Michael Brown

[Ephirith]

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

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.

I would be okay forcing them to print those signs if it were required by the Civil Rights Act, but I doubt refusal in this circumstance would be discrimination on basis of religion. The copy center finds the speech being printed objectionable, not the religious status of the client.

Turning away a customer because they are Christian = Illegal

Turning away a customer because they want you to print Christian-themed signs you find offensive = Not Illegal.

In the case of the bakery cake, you are turning away the customer specifically because they are gay. Here's why:

When you're making hundreds of other cakes for hundreds of other couples, I don't think it would be difficult to prove that they were being denied because of their status as gays.

The copy center, on the other hand, is not making hundreds of other aggressive, offensive signs for hundreds of other clients. They'd likely also refuse to make signs that say "****** faggots burn in hell" or "All white people should be fucked in their puckered assholes". And they would probably be within the law to do so.

[iruinedyourday]

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

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.

I admitted ignorance on the subject anyway, I've lost interest, good luck to you in all your future endevors!

also this is what all cops should have and a chief should loose his job if it turns out the cameras were 'in a box' when a shooting takes place.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/what-...ras-1408320244

[Toofliss]

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

I would be okay forcing them to print those signs if it were required by the Civil Rights Act, but I doubt refusal in this circumstance would be discrimination on basis of religion. The copy center finds the speech being printed objectionable, not the religious status of the client.

Turning away a customer because they are Christian = Illegal

Turning away a customer because they want you to print Christian-themed signs you find offensive = Not Illegal.

In the case of the bakery cake, you are turning away the customer specifically because they are gay. Here's why:

When you're making hundreds of other cakes for hundreds of other couples, I don't think it would be difficult to prove that they were being denied because of their status as gays.

The copy center, on the other hand, is not making hundreds of other aggressive, offensive signs for hundreds of other clients. They'd likely also refuse to make signs that say "****** faggots burn in hell" or "All white people should be fucked in their puckered assholes". And they would probably be within the law to do so.

You're trying to make a connection that isn't there. I'm not refusing to bake the cake because the person is gay. I'm refusing to bake the cake that celebrates something I don't condone. Just as the Kinkos is not refusing because of my faith, but rather the message - I would refuse because of the content of the message (celebration of gay marriage).

Don't get me wrong, I think it's ridiculous in both cases. Neither scenario should be compelled/forced to do it.

[Eliseus]

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

I have little doubt that any of you that are happy the cops shot someone will ever change your position, no matter what happens.

Honestly, I'm not a big fan of cops, I find them more useless than helpful, I'm more satisfied that the claims towards racism are false and that the guy that wasn't as innocent as portrayed which resulted in so many people doing ridiculous things actually deserved what he had coming. I think it might have to do with so many people now looking like idiots that gets my jollies off? I don't know exactly, but yeah.

[Toofliss]

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

I have little doubt that any of you that are happy the cops shot someone will ever change your position, no matter what happens.

I have little doubt that your mind was made up a long time ago about what happened. Hold judgement and wait for all the facts to come out.

[radditsu]

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

I have little doubt that any of you that are happy the cops shot someone will ever change your position, no matter what happens.

I get police officering is difficult. Seeing idiocy and human decay every day has to have a toll. But you take an oath to protect people. Shooting tear gas into crowds is not protection.

Why on earth would you side with someone who takes your money and shoots nerve agents into crowds of protestors. Who 50 years ago were shooting fire hozes and sicking dogs on people. Who will shoot your animals out of expediency. Who will shove fingers up your rectum because you didnt give him "respect". Who use body armor and assault rifles to deliver warrants to nonviolent individuals. Who do not have correct training to use these assault rifles. I learned more about guns handling/ safetyfrom my drunk dad than any class these guys have been in. 90% of these "classes" are getting drunk at the shooting range and fucking off on taxpayer money.


I fucking revel when i get an email search request on my desk for the crooked shit these fuckers do. I hate their bro culture. I hate their fucking inhumanity. I hate the fucking inability to use/embrace technology outside of stuff that makes bigger holes in someones face.

[Ephirith]

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

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

My input in this began under the hypothetical context that homosexuality became a protected class. It currently is not, so no, I do not believe the baker should be forced by law to bake the cake.

Adulterers aren't a protected class either, so the baker would have every right to refuse. Until homosexuals are given the same legal status as blacks, Christians, Italians, and all those other groups, then bakers can and should refuse to bake all the cakes they want.

I was merely using miscegenation as an example of why this wouldn't be some groundbreaking new precedent; it would simply be an extension.

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

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.

In a democracy we don't decide whether to trample or protect people's rights based on the number or proportion of people being oppressed/liberated. That's perhaps the fundamental reason the supreme court exists; to prevent a legislative majority from persecuting minorities in a way that is unconstitutional.

Personally, I don't think homosexuals should be a protected class, and Christians/Jews/Muslims/Pastafarians should not be forced to provide marriage ceremonies for them. (Although religious unions should also have absolutely zero legal status).

But from a devil's advocate standpoint, my point is that:

1. It's clear the baker denied service because of their gayness.

2. If being a faerie were a protected status, this denial of service would be illegal.

3. Making homosexuality a protected status would not be a radical new precedent in civil rights legislation and freedom of associations. All those same concepts are already in play with race and religion.

[Pokesan]

why isn't sexual orientation a protected class?

and why shouldn't it be?

personally I'm against gay marriage in all its forms exclusively for tax reasons, because i am an amoral monster - HERITAGE, not hate

kill whitey

[Pokesan]

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

Personally, I don't think homosexuals should be a protected class, and Christians/Jews/Muslims/Pastafarians should not be forced to provide marriage ceremonies for them. (Although religious unions should also have absolutely zero legal status).

hi, you posted while I was typing

NO GODDAMN CHURCH IN THE GODDAMN UNITED STATES OF GODDAMN AMERICA IS BEING FORCED TO PERFORM GAY MARRIAGE CEREMONIES. MARRIAGE IS A LEGAL INSTITUTION, THE WEDDING IS JUST A GODDAMN PARTY, sir.

you know you can get married downtown at the courthouse right? it's really good

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

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

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... then yea I don't feel compelled to try to understand the a-hole on my own.

good for you for trying to be a douche bag enemy of everyone, yet again kaga.

The problem with this is that he did try to dumb it down for you... twice. It's not his fault that you don't get it.