• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

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.
"Tempest in a teapot?"

We're talking about literal segregation. If a gay couple has to go to ten photographers to find someone who will photograph them, that's segregation. And yes, even if they eventually find someone willing to photograph them, it's still segregation. We call that "separate but equal".


How many of your fellow Americans are you willing to throw under the bus to appease Christian fascists? My number is ZERO, because a) it's morally indefensible and inexcusable, and b) there is no appeasing fascists.

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.
You're arguing against civil rights laws again. Civil rights laws impose modifications of behavior.

Do you think America's civil rights laws have had a net positive, negative, or neutral effect on American society? Do you think minorities in the US would be better off had we not passed civil rights laws?


Yes, there is always a backlash anytime a minority makes progress in this country. Does that mean we shouldn't bother?
 
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.
I have yet to have my steak talk back to me.
So, no digestive problems then? If not, you are simply ignoring the completely and always agreeable communications afforded you by artistic endeavours of those who have prepared your steaks. You pick the steak, but unless you cook it yourself, the chef makes it into food for you--some chefs take micromanaging suggestions, others don't. Last week I tried to be more precise than the mild, medium, hot options for the jambalaya I ordered, but the waiter refused to take anything more precise back to the chef. Fortunately the chef's resultant concoction tasted good and spicy but didn't inflame my innards, the way some spicy culinary concoctions can.
 
I do know is that "No N***** Allowed" signs were normal and commonplace in the US pre-Civil Rights Era.
But they’re not now, are they?
I don’t think you can legislate bigotry out of existence, but you definitely CAN shame racists into suppressing their racism until they can get over it.
Accurate if it read:
"You can shame racists into suppressing their racism if they fear serious interpersonal, social, economic consequences for expressing it."
 
Here are some tips for experiencing discrimination for those who need guidance.
  1. In the job application process, consider filling in your protected class (e.g., race, gender, religion) as your sole qualifications and skills. Since those predisposed to discrimination might judge your abilities based solely on these traits, you could find yourself overlooked for anyone who actually listed relevant skills and qualifications.
  2. In a retail setting, it's required to stand in line and wait your turn. However, if you seek to experience discrimination, you could opt to not join the queue. After a long wait, when you eventually leave unserved because you didn't stand in line, you can consider this an instance of 'discrimination', since some citizens with disabilities can't literally stand in line.
  3. If you're interested in personally feeling the sting of harassment due to your protected class, you could invite everyone around you - family, friends, strangers, and coworkers - to make incessant jokes about your protected class.
  4. To potentially experience wage discrimination, based on your protected class you could insist on being paid less than your counterparts, even if you perform at the same level or better, simply based on your protected class.
  5. ) You can also tell everyone you got into collaged because of affirmative action and they'll assume you didn't earn your way there. That's not an easy one though.
Cheerio!
 
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.
I have yet to have my steak talk back to me.
So, no digestive problems then? If not, you are simply ignoring the completely and always agreeable communications afforded you by artistic endeavours of those who have prepared your steaks. You pick the steak, but unless you cook it yourself, the chef makes it into food for you--some chefs take micromanaging suggestions, others don't. Last week I tried to be more precise than the mild, medium, hot options for the jambalaya I ordered, but the waiter refused to take anything more precise back to the chef. Fortunately the chef's resultant concoction tasted good and spicy but didn't inflame my innards, the way some spicy culinary concoctions can.
Suggesting that a chef making a dish a certain way is speech reminds me of other stupid SC decisions we are still suffering under, like money is speech and corporations are people.
 
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.
I have yet to have my steak talk back to me.
So, no digestive problems then? If not, you are simply ignoring the completely and always agreeable communications afforded you by artistic endeavours of those who have prepared your steaks. You pick the steak, but unless you cook it yourself, the chef makes it into food for you--some chefs take micromanaging suggestions, others don't. Last week I tried to be more precise than the mild, medium, hot options for the jambalaya I ordered, but the waiter refused to take anything more precise back to the chef. Fortunately the chef's resultant concoction tasted good and spicy but didn't inflame my innards, the way some spicy culinary concoctions can.
Suggesting that a chef making a dish a certain way is speech reminds me of other stupid SC decisions we are still suffering under, like money is speech and corporations are people.

Indeed it qualifies as free speech. As outlined by the Constitution, such speech ought to be primarily protected from governmental censorship or suppression. However, it can not be (per the Civil Rights Act) invoked as a justification for refusing service to citizens in public spaces.
 
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.
I have yet to have my steak talk back to me.
So, no digestive problems then? If not, you are simply ignoring the completely and always agreeable communications afforded you by artistic endeavours of those who have prepared your steaks. You pick the steak, but unless you cook it yourself, the chef makes it into food for you--some chefs take micromanaging suggestions, others don't. Last week I tried to be more precise than the mild, medium, hot options for the jambalaya I ordered, but the waiter refused to take anything more precise back to the chef. Fortunately the chef's resultant concoction tasted good and spicy but didn't inflame my innards, the way some spicy culinary concoctions can.
Suggesting that a chef making a dish a certain way is speech reminds me of other stupid SC decisions we are still suffering under, like money is speech and corporations are people.

Indeed it qualifies as free speech. As outlined by the Constitution, such speech ought to be primarily protected from governmental censorship or suppression. However, it can not be (per the Civil Rights Act) invoked as a justification for refusing service to citizens in public spaces.
Seems to me that it's a product that can be trademarked and copyrighted but not considered speech.
 
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.


"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.

So then anything anyone does under their own power is "art" and exempt... like writing words on a page.. or taking a shit... nothing is not art, so therefore nothing is "specially excluded"? Or everything anyone can do is art and everything is excluded from laws limiting unbounded first ammendment expression... like racism and other discriminations... my writing the N-W3rd in my personal manner excludes it from being hate. What other crimes may I commit against society because my doing of it makes it "art"?
 
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.

It does seem extremely ironic that bigotry is almost always fueled by the perception of the privileged and entitled social classes that they are now the victims of discrimination. It seems obvious in the way these conservative justices look at something like affirmative action, which so many people confuse with a quota system, and see it as a form of racial prejudice. Even Thomas, who would not even be on the Court were it not for affirmative action programs. It is so ironic that he started out in Black Panther drag and ended up being the exact opposite of his earlier self.
 
I do know is that "No N***** Allowed" signs were normal and commonplace in the US pre-Civil Rights Era.
But they’re not now, are they?
I don’t think you can legislate bigotry out of existence, but you definitely CAN shame racists into suppressing their racism until they can get over it.
Accurate if it read:
"You can shame racists into suppressing their racism if they fear serious interpersonal, social, economic consequences for expressing it."
Laws work too - if people are inclined to obey them.
 
What message is this conveying?

Small_plates.jpg


Maybe it's "I ate it and I'm still hungry."
 
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.
I have yet to have my steak talk back to me.
So, no digestive problems then? If not, you are simply ignoring the completely and always agreeable communications afforded you by artistic endeavours of those who have prepared your steaks. You pick the steak, but unless you cook it yourself, the chef makes it into food for you--some chefs take micromanaging suggestions, others don't. Last week I tried to be more precise than the mild, medium, hot options for the jambalaya I ordered, but the waiter refused to take anything more precise back to the chef. Fortunately the chef's resultant concoction tasted good and spicy but didn't inflame my innards, the way some spicy culinary concoctions can.
Suggesting that a chef making a dish a certain way is speech reminds me of other stupid SC decisions we are still suffering under, like money is speech and corporations are people.

Indeed it qualifies as free speech. As outlined by the Constitution, such speech ought to be primarily protected from governmental censorship or suppression. However, it can not be (per the Civil Rights Act) invoked as a justification for refusing service to citizens in public spaces.
Seems to me that it's a product that can be trademarked and copyrighted but not considered speech.

It's called commercial speech. Commercial speech refers to any form of verbal or written communication initiated by a business with the primary aim of generating income or profit. Typically geared towards stimulating consumer interest, it predominantly seeks to influence potential customers into availing the products or services offered by the enterprise. The Supreme Court of the United States characterizes commercial speech as any dialogue that proposes or implies a commercial transaction.

Undeniably, not every chef designs their culinary offerings with the specific intention to attract religious conservatives or to market their restaurants and products towards this demographic. Similarly, not all chefs gear their promotional efforts towards appealing to patrons who are staunch supporters of the Civil Rights Act (especially those gosh darn uppity negros). Every chef has a unique approach to their craft and an individual vision for their patron base, which may or may not include these specific groups.

I highlight this issue to emphasize the profound folly associated with tampering with the Civil Rights Act by way of the 1st Amendment. Corporations, too, enjoy the privilege of protected speech!
 
Limiting the application of protected speech exclusively to religious and faith-based discourse exhibits a clear bias towards religion. Such an action would undoubtedly contravene the principles of the U.S. Constitution, which mandates impartiality and freedom for all forms of speech.
 
And yes, even if they eventually find someone willing to photograph them, it's still segregation.
If? Eventually?
I suppose that if you’re a black person in a lily white area full of ignorants - or vice versa - it’s possible that your pursuit of a willing photographer could be frustrated. If it was food, your point would seem pretty compelling. But in your example any segregation involved is initiated and enforced by individuals, to the trivial outcome of delaying the critical 125th of a second, and while the idea of outlawing it has some appeal, the idea of enforcing it gives me the creeps. People should be allowed to live in fantasy bubbles of their own creation as long as they don’t actively impinge on others’ rights. I don’t think that hanging a shingle for some nonessential frivolity confers any impotant rights on anyone else unless it’s food, shelter, clothing or other necessities.
In an ideal world, compelling any business serving any “public” to actually serve the public, should be a legal no brainer. But it’s a handy, irrelevant battleground of distraction for the extreme right, in the current climate.
 
It's called commercial speech. Commercial speech refers to any form of verbal or written communication initiated by a business with the primary aim of generating income or profit.
So what is the verbal or written communication in a plate of food?
 
We have cases of Republican attempts to compel the speech of teachers all over America when it comes to teaching history in their classrooms. The most egregious cases seem to be coming out of Florida, where individuals can ask school libraries to remove books whose content they find offensive. The same people who are applauding the current SCOTUS decision to let businesses exercise their freedom to discriminate will likely see a huge difference in forcing public schools to whitewash history books and make it a crime to speak the truth about racism in the classroom.

ETA: Texas is competing with Florida to get its governor the Republican 2024 presidential nomination. Here is a story that shows the lengths to which they will go to compel university faculty to toe their ideological line on race:

A&M recruited UT professor, but changed offer



The university set up maroon, silver and white balloons around a table outside its Academic Building for an official signing ceremony. It was there that Kathleen O. McElroy, a respected journalist with a long career, officially accepted the position to run the new program and teach as a tenured professor, pending approval from the Texas A&M University System Board of Regents.

McElroy, a 1981 Texas A&M graduate, was the director of the University of Texas School of Journalism between 2016 and 2022. She is a tenured professor at UT. Before that, she spent 20 years in various editing roles at The New York Times until heading to UT to pursue her doctorate.

...

But in the last several weeks, McElroy told The Texas Tribune, the deal with Texas A&M fell apart.

In the days after the signing ceremony, she said, A&M employees told her an increasingly vocal network of constituents within the system were expressing issues with her experience at the Times and with her work on race and diversity in newsrooms, McElroy said.

Behind the scenes, A&M spent weeks altering the terms of her job. After hearing about the concerns, McElroy agreed to a five-year contract position without tenure, which would have avoided a review by regents. On Sunday, she received a third offer, this time with a one-year contract and emphasizing that the appointment was at will and that she could be terminated at any time. She has rejected the offer and shared all of the offer letters with the Tribune.

The situation comes at a fraught time at Texas public universities. Schools are preparing for a new state law to go into effect in January that bans offices, programs and training that promote diversity, equity and inclusion. Recently, the Texas A&M System started a systemwide audit of all DEI offices in response to the new law.

...


On Sunday, she received the latest iteration of an offer letter, which was different from the one she publicly signed on campus. Texas A&M was now offering her a one-year contract as a professor without tenure, and a three-year appointment as the director of the journalism program, though it noted that she could be fired at any time, she said.

“This offer letter on Sunday really makes it clear that they don’t want me there,” she said. “But in no shape, form or fashion would I give up a tenured position at UT for a one-year contract that emphasizes that you can be let go at any point.”

Weeks after the public celebration about the new A&M position, she has rescinded her resignation at UT and will stay in Austin, according to an email sent to that school’s journalism department Tuesday morning and obtained by the Tribune.

In a statement, Bermúdez said Texas A&M policy does not allow him to comment on personnel deliberations.

“However, we can confirm that Dr. McElroy has an offer in hand and that we have not been notified her plans have changed – we hope that’s not the case. We certainly regret any misunderstanding that may have taken place,” he said in a statement.
 
But in your example any segregation involved is initiated and enforced by individuals, to the trivial outcome of delaying the critical 125th of a second, and while the idea of outlawing it has some appeal, the idea of enforcing it gives me the creeps.
Can you explain how you arrived at 125th of a second for someone to try and fail at 4 photographers?

Or, even one?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: jab
But in your example any segregation involved is initiated and enforced by individuals, to the trivial outcome of delaying the critical 125th of a second, and while the idea of outlawing it has some appeal, the idea of enforcing it gives me the creeps.
Can you explain how you arrived at 125th of a second for someone to try and fail at 4 photographers?
You're saying the delay is non-trivial.
I would ask, compared to what?*

Anyhow, I'm becoming more ambivalent about pursuing the political/legal case, due to some nuances raised here (tyvm) but want to point out:
The 125th of a second that "counts" is supposedly a better 125th of a second than a random one, which is why you'd hire a photographer. Personally, when I was a longhair hippie freak outlaw in the 60s, I'm pretty sure that a photo by another longhaired hippie freak outlaw would have elicited a more desirable expression than Smokey the Alabama State Trooper would have gotten, even give his best of intentions and capability. And you never know who spit in your cake frosting.
When it comes to picking battles, Portrait Postponement or Cake Decoration services, though not my choice, are not not bad things to engage, I suppose. But it's also not going to produce a significant desirable outcome outside of supplanting whatever other mischief might otherwise emerge in the current er, climate.
I totally understand that this is one of an intentional, co-ordinated thousand cuts against minority groups' rights, and that the cumulative effects are insidious and strong. The whole effort by the right is intended to erode from minorities, rights that reliably accrue to privileged white people and right now it's working. That's why I can rationalize going after this one as a delaying tactic. Hopefully the teapot gets shaken occasionally, and the tempest continues, as far as that goes. I don't expect the next 18 months to bring anything much good on the social/economic equality front, and if things don't go well in late '24 I truly believe we (well, not me; just a whole lot of people I know and love and a lot of people I don't know) are screwed for probably at least 20+ years. When these RW extremist jokers get hold of sufficient power, they will use it to do whatever it takes to ensure their monopoly for the foreseeable future. They basically say as much.
If decorator-gate drives purple State Dem voters to the polls in 2024, I'm all about it for that.



* Maybe I'm a little touchy on the point at the moment. In this rural area, services can be ... uh ... somewhat thin. My last post was from Gunnison (second time within a few days, after Wonder's Saturday night debacle) and I was dodging Texan gawkers both ways today. That, because despite boasting the biggest baddest rural medical facility in the region less than ten minutes away by slow drive, there's no ortho hand specialist there who is confident enough to inject the MCP joint. So it's 2-3 hours in the car for a simple five minute procedure. My primary doc was confident enough to inject the CMC end of the metacarpal but not the other end.
The Medical Center does have massive turnover of high end personnel and I'm sure that plenty of people have come and gone who could have done the procedure, but right now I'm like wtf?
 
Back
Top Bottom