Michael Brown

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

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

you would have assaulted the cop?

PS you don't know that he assaulted the cop, you just take a white cops word over a black persons. Scumbag.

Why are you bringing race into this again?

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

Yet, such law forces individuals to conduct speech and personal support of something they might find abhorrent. This is compelled speech, and it is completely contrary to the very notion of free speech.

Whatever the intent behind these laws might be, they are inevitably used as a bludgeon to silence dissent delegitimize political opponents.

Incorrect. Freedom of speech is NOT freedom from the consequences of your words.

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

Race is a constitutionally protected class. Sexual orientation is not a protected class and is, therefore, not subject to strict scrutiny. It instead receives rational basis review. The legal standards on discrimination between race and orientation are extremely high. The two cannot be used interchangeably when talking about American legal policy.

This is simply not true. Kill a black man because he's black: Hate crime. Kill a gay man because he's gay: Hate crime.

[Glenzig]

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

This is simply not true. Kill a black man because he's black: Hate crime. Kill a gay man because he's gay: Hate crime.

Hmmm...

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

This here is why religion is a disease and these "people" should be wiped out the same way rabid animals are destroyed before they can cause more damage.

Hate crime?

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

Incorrect. Freedom of speech is NOT freedom from the consequences of your words.

I never said it was. Free speech is, however, free from government reprisal. That's the whole reason we HAVE the first amendment. That is the very definition of free speech. If people want to picket a bakery because they were denied service, that is their right. People may certainly take private action to bring forth consequence, but using the law to do so is another matter entirely and allowing such a thing is the essence of poor policy.

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu

This is simply not true. Kill a black man because he's black: Hate crime. Kill a gay man because he's gay: Hate crime.

Without commenting on the propriety, legal or otherwise, of hate crime laws, I am talking specifically about the standards used when parsing discrimination by the Supreme Court. Some specific laws may treat race and orientation as the same for the purpose of that specific law. However, Constitutional law regards the two differently and there is a massive gulf between the two from a legal standpoint.

[iruinedyourday]

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

Many of these laws are quite new, and the discussion is partly about whether or not more should be created.

No one is preventing anyone from doing anything. The groups in question are absolutely free to pursue their own desires just as the merchants should be free to pursue their own desires. I find it interesting that the Colorado bakery has since shut down as a result of the law suit. If the goal of the suit was to acquire cake and prevent harm, it failed since the supplier in question was shuttered. How has the closure done anything for the plaintiff's "harm"?

The freedom of association is a deeply rooted part of American constitutional jurisprudence. Compelling speech is absolutely the loss of a right.

Race is a constitutionally protected class. Sexual orientation is not a protected class and is, therefore, not subject to strict scrutiny. It instead receives rational basis review. The legal standards on discrimination between race and orientation are extremely high. The two cannot be used interchangeably when talking about American legal policy.

To be honest, I don't even know where you stand. Or what it is you're looking for.

But if you think a merchant can discriminate, you're wrong. They cant. They'll loose bro. If you think that's Nazi fascism, then you just being cray cray.

If some bigot lost their bakery because they were being shitty to customers am I supposed to fucking qq over that? I could give a fuck. Same way I would if a bakery shut down because it didn't clean up its kitchen and was filthy. Its just another shitty business that failed because its owners were idiots.

Hey this is america, some business's can say 'i hate gays' and they'll get thousands of Christians to come to their restaurant & petition to have a chick fil a holiday. Some others will say fuck that business and stop using their product.

[Patriam1066]

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

Incorrect. Freedom of speech is NOT freedom from the consequences of your words.

Why would you want people to be fearful of attack if they speak their mind?

A democracy cannot survive when you attack someone for having a different opinion than yourself. Why can't you connect the dots between what you're saying and what people in ISIS or in the IRGC say? You think there should be consequences for people possessing a contrary opinion to yourself? You better hope that people in power never have the ability to turn that against you.......

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

I saw this while I was out and wanted to make a special breakdown for the plethora of wrongs in this post.

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

lets say the KKK were havin a wedding party.

Ok so we have established that in this situation that the client is a hate group. Go on...

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

You are a wedding photographer and they want to hire you.

They would not. Ever. However let's say for the sake of argument that they somehow don't know that the photographer is a homosexual.

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

But you understand that at this KKK wedding, everyone is going to wear the hoods, they will be burning a cross, doing speeches, doing whatever KKK does.

We've already established that they are a hate group, this part is redundant.

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

You refuse on religious or moral grounds whatever

This would never happen. In reality the photographer would realize what's up, notify the client that they were gay and the client not wanting to be shunned from their own organization would go find another photographer, every, single, time.

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

they raise a lawsuit against you, they get a judge to rule in their favor which too works for the KKK.

Are you saying that ruling in favor works for the KKK (this should go unsaid) or that the Judge is a member of the KKK? If it's the former, this part of your post is senseless, if it's the latter then you are simply wrong because it's illegal for a judge to be associated in any way with a special interest group such as the KKK.

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

Worse thing is, the KKK could have just went and hired someone else, but maybe in fact picked you because they knew you would object so they could sue you, or at least get someone like you to be required to be at one of their rallies... er I mean weddings working for them. But to sue you penniless nonetheless.

They would have considering the entire context of your example is ass-backwards wrong in nearly every conceivable way.

Now we get to the (by some miracle) even dumber shit...

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

See it's not good enough that they are able to have weddings

Actually they aren't and therein lies the problem.

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

but they (militant homosexuals)

Define "Militant" please.

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

need to force you into it as well

Force you into what? They want to have sex with you even though you are heterosexual? They want to convert you? No. Even the faggiest flaming faggot does not want you to be gay, they want to be accepted as a human being. No more, no less.

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

to participate in it even if it goes against your race, color or religion.

Participate in what again? Wait, being born into a certain race (color? lol) determines a value/belief system? Are you insane?

Religion? If your faith pushes you to treat other human beings as less than human, it's a bad/immoral faith. If you willingly go along with such a faith you are either misled or simply a terrible person, there's no way around either.

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

It's basically turning the discrimination laws against you, what protects you doesn't protect you any longer, only them by rule of insane judge.

This end part doesn't even make sense from a language standpoint so I can't even address it.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

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

Hmmm...



Hate crime?

Yes. I believe "takes one to know one" is accurate. Never said I wasn't a black pot. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

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

I never said it was. Free speech is, however, free from government reprisal. That's the whole reason we HAVE the first amendment. That is the very definition of free speech. If people want to picket a bakery because they were denied service, that is their right. People may certainly take private action to bring forth consequence, but using the law to do so is another matter entirely and allowing such a thing is the essence of poor policy.

I get what you are trying to say here. I think it's simply a matter of opinion as I believe that it's equally discriminatory for a business run by a homosexual to refuse a KKK member service (let's assume they aren't demonstrating or harassing anyone) as a "good christian" would be to refuse a homosexual couple (and no, holding hands with your partner is not flaunting a lifestyle this isn't a response to you but the thread in general).

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

Without commenting on the propriety, legal or otherwise, of hate crime laws, I am talking specifically about the standards used when parsing discrimination by the Supreme Court. Some specific laws may treat race and orientation as the same for the purpose of that specific law. However, Constitutional law regards the two differently and there is a massive gulf between the two from a legal standpoint.

Ah I see you mean in a strict overall sense of the law. I'd close by simply saying that that's why the constitution has the ability to be amended to change with the times and that "massive gulf" needs closed as if it never existed in the first place.

[Glenzig]

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

Yes. I believe "takes one to know one" is accurate. Never said I wasn't a black pot. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So you know your a bigot against religion, Muslims especially, but that's ok because you know you're wrong?

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

I don't even know where you stand. Or what it is you're looking for.

You stated, in no uncertain terms, that private citizens should be forced to engage in speech they find objectionable. I am posting to state that such a thing is not only bad policy, but that it is contrary to every constitutional, moral, and ethical standard that defines America.

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday

But if you think a merchant can discriminate, you're wrong. They cant. They'll loose bro. If you think that's Nazi fascism, then you just being cray cray.

Merchants absolutely can discriminate. We do it all the time. Appearance, actions, finances, sexual orientation, etc. It happens all the time, and it is completely legal. If a gay person just wants a hamburger and is denied service because of that, yes it makes the merchant an asshole. But it is legal. Also, please do not make the Nazi comparison and put those words in my mouth. I never mentioned anything of the such, and would appreciate it if I did not have a Godwin'd thread attributed to me.

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday

If some bigot lost their bakery because they were being shitty to customers am I supposed to fucking qq over that? I could give a fuck.

The outrage isn't because a business failed. It's because people were able to use the law as a weapon thereby setting an extremely poor precedent. Think about the consequences when you allow private citizens to use the law to silence dissenting speech. It is absolutely chilling.