myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Liberal vs Conservative Views
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9, 10, 11  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 10909
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What a fool. I don’t approve of denying someone a marriage license or wedding cake, or a meal in a restaurant. Both lie on a slippery slope of intolerance. But I fundamentally disapprove of conservative support for bias against gays. Their astonishment when some who disapprove of the intolerance right respond in kind is simply hypocrisy.

You are a fool as well as a hypocrite because you support bias against people for things they cannot change—and are unable to understand the difference between behavior which you are free to change, and the way you are born.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KGB-NP



Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 2579

PostPosted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
What a fool. I don’t approve of denying someone a marriage license or wedding cake, or a meal in a restaurant. Both lie on a slippery slope of intolerance. But I fundamentally disapprove of conservative support for bias against gays. Their astonishment when some who disapprove of the intolerance right respond in kind is simply hypocrisy.

You are a fool as well as a hypocrite because you support bias against people for things they cannot change—and are unable to understand the difference between behavior which you are free to change, and the way you are born.


Hmmmm, hypocrite? Interesting accusation when you condone that someone not serve a meal to someone for reasons and passing judgement on another for something they are guilty of themselves.

_________________
The universe is made up of proton, neutrons, electrons, and morons.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mat-ty



Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 4452

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2018 7:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
What a fool. I don’t approve of denying someone a marriage license or wedding cake, or a meal in a restaurant. Both lie on a slippery slope of intolerance. But I fundamentally disapprove of conservative support for bias against gays. Their astonishment when some who disapprove of the intolerance right respond in kind is simply hypocrisy.

You are a fool as well as a hypocrite because you support bias against people for things they cannot change—and are unable to understand the difference between behavior which you are free to change, and the way you are born.


Both parties have rights, the bakers are 100% against gay marriage based on their religious beliefs, why should they be forced to work on something they are completly against..that is their right and the SC agrees.

To compare that to the harrassment of Trump staffers is laughable, and I can guarantee you the SC would not even listen to such a pathetic argument.

Just for the record, I think the bakers are nitwits. I own a business and produce a finished product and would never turn someone away if I disagreed with the message or meaning.....I have made Fuck Trump signs for customers...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wsurfer



Joined: 17 Aug 2000
Posts: 690

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2018 8:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"I have made Fuck Trump signs for customers..."

I am proud of you my good man!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 10909
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

NP wrote:
mac wrote:
What a fool. I don’t approve of denying someone a marriage license or wedding cake, or a meal in a restaurant. Both lie on a slippery slope of intolerance. But I fundamentally disapprove of conservative support for bias against gays. Their astonishment when some who disapprove of the intolerance right respond in kind is simply hypocrisy.

You are a fool as well as a hypocrite because you support bias against people for things they cannot change—and are unable to understand the difference between behavior which you are free to change, and the way you are born.


Hmmmm, hypocrite? Interesting accusation when you condone that someone not serve a meal to someone for reasons and passing judgement on another for something they are guilty of themselves.


Textbook example of confirmation bias and the inability to read. I do not condone refusing to serve a meal—or bake a cake. When you go into the world of commerce, you serve customers—even if it means making your business accessible to those with disabilities.

What I do not condone is the hypocrisy of the right, who while supporting the ten insults a day POTUS, ask for civility in citizen discourse. Or those like Matty, who try to justify religious-based discrimination despite the Bill of Rights. Learn to read.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KGB-NP



Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 2579

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:

Wrong. The refusal to serve Sanders is based on her behavior. She doesn’t refuse to lie for Trump. That is a choice—not a characteristic of the person that god made. She can change her behavior.


Learn to read? OK. Done. Reading the statement made above sure sounds like you condone that the server was warranted in their prejudice.

_________________
The universe is made up of proton, neutrons, electrons, and morons.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 9058

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Both parties have rights, the bakers are 100% against gay marriage based on their religious beliefs, why should they be forced to work on something they are completly against..that is their right and the SC agrees."


Actually mat-ty, the Supreme Court doesn't agree in the context you are presenting. What the Supreme Court did find is that the lower Colorado court didn't treat the baker fairly during their review and the legal process, and that's why the lower court decision was reversed in favor of the baker.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mat-ty



Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 4452

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2018 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

swchandler wrote:
"Both parties have rights, the bakers are 100% against gay marriage based on their religious beliefs, why should they be forced to work on something they are completly against..that is their right and the SC agrees."


Actually mat-ty, the Supreme Court doesn't agree in the context you are presenting. What the Supreme Court did find is that the lower Colorado court didn't treat the baker fairly during their review and the legal process, and that's why the lower court decision was reversed in favor of the baker.



Exactly!!! the bakers rights were being violated also. No one should be forced to do something they morally or religiously disagree with. It would be like forcing a pro-life doctor to perform an abortion.

And guess what? there is a simple solution. SHOP ELSEWHERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Last edited by mat-ty on Thu Jul 12, 2018 1:12 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 10909
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2018 1:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is not news, and the termination of Papa John's founder John Schnatter over a racial slur is not the first time that his mouth has gotten him in trouble. Here from an ACLU lawyer--those that defend free speech for Nazis as well as socialists--is an analysis of the baker's cake case.

Quote:
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case of David Mullins and Charlie Craig, a couple turned away by Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., when they tried to buy a wedding cake.

The two weren't turned away because they couldn't afford the cake. They weren't turned away because they were rude. They were turned away because they are gay.


The Colorado courts and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission found that the bakery's actions violated the state's law barring discrimination. In the high court, the bakery argues that the lower courts' findings violate its rights to both religious freedom and free speech.

I've watched this argument tangle a lot of good people in knots. But it shouldn't.

Discrimination by a business should not be protected simply because the refusal is of a service that involves speech or expression.

Share quote & link

The bakery's argument is among the most radical to come before the Supreme Court in recent years. When you scratch below the surface, the case poses the following question: Is there a constitutional right to discriminate?

The bakery argues that there is, and that the Constitution should exempt it from state laws requiring that businesses not discriminate when serving their customers. In an Orwellian twist, the Department of Justice — the very body charged with enforcing the country's anti-discrimination laws — agreed with the bakery in a friend-of-the-court brief.

Specifically, the bakery argues that it should be allowed to refuse service to people if doing so runs contrary to the religious beliefs of its owners. That should give us pause.

In the 1960s, Piggie Park, a small chain of barbecue restaurants in South Carolina, said that its owner's freedom of religion would be violated if it were held responsible for disregarding the Civil Rights Act when it refused to serve black patrons.

In 1983, Goldsboro Christian Schools of Goldsboro, N.C., argued it had a religious right to refuse black students. In the same case, Bob Jones University of Greenville, S.C., argued it had a right to deny admission to students who engaged in, or advocated for, interracial dating.

As recently as 1990, Roanoke Valley Christian Schools in Virginia argued that it had a right to pay women less because their faith taught that men should be heads of households.

The courts rejected all of those arguments. They understood that religious liberty does not translate into a right to discriminate. If the Supreme Court now accepts the cake shop's religion argument, the decision would have far-reaching consequences. Religious liberty could become a way out of anti-discrimination law.

The bakery is also arguing that freedom of speech protects its refusal to serve Mullins and Craig. According to its argument, the 1st Amendment protects its discriminatory conduct because the product it sells is artistic and expressive. Any business engaged in artistic expression can refuse service, they say, not just those motivated by religious beliefs.

But Colorado's anti-discrimination law pertains to the refusal of service, not the artistry of cakes. It does not tell the bakery how to design its baked goods. It does not compel the bakery or any other business that opens its doors to the public to make a particular product at all. It simply requires that, once a business open to the public chooses to offer a product or service, it cannot refuse to sell that product or service to a customer based on identity.

Consider the question from a different angle. What if, instead of turning the couple away, the bakery posted a sign that said, "Wedding cakes for heterosexuals only"? Those are words, as were "whites only" and "men only need apply." Though the Constitution protects speech, it does not protect this speech, because it communicates and contains an act of discrimination.

In the bakery's argument, the cake is the expression, and the Constitution protects its refusal of service because the cake is expressive. Should that act of discrimination be protected simply because the refused service was artistic and expressive? By this logic, the Constitution could protect the right of a hairdresser who refuses to cut the hair of Muslims or a hotel that won't host an interfaith wedding.

Just as speech by a business open to the public is not protected when it communicates discrimination — "we don't service your kind here" — discrimination by a business should not be protected simply because the refusal is of a service that involves speech or expression.

If the Constitution exempts the bakery from the law's bar on discrimination — either because the discrimination is motivated by religion or because it is attached to an expressive service — it would mean that the Constitution protects discrimination. Period.

Today, there is no constitutional right to discriminate. Let's hope the Supreme Court keeps it that way.

Melling is a deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union.


Schnatter was forced to resign as CEO of Pap John's when he punished his employees for the Affordable Care Act and joined Trump in trying to ban the free speech rights of African American football players:

Quote:
The papa of Papa John’s is out.

John Schnatter, founder of the pizza maker and the John in its name, is stepping down as CEO, the company announced yesterday (December 21), just weeks following a public relations disaster in which Schnatter criticized the NFL for not dealing with the “take a knee” anthem protests in a manner timely enough to shore up its shrinking, potentially pizza-ordering viewership.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal (paywall), Steve Richie, incoming chief executive and former COO, declined to comment on whether bad press was part of the decision to have Schnatter step down, but he did say the PR crises have been a distraction, and that he wants to put the focus back on Papa John’s employees and its pizza. Schnatter will remain the company’s chairman.

In a third-quarter earnings call Nov. 1, Schnatter said the protests—which are meant to call attention to police brutality against African Americans and support racial equality— “should have been nipped in the bud a year and a half ago,” implying they were behind lower ratings for NFL games (they probably weren’t), for which Papa John’s was a sponsor and advertiser. Although his comments were widely criticized, they also found fans in the neo-nazi media outlet Daily Stormer, which suggested Papa John’s was the official pizza of the alt-right. The company’s immediate backpedaling and condemnation for racist groups were apparently not enough to save Schnatter’s job.


Papa John's and a few other corporate entities that hide their prejudice behind claims of religious values are free to spew such bigotry. I'm free to join in boycotting their products--as I have Coor's beer for decades. There is a right to express disgusting views, but not to discriminate in the commercial arena. If your religious values forbid you from engaging in commerce with gay people--or Muslims, or Jews, or Catholics--you should work in a field where you won't be challenged.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 9058

PostPosted: Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mat-ty, I'm afraid you missed the message of my last post, and you tried to make it something else more to your liking.

Why am I not surprised?

You should read the decision made by the Supreme Court. Again, it was about how the lower Colorado court considered their decision. That's a bit different than about whether the baker was free to discriminate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 9, 10, 11  Next
Page 5 of 11

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group