular event then it doesn't count, so I don't know why you'd immediately bring the same example up.

  13. #8938
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    6,239

    Default

    I really find the whole cake incident to be straightforward?

    Most states with LGBTQ anti-discrimination laws model after racial anti-discriminatino found in the the Civil Rights Act of 1964; so we just simply ask how would we feel if a bakery denied a cake to a wedding because the spouses were black. If your answer is "it's wrong," why suddenly change tune for sexual and gender minorities? I know the answer is going to be religious reasons, but religious reasons don't cover racial anti-discrimination so--again--why change tunes for sexual and gender minorities?

    Like, there is a case for the 1964 Civil Rights.

        Spoiler:- spoilered for space:


    As far I'm concerned, the 'gay wedding' case is one of the most straightforward ever; and yet, somehow, I'm expecting the bakery to win in a 5-4 case because this year has made me increasingly cynical about politics.



    Also, the whole 'hindu couple asking Christian pastor for wedding thing' is absurd on two levels. First, no one--except maybe a troll--would actually do that. Two, outside the public sector only establishments that engage in commerce (read: businesses) are typically subject to anti-discrimination laws. For example, EOCC--although dealing with employment--lists churches (generally religious organization) as partially exempt from Title VII.

  14. #8939
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    :noitacoL
    Posts
    4,126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scammel View Post
    Neither is the cake case. The customer could be gay, straight, black, white, Christian, Hindu or whatever - the baker would still have refused to make the cake. The identity of the customer isn't important, it's the nature of the product and the intended use.
    Coulda sworn that the case in question was EXPLICITLY ABOUT A GAY COUPLE BEING REFUSED SERVICE BECAUSE THEY'RE GAY

    Here's what I'm guessing is happening here: you're assuming an equivalency that doesn't exist, where "if not A is explicit rejection, then A is explicit support," but you can't approach these matters as a logician because humans are never logical in their actions because logic does not properly define this kind of thing. It turns out that the only thing most businesses actually explicitly endorse when they take a job, as a general rule, is the customer giving them their money. They are only explicitly indicating "we like money." Which isn't to say that they explicitly are indicating that they don't like money when they refuse a job (that's entirely implicit, and even then is dependent on certain factors). For example, you're probably aware of Marvel Comics' X-Men, and you probably understand the basic premise enough to note a major anti-racist anti-caste-system message in most of its materials (if not, Wikipedia it unless you're one of those Sargon of Akkad/Amazing Atheist sorts who has the attention span of a goldfish). Does Marvel support those views just because they publish X-Men? Probably not, because they also published Secret Empire earlier this year, a story line in which Captain America had secretly been a sleeper agent for Hydra (a Nazi organization at that time in-universe). You know, one wherein they literally turn one of the greatest antifascist heroes of all time into a neo-Nazi agent (they also had Magneto in Hydra, apparently -- you know, Magneto. Magneto the Jewish Holocaust survivor. Working with neo-Nazis. Nick Spencer should be poked in the eye.). Little hard to reconcile the two unless you assume Marvel is completely apolitical and is 99% only in it for the money. (Between ad campaigns involving having staff abruptly displaying Hydra symbols and wearing Hydra uniforms in shops carrying Secret Empire, and being chaired by Trump supporter Isaac Perlmutter, though, I have my doubts, but I can't see inside of people's brains, and for some reason, the police get a little edgy when I walk up to businesspeople with can openers expressing an interest to read their minds.)

    This winding aside is probably brought to you by my still being annoyed about how that dumb **** Tim Soret thought Gattaca "wasn't political" when a pretty similar message was inherent to the film considering it was a story about discrimination over genetic makeup happening if humans learned to control genetics.

    My point is that you cannot take every act with no explicit reason associated as being political. Unless a baker who makes a cake for a gay wedding comes out and says "I did it because I support gay marriage and wanted to show it," then as far as you or anyone else knows, they only did it for the money. Unless crusty old Marvel execs from way back when rise from their graves and say "we decided to start printing X-Men because we think racists are bad," or someone behind Secret Empire is caught on tape going "WHOOOOOOOOOO NAZIS ****ING RULE," we can't say that either of those are motivated by anything other than the sole purpose of a business: getting paid.

    This, of course, does not apply in this case, in which the owner of the store explicitly informed the couple that, because of his religious beliefs, he would not make them a wedding cake for their gay marriage. In case you didn't realize, most straight people don't get gay marriages (sometimes it seems like a lot of people don't know this, which is pretty weird of a thing to not know).

    Okay, fine, I reject what I said earlier about this being faulty logic. You just forgot. This very specific case absolutely is a matter of discrimination against the customers based on identity, whether directly or not. Unless you want to try and tell me David Mullins and Charlie Craig, the gay couple in question, are actually straight. Good luck! You'll need it!

    (Sidenote: according to Christianity, didn't Christ's sacrifice free humanity from having to live under the laws of Leviticus, and therefore the, er, let's be polite and call them "advisements" against homosexuality were meaningless? Surely the Bible doesn't say "don't be a homophobe, yo," but also homophobia on the part of Christians would involve ignoring Christ's sacrifice. Doesn't sound very Christian of them.)

    Quote Originally Posted by bobjr View Post
    You're asking that a specific protected group of people should be subjected to worse treatment than everyone else. What this sets a standard for is several potential things LGBT people could lose.

    You don't have to hate the person for who they are, but if you're okay with them losing equal status then that still counts.

    Plus like he said, if it's a purely secular event then it doesn't count, so I don't know why you'd immediately bring the same example up.
    As an aside, I'm pretty sure the guy's a regular troll. Not sure why I'm feeding him but I bet he has me blocked. Just as well, I'm bi and genderfluid, mother****er would probably get cooties from reading my posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zora View Post
    As far I'm concerned, the 'gay wedding' case is one of the most straightforward ever; and yet, somehow, I'm expecting the bakery to win in a 5-4 case because this year has made me increasingly cynical about politics.
    On a sidenote (I cut most of this part of the post for length), what religion is the guy from 1964 pulling out of his moldy old rectal cavity to claim taking exception to having to serve black people for religious reasons? I haven't read any holy books in a while but I don't think most of them care about race specifically.

    Unless the idiot wanted to argue about a specific trait or something, which would be a good second reason to throw his BS out.
    Last edited by The Admiral; 7th December 2017 at 3:57 AM.

    PM me if you want my Discord.
    It's way easier than getting in touch with me on here.

  15. #8940
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Lost as **** tbh
    Posts
    402

    Default

    My point is that you cannot take every act with no explicit reason associated as being political. Unless a baker who makes a cake for a gay wedding comes out and says "I did it because I support gay marriage and wanted to show it," then as far as you or anyone else knows, they only did it for the money.
    Pretty much what I was trying to say, but shorter and sweeter.

  16. #8941
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    *sigh* Ohio
    Posts
    7,850

    Default

    Nick Spencer is the one writer who was revealed to be alt right and was sympathetic to Richard Spencer right? I can totally see why the Captain America plot makes sense to him now.

    But one problem of this is you might go "Well they can go somewhere else". While that's wrong in the first place, what about places where there's only one option? The reason Kim Davis was so terrible is because if a gay couple wanted a marriage license they had to go to her if they lived in the area. They couldn't just go to the next town over, and again they shouldn't have to.

  17. #8942
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    :noitacoL
    Posts
    4,126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bobjr View Post
    Nick Spencer is the one writer who was revealed to be alt right and was sympathetic to Richard Spencer right? I can totally see why the Captain America plot makes sense to him now.
    Don't remember. He might have been? I know that even though he worked for Democrats and ran as a member of the Charter Party (progressives) in Cincinnati, his politics are actually far more right-wing than that. On the other hand, I don't have the exposé to hand to check the specifics.

    Like I said, though, people can call themselves whatever they like. Just like how he can keep saying his Nazi Cap plot seemed like a good idea at any point when booze or other psychoactive chemicals were not involved.

    PM me if you want my Discord.
    It's way easier than getting in touch with me on here.

  18. #8943
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Verdant Court, Arbor Area
    Posts
    760

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsman4 View Post
    We’re not calling for discrimination, contrary to what you people have repeatedly claimed. We’re simply asking for an exemption from a particular event that we cannot put our stamp of approval on because it violates our beliefs. I use the example of a Hindu going to a Catholic Church and asking for a Hindu service to demonstrate that there’s a difference between denial of service entirely that is discrimination and not providing a particular service because you don’t provide the service in question. People who are drafted must serve in the military, but pacifists are given exemptions to combat roles.

    Besides, the better question is why would homosexuals want to order a wedding cake from a Christian business that doesn’t believe in your viewpoint to begin with?
    Your logic is a little bit of a stretch because I don’t think anyone sees baking a cake or providing any other wedding service as a “stamp of approval” so to speak. It’s a service provided for payment by a business.

    In any case it comes to the same point. It’s still treating gay and lesbian couples less favourably that opposite sex couples becasue of the fact that they are gay and lesbian couples in provision of goods and services regardless of whether you cite religious beliefs or not. Only same sex couples have same sex weddings.

    The Hindu example you give in the context you give it also doesn’t hold water by your own logic. Nobody is suggesting that a bakery that doesn’t normally provide wedding cakes is required to provide wedding cakes. That’s a product issue. But as soon as a business advertises that it offers that product, it has to serve everyone equally. There are no “gay wedding cakes” and “straight weddings cakes” there are just wedding cakes.

    The answer to the final question is simple - Consumers generally don’t make decisions on whether they agree with the businesses point of view on a given political issue. I doubt most consumers actually know either what the religious beliefs of a business owner are nor do I expect it to be obvious in most stores. For instance a person may not like the fact that the Walton family donate to conservative political candidates, but that doesn’t mean that they won’t shop at walmart - Walmart may be the store in town or they may not be able to afford to shop at Wholefoods ect. The same principal applies here.

  19. #8944
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    17

    Default

    I think it's pretty simple to put the intersection of freedom of speech/religion and personal rights into context: You can not, under any circumstance, deny any secular service to someone based on a physical/mental trait they can not change. That means no denial of service based on race, sexual orientation, gender identity, mental or physical handicap, or anything of the like. A gay baker can't deny service to a heterosexual couple just as a hetero baker can't deny service to a gay couple, at least not on the basis that they are gay/hetero. You can't put up a sign saying "No white people welcome here" just as you can't put up a sign saying "No black people welcome here." You can refuse to ordain a gay wedding. You can refuse to ordain a straight wedding, if your religious beliefs interfere with doing so.

    It baffles me that this is even a question.

  20. #8945
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Hiroshima Japan
    Posts
    17

    Default

    From what I am reading, the specific target of the problem is the baker decorating the cake, not just baking the cake. I would say that is an important distinction, baking the cake in and of itself is simply providing a service and not doing so would be a denial of service. Decorating it with a specific theme gets into the decorations being an artistic expression and falls under freedom of speech. Just as it would be if this situation involved a black baker and the KKK demanding a cake with a Klan figure on it, or a Jewish baker being forced to make a cake with Hitler's face on it for Neo Nazis.
    Four years in Japan.... still cannot speak a full sentence in Japanese

    Last Shiny: Mimikyu
    Next Shiny: Latias

  21. #8946
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    304

    Default

    ...no reasonable person would assume Wal-Mart is going to make a straight couples wedding cake because they approve - it's because they're getting paid. 99.9% of the time their position is going to be neutral. You can't claim violation of conscience on what is an inherently amoral operation.

    I don't think a reasonable person would assume explicit support considering a bakery serves wedding cakes to thousands of different couples, thousands of people they do not and cannot afford to take a moral opinion on considering that would make business extremely difficult.
    For instance a person may not like the fact that the Walton family donate to conservative political candidates, but that doesn’t mean that they won’t shop at walmart - Walmart may be the store in town or they may not be able to afford to shop at Wholefoods ect. The same principal applies here.
    The comparison with Walmart is a handy one, because it highlights a potential contrast. Walmart is a vast, faceless operation that shifts millions of products every day. I don't know the exact circumstances in this instance, but a one-man bakery operation might theoretically only be tasked with making such a cake once a month. For both couples and bakers, the cake can be a big deal - it's very common for family and friends to be tasked with creating it and it can take hours of preparation and thought, with congratulations for the baker at the wedding. Some couples keep an slice for the rest of their married lives. In some circumstances, the cake is as much a statement as a product.

    Of course, the exact opposite may well be the case; the baker might have produced 5 wedding cakes that week already and a judge might reasonably infer that he's not exactly putting his heart and soul into it.

    Or how about getting some t-shirts printed? A national company will likely not think twice about producing 1000 MAGA t-shirts, while one might reasonably expect to have the order refused by a 3-man operation in a particularly liberal state; the smaller the business, the more the work reflects a significant amount of time and personal investment.

    A national bookstore chain might reasonably stock 'Infamous' by Milo Yiannopoulos, with a widespread understanding that it doesn't necessarily reflect the views of anyone within the business. A one-man stockist might potentially attract grief for being seen to tacitly support the content of the book. Scale matters.

    Coulda sworn that the case in question was EXPLICITLY ABOUT A GAY COUPLE BEING REFUSED SERVICE BECAUSE THEY'RE GAY
    Those are some big words that entirely fail to rebut the point. Again, if the baker is to be believed the customers were explicitly offered both custom and off-the-shelf products; they were not refused a custom cake on the basis of their identity. The baker would have refused to make that cake for that specific purpose for anyone who asked.

    (Sidenote: according to Christianity, didn't Christ's sacrifice free humanity from having to live under the laws of Leviticus, and therefore the, er, let's be polite and call them "advisements" against homosexuality were meaningless? Surely the Bible doesn't say "don't be a homophobe, yo," but also homophobia on the part of Christians would involve ignoring Christ's sacrifice. Doesn't sound very Christian of them.)
    Correct.

  22. #8947
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Hiroshima Japan
    Posts
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scammel View Post
    The comparison with Walmart is a handy one, because it highlights a potential contrast.
    Wal Mart is an interesting comparison because they have already banned the creation of ISIS and Confederate flag cakes.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Business/walma...ry?id=32103721
    Four years in Japan.... still cannot speak a full sentence in Japanese

    Last Shiny: Mimikyu
    Next Shiny: Latias

  23. #8948
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Big Blue
    Posts
    4,914

    Default

    Australia is gay friendly now, after decades of pain.
    This is Turtwig, he was the most under appreciatted starter in Diamond & Pearl. If you picked Turtwig as your starter, put this in your sig . Started by Dax-360
    Quote Originally Posted by Teshub View Post
    I also read from the bulbagarden thread about the movie that Zorua impersonates Dawn and tries to show Dawn's butt to Ash. Fanservice, foreshadowing?
    Quote Originally Posted by Locormus View Post
    This show is called Pokemon, not Pochaman.. although that sounds almost the same..

    Youtube, DeviantArt, Bulbagarden, Imageshack, Photobucket, Smogon, Blog, Pokémon Series Analysis Dropbox Folder, Tumblr. PO/PS Username: Yusuf Kaya 3.0

  24. #8949
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Verdant Court, Arbor Area
    Posts
    760

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scammel View Post
    The comparison with Walmart is a handy one, because it highlights a potential contrast. Walmart is a vast, faceless operation that shifts millions of products every day. I don't know the exact circumstances in this instance, but a one-man bakery operation might theoretically only be tasked with making such a cake once a month. For both couples and bakers, the cake can be a big deal - it's very common for family and friends to be tasked with creating it and it can take hours of preparation and thought, with congratulations for the baker at the wedding. Some couples keep an slice for the rest of their married lives. In some circumstances, the cake is as much a statement as a product.

    Of course, the exact opposite may well be the case; the baker might have produced 5 wedding cakes that week already and a judge might reasonably infer that he's not exactly putting his heart and soul into it.

    Or how about getting some t-shirts printed? A national company will likely not think twice about producing 1000 MAGA t-shirts, while one might reasonably expect to have the order refused by a 3-man operation in a particularly liberal state; the smaller the business, the more the work reflects a significant amount of time and personal investment.
    Quote Originally Posted by EnglishALT View Post
    From what I am reading, the specific target of the problem is the baker decorating the cake, not just baking the cake. I would say that is an important distinction, baking the cake in and of itself is simply providing a service and not doing so would be a denial of service. Decorating it with a specific theme gets into the decorations being an artistic expression and falls under freedom of speech. Just as it would be if this situation involved a black baker and the KKK demanding a cake with a Klan figure on it, or a Jewish baker being forced to make a cake with Hitler's face on it for Neo Nazis.
    The MAGA T-shirt and *sigh* goddamned Milo quote unquote "books" aren't a great example as I don't believe political belief or party membership is a protected class under American anti-discrimination laws, though I'd have to check.

    A narrow argument that the basis of the discrimination was the specific decoration of the cake itself as opposed to the membership of the purchasers in a protected class is possible - I'm not sure how much water that would hold here because it depends on how explicit baking a cake is - Generally the wedding cakes I've seen are white icing with a plastic bride and groom figure on them, though there are certainly creative variations.

    A useful analogy here is the "hands on original" decision from the Kentucky Appeals Court decided in may. That case concerned a t-shirt print company that didn't want to print shirts for an LGBT support network that contained the words "Lexicon Pride."

    Read Judgement here: https://www.scribd.com/document/3481...ginals-5-12-17

    The crux of the Chief Judge's decision was that the refusal was a refusal to engage in speech not because of the sexual orientation of the purchaser and in particular draws a distinction to conduct that is closely correlated with membership of a protected class:

    The act of wearing a yarmulke is conduct engaged in exclusively or
    predominantly by persons who practice Judaism. The acts of homosexual
    intercourse and same-sex marriage are conduct engaged in exclusively or
    predominantly by persons who are homosexual. But anyone—regardless of
    religion, sexual orientation, race, gender, age, or corporate status—may espouse
    the belief that people of varying sexual orientations have as much claim to
    unqualified social acceptance as heterosexuals. Indeed, the posture of the case
    before us underscores that very point: this case was initiated and promoted by
    Aaron Baker, a non-transgendered man in a married, heterosexual relationship who
    nevertheless functioned at all relevant times as the President of the GLSO. For
    this reason, conveying a message in support of a cause or belief (by, for example,
    producing or wearing a t-shirt bearing a message supporting equality) cannot be
    deemed conduct that is so closely correlated with a protected status that it is
    engaged in exclusively or predominantly by persons who have that particular
    protected status. It is a point of view and form of speech that could belong to any
    person, regardless of classification.
    Earlier in the decision the judgement even cites the Colorado case:

    A shopkeeper’s refusal to serve a homosexual, not because the person is
    homosexual, but because the shopkeeper disapproves of homosexual intercourse or
    same-sex marriage, would be the legal equivalent of sexual orientation
    discrimination. See, e.g, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 583, 123 S.Ct. 2472,
    2487-88, 156 L.Ed.2d 508 (2003) (O’Connor, J., concurring) (explaining that a law
    criminalizing only homosexual sodomy “is targeted at more than conduct. It is
    instead directed toward gay persons as a class.”); see also Craig v. Masterpiece
    Cakeshop, Inc., 370 P.3d 272, 282 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015)4 (holding that a cakemaker’s
    refusal to sell a wedding cake to homosexual couple, because the cakemaker
    knew the cake would be used to celebrate a same-sex marriage and the
    cake-maker was opposed to such unions, is the equivalent of discrimination on the
    basis of sexual orientation
    ).
    Quote Originally Posted by Trainer Yusuf View Post
    Australia is gay friendly now, after decades of pain.
    Extremely proud of my country tonight

  25. #8950
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Kalos
    Posts
    889

    Default

    My apologies for pointing this out since I'm not very up to date with his cake court case, but I'm definitely sure that there are bakeries wherever that couple lived and I'm pretty sure owners of business are able to deny service to anyone they chose. Correct me if I'm wrong, but why did this couple not just change bakeries?

    Credit to FairyWitch and her AMAZING shop! Seriously, what are you waiting for? Go ask her for a signature!

Page 358 of 360 FirstFirst ... 258308348354355356357358359360 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •