|
Number Ten Cocks posted:Actually, they're the real Americans preserving it from people like you. real americans should be relocated to oklahoma to practice their traditional culture without interfering with modern society
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 20:14 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:real americans should be relocated to oklahoma to practice their traditional culture without interfering with modern society Woah, did not expect noted Good Poster evilweasel to come out with this "Korematsu was rightly decided" hot take 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
on no particular subject whatsoever, for some time i thought korematsu was the name of that dumb star trek thing where it's a riddle that has no answers or whatever. got pretty confused before i looked it up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:Actually, they're the real Americans preserving it from people like you. This country certainly has a long history of crooks and con artists who would see it destroyed if they could profit off the result I dont think that "real Americans" is an accurate label for them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
I take my kids to play on church playgrounds all the time. Maybe it's a southern thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
JesustheDarkLord posted:I take my kids to play on church playgrounds all the time. Maybe it's a southern thing. Maybe, I would go to church basketball/volleyball courts all the time in Georgia, but then they have the giant baptist churches that are basically an office building with a cross out front.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
JesustheDarkLord posted:I take my kids to play on church playgrounds all the time. Maybe it's a southern thing. Never seen one locked up anywhere in Minnesota. I'm legit curious where people have actually seen them locked up. I mean, I could understand if it was a church in an bad neighborhood where all the businesses have bars on the windows and/or security cages and every business has razor wire around anything that needs to be left outside but I don't know that I can recall the last time I saw a fence around anything on church property anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
I've seen some in good neighborhoods in Chicago fenced in with a gate. They are open to the general public, but locked up at night so that bums can't sleep there without getting arrested
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
Megachurches in the Chicago suburbs have fences and security guards around their giant estates.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:real americans should be relocated to oklahoma to practice their traditional culture without interfering with modern society i mean uh that's exactly what we did to real americans
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:Never seen one locked up anywhere in Minnesota. I'm legit curious where people have actually seen them locked up. It's where the unreal Americans live, obviously. The X-man cometh posted:Megachurches in the Chicago suburbs have fences and security guards around their giant estates. As I said.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
The thing that gets me about the cake poo poo is that even if you are the sort of christian who believes that marriage is between a man and a woman only, and believes that this party those gay folks are having aint a real marriage in god's eyes, where in the Bible does it say that you can't bake cakes for other parties? Show me the verse where the bible says that cakes are for weddings only.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
can't wait until parents successfully appeal a child endangerment charge after their children get megasick because they're christian scientists and so don't believe in medical care and so the government can't force em to bring the kiddos to the doc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:The thing that gets me about the cake poo poo is that even if you are the sort of christian who believes that marriage is between a man and a woman only, and believes that this party those gay folks are having aint a real marriage in god's eyes, where in the Bible does it say that you can't bake cakes for other parties? Show me the verse where the bible says that cakes are for weddings only. His argument is surprisingly clever. He's claiming that since he custom designs his cakes, his cakes are actually works of art. Forcing him to produce a specific work of art that he has moral objection to is a violation of his freedom of expression. If anything his argument is better than Hobby Lobby's. Now that was a loving abortion of justice to which playgrounds and cake artists can't begin to compare.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
I wish Roger Ebert were alive so he could argue to the court “Cakes can’t be art.” 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
never knew that the cake boss (cakeboss!) was a homophobe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Most church playgrounds I have seen around here are behind the church and well fenced in. Theres no signage indicating public access and you probably wont even know a chunk of them are there unless you go to the church. They may technically be open to the public, but I have no idea how I would find out, and most people arent comfortable with the idea of going onto someone elses property just because theres no lock on the gate. The fences may be a completely innocous attempt to keep kids in rather than others out, but the end result is that when every other playground in town is full the church playgrounds are always empty. Theres a difference difference between technically open to the public and functionally open to the public.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:
That's weird because they are so common place you'd have to go out of your way to never encounter one. Christian churches are usually pretty open and inviting of outsiders for fairly obvious reasons, unlike say scientology or mormons. Sure there will be exceptions but most churches are hurting for young people and playgrounds are good advertising. Azathoth posted:I don't see how these "religious liberty" arguments are fundamentally different from a business owned by a white separatist denying service to an African American on the grounds that their religion commands them to not in any way associate with African Americans. Generally making up poo poo like that doesn't go very well in court, much like "my church demands i'm stoned 24/7" plays. In general a church can't discriminate based on race but are free to discriminate on sexual orientation. Most religions still label acting on homosexual urges to be a sin, whereas no religion says being black is a sin. As for the case the argument would be that they had no problem knowingly serving gay people for general events, but why should ministers and priests be able to say "not going to officiate that wedding because they're gay" and no-one else? You can look at it from a theological perspective: you can read the bible and reasonably conclude that gay marriage is sinful (and thus aiding a sin would also be a sin) but you can't reasonably conclude that providing service to say, black people is sinful. Often times the court gives a large amount of deference to genuine religious belief, which is why refusing to perform an interracial wedding will get your tax status knocked off but refusing to perform one for gay people would not. Jimbozig posted:The thing that gets me about the cake poo poo is that even if you are the sort of christian who believes that marriage is between a man and a woman only, and believes that this party those gay folks are having aint a real marriage in god's eyes, where in the Bible does it say that you can't bake cakes for other parties? Show me the verse where the bible says that cakes are for weddings only. I believe this is their argument? That they knowingly served gay people for general events but were just making the exception for weddings in particular?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Generally making up poo poo like that doesn't go very well in court, much like "my church demands i'm stoned 24/7" plays. It worked for Hobby Lobby. e: Seriously, there is better theological justification for “the sons of Ham (i.e. blacks) are cursed, also slavery is cool ⁊ good” than there are for “fœtuses are people so don’t murder them”. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Jun 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:That's weird because they are so common place you'd have to go out of your way to never encounter one. Christian churches are usually pretty open and inviting of outsiders for fairly obvious reasons, unlike say scientology or mormons. Sure there will be exceptions but most churches are hurting for young people and playgrounds are good advertising. I'm not suggesting making up things and there most certainly are churches that are explicitly racist: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/creativity-movement Perhaps, though, it might be better to shift from race to anti-semitism. As a Lutheran myself, I can say with no small amount of discomfort that Luther and many, many other historical theologians and religious figures have been openly anti-semitic and this, perhaps unsurprisingly, goes back to the very roots of Christianity, take early church father John Chrysostom for example. That modern branches have rejected this anti-semitism doesn't change the fact that anti-semitism has been a part of Christianity for far longer than our modern understanding of race has existed. It would not be difficult at all for an anti-semitic Christian to point to specific Bible verses to justify their anti-semitism, and they would likely find far more support than anti-gay bigots would find, given that at the time the BIble was written, the understanding of sexuality was far, far different than what it is today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Generally making up poo poo like that doesn't go very well in court, much like "my church demands i'm stoned 24/7" plays. It absolutely does as long as the beliefs you're making up line up with Republican policy planks. Courts are absolutely uncritical of those.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
Do the bakers actually have any chance under the free exercise clause? The RFRA doesn't apply and I don't think the conservatives want to overturn Smith.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Theres a difference difference between technically open to the public and functionally open to the public. Sounds like a job for the Satanic Temple, totally in their wheelhouse to troll people by using church playgrounds on the basis of this decision.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I have never encountered a Church playground that is functionally open to the public. I have met a few that are the pretend type of open to the public where really they mean "for legal purposes only, but not really"
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
So you're saying their purpose is to proselytize?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
Diabolical, isn't it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Diabolical, isn't it. Well, it seems like something the state shouldn't be paying for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
Subvisual Haze posted:His argument is surprisingly clever. He's claiming that since he custom designs his cakes, his cakes are actually works of art. Forcing him to produce a specific work of art that he has moral objection to is a violation of his freedom of expression. Huh. You're right, that is a way better argument than the one I was thinking of. I have to revise my opinion of this case. I just went from thinking that it'll be a close decision strictly on partisan lines to thinking that we might well end up seeing a 7-2 or 8-1 in favor of the cake bigots. Imagine if you are a graphic designer and you refuse to make a "white power" design for a racist group, but they come back and say "ah ha, but you made a 'black power' design last year, so you are discriminating against us based on race." We would all want those racists thrown out of court because you get to decide what you design. So then the question is this: what is the difference between saying no to the white power group in my example, which should be allowed, and saying no to a client because of their race, which is illegal discrimination. The answer seems to me to be that you ought to be allowed to withhold your services based on the message or content you are being asked to create, and that the context of who is asking for it is a legitimate part of that decision. In that framework, it seems like it would be permissible to say "I won't make a cake supporting gay marriage for any client, gay or straight, just as I would happily make a birthday cake for any client, gay or straight. It is not the sexual orientation of the client that drives my refusal in any way, only the content of the message I am being asked to create."
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
My lunch counter serves artisanal hand-crafted lunches that are an inherent expression of my deeply-seated moral objection to integrating the races. Actually my entire establishment is an artistic monument to segregation, letting black people in would violate my right to free expression.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:My lunch counter serves artisanal hand-crafted lunches that are an inherent expression of my deeply-seated moral objection to integrating the races. Be honest. A more analogous comparison is a lunch counter that allows in and serves everyone, but refuses to make any food that the owners think is "black." Is that racist and stupid and bigoted? gently caress yes. Can you get a court order to force them to make you chicken and waffles? I doubt it. gently caress, I don't intend to defend cake bigots. But acting like they won't serve gay people is not honest - I do believe that they would happily make a gay person a bithday cake. So their scruples really do seem to lie with the content of the product they sell rather than with the customer. If you have a legal argument why that sort of thing still counts as discrimination that doesn't also apply to the white power example I posted above, I'd love to hear it. I'd love to have a clear reason why the cake bigots are legally in the wrong as well as being morally in the wrong. The argument also has to apply to cake making services but not to officiating services, because any ruling that would force a priest to sanctify a wedding they believe is sinful is a ruling that the court will not countenance. There might be a legal way to thread that needle, but the room ro maneuver there is very slim. I think that if the cake bigots lose, it will be only in the narrowest of narrow rulings.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
I sure do love attending the church of cake
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 06:28
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Huh. You're right, that is a way better argument than the one I was thinking of. I have to revise my opinion of this case. I just went from thinking that it'll be a close decision strictly on partisan lines to thinking that we might well end up seeing a 7-2 or 8-1 in favor of the cake bigots. quote:This case is distinguishable from the Colorado Civil Rights Division’s recent findings that Azucar Bakery, Le Bakery Sensual, and Gateaux, Ltd., in Denver did not discriminate against a Christian patron on the basis of his creed when it refused his requests to create two bible-shaped cakes inscribed with derogatory messages about gays, including “Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:2.” The Division found that the bakeries did not refuse the patron’s request because of his creed, but rather because of the offensive nature of the requested message. Importantly, there was no evidence that the bakeries based their decisions on the patron’s religion, and evidence had established that all three regularly created cakes with Christian themes. Conversely, Masterpiece admits that its decision to refuse Craig’s and Mullins’ requested wedding cake was because of its opposition to same-sex marriage which, based on Supreme Court precedent, we conclude is tantamount to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. For the same reason, this case is distinguishable from a Kentucky trial court’s decision that a T-shirt printing company did not violate Lexington-Fayette County’s public accommodations ordinance when it refused to print T-shirts celebrating premarital romantic and sexual relationships among gays and lesbians. There, evidence established that the T-shirt printer treated homosexual and heterosexual groups alike. Id. Specifically, in the previous three years, the printer had declined several orders for T-shirts promoting premarital romantic and sexual relationships between heterosexual individuals, including those portraying strip clubs and sexually explicit videos. Id. Although the print shop, like Masterpiece, based its refusal on its opposition to a particular conduct — premarital sexual relationships — such conduct is not “exclusively or predominantly” engaged in by a particular class of people protected by a public accommodations statute. See Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263, 270 (1993). Opposition to premarital romantic and sexual relationships, unlike opposition to same-sex marriage, is not tantamount to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. So your example of a printer refusing to make a "White Power" slogan isn't discrimination based on race because having a political belief in white power isn't conduct exclusively or predominantly engaged in by white people and therefore refusing to print those beliefs is not tantamount to discriminating against white people as a class. A more apt analogy would be a printer refusing to make any design that incorporates light-skinned figures ("but we'll make you something else!"). That's pretty obviously going to predominantly affect white customers and would be tantamount to discriminating against them as a class.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 06:32
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Be honest. A more analogous comparison is a lunch counter that allows in and serves everyone, but refuses to make any food that the owners think is "black." Is that racist and stupid and bigoted? gently caress yes. Can you get a court order to force them to make you chicken and waffles? I doubt it. Yes they offered to make the couple other baked goods, it doesn't matter. If they refused to make wedding cakes for anyone gay or straight, then that would be a defense to a discrimination lawsuit by a gay couple. But that's not what happened. You can't offer wedding cakes to straight people and not gay people under Colorado law, just like you can't sell chicken and waffles to white people but not to black people. You can't give black people a different menu than you give white people. Jimbozig posted:The argument also has to apply to cake making services but not to officiating services, because any ruling that would force a priest to sanctify a wedding they believe is sinful is a ruling that the court will not countenance. Anti-discrimination law doesn't and has never applied to religious figures officiating services, this is a red herring. Catholic churches can refuse to perform a wedding ceremony for you if you're not Catholic. The Mormon church officially discriminated against black people in the priesthood until 1978, long after employment discrimination had been banned in non-religious settings by the Civil Rights Act. They could do it today 100% legally, the reason they stopped is because they were having a hard time proselytizing in non-white countries with a message of "btw God says you people aren't fit to be His priests, tithe generously now!" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:45 on Jun 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 06:38
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Be honest. A more analogous comparison is a lunch counter that allows in and serves everyone, but refuses to make any food that the owners think is "black." Is that racist and stupid and bigoted? gently caress yes. Can you get a court order to force them to make you chicken and waffles? I doubt it. That’s really not analogous. The cake in this analogy would have to have hardcore gay porn on it, or at least “MAN LOVE OKAY” on it. “Edith & Jacqueline” isn’t enough. But more importantly, white supremacists aren’t a protected class. I can tell white supremacists to GTFO of my establishment because they aren’t welcome there and there’s nothing they can do about it, legally. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 06:45 on Jun 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 06:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:having a political belief in white power isn't conduct exclusively or predominantly engaged in by white people Platystemon posted:But more importantly, white supremacists aren’t a protected class. I can tell white supremacists to GTFO of my establishment because they aren’t welcome there and there’s nothing they can do about it, legally. Are "gay marriage supporters" a protected class? Jimbozig fucked around with this message at 07:01 on Jun 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 06:58
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:That’s really not analogous. Yeah that's the other thing, according to the decision, he didn't even get to asking them what they wanted on the cake, he refused to make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple no matter what was on it. He might have a better defense, if say he objected to certain political or expressive elements "I won't put the HRC symbol or the pride flag on it, I won't put 'Colorado Marriage Equality Now' on it, I won't have two groom figures sodomizing a crying Jesus", especially if he could cite examples where straight people asked for a political slogan or symbol and he refused. That might make an interesting test case. But, funny enough, such a test case doesn't exists because (a) gay people's weddings aren't a malicious political attack on Christians with militant political cakes to match, and (b) even if they were, the bigots never get all the way to a point where they're objecting to specific speech, because their goal isn't their own freedom of expression, it's making GBS threads on and discriminating against gay people so they start doing that right out the gate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 07:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:gay people's weddings aren't a malicious political attack on Christians with militant political cakes to match Justice GORSUCH, Dissenting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 07:13
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Huh? Most of your post is very reasonable and I don't really have a strong disagreement with what you are saying, but this phrase stuck out. Are you really suggesting that white supremacist groups aren't exclusively or predominantly white?? Eh I think it goes both ways. White supremacist groups are obviously predominantly white, but joining a white power group isn't predominantly or exclusively how white people express their whiteness, so refusing to accommodate white power is not tantamount to discriminating against white people for the color of their skin. On the other hand, if an openly gay person gets married, they are obviously going to marry someone of the same sex so discriminating against same-sex marriages is tantamount to discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation. Jimbozig posted:Are "gay marriage supporters" a protected class? No. But that is irrelevant, because they were not discriminated against for their political support of gay marriage. By design: support for gay marriage is high enough among straight people that businesses can't really discriminate against supporters regardless of their particular sexual orientation. So he very specifically did not discriminate against wedding parties who support gay marriage politically, but only against those supporters who are actually entering a gay marriage themselves (ie, the gay ones). VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 07:55 on Jun 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 07:33
|
|
|
My concern is solely first amendment based. And to that end, I have to ask, does a cake count as speech? If the cake doesn't count as speech, does the message or do the figures on the cake constitute speech? It's a creative endeavor, there's really no way to argue that speech doesn't enter into it at some point in the process. If the cake does constitute speech, then saying that the baker has to bake the cake for the couple comes a little too close to compelling speech for me, and that's a whole different level of severity than regulating or prohibiting speech. The fundamental flaw with the ACA, as written, was that it compelled economic activity under the Commerce Clause. You can regulate economic activity, prohibit it altogether, but compelling activity is a power beyond that which the government can wield. I don't really see a way to avoid that fact. On the other hand, ideally you could just tie protected classes to compelled speech in the same way you can't refuse any economic service to a protected class, and I don't think that refusing a cake for a gay wedding is in any way different than a hotel refusing to hold an interracial marriage. I'm still concerned that this opens up a dangerous precedent wrt compelling speech in terms of political content, but I'm also not really sure how you can avoid that without causing unacceptable discrimination. It's, in my opinion, the best solution, but I'm not sure it's the correct one. It greatly weakens the strength of the first amendment, and I'm deeply and profoundly uncomfortable with that. The problem is obviously that gay people aren't a protected class, which would really make the whole thing easier. The Iron Rose fucked around with this message at 08:31 on Jun 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 08:29
|
|
Cat Army 
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 20:14 |
|
|
Sexual orientation is a protected class under Colorado law E: perhaps you meant suspect classification?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 08:35
|
|