Post: #1

Interesting

Post: #2

The whole gay and trans rights nonsense is one part distraction to keep narcissistic idiots feeling good about themselves (through pointless activism) and unaware to the fact they're being conned and one part divide and conquer.

It's a tactic of the left. Exploit existing divisions in a society, blow them up into huge issues and then try to squirm your way into power and/or bring the existing power structure down.

They prey on weak people's (useful idiots) need to feel like they're doing something important and meaningful.

That's why this social justice nonsense will never end. It will get more and more absurd.

Post: #3

Cook is a phaggot.

Nah he's probably just shoring up the sizable hipster market for his products. Otherwise the board should inform him, 'actually on behalf of apple, as CEO of apple, you can make profits for apple, or find another job'.

Post: #4

(03-30-2015 12:19 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  ...the board should inform him, 'actually on behalf of apple, as CEO of apple, you can make profits for apple, or find another job'.

Post: #5

(03-30-2015 11:52 AM)The Father Wrote:  If I own a bakery and don't wish to make a cake with two grooms on it, I've lost business...but that's my business to decide, not the governments. Like many libertarians, I do not think it is an unreasonable view to hold that two people can do whatever they want in private, but that society doesn't need to applaud it and I can choose to not be a part of their service.

Not exactly. If you run a business that is open to the public, then the government does have every right to regulate how you run your business, including telling you that you can't discriminate against groups of people. This situation already played out in the Supreme Court case "Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States", in which the Supreme Court decided that motels couldn't discriminate against black patrons under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Supreme Court found the law constitutional based on the Constitution's Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. I don't necessarily agree with this law, but I do understand how it is constitutional.

The problem with the question "can private businesses discriminate?" is that one group's rights will be trampled in favor of the other group's, no matter how you answer that question. In principle, I would be inclined to agree that a private business owner should be able to discriminate against any customer for whatever reason; after all, why should a customer have the right to be able to force you to conduct a business transaction with them? But what happens when this becomes systematic, and multiple businesses decide to discriminate against the same group of people? Now we're looking at how the 14th Amendment was developed. Does the government's systematic allowance of discrimination against a group of people constitute a violation of those people's rights under the Equal Protection Clause? I am certainly not a lawyer, so maybe there are brighter legal scholars than I who can answer these questions and solve the problem in a way such that nobody's rights are violated.

Of course, if you owned a bakery, would you really refuse to make a cake with two grooms? You know those gays are going to throw a fabulous wedding and will order an expensive cake. Discriminate and disapprove of the gays all you want in private, but ultimately, gay money spends the same as straight money.

Post: #6

(03-30-2015 03:48 PM)Shrodax Wrote:  Of course, if you owned a bakery, would you really refuse to make a cake with two grooms? You know those gays are going to throw a fabulous wedding and will order an expensive cake. Discriminate and disapprove of the gays all you want in private, but ultimately, gay money spends the same as straight money.

That's why Christian bakeries and wedding chapels in states where homos can sue them should troll them right back. Make them a cake with slurs and derogatory shit on it. You can't deny them service, but you don't have to give them exactly what they want either. Piss them off and let them sue over that. You offered the service to them, but they were dissatisfied over how the end product turned out. Two completely different things.

Wedding chapels should perform the service but slip in fire and brimstone shit about them going to hell and dooming us all with their sodomy. Really lay it on thick to make the experience as fucking miserable as possible for them.

You might as well force the SJW crowd to openly push for censorship laws and get this goddamn charade over with.

Post: #7

(03-30-2015 03:48 PM)Shrodax Wrote:  Of course, if you owned a bakery, would you really refuse to make a cake with two grooms? You know those gays are going to throw a fabulous wedding and will order an expensive cake. Discriminate and disapprove of the gays all you want in private, but ultimately, gay money spends the same as straight money.

Sacrifice your principles for cash. What is next, a cake to celebrate paedophilia... do they pay well too?

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #8

(03-30-2015 03:48 PM)Shrodax Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 11:52 AM)The Father Wrote:  If I own a bakery and don't wish to make a cake with two grooms on it, I've lost business...but that's my business to decide, not the governments. Like many libertarians, I do not think it is an unreasonable view to hold that two people can do whatever they want in private, but that society doesn't need to applaud it and I can choose to not be a part of their service.

Not exactly. If you run a business that is open to the public, then the government does have every right to regulate how you run your business, including telling you that you can't discriminate against groups of people. This situation already played out in the Supreme Court case "Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States", in which the Supreme Court decided that motels couldn't discriminate against black patrons under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Supreme Court found the law constitutional based on the Constitution's Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. I don't necessarily agree with this law, but I do understand how it is constitutional.

The problem with the question "can private businesses discriminate?" is that one group's rights will be trampled in favor of the other group's, no matter how you answer that question. In principle, I would be inclined to agree that a private business owner should be able to discriminate against any customer for whatever reason; after all, why should a customer have the right to be able to force you to conduct a business transaction with them? But what happens when this becomes systematic, and multiple businesses decide to discriminate against the same group of people? Now we're looking at how the 14th Amendment was developed. Does the government's systematic allowance of discrimination against a group of people constitute a violation of those people's rights under the Equal Protection Clause? I am certainly not a lawyer, so maybe there are brighter legal scholars than I who can answer these questions and solve the problem in a way such that nobody's rights are violated.

I wasn't saying it is clearly illegal to pass such laws; I was saying that as a libertarian I think the right of free association gets short shrift in our society. I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm not convinced that your citing of legal precedent is unambiguously definitive. For example, the case you refer to pertains to race; I don't know a religion whose tenants profess to discriminate based on race. We're not talking about race, or even homosexuality for that matter, though that IS an area the world's major religions have been clear on for centuries, and it could be argued to be a tenant of religious faith (unlike racial discrimination). What they are really talking about isn't homosexuality itself, i.e., I won't serve you dinner because you're gay. They are referring to gay marriage: I won't participate in your wedding service because in my religion marriage is a sacrament reserved for one man and one woman, not two men, or, say, two women and one man. Now perhaps that won't be enough to prevail, but I see the argument.

Another reason I don't think those cases are necessarily conclusive is that matters like this tend to follow the political headwinds: One day, the supreme court decides in Dred Scott that a black man is 3/5 a white man, and another day, that discrimination under the law is illegal. What changed? The political climate; the laws and the nature of black people did NOT change in the 20 years or so between 1840 and 1865. Blacks didn't suddenly become 5/5 of white people - they were ALWAYS equal to white people or they were always otherwise. But what changed was what the law would tolerate. So citing this Atlanta Motel case may not have a pre-emptive significance. Right now, the political headwinds favor gays. When I was a boy, it was very much the opposite. What will it be in 20 years? I have no idea; maybe goat-fucking will be a protected right but men fucking men won't be.

(03-30-2015 03:48 PM)Shrodax Wrote:  Of course, if you owned a bakery, would you really refuse to make a cake with two grooms? You know those gays are going to throw a fabulous wedding and will order an expensive cake. Discriminate and disapprove of the gays all you want in private, but ultimately, gay money spends the same as straight money.

Depends on how much I needed the $500 for that wedding cake. If, like most bakeries, I wasn't getting rich off it, yes I'd probably not turn them away. But if I could I would. There are societal externalities imposed on all of us by the liberal agenda, including the homosexual agenda, that outweighs the revenue from a single wedding cake (or even the collective revenue that would result from the wedding cakes if the male attendees of every broadway musical got married next week).

Post: #9

(03-30-2015 03:56 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 03:48 PM)Shrodax Wrote:  Of course, if you owned a bakery, would you really refuse to make a cake with two grooms? You know those gays are going to throw a fabulous wedding and will order an expensive cake. Discriminate and disapprove of the gays all you want in private, but ultimately, gay money spends the same as straight money.

That's why Christian bakeries and wedding chapels in states where homos can sue them should troll them right back. Make them a cake with slurs and derogatory shit on it. You can't deny them service, but you don't have to give them exactly what they want either. Piss them off and let them sue over that. You offered the service to them, but they were dissatisfied over how the end product turned out. Two completely different things.

Wedding chapels should perform the service but slip in fire and brimstone shit about them going to hell and dooming us all with their sodomy. Really lay it on thick to make the experience as fucking miserable as possible for them.

You might as well force the SJW crowd to openly push for censorship laws and get this goddamn charade over with.

Funny

Post: #10

Quote:That's why Christian bakeries and wedding chapels in states where homos can sue them should troll them right back

Great strategy... Would love to see these folks do something like that after NY State fined them 13K.

Quote:But the government of the state of New York sees things differently. The Giffords, who own the bucolic Liberty Ridge Farm in upstate New York, were ordered to pay a total of $13,000 — a $10,000 fine to the state and another $1,500 to each member of a lesbian couple to compensate them for “mental anguish.’’ All because the Giffords, devout Christians, refused to hold a same-sex wedding ceremony on the property on which they live, work and have raised a daughter, 17, and a son, 21.

Quote:Cynthia Gifford took a life-changing two- to three-minute phone call in 2012 from a woman she’d never met, Melisa Erwin, who was looking for a place to hold her wedding. A wedding — to another woman.
Gifford said she told her, politely, that she would not book a same-sex wedding ceremony at the farm.
She didn’t know it at the time, but the woman’s then-fianceé, Jennifer McCarthy, recorded the conversation.

the lovely ladies

Post: #11

(03-30-2015 04:14 PM)komatiite Wrote:  

Quote:That's why Christian bakeries and wedding chapels in states where homos can sue them should troll them right back

Great strategy... Would love to see these folks do something like that after NY State fined them 13K.

Quote:But the government of the state of New York sees things differently. The Giffords, who own the bucolic Liberty Ridge Farm in upstate New York, were ordered to pay a total of $13,000 — a $10,000 fine to the state and another $1,500 to each member of a lesbian couple to compensate them for “mental anguish.’’ All because the Giffords, devout Christians, refused to hold a same-sex wedding ceremony on the property on which they live, work and have raised a daughter, 17, and a son, 21.

Quote:Cynthia Gifford took a life-changing two- to three-minute phone call in 2012 from a woman she’d never met, Melisa Erwin, who was looking for a place to hold her wedding. A wedding — to another woman.
Gifford said she told her, politely, that she would not book a same-sex wedding ceremony at the farm.
She didn’t know it at the time, but the woman’s then-fianceé, Jennifer McCarthy, recorded the conversation.

the lovely ladies

Sorry those girls don't do it for me.

Post: #12

(03-30-2015 12:19 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  Cook is a phaggot.

Nah he's probably just shoring up the sizable hipster market for his products. Otherwise the board should inform him, 'actually on behalf of apple, as CEO of apple, you can make profits for apple, or find another job'.

Tim Cook actually is openly gay so his reasons for vocal support are axiomatic.

I'm so fucking tired of hearing about gay shit nonstop in the media. It started in the early years of Bush's presidency and has been a nonstop onslaught ever since.

It's all such a bunch of crap. Nobody should be forced to do something that violates their values. We're not talking about banning gays from eating at your restaurant or entering your store. You are forcing people to actively do things in violation of their principles if you make them active participants in gay weddings by providing support to it. Personally I'd have no problem baking a gay wedding cake if that was my business, but I don't think you have the right to sue anyone that doesn't want to participate. This shit is left wing totalitarianism. We are a hair from punishing people for thought crimes.

Nothing is stopping gays from starting their own wedding service businesses. And if they didn't want to serve straight weddings, I wouldn't give a fuck. I think the ultimate prize for these totalitarians is the ability to sue churches for discrimination and take away their tax exempt status. Mark my words. This is next on the agenda.

Post: #13

OK, I'm not a lawyer but I do have related experience in the political realm and have studied these kinds of cases intensely in my coursework (same thing with getting a real estate sales license too, believe it or not). I'd defer to guys like Sp5 or Quintus if they correct me, but I'll give it a shot.

Shrodax is correct in what he says. However, sexual orientation is currently not a federally recognized protected class. So it is possible for public accommodations to discriminate against them if their state has not passed a more restrictive law. This is basically what's happening in Indiana now, no matter how much the governor or others decide to avoid saying so.

On the other hand, I can't ever recall a case regarding discrimination in a public accommodation based on religious beliefs. There's a clear conflict there between the 1st, 5th, and 14th Amendments. Is a religious belief protected over the due process clause of the 5th and 14th (the equal protection clause of the 14th was not applied in Heart of Atlanta and still is interpreted as only protecting against state action)? This is something we might very well see play out soon with laws such as this.

The Father is right that the Supreme Court changes with political headwinds, but that is currently the law. I, like many of you, don't believe in forcing people to accept patronage from people they don't want to - I contend that Jim Crow in private businesses was basically due to state-mandated separate but equal laws and that private capital would have undermined this once that was repealed in the 60's, though I can also accept the commerce clause ruling and a nuanced argument I've seen around the libertarian sphere that if you're going to rely on police to throw people out of your public businesses, and those police are paid with tax dollars, you have no right to discriminate, so I have no real ethical problem with forcing patronage in public accommodations based on that, even if I think the law may be unnecessary.

On the other hand, if we're talking about something like a bakery or a photographer, it's clearly different (at least from what I see in these instances). This isn't so much a public accommodation as a private service. Forcing people to conduct intense private labor to serve something they don't believe in is something very much like a totalitarian police state. It's an unacceptable impingement on personal liberty.

There are plenty of businesses that will cater to gays, especially now that homosexuality seems to be the country's raison d'etre. This is completely unnecessary.

Post: #14

Remember Brandon Eich? The Mozilla CEO who expressed his opposition to Faggotry not "on behalf of mozilla" but via a private political donation that was illegally leaked to the media by the IRS? He was forced to resign on the spot.

Freedom of opinion has become a complete joke in this country. There is little difference between us and Nazi Germany at this point. You are free to express yourself to your heart's content, so long as you're expressing how much you love ein Volk and ein Fuhrer.

Post: #15

The reaction to this proposed law seems very strange to me. The supreme of irony of a bunch of gays screaming "you should not have the freedom to live your life according to your beliefs!" is not lost on me. Fuck this. If this thing passes can I walk into a Kosher deli and demand they make me a pulled pork sandwich or I'll have them arrested? Of course not, people would call that ludicrous and antagonistic....but demanding service for your blasphemous asshole stretching union? completely legitimate.

Post: #16

(03-30-2015 07:27 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  If this thing passes can I walk into a Kosher deli and demand they make me a pulled pork sandwich or I'll have them arrested?

Interesting question

Post: #17

It's simply not enough that gays can marry. It's now your duty as an American to love homosexuals and serve them even if you find their lifestyle culturally corrosive or at odds with your religion.

This dude has a good take down of gay marriage. The essential part of the essay is below:

http://www.fredoneverything.net/No.shtml

Quote:The problem with being too much a nation of laws is that whoever controls the laws then controls the nation. Laws by their nature are endlessly arguable. A case, more or less plausible, can be made for anything, and for its opposite. This means that a judiciary, having an agenda, yet accountable to no one, can come to any conclusion it chooses. By untying law from the anchor of morality, we give up control over our lives.

The objection will be made that imposing the morality of the many will result in the oppression of the few. But we now have the oppression of the many by the morality of the few. And perhaps the depravity of the few is such as to need repressing. When all has been said, the question remains: Somebody's morals are going to be imposed. Ours, or theirs?

A healthy society need not be intolerant by virtue of imposing the collective morality. A culture can, and should, admit of positions between "yes" and "no." Consider homosexuality. A society may agree that if homosexuals choose to be discreet, then society in return will leave them alone - that they will suffer no persecution or penalties, that gay bars discreetly run will be discreetly ignored. The compromise is a useful one. It permits homosexuals to live largely as they wish, yet heterosexuals will not have thrust on them practices that they find repugnant.

The compromise can be maintained by the public will, just as (so far) the tacit injunction against riding naked on the subway can be maintained. Some things you don't do. Logical argument fails against either. Why not ride naked?

Once society cedes its moral authority to a court of law, then all things become possible. Consider the logical progression:

In any large city, there are clubs of hobbyist sadomasochists who gather in curious costumes to tie each other up and paddle each other. It is done discreetly and harms no one. Nothing needs to be done about it.

But note that exactly the same arguments that justify homosexuality in the schools apply to sadomasochism. It's natural, prominent people do it, it's a lifestyle. If children in grade school are to be taught that the one is merely a choice of lifestyle, why not both? We now have books in schools with titles like, "Bobby Has Two Daddies." Why not, "Sally's Daddy Wears A Leash"? Why not S&M clubs in school, as there are now gay and lesbian clubs?

Because we say so.

Why not pedophilia? There exists (with a website) an outfit called NAMBLA, the North American Man Boy Love Association, whose members believe they are entitled to engage in anal intercourse with your nine-year-old son. They aren't kidding, and they begin to get support from advanced minds in academia.

Here too a society that cannot simply say "no" finds itself at the mercy of logic-choppers. Proponents of pedophilia might (and do) argue that it is natural, that our repugnance for it is merely a cultural artifact, a product of repressive patriarchal Christianity. The ancient Greeks engaged in it. Our designation of 15 or 18 as the age of consent is purely arbitrary; a boy of nine is human, has civil rights, and can choose. Anyway, pedophilia is harmful only because we teach our children that it is shameful, instead of teaching them that it is a natural celebration of life and love. Those who have tried it know it to be a warm and loving, etc.

The answer is "No. Because we say so." Some things you don't do. This is one of them.

We just can't say it.

Post: #18

Imagine this law passes. Now imagine you are someone falsly accused of rape. You are now registered a sex offender. All of a sudden, the grocery store refuses to serve you for religious reasons. Your credit card is cancelled for "religious" reasons because SJW's have pressured all major corporations to take a hard stance. Now even simple tasks like filling up a tank of gas are a challenge.

I get that this scenario is a long shot, but this law really seems like a slipery slope. I really think a law such as this is moving society backwards. Am I for gay marriage? Not a big fan. . . but against a gay man (who was likely born that way) from buying a sandwich because of the owners religious rights? What if the owners were . . . say.,. a different religion from Christian. . .then how would you feel? This just seems like a bad idea.

Post: #19

(03-30-2015 09:17 PM)Repo Wrote:  Imagine this law passes. Now imagine you are someone falsly accused of rape. You are now registered a sex offender. All of a sudden, the grocery store refuses to serve you for religious reasons. Your credit card is cancelled for "religious" reasons because SJW's have pressured all major corporations to take a hard stance. Now even simple tasks like filling up a tank of gas are a challenge.

I get that this scenario is a long shot, but this law really seems like a slipery slope. I really think a law such as this is moving society backwards. Am I for gay marriage? Not a big fan. . . but against a gay man (who was likely born that way) from buying a sandwich because of the owners religious rights? What if the owners were . . . say.,. a different religion from Christian. . .then how would you feel? This just seems like a bad idea.

Way too unrealistic and dramatic. The law is there to solely give people the freedom to deny services directly correlated to their religious beliefs ie marriage related shit. The sandwich example sounds straight out of Rachel Maddow's key talking points tonight on MSNBC.

Post: #20

My understanding was that the "ie marriage related shit" was implied and not an actual part of the law. . . that the law was more open ended.

Post: #21

(03-30-2015 09:17 PM)Repo Wrote:  Imagine this law passes. Now imagine you are someone falsly accused of rape. You are now registered a sex offender. All of a sudden, the grocery store refuses to serve you for religious reasons. Your credit card is cancelled for "religious" reasons because SJW's have pressured all major corporations to take a hard stance. Now even simple tasks like filling up a tank of gas are a challenge.

I get that this scenario is a long shot, but this law really seems like a slipery slope. I really think a law such as this is moving society backwards. Am I for gay marriage? Not a big fan. . . but against a gay man (who was likely born that way) from buying a sandwich because of the owners religious rights? What if the owners were . . . say.,. a different religion from Christian. . .then how would you feel? This just seems like a bad idea.

I imagine a business marketing itself as performing criminal background checks on its customers wouldn't last very long.

Post: #22

Interesting wording in this sentence:

Quote:Men and women have fought and died fighting to protect our country’s founding principles of freedom and equality.

No Tim, that's incorrect. One of the sexes you mentioned is willing to die in the name of ideals, the other one does not.

Post: #23

If he really wanted to take a stand, he would figure out how to stop selling Apple products in Indiana. But, that would harm the gravy train.

Post: #24

"That's why Christian bakeries and wedding chapels in states where homos can sue them should troll them right back. Make them a cake with slurs and derogatory shit on it. You can't deny them service, but you don't have to give them exactly what they want either. Piss them off and let them sue over that. You offered the service to them, but they were dissatisfied over how the end product turned out. Two completely different things."

That's ludicrous. Your Yelp reputation would get shredded, and you'd probably get sued anyway.

Shrodax, all you effectively said was, "this is illegal because the government tells me it is."

The 14th amendment requires the state not to discriminate. It was necessary to pass additional laws to ban discrimination among private businesses.

All laws barring private (as in non-state) antidiscrimination are fundamentally totalitarian - they make the government the referee of all transactions and decisions. Does that mean we shouldn't have them? We went from having a state that was discriminatory to a state that banned discrimination. We didn't spend much time in the libertarian middle ground, so it's hard to say what it would be like.

Personally, I'd rather know who hates me and boycott them than forcing everyone to serve me and unwittingly reward someone who hates me. But I admit, I have no idea what society would look like if private discrimination were legal, and if it would be an improvement or not.

Post: #25

(03-31-2015 12:45 AM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  "That's why Christian bakeries and wedding chapels in states where homos can sue them should troll them right back. Make them a cake with slurs and derogatory shit on it. You can't deny them service, but you don't have to give them exactly what they want either. Piss them off and let them sue over that. You offered the service to them, but they were dissatisfied over how the end product turned out. Two completely different things."

That's ludicrous. Your Yelp reputation would get shredded, and you'd probably get sued anyway.

Evangelicals would be tripping over themselves to support businesses who did this.

And good luck winning that one. The fags can use daddy government to force a baker to make them a cake but they can't force them to just put whatever they want on it.