CosmicJellyfish
Gazpacho Police
No, I don't think any amount of discrimination against lgbt people is acceptable, and I don't think a single solitary inch should be given to fascists, ever.
-
Features
Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling
- Thread starter Copernicus
- Start date
Elixir
Made in America
Exactly what I've been saying. Such laws are an exercise in futility, albeit something to preoccupy the right. Only a strong social contract can enable that kind of law to hold sway over bigots. Just ask slumlord Donald Trump.
^That’s the kind of hyperbolic inference that renders a lot of LW anarchist types NWRT.
NO, I AM NOT OK WITH THAT.
And you knew it before you asked. Try some nuance: your hamfisted approach isn’t working, as you eagerly point out when convenient.
Do you genuinely perceive such laws only occupy the attention of the right? It seems you may have overlooked the historical victory of the left. If it weren't for the Civil Rights Act—a legislation that shields not just the left but also the right—there would be no safeguard to prevent the eventual decline of the right.
CosmicJellyfish
Gazpacho Police
Nope.
The issue is people keep seeing LGBT and thinking "well that's not me" so I have nothing to worry about.
TomC
Bless Your Heart!
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2020
- Messages
- 9,359
- Location
- Midwestern USA
- Gender
- Faggot
- Basic Beliefs
- Agnostic deist
That is not the issue says the non-theist faggot from deep red Jesustan.The issue is people keep seeing LGBT and thinking "well that's not me" so I have nothing to worry about.
Tom
There was a moment in history when America took steps towards offering reparations to African Americans. Yet, following the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, his successor (Andrew Johnson) retracted these measures, returning the land to those individuals who arguably did not merit survival post-war.
Of course, the argument often put forward is that the Union needed these individuals for the country's recovery. But this reasoning seems to reflect a lack of trust towards the African American population, who were then ex-slaves. It's as if they doubted that a population that had long suffered mistreatment and death wouldn't have been eager to seize control and exact some form of justice.
Now, in modern times, we find descendants of these same individuals resisting the notion of providing services such as baking cakes or designing websites for those they deem different, while their own history is marked by instances of mistreating those who were unlike them.
And still, many are quick to distance themselves from this history, asserting it isn't theirs. It's yours. It's yours as much as it is mine. The current societal dynamics underscore the reality that failure to confront and address past injustices can result in history repeating itself.
It won't be a cake walk for the "right" this time though.
Cheerio!
It's your turn.
Of course, the argument often put forward is that the Union needed these individuals for the country's recovery. But this reasoning seems to reflect a lack of trust towards the African American population, who were then ex-slaves. It's as if they doubted that a population that had long suffered mistreatment and death wouldn't have been eager to seize control and exact some form of justice.
Now, in modern times, we find descendants of these same individuals resisting the notion of providing services such as baking cakes or designing websites for those they deem different, while their own history is marked by instances of mistreating those who were unlike them.
And still, many are quick to distance themselves from this history, asserting it isn't theirs. It's yours. It's yours as much as it is mine. The current societal dynamics underscore the reality that failure to confront and address past injustices can result in history repeating itself.
It won't be a cake walk for the "right" this time though.
Cheerio!
Yes it is.That is not the issue says the non-theist faggot from deep red Jesustan.The issue is people keep seeing LGBT and thinking "well that's not me" so I have nothing to worry about.
Tom
It's your turn.
CosmicJellyfish
Gazpacho Police
You were upset with me earlier for asking if you're opposed to civil rights laws, and yet you just called the Civil Rights Act of 1964 an exercise in futility.
Do you think America's civil rights laws have accomplished anything? Have they been good, bad, or useless? Do you think minorities in this country would be better off had we not passed civil rights laws?
This is just a really weird thing to say. Egalitarianism is the one fundamental, overarching principle that is central to left-wing politics.
Trump was sued and had to change his business practices as a result.
Two years later, they settled by agreeing to rent one of every four vacant apartments in some neighborhoods to blacks, according to a New York Times account from the time.
'Not Wanted': Black applicants turned down for Trump housing speak out
Litigation sparked by discrimination allegations stretched into the mid-1980s.www.nbcnews.com
Here's what you said:
How else is one supposed to interpret you calling anything that isn't food, shelter, or clothing a "nonessential frivolity"?
I'm not an anarchist. I'm just a person who prefers the status-quo that existed for 80 years before this SCOTUS ruling. A ruling that was handed down Federalist Society judges, brought forth by a religious fundie, and backed by the Christian fascist organization Alliance Defending Freedom.
CosmicJellyfish
Gazpacho Police
Candace Owens also exists. Is that supposed to mean something?That is not the issue says the non-theist faggot from deep red Jesustan.The issue is people keep seeing LGBT and thinking "well that's not me" so I have nothing to worry about.
Tom
Elixir
Made in America
quote please. I did not characterize the Civil Rights Act in any way whatsoever.
Read for comprehension, and stop your hyperbolic inferences!
More of your bullshit. I called decoratorgate a nonessential frivolity. If that gets your panties in a bunch, welcome to my ignore list. You have some good things to say when you’re not trying to vanquish imagined opposition. Too bad.
Then stop using their dishonest rhetorical stupidity and learn to read what others say, not what you can wish them into having said.
My assertion is that equal services should be extended to all protected classes without discrimination. If the provision of tailored services cannot be uniformly available to all such classes, then perhaps such specialized services shouldn't be offered at all.
Edit: My sentiments align not just with personal belief, but also with the rule of law. The accusation stands that you appear to be manipulating legal interpretations to fit your viewpoint. Specifically, you are extrapolating the First Amendment, which safeguards citizens from governmental overreach, to insulate individuals from their fellow citizens. This application seems quite absurd and deviates from the original intent of the law.
Edit: Furthermore, it's a privilege to provide tailored services. Not a right.
Elixir
Made in America
I don’t think there is any argument about that.
That’s an interesting take. How is such privilege earned? If ayone can just do it and call it a privilege, it’s not really a privilege IMO. But being able to treat it as such, if that’s possible, would likely be a good thing.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," is often referred to as the Establishment Clause & has been interpreted to mean that the government cannot establish an official religion or favor one religion over another.
It works in conjunction with the Free Exercise Clause "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" to ensure freedom of religion in the United States, protecting the rights of citizens to practice their religion (or to not practice any religion) without interference from the government. This has been interpreted by the courts to mean that the government cannot interfere with an individual's religious beliefs or practices, unless the government can show that there is a compelling government interest in doing so.
Considering the weight of the Civil Rights Act and the significant historical events that necessitated its enactment? The government has a compelling argument.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," is often referred to as the Establishment Clause & has been interpreted to mean that the government cannot establish an official religion or favor one religion over another.
It works in conjunction with the Free Exercise Clause "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" to ensure freedom of religion in the United States, protecting the rights of citizens to practice their religion (or to not practice any religion) without interference from the government. This has been interpreted by the courts to mean that the government cannot interfere with an individual's religious beliefs or practices, unless the government can show that there is a compelling government interest in doing so.
Considering the weight of the Civil Rights Act and the significant historical events that necessitated its enactment? The government has a compelling argument.
I see we're dwelling on the term 'privilege', which appears to be a point of contention for you. Perhaps it would be more productive to identify where the Constitution explicitly grants individuals the right to conduct business or provide services.
I'd like to further underscore the substantial justification the government possesses for upholding the Civil Rights Act. Indeed, the very enactment of the Civil Rights Act was rooted in the government's compelling need to address and rectify deep-seated inequalities. It itself was the result of a compelling argument.
Shadowy Man
Contributor
In Deuteronomy, the 11th commandment says “thou shalt make wedding websites”, therefore running a business *can* be an exercise of religion.
That's an amusing yet thought-provoking point. Given that the Constitution mentions 'established religion,' and with Christianity, by nature, grounded in the Bible, it's a plausible assumption that the Bible should guide a website creator's conduct to avoid any spiritual conflict arising from creating a website inconsistent with their faith.
This supposition is entirely hypothetical and neglects to consider the well-established constitutional precedents and Civil Rights legislation, which lay out explicit guidelines on this issue.
Ephesians 4:29 (New International Version): "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen."
This supposition is entirely hypothetical and neglects to consider the well-established constitutional precedents and Civil Rights legislation, which lay out explicit guidelines on this issue.
Ephesians 4:29 (New International Version): "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen."
Shadowy Man
Contributor
to me, the question is whether making a website is itself a religious exercise. Can we point to anything in the Bible or other relevant theological sources/guidelines that show that running a business is itself an exercise of religion? If not, it would seem that running a business is a personal choice and if adhering to government regulations of businesses goes against the tenets of your religion it would seem you’d have to sacrifice the business because those regulations are not infringements of your exercising of religion.
The argument here is that their business practices are an extension of their religious life and should be protected as such. My counterargument would be that, at the very least, they should publicly declare their religious alignment through commercial advertising prior to any legal proceedings of this nature. Only then might they possess legitimate grounds for a claim.
Edit: With a real not faked injury of course.
Edit: With a real not faked injury of course.
They understand perfectly well that a transgender couple is unlikely to enter a markedly Christian establishment, expecting, with government support, to obtain personalized services. This effectively answers the commonly posed question, 'Why would you want them to make your cake or design your website?' The reason is simple: these businesses do not openly advertise their religious orientation. Quite a straightforward explanation, really!