Finally! Supreme Court rules in favor of First Amendment rights for Christians etc.

[JoeB131]

They may get that chance to vote on it again when the Supreme Court returns it to the states like they did abortion. Marriage laws are state issues.

Not going to happen.

You know when you lost this issue? When the Big Corporations started handing out Domestic Partner benefits. The last thing they want is for gay marriage to be banned and anyone can call their unmarried boyfriend or girlfriend a "domestic partner" who is entitled to benefits.

Here's the problem you wingnuts don't realize. When it comes to a choice between Wall Street and Jesus, Wall Street always wins.

Your opinion that ignores the simplest of concepts, i.e. to refuse to create or stock a certain product (to ANYBODY) or participate in a certain activity (for ANYBODY) is NOT discriminating against a person.

I'm pretty sure you won't make the distinction though yet again. 99.9% of those on the right can and do.

Good point. If you don't sell wedding cakes, I don't have an issue. that's not your stock and trade.

But once you do, you have to offer them to anyone.

For instance. I run a resume business. I had a kid ask me if I could write his term paper for him. I refused because I don't do Term papers. I also gently reminded him the purpose of him taking the course was to be able to write a term paper demonstrating what he had learned.

That isn't discrimination, because I don't do term papers for anyone.

But if that same kid came to me for a resume, I would sell him one of those.
Even if he were gay.
Even if he were black.
Even if he were a Mormon or a Jew.

Because to do otherwise would be to discriminate.

Now, I did have a situation after the 2016 election, where someone wanted to apply for a job with the incoming Trump administration, and I felt obligated to inform him I opposed Trump, but I would still give his resume my best effort if he wanted to move forward. I even gave him a few pointers, such as he would need to do it in the Federal Format, not the standard civilian format. For whatever reason, he decided to go with someone else, and that was his prerogative.

 

[Foxfyre]

Treating people is the doctor's job. Now if you tell the doctor your child believes he's a pirate and wants his left leg sawn off below the knee, the doctor will probably refuse. Do you get it yet?

He hasn't gotten it yet.

 

[JoeB131]

I won't respond to these chopped up posts Joe because they destroy context and the complete thought.

That's your prerogative. but if you are going to throw out a bunch of concepts, then they need to be addressed individually.

It is not legal to discriminate against a Jew who walks in to buy something you have for sale in your store. It does not matter what you think of his religion or history or beliefs or anything else. And even if you think you can get away with it legally, I personally think it morally wrong to pick and choose who you will sell your products too based on prejudice, bigotry, racism.

Okay, I agree.

But if that Jew should ask you to create and decorate a product that you would never choose to do yourself or prepare a cake denying that Jesus is the Messiah, you should be allowed to say no, sorry, I can't do that. \\

That is the difference between discriminating against a person for no other reason than he belongs to a particular demographic or faith and discriminating against a product or activity that for you would be wrong.

And this is where your argument falls apart. A gay marriage is not like a Jew denying Jesus is the Messiah (because he actually meets very few requirements set for the Messiah in the Old Testament, Matthew's attempts to make things up notwithstanding.) It's just a marriage. It's a confection served at an after-party. It has no religious or ceremonial significance. It doesn't require the baker to participate in the ceremony. (The Baker I just hired said she'll drop it off with the reception hall, and they'll take it from there.) It's not theological.

 

[JoeB131]

That is something that I never get. You have a huge population "living in sin" according to their Christian faith and yet... they focus on gays having sex.

The poor dears seem not to have heard about the "people in glass houses...

I guess if they get married, they'll "Stop" sinning, so that makes it okay somehow.

 

[BS Filter]

Not going to happen.

You know when you lost this issue? When the Big Corporations started handing out Domestic Partner benefits. The last thing they want is for gay marriage to be banned and anyone can call their unmarried boyfriend or girlfriend a "domestic partner" who is entitled to benefits.

Here's the problem you wingnuts don't realize. When it comes to a choice between Wall Street and Jesus, Wall Street always wins.



Good point. If you don't sell wedding cakes, I don't have an issue. that's not your stock and trade.

But once you do, you have to offer them to anyone.

For instance. I run a resume business. I had a kid ask me if I could write his term paper for him. I refused because I don't do Term papers. I also gently reminded him the purpose of him taking the course was to be able to write a term paper demonstrating what he had learned.

That isn't discrimination, because I don't do term papers for anyone.

But if that same kid came to me for a resume, I would sell him one of those.
Even if he were gay.
Even if he were black.
Even if he were a Mormon or a Jew.

Because to do otherwise would be to discriminate.

Now, I did have a situation after the 2016 election, where someone wanted to apply for a job with the incoming Trump administration, and I felt obligated to inform him I opposed Trump, but I would still give his resume my best effort if he wanted to move forward. I even gave him a few pointers, such as he would need to do it in the Federal Format, not the standard civilian format. For whatever reason, he decided to go with someone else, and that was his prerogative.

I haven't lost anything. This Supreme Court doesn't make decisions based on corporate benefits.

 

[BS Filter]

He hasn't gotten it yet.

I can explain it to them, but I can't understand it for them.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay here's my position. It hasn't changed for at least the last 30 or 40 years. I'll just use this with all the leftists and won't have to keep typing it out over and over.

There should be no protected classes according to race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. All laws should apply to all citizens equally and all laws should be enforced properly, legally, equally for all citizens regardless of who they are. Any protected classes that exist should be for children or the handicapped or the elderly etc. regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc.

There should be no hate crime. A crime against one citizen should be seen as no different than a crime against any other citizen and be enforced equally with all citizens regardless of who or what they are.

All private businesses should have complete right to stock whatever legal products they want to stock and/or any legal services that they choose to offer and, as a general practice, they should sell to all customers who want the products or services offered no matter who they are. (There may be some very rare extenuating circumstances but those will be unrelated to race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation etc.)

Otherwise, no business owner should EVER have to order a product or create a product or participate in any event or activity that the business owner does not wish to participate in for ANY reason. Certainly he/she should not have to create a product or participate in an event or activity that he/she believes is wrong no matter what it is.

Discriminating against a product or activity that for you is offensive, wrong, immoral is NOT discriminating against a person.

 

[Foxfyre]

I can explain it to them, but I can't understand it for them.

I know. Trying to get some people to get the point is like trying to nail jelly to a wall.)

 

[Foxfyre]

Not going to happen.

You know when you lost this issue? When the Big Corporations started handing out Domestic Partner benefits. The last thing they want is for gay marriage to be banned and anyone can call their unmarried boyfriend or girlfriend a "domestic partner" who is entitled to benefits.

Here's the problem you wingnuts don't realize. When it comes to a choice between Wall Street and Jesus, Wall Street always wins.



Good point. If you don't sell wedding cakes, I don't have an issue. that's not your stock and trade.

But once you do, you have to offer them to anyone.

For instance. I run a resume business. I had a kid ask me if I could write his term paper for him. I refused because I don't do Term papers. I also gently reminded him the purpose of him taking the course was to be able to write a term paper demonstrating what he had learned.

That isn't discrimination, because I don't do term papers for anyone.

But if that same kid came to me for a resume, I would sell him one of those.
Even if he were gay.
Even if he were black.
Even if he were a Mormon or a Jew.

Because to do otherwise would be to discriminate.

Now, I did have a situation after the 2016 election, where someone wanted to apply for a job with the incoming Trump administration, and I felt obligated to inform him I opposed Trump, but I would still give his resume my best effort if he wanted to move forward. I even gave him a few pointers, such as he would need to do it in the Federal Format, not the standard civilian format. For whatever reason, he decided to go with someone else, and that was his prerogative.

See Post #787

 

[Soupnazi630]

You made an assertion and I kicked it up your butt. Fact.

Wrong

You made a false accusation which you could not back up

In other words yoiuy lied and gthat is not an assertion it is a fact and you know it

Put up or shut up you pig

 

[HikerGuy83]

Uh, Asians are only 6% of the population and are 26% of the starting class at Harvard. They are hardly being "excluded".

Percentages mean nothing.

If the best candidates put the school at 90% asian then that is what it should be.

Don't like it ? Do better in school.

 

[HikerGuy83]

I also don't see you complaining about the Asian who lost his slot to a white legacy with lower grades and no Tiger Mom.

Send a link. If some Asian or black was pushed out by a legacy white kid who was underqualified, I'll call it what it is.....wrong.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Okay here's my position. It hasn't changed for at least the last 30 or 40 years. I'll just use this with all the leftists and won't have to keep typing it out over and over.

There should be no protected classes according to race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. All laws should apply to all citizens equally and all laws should be enforced properly, legally, equally for all citizens regardless of who they are. Any protected classes that exist should be for children or the handicapped or the elderly etc. regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc.

There should be no hate crime. A crime against one citizen should be seen as no different than a crime against any other citizen and be enforced equally with all citizens regardless of who or what they are.

All private businesses should have complete right to stock whatever legal products they want to stock and/or any legal services that they choose to offer and, as a general practice, they should sell to all customers who want the products or services offered no matter who they are. (There may be some very rare extenuating circumstances but those will be unrelated to race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation etc.)

Otherwise, no business owner should EVER have to order a product or create a product or participate in any event or activity that the business owner does not wish to participate in for ANY reason. Certainly he/she should not have to create a product or participate in an event or activity that he/she believes is wrong no matter what it is.

Discriminating against a product or activity that for you is offensive, wrong, immoral is NOT discriminating against a person.

So, in the Deep South, white people can say "hey, we don't want black people to come into our stores"?

 

[JoeB131]

I haven't lost anything. This Supreme Court doesn't make decisions based on corporate benefits.

Sure they do.

You aren't this naive, are you?

 

[JoeB131]

Percentages mean nothing.

If the best candidates put the school at 90% asian then that is what it should be.

Don't like it ? Do better in school.

Depends how you define best candidate.

To me, the best candidate is the one who will produce the greatest benefit to society. Not the one whose Tiger Mom made him get higher test scores by denying him a childhood.

 

[JoeB131]

Okay here's my position. It hasn't changed for at least the last 30 or 40 years. I'll just use this with all the leftists and won't have to keep typing it out over and over.

There should be no protected classes according to race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. All laws should apply to all citizens equally and all laws should be enforced properly, legally, equally for all citizens regardless of who they are. Any protected classes that exist should be for children or the handicapped or the elderly etc. regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc.

Um, here's the thing....
As a white, heterosexual, cisgendered male, I am already a privileged class. I'm always going to have an easier time finding a job, no matter how badly Republicans fuck it up on the economy (seriously, why do we keep electing them?) in fact, I really didn't start encountering any discrimination until I started pushing 50, and started encountering age discrimination.

Otherwise, no business owner should EVER have to order a product or create a product or participate in any event or activity that the business owner does not wish to participate in for ANY reason. Certainly he/she should not have to create a product or participate in an event or activity that he/she believes is wrong no matter what it is.

So if I really hate black people, I can refuse to participate in an event that I don't like, right? Is this what you are advocating? Because it's messed up.

 

[dblack]

Um, here's the thing....
As a white, heterosexual, cisgendered male, I am already a privileged class. I'm always going to have an easier time finding a job, no matter how badly Republicans fuck it up on the economy (seriously, why do we keep electing them?) in fact, I really didn't start encountering any discrimination until I started pushing 50, and started encountering age discrimination.

It's a kinder, gentler oppression!

So if I really hate black people, I can refuse to participate in an event that I don't like, right? Is this what you are advocating? Because it's messed up.

What good would it do to force them to participate? Is that what you're advocating? Because that's messed up.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Depends how you define best candidate.

To me, the best candidate is the one who will produce the greatest benefit to society. Not the one whose Tiger Mom made him get higher test scores by denying him a childhood.

I am extremely interested to know how you are going to determine "who will produce the greatest benefit to society."

Since I already know the answer (which is that you can't), then we go to what we do know.....who is the most qualified in terms of the of the admission requirements (GPA, SAT's...etc.).

Noticed the 26% argument got dropped.

 

[BS Filter]

Sure they do.

You aren't this naive, are you?

No, I'm not naive. I'm just smarter than you. I agree the previous courts were activist, but not this court. This court has a clear majority of smart people thanks to President Trump.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Wrong

You made a false accusation which you could not back up

In other words yoiuy lied and gthat is not an assertion it is a fact and you know it

Put up or shut up you pig

You asserted without facts. I kicked it up your butt. Be quiet, you lsot.