Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[Gospel]

It improved the lives of all Americans.

 

[zorq]

They used the morally repugnant bullshit to keep Jim Crowe happy and healthy. If a restaurant owner, who is also the chef, says it goes against his "morals" to "cook for" an interracial couple, you're a-ok with that?

Why does the chef even know that we are an interracial couple? And how are our races reflected in dish produced?

I do not believe the chef gets to refuse.

Cooking adds personal art/infusion and is therefore protected by free speech. Chefs design their meals all the time.

IF there is routine customization of their output, tailored by and to the customer, then yes, it is art in this sense.... if their menu is their menu and customer requests for unique customization beyond replacement or removal of an ingredient is not made, then no, it is not. I have yet to find a restaurant that lets me write in an "other" category for my order... and "build your own burger" does not count, as it is just a multiple choice of pre-existing options. Can I add "extra big dick" to my Subways order and expect them to go find it for me, or am I limited to the choices on display?

You are underestimating the artistry that you can request from restaurant employees.
Consider these pizzas made by request.

11 "Special Instructions" For Pizza Delivery Places

<b>Many pizza delivery chains now let you include "special instructions" when you place an order online and apparently they'll adhere to the instructions no matter how inane they seem.</b> I admire their commitment, but I'm really curious how far the envelope can be pushed before they'll stop...

www.buzzfeed.com

"Draw a unicorn on the box"
"Cut into isosceles triangles"
"Cut into a pentagram"

Any business interested in discriminating now has a trivial out. Make the "special instructions" portion of the menu mandatory in order to do business with them and insist on some other personal information before an order will be processed.

You can ask subway for "extra big dick" and they can choose whether to give you "extra big dick" as they interpret it through their creative vision.

SHOCKING PHOTOS: Subway Worker Puts His Penis On Bread, Another Freezes Urine At Work

SHOCKING PHOTOS: Subway Worker Puts His Penis On Bread, Another Freezes Urine At Work

www.huffpost.com

 

[Toni]

Hello? It's not like there isn't precedent.

• A chef has created dishes that are inspired by their cultural heritage.
• A chef has created dishes that are designed to evoke a particular emotion or feeling.
• A chef has created dishes that are intended to make a political or social statement.

Auguste Escoffier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Of course creating new dishes or actually just cooking is creative. In the kitchen of a good chef, it is indeed a high art. But there is a difference between creating something for a general audience or even a specific one--and creating it to specifications for a particular client. That caliber of chef is creating something s/he is motivated to create, not something at the specific direction of just any person who walks in and says: You made my cousin a special dinner for his birthday now make ME one.

 

[Gospel]

Does your response indicate agreement with my earlier assessment that the ruling might potentially benefit chefs? I must confess, your reply wasn't quite clear to me.

 

[Elixir]

So, like, are you opposed to civil rights laws?

Hoo-wee. Unlimited willingness to infer extreme beliefs bespeaks emotional irrationality.
Civil rights laws were enabling, not restrictive. Right now, stirring this pot is going to give a more-than-eager and willing SCOTUS an excuse to send us back to the 1860s. Ask me again when Dems have full control of both houses of Congress plus the Presidency, and have gotten rid of the filibuster.
Maybe it’s good that the forefront of conversation is dominated right now by minutiae like what is or is not “creative” in cake decorating, instead of even more consequential matters that the corrupt court can use to force their regressive agenda.

 

[Gospel]

Well, would you look at that! I could have sworn I invited the Supreme Court and Congress. Somehow, they seem to be missing from this little gathering. How odd! Oh, I'm sure they'd just dust us with a pinch of deception and take off running. So, really, there's no need for us to dodge questions for them.

 

[Toni]

Does your response indicate agreement with my earlier assessment that the ruling might potentially benefit chefs? I must confess, your reply wasn't quite clear to me.

Yes, sorry.

 

[Gospel]

When a builder designs and constructs a home, they are essentially creating a work of art. They are using their creativity to shape the space and to create a home that is both functional and aesthetically pleasing. I suppose a General Contracting company with a religious owner can refuse to build a house for a client based on their religious beliefs.

 

[Copernicus]

Michigan Salon Owner Refuses to Serve LGBTQ+ Community Because of ‘Pedophiles’

She says because she believes that the “+” indicates “pedophiles,” she’s refusing to serve the “TQ+” community.

www.advocate.com

Some members of the LGBTQ+ community have been banned from a hair salon in Michigan in a breathtaking display of ignorance and bigotry.

The owner of Studio 8 Hair Lab, Christine Geiger, said in a Facebook post that she is exercising her right to free speech by refusing specific customers her services. She also compared gender-diverse people to animals, the Kansas City Star reports.

“If a human identifies as anything other than a man/woman, please seek services at a local pet groomer,” urged the hair salon owner. “You are not welcome at this salon. Period.”

The salon’s Facebook page was later deleted, and its Instagram profile was set to private. A description of the business on Instagram says it is “A private CONSERVATIVE business that does not cater to woke ideologies.”

A few days earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that a web designer was protected under the First Amendment from building a website for same-sex marriages if she refused to do so based on her beliefs.

“We are not bound to any oaths as realtors are regarding discrimination,” Geiger’s post on the salon’s page noted.

This is exactly the kind of behavior that I feared this new Supreme Court ruling would bring about. It's not that the ruling actually allows the hair salon to discriminate. It's that the business felt empowered by the ruling to start openly discriminating. I'm not at all surprised that this happened so soon after the ruling became news. A lot of people out there across the country are going to feel the same and start taking their own actions.

This is the problem with having a rogue Supreme Court that was essentially taken over by a political ideology. It is happening in other countries, too--e.g. Poland--and it demonstrates how the court system can be used to undermine and weaken democracy. Congress seems paralyzed, as usual, and the executive branch is still trying to figure out how it can pretend that everything will just work out in the end so that they don't have to deal with the mess.

 

[Gospel]

It reminds me of the classic complacency: 'They're not after me; they're after them.' That is, until the very threat you dismissed is marching down your street, pulling you out of your own home.

 

[Gospel]

Allow me to remind some folks that they used religion as an excuse against black people too.

 

[CosmicJellyfish]

So, like, are you opposed to civil rights laws?

Hoo-wee. Unlimited willingness to infer extreme beliefs bespeaks emotional irrationality.

Have you not been arguing that it is preferable to let bigotry decline organically through peer pressure rather than force the issue? Civil rights laws force the issue.

 

[zorq]

Allow me to remind some folks that they used religion as an excuse against black people too.

Yep, it would be pretty trivial for a FLDS service provider to insist that his religion prohibits him from serving unfortunate "animals" who have been "cursed with black skin"

 

[Elixir]

So, like, are you opposed to civil rights laws?

Hoo-wee. Unlimited willingness to infer extreme beliefs bespeaks emotional irrationality.

Have you not been arguing that it is preferable to let bigotry decline organically through peer pressure rather than force the issue? Civil rights laws force the issue.

Sure, “be a good guy” laws put a little pressure on the most sensitive segment of the asshole sector of society. But this tempest in a teapot is more of a gaslighting tool for the right than a progressive mechanism for the advancement of equality. I think most bigots are perfectly happy to let the landscape of progress be dominated by anthills like the urgency to understand what is or is not “creative” about cake decorating.
Yes, it is preferable that bigotry organically declines because those changes are real, whereas imposed modifications of behavior tend to create equal and opposite reactionary outcomes.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Allow me to remind some folks that they used religion as an excuse against black people too.

...and not limited to the 19th Century. Loving v Virginia wasn't 100 years ago. Lots of people are alive today that were alive when it came form! And religion was dead center in the State's defense of its law.

We are so backward, gay sex was deCRIMINALIZED not until the 21st century! Again, religion. It is just that gay is the new black. But maybe, with enough effort by enough activist judges, we can make black okay to discriminate again in the US. It'd be appalling, it'd be wrong, it'd set our nation back even further... but at least a bunch of evangelicals... I means racists will be able to sleep better at night knowing they can restrict access to services, privileges, and rights to a larger group of people.

 

[Gospel]

Yes, it is preferable that bigotry organically declines because those changes are real, whereas imposed modifications of behavior tend to create equal and opposite reactionary outcomes.

Our founding fathers shared a similar sentiment. They believed that the institution of slavery would naturally wane and eventually dissolve. In an effort to hasten its demise, they embedded a clause within the Constitution, decreeing the cessation of slave importation from a certain date. Unbeknownst to them, however, the advent of the cotton gin was imminent, a technological innovation that would dramatically boost the profitability of slavery. This development severely undercut their assumptions of a gradual, organic decline. Historical evidence thus clearly debunks such notions of a natural diminishment. What did not work in the past, has little likelihood of succeeding in the present. But thanks for trying to gin up discrimination.

Cheerio!

 

[Gospel]

If you personally wish to welcome discrimination, feel free to express this to anyone you meet, asserting your acceptance of prejudice based on sex, race, religion, or nationality. However, kindly refrain from including the rest of us in this narrative. We would appreciate it.

Regards,

 

[Elixir]

If you personally wish to welcome discrimination,

If you are addressing me, your admonition is sadly misplaced.

 

[Gospel]

If you personally wish to welcome discrimination,

If you are addressing me, your admonition is sadly misplaced.

This was directed towards anyone who harbors a favorable view of discrimination. It's reasonable to infer that such individuals may also find being on the receiving end of discrimination acceptable. As such, they should exercise their freedom to experience such discrimination, but should respect the rights of those who do not wish to be a part of it. There is no requirement to revoke the Civil Rights Act for them to face discrimination; they are free to seek it on their own without involving others.

 

[Elixir]

It’s those who need not seek it (discrimination) who most need and deserve consideration, whether legal or social.
I’m in favor of both, though highly skeptical about the effectiveness of legal “remedies” without the force of overwhelming social pressures.
YMMV, but my “off color” friends seem mostly resigned to that fact.