Michael Brown

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

but no its not legal

There are (as of my last off-the-cuff count) three jurisdictions where the law "allows" compelled speech as it happened in the bakery case: Colorado, New Mexico, and Washington State. There is still a massive constitutional issue with those laws, and they have yet to go before the Supreme Court. Yes, it is still extremely legal in the vast majority of the U.S. and sexual orientation is not a federally protected class for situations such as this.

minority group having their rights stripped from them

Denial of service is not stripping rights. You have no right to be guaranteed service by private individuals. This is deeply entrenched in our law; contract law is rife with situations that forbid specific performance of a contract because it would amount to compelled speech or involuntary servitude.

In the case of the bakery, there were dozens of alternatives. The couple lost nothing by being denied service. Their feelings were hurt, and that's it. In fact, the end result of the case was exactly the same as if they had been refused service without suing or had never found the bakery. The bakery closed down without giving them a cake!

[iruinedyourday]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There are (as of my last off-the-cuff count) three jurisdictions where the law "allows" compelled speech as it happened in the bakery case: Colorado, New Mexico, and Washington State. There is still a massive constitutional issue with those laws, and they have yet to go before the Supreme Court. Yes, it is still extremely legal in the vast majority of the U.S. and sexual orientation is not a federally protected class for situations such as this.

Denial of service is not stripping rights. You have no right to be guaranteed service by private individuals. This is deeply entrenched in our law; contract law is rife with situations that forbid specific performance of a contract because it would amount to compelled speech or involuntary servitude.

In the case of the bakery, there were dozens of alternatives. The couple lost nothing by being denied service. Their feelings were hurt, and that's it. In fact, the end result of the case was exactly the same as if they had been refused service without suing or had never found the bakery. The bakery closed down without giving them a cake!

I dono man I cant just go on and on with you about this.. if you think it sucks for the white Christians that they got a taste of what its like to have a bunch of people treat them like shit because of their faith or something they think they fundamentally cant change the maybe they might know what it feels like to be gay. Fuck em... Good beats evil.

The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

I still don't really know what you're talking about with compelled speech ill admit, you have to be more clear. But I think you're wasting your energy fighting for shit that doesn't need fighting for. But whatever helps you sleep at night.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

Notice that sexual orientation is NOT listed as a protected class of the civil rights act. You repeatedly mention that this is "illegal" without giving any citation. It is NOT illegal in the vast majority of the U.S., and the laws in Colorado, New Mexico, and Washington are arguably (quite strongly) unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday

I still don't really know what you're talking about with compelled speech ill admit, you have to be more clear.

Speech is not just what comes out of your mouth. It's what you do, it's the dollars you spend, it's the actions you take, the votes you cast, and the things you do NOT say or do. Compelled speech is where the government forces an individual to engage in a form of speech. Baking a cake for a celebration is speech, and if you find that celebration objectionable yet are forced to "speak in support" of it, that is compelled speech.

This isn't about "white Christians" as you put it. (Put the race card away please.) it's about the precedent that it sets. Allowing the government to dictate what you can, or must, say to another private individual is a massive precedent that is currently found nowhere in our laws for a reason. It is absolutely stunning that anyone would support carte blanche policies on the government compelling speech.

Spent dollars are speech, voting is speech, and NOT donating to a particular cause is speech. The policies you're cheering on would allow the government to tell you what to do with your dollars, votes, and anything else.

That is incredibly chilling.

[iruinedyourday]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Notice that sexual orientation is NOT listed as a protected class of the civil rights act. You repeatedly mention that this is "illegal" without giving any citation. It is NOT illegal in the vast majority of the U.S., and the laws in Colorado, New Mexico, and Washington are arguably (quite strongly) unconstitutional.



Speech is not just what comes out of your mouth. It's what you do, it's the dollars you spend, it's the actions you take, the votes you cast, and the things you do NOT say or do. Compelled speech is where the government forces an individual to engage in a form of speech. Baking a cake for a celebration is speech, and if you find that celebration objectionable yet are forced to "speak in support" of it, that is compelled speech.

This isn't about "white Christians" as you put it. (Put the race card away please.) it's about the precedent that it sets. Allowing the government to dictate what you can, or must, say to another private individual is a massive precedent that is currently found nowhere in our laws for a reason. It is absolutely stunning that anyone would support carte blanche policies on the government compelling speech.

Spent dollars are speech, voting is speech, and NOT donating to a particular cause is speech. The policies you're cheering on would allow the government to tell you what to do with your dollars, votes, and anything else.

That is incredibly chilling.

I'm sure someone said the same thig about being forces to allow blacks to use the same bathrooms as whites 40 years ago.

Basically your just trying to imagine a world where civil rights is not constantly moving forward for a free and equal place for all people.

Hate to break it to you but your just an old man in a new world.

In other words you trippin if you think that any of that is negative. if your looking for chilling shit look to the police department in ferguson. You got a lot worse shit happening there.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm sure someone said the same thig about being forces to allow blacks to use the same bathrooms as whites 40 years ago.

Basically your just trying to imagine a world where civil rights is not constantly moving forward for a free and equal place for all people.

Hate to break it to you but your just an old man in a new world.

In other words you trippin if you think that any of that is negative. if your looking for chilling shit look to the police department in ferguson. You got a lot worse shit happening there.

You are still completely missing the point. This is not about civil rights for gays, or any other group. This is about freedom of association. The case we are using as an example was about forcing a baker to make a cake for a celebration. Not because they were gay, but because they were celebrating an event. He did not refuse service because they were gay. He refused service because he did not agree with the celebration they were conducting.

Being a specific color is not equivalent to practicing a specific action. They are entirely different. Your continued attempts to compare the two are growing old. They are not the same.

I cannot help but notice you have completely ignored the idea of compelled speech when I explained it to you. I take it by your omission, which is a form of speech, that you are telling me that you are fine with the government telling people how to vote, or which charities they should donate to, or which businesses they should not shop at? If this sounds dystopian that's because it is. You are literally defining a police state.

You're okay with it, and that scares the hell out of me.

[Ephirith]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The case we are using as an example was about forcing a baker to make a cake for a celebration. Not because they were gay, but because they were celebrating an event. He did not refuse service because they were gay. He refused service because he did not agree with the celebration they were conducting.

Don't be like that. Why did he disagree with the celebration? What is the difference between all the other celebrations he bakes cakes for, and that one? It was the gayness.

Do you think it would be okay for him to refuse service to an interracial couple because he disagrees with interracial marriage? You could make the same argument-- he did not refuse service because the groom was black. He refused service because he doesn't think blacks should marry whites. His only issue was the class + the celebration, not necessarily the class itself, right?

This would be illegal under the Civil Rights Act, just as the homo example would be illegal if homosexuality were a protected class.

[Toofliss]

Originally Posted by Ephirith [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Don't be like that. Why did he disagree with the celebration? What is the difference between all the other celebrations he bakes cakes for, and that one? It was the gayness.

Do you think it would be okay for him to refuse service to an interracial couple because he disagrees with interracial marriage? You could make the same argument-- he did not refuse service because the groom was black. He refused service because he doesn't think blacks should marry whites. His only issue was the class + the celebration, not necessarily the class itself, right?

This would be illegal under the Civil Rights Act, just as the homo example would be illegal if homosexuality were a protected class.

Do you think he would have refused to bake them a birthday cake for someone? He didn't have an issue with the person, but he did not want to support gay marriage.

If I went into a copy center owned by a gay man/woman and proceeded to request that they make up 500 signs that said "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" and the clerk refused to make them -- would you then be ok with him being forced to have the signs printed up for me?

You can't discriminate after all and you can be forced to print up whatever I ask(make) you to do. I think it's a scary idea that they could be compelled to do it.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by Ephirith [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Don't be like that. Why did he disagree with the celebration? What is the difference between all the other celebrations he bakes cakes for, and that one? It was the gayness.

This would be illegal under the Civil Rights Act, just as the homo example would be illegal if homosexuality were a protected class.

Should the baker be forced to make a cake for a man celebrating his infidelity?

Laws are force and they should only be used when necessary. Anti-miscegenation laws existed, and the general political climate created a situation that was absolutely untenable for minorities, and so the law stepped in. The consequence of that law is that people lost the right to refuse service on the basis of a protected class. Imagine that there was no racism in the 60's. Imagine if only 1 out of 10,000 merchants would not provide services to any of the protected classes. Would the civil rights act be necessary? Laws are about striking a balance. Unpopular speech must be protected the most precisely because it is unpopular. It is only when that unpopular speech causes real problems whose harm is greater than the harm of eliminating that speech should the law be passed.

Additionally, we're not talking about vital services such as food, housing, and medicine which is largely what drove the conversations vis a vis denial of service because the institutions denying the service were often the only providers available effectively shutting minorities out of those essentials. We're talking about non-essentials like wedding photography and cakes. This is a huge difference in scale, and law and policy are unwieldy tools. Unintended consequences are always afoot, and the hammer doesn't need to be pulled out because a few people are denied cakes.

Morally, most people would believe it's wrong to refuse service on the basis of interracial marriage, and it is also illegal. Anti-miscegenation today is a legal, moral, and ethical aberration. Refusing service to a gay marriage (or celebration of infidelity, or an abortion, or whatever hotbutton issue), however, is not a moral or ethical aberration in our time and place. It is a moral norm. Therein lies the difference.

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday

if someone is screaming at me about something without trying to explain it to me while simultaneously chastising me about it and saying I want the government to force people what to vote for - over a conversation about civil rights, all while I ask him to be more clear

I've explained it to you several times. You want to talk about government policy and the incredibly nuanced field of constitutional law, yet you can't even bother to do five minutes of cursory research? I've done more than my part to break the concept down for you. If you can't understand the idea that speech is more than words, then you have no business discussing politics much less the practice of constitutional law.

[iruinedyourday]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You are still completely missing the point. This is not about civil rights for gays, or any other group. This is about freedom of association. The case we are using as an example was about forcing a baker to make a cake for a celebration. Not because they were gay, but because they were celebrating an event. He did not refuse service because they were gay. He refused service because he did not agree with the celebration they were conducting.

Being a specific color is not equivalent to practicing a specific action. They are entirely different. Your continued attempts to compare the two are growing old. They are not the same.

I cannot help but notice you have completely ignored the idea of compelled speech when I explained it to you. I take it by your omission, which is a form of speech, that you are telling me that you are fine with the government telling people how to vote, or which charities they should donate to, or which businesses they should not shop at? If this sounds dystopian that's because it is. You are literally defining a police state.

You're okay with it, and that scares the hell out of me.

look man, nobody shut down the fucking baker, they closed down becuse the community boycotted them for being assholes.

Be an asshole, you loose your business... its fucking capitalism... were going around in fricken' circles here dude.

Like my EC thread I'm sure there are a couple racist homaphobes that wont buy my spells but whatever, idc.

Also dude, your compelled speech shit that Ive asked you like 3 times to explain more clearly, I don't understand the words that are comin out of your mouth.

The only thing you should take from my omission is that I have no clue what the hell you're talking about and I don't care enough to try to google it to figure it out.

Seriously ask yourself, after our conversation do you really think I'm ok with the government telling people how to vote? I mean ffs if that's where we are after all this then we have REALLY BEEN wasting our time and we should end this immediately.

[Ephirith]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Allowing the government to dictate what you can, or must, say to another private individual is a massive precedent that is currently found nowhere in our laws for a reason. It is absolutely stunning that anyone would support carte blanche policies on the government compelling speech.

But they already do that with race. You literally have to bake that cake for a black, even if you don't want to. Forcing them to bake that cake for a homo isn't setting some wild new precedent, it's just adding a protected class to a precedent that already exists.

Just face it Frieza, you're going to have to live in a world where we treat homos like human beings.