Support NeoGAF

[Shamylov]

Fair enough. Then I applaud the bakers decision to stop making wedding cakes.

I suppose then, that the supreme court will have a tough time considering that right against the religious freedom right.

It has already been explained but the baker's religious freedom is not being infringed by not allowing him to discriminate. He is free to practice his religion however he sees fit unless it breaks the law.

What you seem to be arguing is that you disagree that people should be protected against discrimination based on their sexual orientation. The Jim Crow era is a good example of businesses being allowed to discriminate against marginalized people. We have no good reason to go back to that.

 

[DEATH™]

This video is relevant to this discussion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4

 

[Shamylov]

This video is relevant to this discussion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4

This video is not relevant to the discussion. We don't need to rope in islamophobia into this.

If you have any arguments you want to present then make them yourself and don't just link to a video, please.

 

[Deleted member 713885]

Nobody should be forced to do anything they dont want to, including at their place of beusiness.

Welcome to the new Progressive Nazi Left.

 

[Big Blue]

Nobody should be forced to do anything they dont want to, including at their place of beusiness.

Welcome to the new Progressive Nazi Left.

Let me guess, you're a straight white male. Owning a business is a privilege, not a right.

 

[DEATH™]

This video is not relevant to the discussion. We don't need to rope in islamophobia into this.

If you have any arguments you want to present then make them yourself and don't just link to a video, please.

It IS RELEVANT because it's literally this case, but its muslim-oriented bakeries instead of christians.

Should the muslim oriented bakery should be punished by law if they do not make a cake for gays?

And if you argue that no gays will come to force a muslim bakery to bake cakes for them, why does it not applied for christians too?

 

[Zog]

Let me guess, you're a straight white male. Owning a business is a privilege, not a right.

Why do you hate straight white males so much that you assign opinions you don't like to them?

 

[Big Blue]

Why do you hate straight white males so much that you assign opinions you don't like to them?

Where did you get the idea that I hate them? I don't hate them, nor did I assign an opinion. I just made a a guess at his demographic profile. But it was an easy guess seeing as he doesn't have the slightest idea of what discrimination is and doesn't see how harmful letting business owners discriminate freely is to the minority.

 

[Shamylov]

It IS RELEVANT because it's literally this case, but its muslim-oriented bakeries instead of christians.

Should the muslim oriented bakery should be punished by law if they do not make a cake for gays?

And if you argue that no gays will come to force a muslim bakery to bake cakes for them, why does it not applied for christians too?

The core of my argument is that the baker should not be allowed to discriminate against the same-sex couple because of their sexual orientation, regardless of whether his reason is explained because of his religion or not.

The baker being Muslim doesn't change this argument at all and it seems to me that the intent of the video author is to direct criticism towards the Muslims. I won't entertain this thinly-veiled attempt at islamophobia any further than this.

 

[Deleted member 713885]

Let me guess, you're a straight white male. Owning a business is a privilege, not a right.

So whats being a straight white male have do with anything?

 

[Breads]

Why do you hate straight white males so much that you assign opinions you don't like to them?

It's a tenet of my religion. Back off.

 

[CampbellzSoup]

Let me guess, you're a straight white male. Owning a business is a privilege, not a right.

Why are trying to categorize him based on his race for his opinions?

 

[DEATH™]

The core of my argument is that the baker should not be allowed to discriminate against the same-sex couple because of their sexual orientation, regardless of whether his reason is explained because of his religion or not.

The baker being Muslim doesn't change this argument at all and it seems to me that the intent of the video author is to direct criticism towards the Muslims. I won't entertain this thinly-veiled attempt at islamophobia any further than this.

Then you pretty much deny a muslim's rights to practice his beliefs by punishing him (by lawsuits and fines). That is directly denying the muslim his 1st Amendment rights by punishing him for his religion. That position has more Islamophobic consequences than what you claim the other things are.

 

[Shamylov]

Then you pretty much deny a muslim's rights to practice his beliefs by punishing him (by lawsuits and fines). That is directly denying the muslim his 1st Amendment rights by punishing him for his religion. That position has more Islamophobic consequences than what you claim the other things are.

Ok, we are going way back to square one now. The baker is allowed to practice his religion however he wants, except when it's an excuse to violate the protections given by the constitution to marginalized groups.

This has nothing to do with islamophobia or religion, but with unlawful discrimination.

 

[Big Blue]

Then you pretty much deny a muslim's rights to practice his beliefs by punishing him (by lawsuits and fines). That is directly denying the muslim his 1st Amendment rights by punishing him for his religion. That position has more Islamophobic consequences than what you claim the other things are.

So what's your opinion on Sharia law?

 

[DEATH™]

Ok, we are going way back to square one now. The baker is allowed to practice his religion however he wants, except when it's an excuse to violate the protections given by the constitution to marginalized groups.

This has nothing to do with islamophobia or religion, but with unlawful discrimination.

But you are making marginalized group out of people who practice specific religion.

YES IT COMES AROUND. Because such position tells people they cannot practice their religion, whose part of their identity as a person (Whether christian, muslim or religious jew). And that is directly fighting the 1st Amendment.

Why is it hard to not just let the market work and just not support such business you disagree with, and make businesses that support your beliefs give you service?

So what's your opinion on Sharia law?

Define Sharia Law. What does it represent? What does it say? What does it do?

 

[Shamylov]

But you are making marginalized group out of people who practice specific religion.

YES IT COMES AROUND. Because such position tells people they cannot practice their religion, whose part of their identity as a person (Whether christian, muslim or religious jew). And that is directly fighting the 1st Amendment.

Why is it hard to not just let the market work and just not support such business you disagree with, and make businesses that support your beliefs give you service?

It was already provided in a previous page by Robido that there is legal precedent to disregard the religious freedom argument when it comes to violating the law. Religious freedom should not be used as a weapon to discriminate against marginalized groups, as the baker is trying to do. Any other aspects of religious practice are still allowed.

With regards to letting the free market handle this, I think it's better for the same-sex couple to stand up for their rights and further the cause of marginalized groups deserving protection under the law.

 

[Big Blue]

It was already provided in a previous page by Robido that there is legal precedent to disregard the religious freedom argument when it comes to violating the law. Religious freedom should not be used as a weapon to discriminate against marginalized groups, as the baker is trying to do. Any other aspects of religious practice are still allowed.

With regards to letting the free market handle this, I think it's better for the same-sex couple to stand up for their rights and further the cause of marginalized groups deserving protection under the law.

Sharia law advocates capital punishment for the commitment of sins. According to you, under the first amendment it should be allowed.

 

[DEATH™]

It was already provided in a previous page by Robido that there is legal precedent to disregard the religious freedom argument when it comes to violating the law. Religious freedom should not be used as a weapon to discriminate against marginalized groups, as the baker is trying to do. Any other aspects of religious practice are still allowed.

With regards to letting the free market handle this, I think it's better for the same-sex couple to stand up for their rights and further the cause of marginalized groups deserving protection under the law.

The problem was I can also say the same to the gay couple. Why not force a muslim or jew baker to bake your cake? Why it's the christian? You also set a MUCH WORSE precedent if you do the other way. You can literally sue christian charities (like that suit for the Little Sisters for the Poor), muslim businesses and other religious groups and businesses.

Sharia law advocates capital punishment for the commitment of sins. According to you, under the first amendment it should be allowed.

There is a reason the 2nd Amendment exist after the 1st. If one group crosses that line from civil discourse to tyranny and FORCEFULLY make you obey their laws AT GUNPOINT, we the people have the right to defend ourselves.

2nd Amendment is a political deterrent that prevents people and governments to force people their beliefs on each other, as it is the great equalizer.

 

[Night Angel]

The problem was I can also say the same to the gay couple. Why not force a muslim or jew baker to bake your cake? Why it's the christian? You also set a MUCH WORSE precedent if you do the other way. You can literally sue christian charities (like that suit for the Little Sisters for the Poor), muslim businesses and other religious groups and businesses.

The religion of the baker is entirely irrelevant when it comes to whether or not they can discriminate against a gay couple or other marginalized groups. You are not presenting a viewpoint with any merit.

It's the same goddamned precedent. You can't discriminate against a protected class for any reason. The name of your imaginary friend doesn't matter a single bit.

 

[7echnicolor]

Nobody should be forced to do anything they dont want to, including at their place of beusiness.

Welcome to the new Progressive Nazi Left.

Please educate yourself on what running a business entails and then come back to this topic. You clearly have no experience.

It IS RELEVANT because it's literally this case, but its muslim-oriented bakeries instead of christians.

Should the muslim oriented bakery should be punished by law if they do not make a cake for gays?

And if you argue that no gays will come to force a muslim bakery to bake cakes for them, why does it not applied for christians too?

Yes, they should be. That’s what we call...discrimination.

 

[Big Blue]

The problem was I can also say the same to the gay couple. Why not force a muslim or jew baker to bake your cake? Why it's the christian? You also set a MUCH WORSE precedent if you do the other way. You can literally sue christian charities (like that suit for the Little Sisters for the Poor), muslim businesses and other religious groups and businesses.



There is a reason the 2nd Amendment exist after the 1st. If one group crosses that line from civil discourse to tyranny and FORCEFULLY make you obey their laws AT GUNPOINT, we the people have the right to defend ourselves.

2nd Amendment is a political deterrent that prevents people and governments to force people their beliefs on each other, as it is the great equalizer.

LOL, I've read everything, this takes the cake. The 2nd amendment was created to deter things like the Sharia law...really?????? Are you serious??

LAWS were created as deterrents and punishments.. Not the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment was created in order to allow citizens and states to form militias.

My point is the fact that federal, state and local laws are sovereign over Sharia law, proving that the freedom of religion is not absolute.

 

[Shamylov]

The problem was I can also say the same to the gay couple. Why not force a muslim or jew baker to bake your cake? Why it's the christian? You also set a MUCH WORSE precedent if you do the other way. You can literally sue christian charities (like that suit for the Little Sisters for the Poor), muslim businesses and other religious groups and businesses.



There is a reason the 2nd Amendment exist after the 1st. If one group crosses that line from civil discourse to tyranny and FORCEFULLY make you obey their laws AT GUNPOINT, we the people have the right to defend ourselves.

2nd Amendment is a political deterrent that prevents people and governments to force people their beliefs on each other, as it is the great equalizer.

I already explained that the religion of the baker doesn't factor into whether he should be allowed to discriminate or not.

Also, we are not discussing charities here, only businesses; these are separate entities. If you want to move the discussion to charities then they have to become relevant or you have to cede the argument for businesses to discriminate and bring up a reason to then discuss charities.

 

[DEATH™]

The religion of the baker is entirely irrelevant when it comes to whether or not they can discriminate against a gay couple or other marginalized groups. You are not presenting a viewpoint with any merit.

It's the same goddamned precedent. You can't discriminate against a protected class for any reason. The name of your imaginary friend doesn't matter a single bit.

This is exactly why its a bad optics to the LGBT community. Why is that LGBT person can be considered a protected class, and other people don't? That last statement implied that you do not care about the other people's rights as long as you stay as the "protected" class. This argument portray the LGBT community as the bullies in this moment, and a jury will much more likely side against LGBT with this.

LOL, I've read everything. The 2nd amendment was created to deter things Sharia law...really??????

So since the 2nd amendment is good enough, why have laws???

If Sharia "Law" means 1 group enforce a law (which in this context is forced by a group of people, a form of government), yes.

The point of 2nd Amendment is , if a group of people wants to force their way onto another, that another group can shoot back, and even crush the other group.

Imagine, what if Soviet Russia are the only one who have nukes? they can literally rule the world. Why is there every single country have at least a armed force? If you don't, other countries will bully you. With a form of defense, it forces ALL sides to be on civil discourse or risk a war.

 

[Big Blue]

This is exactly why its a bad optics to the LGBT community. Why is that LGBT person can be considered a protected class, and other people don't? That last statement implied that you do not care about the other people's rights as long as you stay as the "protected" class. This argument portray the LGBT community as the bullies in this moment, and a jury will much more likely side against LGBT with this.

My goodness, there is no jury involved in this and the baker already lost the original case AND got rejected at the appellate level. What happened to our education? Assuming you're American..

 

[Shamylov]

This is exactly why its a bad optics to the LGBT community. Why is that LGBT person can be considered a protected class, and other people don't? That last statement implied that you do not care about the other people's rights as long as you stay as the "protected" class. This argument portray the LGBT community as the bullies in this moment, and a jury will much more likely side against LGBT with this.

There are other protected groups. It's not just the LGBT that are under this category and we are not arguing for that anyways because we do care about their rights.

The same-sex couple is not acting like a bully in this situation; they are being brave and standing up for their rights, as they should be allowed to do.

Also, there is no jury in this case and this is probably for the best since the whole reason we need protected classes is because mainstream society marginalizes groups of people based on beliefs that go against the ideals of freedom and fairness that are supposed to be enshrined in the law.

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

The problem was I can also say the same to the gay couple.

No you can't. The gay couple wanted a wedding cake from a man who sold wedding cakes. The man refused because Jesus would send him to hell for selling gay people a wedding cake.

Gay people asserting their right to not be discriminated against is not the same. Everyone who runs a business should know who they're allowed to discriminate against and to not offer services they aren't willing to perform for everyone else.

Too bad for this guy that the Leftist Paradise of Colorado decided to protect gays before everyone else.

 

[DEATH™]

My goodness, there is no jury involved in this and the baker already lost the original case AND got rejected at the appellate level. What happened to our education? Assuming you're American..

There is a reason it's on the SCOTUS. I mean, that argument would be fine if the Ninth Circuit isn't the way it is.

There are other protected groups. It's not just the LGBT that are under this category and we are not arguing for that anyways because we do care about their rights.

The same-sex couple is not acting like a bully in this situation; they are being brave and standing up for their rights, as they should be allowed to do.

Also, there is no jury in this case and this is probably for the best since the whole reason we need protected classes is because mainstream society marginalizes groups of people based on beliefs that go against the ideals of freedom and fairness that are supposed to be enshrined in the law.

Not an argument. It still doesn't point out why is there a protected CLASS. It implies that 1 or more class is much more important than the other. This can potentially put the baker on the winning rule.

No you can't. The gay couple wanted a wedding cake from a man who sold wedding cakes. The man refused because Jesus would send him to hell for selling gay people a wedding cake.

Gay people asserting their right to not be discriminated against is not the same. Everyone who runs a business should know who they're allowed to discriminate against and to not offer services they aren't willing to perform for everyone else.

Too bad for this guy that the Leftist Paradise of Colorado decided to protect gays before everyone else.

But that logic can be used to discriminate too. For example, a trans can sue people for using wrong pronouns for hate speech in Canada. This kind of logic creates a class that has the bully hammer, and anyone would not want that, including LGBT communities.

 

[Shamylov]

There is a reason it's on the SCOTUS. I mean, that argument would be fine if the Ninth Circuit isn't the way it is.



Not an argument. It still doesn't point out why is there a protected CLASS. It implies that 1 or more class is much more important than the other. This can potentially put the baker on the winning rule.



But that logic can be used to discriminate too. For example, a trans can sue people for using wrong pronouns for hate speech in Canada. This kind of logic creates a class that has the bully hammer, and anyone would not want that, including LGBT communities.

Incorrect. The reason why protected classes are more "important" is because they have been marginalized based on beliefs that go against the ideals of a free and just society so they need the protection to enjoy the same access to goods and services that a non-marginalized member enjoys. This should not have been difficult to understand based on what I said before so I don't know why it needed to be spelled out for you.

Also, we're not discussing hate speech in Canada, we're discussing discriminating business practices against a same-sex couple in the US. Big leap you made there and you failed to justify it so let's focus on the topic at hand which we are far from settling, it seems. Let's please keep it germane.

 

[Dude Abides]

There is a reason it's on the SCOTUS. I mean, that argument would be fine if the Ninth Circuit isn't the way it is.

Uh, this case isnt from the 9th circuit. It didnt go to any federal court of appeals. You dont seem to know much about this case i have to say.

Not an argument. It still doesn't point out why is there a protected CLASS. It implies that 1 or more class is much more important than the other. This can potentially put the baker on the winning rule.

Actually protected classes arent at issue here. But the notion of protected classes has been around for decades and has nothing to do with one group of people being more important than another.

 

[Big Blue]

This is exactly why its a bad optics to the LGBT community. Why is that LGBT person can be considered a protected class, and other people don't? That last statement implied that you do not care about the other people's rights as long as you stay as the "protected" class. This argument portray the LGBT community as the bullies in this moment, and a jury will much more likely side against LGBT with this.



If Sharia "Law" means 1 group enforce a law (which in this context is forced by a group of people, a form of government), yes.

The point of 2nd Amendment is , if a group of people wants to force their way onto another, that another group can shoot back, and even crush the other group.

Imagine, what if Soviet Russia are the only one who have nukes? they can literally rule the world. Why is there every single country have at least a armed force? If you don't, other countries will bully you. With a form of defense, it forces ALL sides to be on civil discourse or risk a war.

Give you head a shake for a second here.

Many aspects of Sharia law practice are ILLEGAL as in against the law. Because the freedom of religion has LIMITATIONS. Sharia law is not checked by the 2nd amendment. You have no idea what you're talking about.

You have no idea what you're talking about and are just making stuff up on the spot. The point of the 2nd amendment was literally so that citizens can protect themselves from the government, you know considering they just had a civil war and all. It has then evolved into the right of self-defense and what not.

And lastly your nuclear deterrence comparison makes no sense in that

1) Not every American owns a gun (Even the 2nd Amendment has restrictions)
2) Gunfire doesn't end in a zero-sum scenario

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

Not an argument. It still doesn't point out why is there a protected CLASS. It implies that 1 or more class is much more important than the other. This can potentially put the baker on the winning rule.

No, it implies that the current protected class was previously a systematically oppressed class.

But that logic can be used to discriminate too. For example, a trans can sue people for using wrong pronouns for hate speech in Canada. This kind of logic creates a class that has the bully hammer, and anyone would not want that, including LGBT communities.

Incorrect. It makes the trans community a protected class.

The bill proposes adding gender identity and gender orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act. This means that it would become illegal under the Act to deny someone a job or discriminate against them in the workplace based on the gender they identify with or outwardly express.

If passed, the bill would also add gender identity and gender expression to the Criminal Code in two ways:

Section 718.2 is about what principles should be taken into consideration when a court imposes a sentence.
Section 718.2(a) is about how a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
Section 718.2(a)(i) speaks about offences where evidence shows that action was motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate based on social groups. This list already includes race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, and sexual orientation.

2. Section 318 is about hate propaganda.

Subsection 318(4) adds gender identity and gender expression to the definition of an identifiable group for the purposes of “advocating genocide.” This legislation would protect transgender and gender non-binary peoples from being a targeted group in an act of genocide.

Cossman says it seems Peterson is trying to argue that the misuse of pronouns could constitute hate speech.

“I don’t think there’s any legal expert that would say that [this] would meet the threshold for hate speech in Canada,” she says.

Our courts have a very high threshold for what kind of comments actually constitutes hate speech, and the nature of speech would have to be much more extreme than simply pronoun misuse, according to Cossman.

“The misuse of pronouns is not equivalent to advocating genocide in any conceivable manner,” she continues. “If he advocated genocide against trans people, he would be in violation, but misusing pronouns is not what that provision of the code is about.”

 

[7echnicolor]

yall need to read a fuckin book lmao

 

[Vicetrailia]

yall need to read a fuckin book lmao

It's amazing that they still can't understand the basics even if they don't agree. It's something else, and kinda worrisome.

 

[llien]

Incorrect. It makes the trans community a protected class.

There is no consensus on it among Canadian lawyers and it has already been used, the way it was feared to be used, but isn't it off topic in this thread?

 

[Blood Borne]

Let me guess, you're a straight white male. Owning a business is a privilege, not a right.

It's amazing how you leftists inject race into everything. Leftists believe someone's thought process/opinion is tied directly to their skin. But they don't see it as racism.

 

[Blood Borne]

People should be free to discriminate in anyway they want. Government telling us we can't discriminate is totalitarian. I'm sure the Supreme Court will favour the baker because this will open a can of worms.

No more Christian/Muslim dating websites or schools, etc. No more sex segregated businesses, schools, charities, sports, etc. It's going to be a mess.

Humans discriminate everyday. We have preferences. Some people only date people from a particular race or religion. Taking that away from us will have serious consequences. It's what makes us human.

Marxists need to realise that nirvana is not earth.

 

[Sarkozix le Gaulois]

Let me guess, you're a straight white male. Owning a business is a privilege, not a right.

https://youtu.be/MbQSZRrJcdE

 

[Big Blue]

People should be free to discriminate in anyway they want. Government telling us we can't discriminate is totalitarian. I'm sure the Supreme Court will favour the baker because this will open a can of worms.

No more Christian/Muslim dating websites or schools, etc. No more sex segregated businesses, schools, charities, sports, etc. It's going to be a mess.

Humans discriminate everyday. We have preferences. Some people only date people from a particular race or religion. Taking that away from us will have serious consequences. It's what makes us human.

Marxists need to realise that nirvana is not earth.

Your president got sued and lost for giving instructions to not rent to blacks. So I guess that's your can of worms.

The 14th amendment already exists. Like did you go to school? You can't even answer that question. And you say I inject race into everything. You don't know what totalitarianism is. This guy wants to go back to the Jim Crow era, and progressives are the bad guys. Go wash your white sheets and shine up your swastika.

If you don't see the difference in choosing who you date and choosing who your business serves, than you need to back to elementary school. For the last time OWNING A BUSINESS IS A PRIVILEGE NOT A RIGHT.

 

[Blood Borne]

Your president got sued and lost for giving instructions to not rent to blacks. So I guess that's your can of worms.

The 14th amendment already exists. Like did you go to school? You can't even answer that question. And you say I inject race into everything. You don't know what totalitarianism is. This guy wants to go back to the Jim Crow era, and progressives are the bad guys. Go wash your white sheets and shine up your swastika.

If you don't see the difference in choosing who you date and choosing who your business serves, than you need to back to elementary school. For the last time OWNING A BUSINESS IS A PRIVILEGE NOT A RIGHT.

First of all, he didn't 'lose'. It was settled with no admission of guilt.

Yes, you inject race into everything. I mean, just look at how you just injected swastika. I'm black by the way. Also Jim Crow can't happen because Jim Crow was mandated by the government. In order for Jim Crow to occur again, government has to enforce like they did before.

Last but not least, read the constitution, owning a business is a right. I really hope one day, you'll stop judging people by their skin color. A person's skin color is not tied to their opinion.

 

[7echnicolor]

People should be free to discriminate in anyway they want. Government telling us we can't discriminate is totalitarian. I'm sure the Supreme Court will favour the baker because this will open a can of worms.

No more Christian/Muslim dating websites or schools, etc. No more sex segregated businesses, schools, charities, sports, etc. It's going to be a mess.

Humans discriminate everyday. We have preferences. Some people only date people from a particular race or religion. Taking that away from us will have serious consequences. It's what makes us human.

Marxists need to realise that nirvana is not earth.

this reads like a paranoid/delusional fever dream

try leaving your house for once lmao

edit: LOL owning a business is a right? jesus christ please graduate from elementary school. it is not a right. at all.

 

[Big Blue]

First of all, he didn't 'lose'. It was settled with no admission of guilt.

Yes, you inject race into everything. I mean, just look at how you just injected swastika. I'm black by the way. Also Jim Crow can't happen because Jim Crow was mandated by the government. In order for Jim Crow to occur again, government has to enforce like they did before.

Last but not least, read the constitution, owning a business is a right. I really hope one day, you'll stop judging people by their skin color. A person's skin color is not tied to their opinion.

How can we have a discussion about discrimination in America without bringing up race??? Is your head in the sand?? When it comes to discrimination, I can deduce what a poster's demographic is because if he were a minority, than he would understand why the couple is taking a stand. Not wondering why

*Settling is always a loss for the defendant. It means that their lawyers thought they wouldn't win the case and were fearful that the original damages would be worse than what they ended up offering. Even then, if you can't see why housing discrimination destroys generational wealth for minorities, take a microeconomics class.

If you're black than you're naive and ignorant. You should know how much discrimination hurts is to the minority. If the government didn't force integration, then many parts of the US would still be segregated. By the way Jim Crow laws were enacted at state and local levels. It was the FEDERAL government that forced integration. It was the National Guard was sent in to escort Linda Brown to school because the local citizens were not having it.

And no where in the Constitution is there a fundamental right to own a business. There are many restrictions in place for who, where and how someone can run a business.

 

[CampbellzSoup]

How can we have a discussion about discrimination in America without bringing up race??? Is your head in the sand?? When it comes to discrimination, I can deduce what a poster's demographic is because if he were a minority, than he would understand why the couple is taking a stand. Not wondering why

*Settling is always a loss for the defendant. It means that their lawyers thought they wouldn't win the case and were fearful that the original damages would be worse than what they ended up offering. Even then, if you can't see why housing discrimination destroys generational wealth for minorities, take a microeconomics class.

If you're black than you're naive and ignorant.You should know how much discrimination hurts is to the minority. If the government didn't force integration, then many parts of the US would still be segregated. By the way Jim Crow laws were enacted at state and local levels. It was the FEDERAL government that forced integration. It was the National Guard was sent in to escort Linda Brown to school because the local citizens were not having it.

And no where in the Constitution is there a fundamental right to own a business. There are many restrictions in place for who, where and how someone can run a business.

What a racist thing to say...

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

What a racist thing to say...

He (?) didn't say you were naive and ignorant because they're black. Their blackness makes their naivety and ignorance an exception. But I bet you knew that. Anyone who says "as a black person/i'm a black person, etc" before saying something profoundly obtuse does so because they are knowingly about to say something out of the norm. Most of the time I doubt they are black to begin with because the internet will say anything to prove a point.

 

[BANGS]

He (?) didn't say you were naive and ignorant because they're black. Their blackness makes their naivety and ignorance an exception. But I bet you knew that. Anyone who says "as a black person/i'm a black person, etc" before saying something profoundly obtuse does so because they are knowingly about to say something out of the norm. Most of the time I doubt they are black to begin with because the internet will say anything to prove a point.

So it's like saying "I'm not racist, but..."?

 

[RastaMentality]

This thread is why you can never take that crowd seriously when they complain about how badly LGBT are treated in the Middle East.

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

This thread is why you can never take that crowd seriously when they complain about how badly LGBT are treated in the Middle East.

The overwhelming "concern" for what's going on in the Middle East and Europe from Americans is utterly baffling. Even more so when you see that the Christian Right are itching to legislate their fairy tale on everyone here.

 

[Blood Borne]

How can we have a discussion about discrimination in America without bringing up race??? Is your head in the sand?? When it comes to discrimination, I can deduce what a poster's demographic is because if he were a minority, than he would understand why the couple is taking a stand. Not wondering why

*Settling is always a loss for the defendant. It means that their lawyers thought they wouldn't win the case and were fearful that the original damages would be worse than what they ended up offering. Even then, if you can't see why housing discrimination destroys generational wealth for minorities, take a microeconomics class.

If you're black than you're naive and ignorant. You should know how much discrimination hurts is to the minority. If the government didn't force integration, then many parts of the US would still be segregated. By the way Jim Crow laws were enacted at state and local levels. It was the FEDERAL government that forced integration. It was the National Guard was sent in to escort Linda Brown to school because the local citizens were not having it.

And no where in the Constitution is there a fundamental right to own a business. There are many restrictions in place for who, where and how someone can run a business.

So why bring up swastika?
What's the necessity of deducing a poster's demographic? It's still a racist/stereotype thing to do. Attack the food and not the chef.

If I'm black I'm naive and ignorant?
Wow.
This is my issue with people like you/leftists.
Leftists believe that if you're white, you must recognise your privilege, and if you don't then you're a racist.
If you're black/minority, you must recognise and acknowledge that you're oppressed, and if you don't, you're stupid, ignorant and a uncle tom.
If you're a woman, you must believe that there's a patriarchy system and you must be a feminist, and if you don't, then you have internal misogyny.

These are stringent prerequisites that left demands you subscribe to, if not, you're an evil person. This sort of mindset creates a battlefield, it's a "us vs them" mentality. It inhibits discourse. It's very toxic. It's group think and it's racist and sexist.

Calling me naive and ignorant because I'm black shows you have that mentality of "I know what is best for you". Awful policies such as affirmative action is a byproduct of that mindset. Very akin to colonialists.

Also, it's hilarious how you keep engaging in mental gymnastics to absolve government from Jim Crow laws. It's inconsequential if Jim Crow laws were enacted by state GOVERNMENT or federal GOVERNMENT. The difference between parent company and subsidiary is of no relevance. GOVERNMENT mandated Jim Crow. GOVERNMENT forced segregation. FACTS. Stop trying to distort history.

It is a human right to engage in voluntary transactions. Government has no right in stopping someone trying earn a living.

He (?) didn't say you were naive and ignorant because they're black. Their blackness makes their naivety and ignorance an exception. But I bet you knew that. Anyone who says "as a black person/i'm a black person, etc" before saying something profoundly obtuse does so because they are knowingly about to say something out of the norm. Most of the time I doubt they are black to begin with because the internet will say anything to prove a point.

If you want a mod to verify my race/ethnicity, I'll be very much happy to oblige. You have preconceived opinions on how a black or minority should think or behave. But you don't see it as stereotyping or racism.

More so, I never brought up race. It's you guys who keep bringing up race. I mean, the poster above, told me to go shine my swastika, hence it was incumbent that I inform the poster my race.

I have said all I need to say in this topic. I'm pretty sure the SC will favour the baker. This isn't North Korea.

 

[BANGS]

For all those saying the baker should be forced to decorate a gay wedding cake, should he also be forced to decorate a nazi wedding cake or a pedophile birthday cake?

This is about individual liberties, not LGBT rights. The customer can go anywhere else to get their cake, but the baker can never get their dignity back...

 

[Snorlocs]

For all those saying the baker should be forced to decorate a gay wedding cake, should he also be forced to decorate a nazi wedding cake or a pedophile birthday cake?

This is about individual liberties, not LGBT rights. The customer can go anywhere else to get their cake, but the baker can never get their dignity back...

As was explained earlier ITT, religious freedom does not allow for him to break any laws in his practise of religion. Discriminating against a protected class is breaking a law. I am presuiming this as I am not an american. Nazi's and pedophile's are not a protected class.