Yeah about those "Women only" showings....

[Doc1]

Guy, the very fact you equate "the other kids were mean to me in grammar school" to the discrimination suffered by gays and blacks in this society kind of indications you are an obnoxious person.

No it doesn't but your comments reveal you to be the narrow minded, hate filled "Lefty" we know you to be.

 

[JoeB131]

it was a symptom of the overall economic and political discrimination.

No, it was a symptom of racial discrimination, to keep "those people" in "Their place". Just like the bible thumping baker wants to keep "Those people" in their place" when they deny services to gays. How dare those gays think their relationship is as good as mine?

I have a feeling the reason you gloss over the economic and political roots of all this is because it doesn't fit your "government regulates butt hurt" fantasies of punishing all who go against your moral and ethical codes.

Oh, I think the political thing was always there. Keeping those people in their place.

You see, it shouldn't have matter at all to the Wifebeater if those two ladies considered their marriage just as good as his. He was getting money to bake a cake. By denying them service, he was showing them. And then screaming at the poor woman's mother?

And when those uppity deviants dared to sue him, why, he was going to show them, he was going to put their names out on social media. Kind of like the Klan used to lynch the uppity Negros who whistled at white women.

 

[JoeB131]

No it doesn't but your comments reveal you to be the narrow minded, hate filled "Lefty" we know you to be.

Hey, guy are you going to pretend race discrimination doesn't happen, that's fine. Just don't pretend that Marty's classmates not liking him was just as bad

 

[martybegan]

it was a symptom of the overall economic and political discrimination.

No, it was a symptom of racial discrimination, to keep "those people" in "Their place". Just like the bible thumping baker wants to keep "Those people" in their place" when they deny services to gays. How dare those gays think their relationship is as good as mine?

I have a feeling the reason you gloss over the economic and political roots of all this is because it doesn't fit your "government regulates butt hurt" fantasies of punishing all who go against your moral and ethical codes.

Oh, I think the political thing was always there. Keeping those people in their place.

You see, it shouldn't have matter at all to the Wifebeater if those two ladies considered their marriage just as good as his. He was getting money to bake a cake. By denying them service, he was showing them. And then screaming at the poor woman's mother?

And when those uppity deviants dared to sue him, why, he was going to show them, he was going to put their names out on social media. Kind of like the Klan used to lynch the uppity Negros who whistled at white women.

The reason to keep them 'in their place" was that in some areas they were a majority. Remember this is before the mass black migrations to the northern cities in the early 1900's. Even after some counties had majority black populations. The main controls were squashing of voting rights. The use of Jim Crow laws was just the covering over the real discrimination, lack of political power, lack of economic power, lack of education.

All the assumptions you make to fit your own narrative....

 

[JoeB131]

The reason to keep them 'in their place" was that in some areas they were a majority. Remember this is before the mass black migrations to the northern cities in the early 1900's. Even after some counties had majority black populations. The main controls were squashing of voting rights. The use of Jim Crow laws was just the covering over the real discrimination, lack of political power, lack of economic power, lack of education.

All the assumptions you make to fit your own narrative....

You see, the thing is you get close, but still miss the point.

The purpose of Jim Crow was to create an artificial division between the blacks and the Poor White Trash that made up the majority of the south. You might be dirt poor, but you dune der get to drink out of the nice white water fountain. It's how the one percenters trick the rubes.

The same thing with homophobia. you let the wifebeater think he's better, he's not going to notice the obscene level of wealth inequality.

 

[martybegan]

The reason to keep them 'in their place" was that in some areas they were a majority. Remember this is before the mass black migrations to the northern cities in the early 1900's. Even after some counties had majority black populations. The main controls were squashing of voting rights. The use of Jim Crow laws was just the covering over the real discrimination, lack of political power, lack of economic power, lack of education.

All the assumptions you make to fit your own narrative....

You see, the thing is you get close, but still miss the point.

The purpose of Jim Crow was to create an artificial division between the blacks and the Poor White Trash that made up the majority of the south. You might be dirt poor, but you dune der get to drink out of the nice white water fountain. It's how the one percenters trick the rubes.

The same thing with homophobia. you let the wifebeater think he's better, he's not going to notice the obscene level of wealth inequality.

So instead you punish the religious people and make THEM second class citizens over something as simple as a cake.

There is no underlying economic or political discrimination in these cases, and getting rid of that was the real purpose of removing the overt Jim Crow laws. The discrimination was so systemic a radical, property rights violating solution was needed.

This is not the case with a few contractors here and there not wanting to participate in a single type of ceremony, while still providing goods as a point of service.

You have bastardized the laws that were intended to handle a specific systemic issue and warped them to further your own hatreds.'

Again, you have more in common with Jim Crow than MLK when it comes to this issue.

 

[JoeB131]

So instead you punish the religious people and make THEM second class citizens over something as simple as a cake.

Except no one is making them be in the cake business.

There is no underlying economic or political discrimination in these cases, and getting rid of that was the real purpose of removing the overt Jim Crow laws. The discrimination was so systemic a radical, property rights violating solution was needed.

Again- I've seen gays get beaten up, I've seen gays get fired for being gay. Yes, we need something just as radical to end homophobia.

This is not the case with a few contractors here and there not wanting to participate in a single type of ceremony, while still providing goods as a point of service.

You have bastardized the laws that were intended to handle a specific systemic issue and warped them to further your own hatreds.'

Again, you have more in common with Jim Crow than MLK when it comes to this issue.

Here's the thing. NOBODY should be refused service, and nobody should be abused by a merchant. So for that reason, I can't refuse to provide service to a Mormon who wants his resume rewritten. And they'd have a legitimate complaint if I expressed my opinion that Joseph Smith was a child molesting con man. (which he totally was.)

So if I have to tolerate the Mormons, the bakers have to tolerate the gays. Pretty simple, no?

 

[martybegan]

So instead you punish the religious people and make THEM second class citizens over something as simple as a cake.

Except no one is making them be in the cake business.

There is no underlying economic or political discrimination in these cases, and getting rid of that was the real purpose of removing the overt Jim Crow laws. The discrimination was so systemic a radical, property rights violating solution was needed.

Again- I've seen gays get beaten up, I've seen gays get fired for being gay. Yes, we need something just as radical to end homophobia.

This is not the case with a few contractors here and there not wanting to participate in a single type of ceremony, while still providing goods as a point of service.

You have bastardized the laws that were intended to handle a specific systemic issue and warped them to further your own hatreds.'

Again, you have more in common with Jim Crow than MLK when it comes to this issue.

Here's the thing. NOBODY should be refused service, and nobody should be abused by a merchant. So for that reason, I can't refuse to provide service to a Mormon who wants his resume rewritten. And they'd have a legitimate complaint if I expressed my opinion that Joseph Smith was a child molesting con man. (which he totally was.)

So if I have to tolerate the Mormons, the bakers have to tolerate the gays. Pretty simple, no?

Why should they be forced out of their chosen profession over a single transaction?

Neither of which is applicable to the current concept being discussed. You want to force people to accept a behavior they don't like JUST BECAUSE. Again, 1984 isn't an instruction manual.

People shouldn't be forced to do anything unless there is a compelling interest behind the need for force, and two butt hurt lesbians does not a compelling interest make, no more than some Mormon you decide to piss off.

 

[JoeB131]

Why should they be forced out of their chosen profession over a single transaction?

People get fired for a single mistake. People get fired for less than that.

They made a decision (actually, several bad decisions), and they paid a consequence for them.
What they should have did was 1) Apologize, 2) Promise to never do it again, and 3) Let people know they are changing their policies.

Instead, they chose to fly their freak flag high and enjoy the adulation of other small minded bigots who sent them a lot of money.

Neither of which is applicable to the current concept being discussed. You want to force people to accept a behavior they don't like JUST BECAUSE. Again, 1984 isn't an instruction manual.

They can dislike it to their hearts content, in the privacy of their own home. Once they put out a shingle and offered a service.... well, then they are kind of stuck with that.

People shouldn't be forced to do anything unless there is a compelling interest behind the need for force, and two butt hurt lesbians does not a compelling interest make, no more than some Mormon you decide to piss off.

There is a compelling interest. Making homophobia less desirable. You see, funny thing happened when they took down all those Jim Crow signs and enforced public accommedation laws. Lynchings stopped and Klan Membership declined. AMAZING how that works.

 

[martybegan]

Why should they be forced out of their chosen profession over a single transaction?

People get fired for a single mistake. People get fired for less than that.

They made a decision (actually, several bad decisions), and they paid a consequence for them.
What they should have did was 1) Apologize, 2) Promise to never do it again, and 3) Let people know they are changing their policies.

Instead, they chose to fly their freak flag high and enjoy the adulation of other small minded bigots who sent them a lot of money.

Neither of which is applicable to the current concept being discussed. You want to force people to accept a behavior they don't like JUST BECAUSE. Again, 1984 isn't an instruction manual.

They can dislike it to their hearts content, in the privacy of their own home. Once they put out a shingle and offered a service.... well, then they are kind of stuck with that.

People shouldn't be forced to do anything unless there is a compelling interest behind the need for force, and two butt hurt lesbians does not a compelling interest make, no more than some Mormon you decide to piss off.

There is a compelling interest. Making homophobia less desirable. You see, funny thing happened when they took down all those Jim Crow signs and enforced public accommedation laws. Lynchings stopped and Klan Membership declined. AMAZING how that works.

Being your own boss means you can't be fired. you are not comparing the same thing.

They should not be forced to give up the free exercise of their religion over a non necessary easily replaceable contracted service.

Where in the Constitution does it say you lose your rights when you try to sell something?

That is not a compelling interest, that is forced morality.
Also, correlation does not equal causation.

 

[JoeB131]

Being your own boss means you can't be fired. you are not comparing the same thing.

Why isn't it? Shouldn't I be able to tell my boss to get bent because of my very totally sincere belief in a sky pixie. Or do you think that only business owners should have "rights"?

They should not be forced to give up the free exercise of their religion over a non necessary easily replaceable contracted service.

Again, 50 years of Public Accommedation law says otherwise.

Also - it's easier to just have a hard and fast rule than it is to split hairs about what is "easily replaceable".

That is not a compelling interest, that is forced morality.
Also, correlation does not equal causation.

Most morality is forced, because by and large, human beings are awful.

I'm so sorry you don't get that.

But, um, yeah, there's a reason why the part of the country where they told black people they had to drink out of a segregated water fountain was the same part of the country where these inbred rednecks all stood around a lynched man like it was a party or something.

 

[martybegan]

Being your own boss means you can't be fired. you are not comparing the same thing.

Why isn't it? Shouldn't I be able to tell my boss to get bent because of my very totally sincere belief in a sky pixie. Or do you think that only business owners should have "rights"?

They should not be forced to give up the free exercise of their religion over a non necessary easily replaceable contracted service.

Again, 50 years of Public Accommedation law says otherwise.

Also - it's easier to just have a hard and fast rule than it is to split hairs about what is "easily replaceable".

That is not a compelling interest, that is forced morality.
Also, correlation does not equal causation.

Most morality is forced, because by and large, human beings are awful.

I'm so sorry you don't get that.

But, um, yeah, there's a reason why the part of the country where they told black people they had to drink out of a segregated water fountain was the same part of the country where these inbred rednecks all stood around a lynched man like it was a party or something.

If you want to be your own boss, be your own boss. If you work for someone else you work for someone else. They can fire you if they want, just like the public can stop patronizing your business. what you want is the government to come in and tell the boss he HAS to fire them, and not only that, take back 2 years of salary and give it to the person who's been butt hurt.

Plessey was in force for over 80 years, time doesn't make things right.

It's easier, it just isn't right. That's why we have courts in the first place.

It should only be forced to prevent actual harm to others, not butt hurt.

In those cases it was local government making the rules about discrimination, and the real issue was economic and political.

 

[jc456]

Did you see the applications or did you believe what you were told because it fits your narrative?

Actually, I believe it because I see it in my own side business as a resume writer.

I've had applications turned into me where the qualifications were, for the most part, the same. On paper, either person could have done the job. One that sticks out was that it was filled out in pencil when the application clearly said "Typed or blue/black ink". According to your mindset, they were equal. According to the one doing the hiring, me, the one in pencil meant the person couldn't follow directions. Another one involved someone misspelling his own name.

These weren't applications, they were resumes... So obviously, the examples you give aren't germane to the conversation.

Let's try again.

Two resumes, EXACT same experience. EXACT same Education. Exact same qualifications.

One has a "White" name. One has a black name. The one with a white name got callbacks. The one with the black name didn't.

So essentially, even with the first hurdle, there is racism.

sorry, I don't believe you. I work in a company that has implemented policy to not have that happen. In today's world, I don't believe you. What you didn't tell us was many other qualifiers such as experience and history of the applicant with other employers. How do you know background checks failed? dude, it isn't like you think it is any longer today. You're nuts.

 

[jc456]

Being your own boss means you can't be fired. you are not comparing the same thing.

Why isn't it? Shouldn't I be able to tell my boss to get bent because of my very totally sincere belief in a sky pixie. Or do you think that only business owners should have "rights"?

They should not be forced to give up the free exercise of their religion over a non necessary easily replaceable contracted service.

Again, 50 years of Public Accommedation law says otherwise.

Also - it's easier to just have a hard and fast rule than it is to split hairs about what is "easily replaceable".

That is not a compelling interest, that is forced morality.
Also, correlation does not equal causation.

Most morality is forced, because by and large, human beings are awful.

I'm so sorry you don't get that.

But, um, yeah, there's a reason why the part of the country where they told black people they had to drink out of a segregated water fountain was the same part of the country where these inbred rednecks all stood around a lynched man like it was a party or something.

 

[JoeB131]

If you want to be your own boss, be your own boss. If you work for someone else you work for someone else. They can fire you if they want, just like the public can stop patronizing your business. what you want is the government to come in and tell the boss he HAS to fire them, and not only that, take back 2 years of salary and give it to the person who's been butt hurt.

Plessey was in force for over 80 years, time doesn't make things right.

It's easier, it just isn't right. That's why we have courts in the first place.

It should only be forced to prevent actual harm to others, not butt hurt.

In those cases it was local government making the rules about discrimination, and the real issue was economic and political.

 

[JoeB131]

sorry, I don't believe you. I work in a company that has implemented policy to not have that happen. In today's world, I don't believe you. What you didn't tell us was many other qualifiers such as experience and history of the applicant with other employers. How do you know background checks failed? dude, it isn't like you think it is any longer today. You're nuts.

Go back and read what I posted. Education, experience, skills were identical on the resumes. The ONLY difference was some of them said "Greg" and some of the said "Jamal". And Greg got more callbacks.

 

[martybegan]

If you want to be your own boss, be your own boss. If you work for someone else you work for someone else. They can fire you if they want, just like the public can stop patronizing your business. what you want is the government to come in and tell the boss he HAS to fire them, and not only that, take back 2 years of salary and give it to the person who's been butt hurt.

Plessey was in force for over 80 years, time doesn't make things right.

It's easier, it just isn't right. That's why we have courts in the first place.

It should only be forced to prevent actual harm to others, not butt hurt.

In those cases it was local government making the rules about discrimination, and the real issue was economic and political.

Nice to see you admit you've run out of bullshit.

 

[jc456]

sorry, I don't believe you. I work in a company that has implemented policy to not have that happen. In today's world, I don't believe you. What you didn't tell us was many other qualifiers such as experience and history of the applicant with other employers. How do you know background checks failed? dude, it isn't like you think it is any longer today. You're nuts.

Go back and read what I posted. Education, experience, skills were identical on the resumes. The ONLY difference was some of them said "Greg" and some of the said "Jamal". And Greg got more callbacks.

again, you have no idea what the background checks would have revealed, do you? You have no idea of their work ethics as defined by previous employers? do you?

And you said he didn't get called back and now it is not as many call backs. which is it chief?

 

[JoeB131]

Nice to see you admit you've run out of bullshit.

Naw, just tired of listening to you spew the same libertarian bullshit.

I like living in a civilized society. I'd like it better if we had no homophobia or religion.

 

[martybegan]

Nice to see you admit you've run out of bullshit.

Naw, just tired of listening to you spew the same libertarian bullshit.

I like living in a civilized society. I'd like it better if we had no homophobia or religion.

yes, ruining two people over a non-baked cake is soooo ******* civilized.