Colorado Baker Wins

[Brisketexan 105329]

17 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Yeah. That’s why that wretched person lost. Because she went high and was all about loving the deplorables   

You have an aneurysm that has gone undiagnosed? 

Nah, just clarity brought by full historical perspective.

Love loses.

Hate wins.

Choose your weapons accordingly.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Nah, just clarity brought by full historical perspective.

Love loses.

Hate wins.

Choose your weapons accordingly.

Who was the love candidate?

[Incredulity 11683]

“Reagan and W simple farmers”.  

There it is.

 

[Buzzrock 14940]

I can’t imagine legally compelling someone who hates me to make my FOOD.

Percentage of bodily fluids in that cake: greater than zero.

[jimmyjazz 46130]

3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

And now you fuckwits claim Trump hates gays. Yet he’s the first major party candidate who ran for president in his first term in favor of gay marriage.  Even Obama had to “evolve” on the issue. 

Well, let's dissect this bold claim of yours for a moment, even though you're deflecting from the sub-topic of Trump and his supporters being racists (because they are).

Trump lies.  A lot.  Every day.  His pro-LGBT campaign promises were hot air.  He lied to get votes.  And now the subset of the gay community that supported him is pissed.

He's tried to roll back military bans on transgender people.  He won't recognize Pride.  He has stocked his administration with anti-LGBT empty suits who do his bidding, which is (in part) to fight LGBT gains everywhere possible, including in the courts.

So yeah, that was a bad move, counselor.  Try again.

[EastTexan 662]

3 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Same shit has been said when Reagan, Bush 1, Dole, Bush 2, McCain and Romney ran.  It’s lame. 

The left throws out the racist card to 95% of the right and some leftys. Hell on cr if a right leaning poster disagrees with them,, the first thing out of their mouths is racist bigot. They ain't got much more than that and it goes down hill from there.

[Brisketexan 105329]

Who was the love candidate?

Literally anyone but Trump. Fuck, Santorum hates gays, but at least he doesn’t blow every racist dog whistle ever invented.

Fuck em. We saw the campaign that wins. That’s the new order. Hate, cruelty, demonization of the other, and celebrating, with pure unbridled joy, the suffering of all who dare disagree with you. The playbook is written, the winning play is there. Run it. Run it down their fucking throat, then run it again.

Don’t tell me it won’t work. It already did.

[jimmyjazz 46130]

2 minutes ago, EastTexan said:

The left throws out the racist card to 95% of the right and some leftys. Hell on cr if a right leaning poster disagrees with them,, the first thing out of their mouths is racist bigot. They ain't got much more than that and it goes down hill from there.

If the modern right wasn't so chock full of racists we wouldn't need to do this.

[troph 24905]

4 hours ago, EMAWesome said:

I could see the small town lack of options argument in the days before the internet.  Now it should just be a matter of Googling your options.  Surely it would just be a matter of shipping the cake along with a set of instructions to put it together if it's going to be that complicated.

You shouldn’t have to google your options on this shit. Google should be for who has the exquisite Italian cream cake. Who will refuse me as a customer because I love dudes or chicks or because I’m now one but used to be the other just isn’t okay in 2018. For the love of god and all that is holy you conservative white straight dudes just don’t get it. Christ almighty.

 

If I get remarried I want the hottest AF dress and the tastiest cake money can find bc you know tuxes are boring and the last time I had to fake no interest in cakes and I’ll be god damned if I get turned away from the hottest AF dress shop bc the owner thinks I’m a carpet munching devil worshiper.

Edited June 5, 2018 by troph

[Sgt Hulk 13838]

came here to see melt downs from people literally not affected  came away satisfied.

 

Theres a business up the road i cant stand, the owners are assholes and so is their staff.  Luckily I am free to not give them my money or patronage, I go elsewhere.   Its that simple.  I dont understand what is so hard about this other than the usual HAYYYYYYYYY look at me pay attention to me I want attention  cry baby bullshit todays society is predicated upon.  It used to be force them to go out of business by not shopping there, now its sue them and force them to take your money lol 

 

also blame trump i guess 

[jimmyjazz 46130]

Just now, Sgt Hulk said:

came here to see melt downs from people literally not affected  came away satisfied.

The shaggy/surly old timer who posted RIGHT before you is literally affected by this type of policy.  The jokes write themselves.

[troph 24905]

If the modern right wasn't so chock full of racists we wouldn't need to do this.

And progressive NIMBY folks aren’t much different either. Racism is everywhere bro.

[EastTexan 662]

3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Technically, we got where we are today because approximately 12% of Bernie supporters voted for Trump in MI, WI and PA.

 

And those socialists are doing pretty damn good financially, I'd wager.

[Dahobbs 17682]

1 minute ago, Sgt Hulk said:

came here to see melt downs from people literally not affected  came away satisfied.

 

Theres a business up the road i cant stand, the owners are assholes and so is their staff.  Luckily I am free to not give them my money or patronage, I go elsewhere.   Its that simple.  I dont understand what is so hard about this other than the usual HAYYYYYYYYY look at me pay attention to me I want attention  cry baby bullshit todays society is predicated upon.  It used to be force them to go out of business by not shopping there, now its sue them and force them to take your money lol 

 

also blame trump i guess 

I agree that market forces are on way to correct bad behavior. But, so is state action. Separate but equal would still be acceptable if not for state action. 

[jimmyjazz 46130]

Just now, troph said:

And progressive NIMBY folks aren’t much different either. Racism is everywhere bro.

I don't disagree, it is everywhere.  But there is a higher % on the right.

It's all disgusting.

[Sgt Hulk 13838]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The shaggy/surly old timer who posted RIGHT before you is literally affected by this type of policy.  The jokes write themselves.

Is she?  does she not have the free will to go to the billions of other shops in this country  is is that the only cake baker that can make it on earth? 

Simply give your hard earned cash to a business that deserves it, and let the others reap the fruits of their labor or lack there of.  its simple 

Edited June 5, 2018 by Sgt Hulk

[Incredulity 11683]

3 minutes ago, troph said:

You shouldn’t have to google your options on this shit. Who will refuse me as a customer because I love dudes or chicks or because I’m now one but used to be the other just isn’t okay in 2018. For the love of god and all that is holy you conservative white straight dudes just don’t get it. Christ almighty.

If I get remarried I want the hottest AF dress and the tastiest cake money can find bc you know tuxes are boring and the last time I had to fake no interest in cakes and I’ll be god damned if I get turned away from the hottest AF dress shop bc the owner things I’m a carpet munching devil worshiper.

The thing is in 2018, no one cares.  Except for a few bigots and the white knight politicians who must make them “pay”.  The problem is finger wagging, victory laps and self righteousness don’t accomplish anything.  Brisket is wrong and Nelson Mandela was right.

[jimmyjazz 46130]

3 minutes ago, Sgt Hulk said:

Is she?  does she not have the free will to go to the billions of other shops in this country  is is that the only cake baker that can make it on earth? 

It doesn't matter if she has the free will to do so.  The idea that "there will be another shop willing to accommodate you right down the road" is dangerous and in many cases not even true.  It also disallows her from making HER choice.

While this may not be a perfect example of "tyranny of the majority", the underlying concept is the same.  Our country is about protecting the little guy, not the big guy, despite what modern politics might have you believe.

Edited June 5, 2018 by jimmyjazz

[Sawbonz 27587]

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Nah, just clarity brought by full historical perspective.

Love loses.

Hate wins.

Choose your weapons accordingly.

You can’t win the war by yourself. And you don’t have to throw away your principles to fight. Maybe the story of André Trocmé and his parishioners can help you regain some perspective 

https://www.amazon.com/Lest-Innocent-Blood-Be-Shed/dp/0060925175

Even if you know some of their story I sincerely hope you will read this book. 

[EastTexan 662]

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Yes, we should aspire to a goal of "hey, we're not as bad as the Hutus against the Tutsis."  What an awesome benchmark.

It's okay to be racist again.  Arguing against that just makes you look silly.  The entire world is watching us with their mouths agape.  It's as if the most respected member of your community ripped off his clothes, started smearing his own shit all over himself, hollering loudly "what are you looking at?!?  I don't have the problem, YOU HAVE THE PROBLEM!!!"

Remember the words of our president.  Good people.  On both sides.

 

And we could go on.  And on.  And on.

We are presently governed of, by, and for the most reprehensible of souls.  It's who we are.  Laid bare for the world to see.  Sure, plenty of folks say "that's not who we are."  But that's just excuses and weak deflection.  We are EXACTLY who we appear to be.

 

Need to get off the sauce this evening.

[Buzzrock 14940]

You shouldn’t have to google your options on this shit. Google should be for who has the exquisite Italian cream cake. Who will refuse me as a customer because I love dudes or chicks or because I’m now one but used to be the other just isn’t okay in 2018. For the love of god and all that is holy you conservative white straight dudes just don’t get it. Christ almighty.
 
If I get remarried I want the hottest AF dress and the tastiest cake money can find bc you know tuxes are boring and the last time I had to fake no interest in cakes and I’ll be god damned if I get turned away from the hottest AF dress shop bc the owner things I’m a carpet munching devil worshiper.

You can deal with the world as you’d like it to be or you can deal with the world the way it is. In the real world bigoted businesses exist. They should be ostracized and run out of business by people exposing them as well as taking their business elsewhere.

Personally I don’t think it’s government’s job. But I understand why people would disagree.

[Sgt Hulk 13838]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It doesn't matter if she has the free will to do so.  The idea that "there will be another shop willing to accommodate you right down the road" is dangerous and in many cases not eventrue.  It also disallows her from making HER choice.

While this may not be a perfect example of "tyranny of the majority", the underlying concept is the same.  Our country is about protecting the little guy, not the big guy, despite what modern politics might have you believe.

So you think its acceptable to force a business that has no interest in you the customer to accommodate you,.  You are fine with providing said business your hard earned money that you work for knowing they dislike you or have beliefs against you?  Instead of allowing the market to put them out of business you would rather keep their lights on with your money?  IF they want to site religious beliefs and they are free to do so thank god, (see what i did there)  then allow their beliefs to lose on sales and money its a free market.  

Edited June 5, 2018 by Sgt Hulk

[jimmyjazz 46130]

1 minute ago, Sgt Hulk said:

So you think its acceptable to force a business that has no interest in you the customer to accommodate you,.  You are fine with providing said business your hard earned money that you work for knowing they dislike you or have beliefs against you?  Instead of allowing the market to put them out of business you would rather keep their lights on with your money? 

So you think it's acceptable to have white seating and black seating?  White drinking fountains and black drinking fountains?  White schools and black schools?  No government intervention was necessary, and moreover, that intervention was wrong?

[Sgt Hulk 13838]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

So you think it's acceptable to have white seating and black seating?  White drinking fountains and black drinking fountains?  White schools and black schools?  No government intervention was necessary, and moreover, that intervention was wrong?

SO what you are saying is religious beliefs are the same as skin color?   You have no way to debate so you toss some oranges in with the apples.   

 

Youre view isnt gonna change and neither is mine,  but your last comparison is so far left field that even debating anymore is a waste.  you may as well now call me a bible thumbing alt right trump guy next.  

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, Sgt Hulk said:

SO what you are saying is religious beliefs are the same as skin color?   You have no way to debate so you toss some oranges in with the apples.   

 

Youre view isnt gonna change and neither is mine,  but your last comparison is so far left field that even debating anymore is a waste.  you may as well now call me a bible thumbing alt right trump guy next.  

No sorry....racist.... racist is the word the judges were looking for.  Racist is the go to word for the left whenever anyone disagrees with their point of view on anything.  They've been trying to make this religious issue a racial issue for several pages now.

[Dahobbs 17682]

1 minute ago, Sgt Hulk said:

SO what you are saying is religious beliefs are the same as skin color?   You have no way to debate so you toss some oranges in with the apples.   

 

Youre view isnt gonna change and neither is mine,  but your last comparison is so far left field that even debating anymore is a waste.  you may as well now call me a bible thumbing alt right trump guy next.  

What? Religious arguments were used to justify the treatment of blacks as inferior. The situation is fairly analogous and I'm not sure you understand the discussion here. It isn't about just religion, but rather about competing rights -- freedom from discrimination and religious freedom/freedom of expression. How do you approach them? Which right gives way and when? They are interesting legal and moral questions. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

16 minutes ago, troph said:

You shouldn’t have to google your options on this shit. Google should be for who has the exquisite Italian cream cake. Who will refuse me as a customer because I love dudes or chicks or because I’m now one but used to be the other just isn’t okay in 2018. For the love of god and all that is holy you conservative white straight dudes just don’t get it. Christ almighty.

 

If I get remarried I want the hottest AF dress and the tastiest cake money can find bc you know tuxes are boring and the last time I had to fake no interest in cakes and I’ll be god damned if I get turned away from the hottest AF dress shop bc the owner things I’m a carpet munching devil worshiper.

Or what if Google doesn't want to support gay marriage either and turns up 0 search results? I know Google and Amazon own us and we like to pretend they are benevolent overlords, but they are still private companies, so if we want to allow private companies to discriminate, they can too.  Even worse if ISPs decide to get in on religious right to refusal. 

[Gatorubet 30311]

39 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Cover words.  Nod and a wink.

You are lying.    Ford's racism or lack thereof was not a part of his political persona.  His pardon of Nixon and his saying Poland was not a Soviet influenced country, sure.   But I voted for him, and attacks on him were not in any way racism based.  

[Gatorubet 30311]

9 minutes ago, Sgt Hulk said:

SO what you are saying is religious beliefs and sexual orientation are the same as skin color?  

Yes.  And how they interplay is not simplistic. 

[EMAWesome 101]

43 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, let's dissect this bold claim of yours for a moment, even though you're deflecting from the sub-topic of Trump and his supporters being racists (because they are).

Trump lies.  A lot.  Every day.  His pro-LGBT campaign promises were hot air.  He lied to get votes.  And now the subset of the gay community that supported him is pissed.

He's tried to roll back military bans on transgender people.  He won't recognize Pride.  He has stocked his administration with anti-LGBT empty suits who do his bidding, which is (in part) to fight LGBT gains everywhere possible, including in the courts.

So yeah, that was a bad move, counselor.  Try again.

Remind me who the ambassador to Germany is.

[DixonHur 11367]

13 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I know Google and Amazon own us and we like to pretend they are benevolent overlords, but they are still private companies

Actually, no they aren't

[Brisketexan 105329]

You can’t win the war by yourself. And you don’t have to throw away your principles to fight. Maybe the story of André Trocmé and his parishioners can help you regain some perspective 
https://www.amazon.com/Lest-Innocent-Blood-Be-Shed/dp/0060925175
Even if you know some of their story I sincerely hope you will read this book. 

Beautiful story. Thousands saved.

Six million dead.

Scoreboard, hate.

We WANT to believe that good is stronger. But the scoreboard is cold, dispassionate, and doesn’t lie.

[Sawbonz 27587]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Beautiful story. Thousands saved.

Six million dead.

Scoreboard, hate.

We WANT to believe that good is stronger. But the scoreboard is cold, dispassionate, and doesn’t lie.

Just think if there were 10000 Trocmés

 

aw fuck it. Just let hate kill you I’m past giving a fuck

[FondrenRoad 4378]

12 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Actually, no they aren't

Lol. Sure, they're publicly held. They aren't owned by nor do they really answer to the state.  That's why Bezos has laughed off the Trump feud. He is already beyond Trump and US governance in general. Its why Zuckerberg laughed his way through Congressional hearings. The two originally mentioned also hardly answer to their investors, but the only investors that matter hardly represent the actual "public" anyway.  If 50.01 percent of shareholders want to be anti gay, then the company would be.  However, again, shareholders have little control over what those companies do. Most are as clueless as Congress and only care about the money.  It will be really interesting when Amazon begins to try to bypass the dollar and US regulation entirely, including SEC regulation.

Edited June 5, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[troph 24905]

No sorry....racist.... racist is the word the judges were looking for.  Racist is the go to word for the left whenever anyone disagrees with their point of view on anything.  They've been trying to make this religious issue a racial issue for several pages now.

Actually the new word is tranny and transgender and homosexuals and gender deviant and the like. You know the whole bathroom debate which is at its core a debate over the traditional primacy of public accommodation laws versus sincerely held religious beliefs. This isn’t manufactured leftist shit. Most of my gay friends came of age in the 80s or were at least alive then and they all heard their lovers who got gay cancer were cursed by god for their sins or felt the pressure to hide as the culture wars started in earnest around that time. So no - to my friends and political friends it’s not drummed up. When trump and pence tell me I can’t serve in the military or the state of Texas makes it lawful for organizations to deny me the opportunity to adopt a baby simply bc I’m different even though I’m a mom of three heathy boys with the money and the schedule flexibility to do so — yeah that ain’t right.

 

State legislatures are being FLOODED right now with orchestrated religious freedom bills borne out of the hobby lobby decision. Across all aspects of society — license to discriminate. Their goal is to codify straight up discrimination of men who love men and well more importantly to this crowd women who love women, and for those still reading the trannies and queers too. It’s a god damned three alarm fire blazing and surly assholes are telling me to be fine with it if I don’t like the cake google it.

 

Couple of folks get it but I’m not surprised it’s brisket who sees it as much as I do. It’s the minority populations that see it first. This isn’t a drill this is the real deal.

[troph 24905]

Actually, no they aren't

They are private for purposes of this discussion. It’s state actors or private actors. Publicly held companies are no different than privately held companies for this legal analysis.

[DixonHur 11367]

4 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Lol. Sure, they're publicly held. They aren't owned by nor do they really answer to the state.  That's why Bezos has laughed off the Trump feud. He is already beyond Trump and US governance in general. Its why Zuckerberg laughed his way through Congressional hearings. The two originally mentioned also hardly answer to their investors, but the only investors that matter hardly represent the actual "public" anyway.  

I'm honestly not sure if you're making a point or just musing.

[troph 24905]

I'm honestly not sure if you're making a point or just musing.

He’s making a point.

[softlynow 1826]

lol at the idea that exposing bigoted shop owners would to their demise. It is fashionable again to be openly cruel, and exposure is just free marketing. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

I'm honestly not sure if you're making a point or just musing.

The point is that if companies are allowed to refuse service to gays, then Google can also refuse service to gays, so it is wrong to tell someone that they can just Google another baker. Because what if they cant?

You're the one that decided to play semantics with it.  There is little that makes a publicly held company more morally just than a privately held company.  Often they are worse, in fact. Exxon's proxy wars and big tobacco's war on health should have told you that. Regulation is required to keep corporations, whether actually private or publicly held, just. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

8 minutes ago, troph said:

They are private for purposes of this discussion. It’s state actors or private actors. Publicly held companies are no different than privately held companies for this legal analysis.

This. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, troph said:

Actually the new word is tranny and transgender and homosexuals and gender deviant and the like. You know the whole bathroom debate which is at its core a debate over the traditional primacy of public accommodation laws versus sincerely held religious beliefs. This isn’t manufactured leftist shit. Most of my gay friends came of age in the 80s or were at least alive then and they all heard their lovers who got gay cancer were cursed by god for their sins or felt the pressure to hide as the culture wars started in earnest around that time. So no - to my friends and political friends it’s not drummed up. When trump and pence tell me I can’t serve in the military or the state of Texas makes it lawful for organizations to deny me the opportunity to adopt a baby simply bc I’m different even though I’m a mom of three heathy boys with the money and the schedule flexibility to do so — yeah that ain’t right.

State legislatures are being FLOODED right now with orchestrated religious freedom bills borne out of the hobby lobby decision. Across all aspects of society — license to discriminate. Their goal is to codify straight up discrimination of men who love men and well more importantly to this crowd women who love women, and for those still ready the trannies and queers too. It’s a god damned three alarm fire blazing and surly assholes are telling me to be fine with it if I don’t like the cake google it.

Couple of folks get it but I’m not surprised it’s brisket who sees it as much as I do. It’s the minority populations that see it first. This isn’t a drill this is the real deal.

And I've said I don't believe you should be able to discriminate who you do business with when you're open to/catering to the public, regardless of religious, racial or sexual views.  No one has forced anyone to open a business, but if you do you have to meet the letter of the law.  

The rub for some is what constitutes an infringement on religious rights.  There is no grey area with respect to race or sexual orientation IMO.  Bathroom issues are still a sticky subject for many, but there are ways to deal with that as well to provide people with privacy/safety.

 

This debate has moved from that to racial issues nothing about the trans world till your post now, for the most part.

[Tennesseehorn 101]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

If the modern right wasn't so chock full of racists we wouldn't need to do this.

Give me a fucking break. 

[DixonHur 11367]

15 minutes ago, troph said:

They are private for purposes of this discussion. It’s state actors or private actors. Publicly held companies are no different than privately held companies for this legal analysis.

I couldn't disagree more.  At the end of the day, a private company has ONE decision maker.  That's not the case for a publicly held company.  Public companies have shareholders, CEOs, sometimes founders, and board members.  Plus, because their stock is publicly traded they are beholden to the SEC, aka the US government.  There's also a reasonable chance that the government owns part of these companies through pension plans, etc.  They definitely fall into the public sector in my mind.

Edit:  By "one decision maker" I mean one person who decides if they are going to be a bigoted business.

Edited June 5, 2018 by DixonHur

[troph 24905]

I couldn't disagree more.  At the end of the day, a private company has ONE decision maker.  That's not the case for a publicly held company.  Public companies have shareholders, CEOs, sometimes founders, and board members.  Plus, because their stock is publicly traded they are beholden to the SEC, aka the US government.  There's also a reasonable chance that the government owns part of these companies through pension plans, etc.  They definitely fall into the public sector in my mind.
Edit:  By "one decision maker" I mean one person who decides if they are going to be a bigoted business.

I’m quoting/paraphrasing the law. You can disagree all you want to but the issue here is the civil rights act vs hobby lobby.

[Mole 4333]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

We tried love.  Love loses, because hate fights dirty, and fighting dirty wins.  The lesson of history, through the millenia, is simple -- hate wins.

And that makes me a shitty Christian.  But guess what?  I have something on the fucking hypocrites on their side -- at least I fucking admit it instead of lie about it.

 

3

Your view of history is so fundamentally wrong that it defies belief. Check in with history 100, 200, etc. years ago and look at the lives of those on the margins (even apart from technology). Historically speaking, we're living in a golden age in terms of freedom and tolerance. While there has no doubt been a great deal of violence involved in this progress, social progress doesn't really work at the end of a gun, sword, or spear. One of the foundational movements of our culture taught that the greatest love is to sacrifice your life for your friend. Of all the ideologies to stick, how did such sacrificial love last?

The greatest social movements of the 20th century were built on non-violence and love. Think about how relatively peacefully we ended up with gay marriage. Compared with Civil RIghts or slavery, it was almost casual. While there's been violence, for the most part, we all just collectively decided to accept it over a 20-30 year period. It's amazingly peaceful. That shouldn't diminish the suffering of those who have suffered, but compared to Civil Rights or slavery or various versions of anti-Semitism, love wins and it's getting better and more efficient at winning.

Trump's bad, but if you were to rank most racist presidents from most to least, he'd probably be in the bottom quarter or so. Love is winning, which is why Trump seems so shockingly terrible. 

As to the second part, as a grown man eagerly awaiting the death of another grown man on the internet, I'd say you've lost your moral compass.

[troph 24905]

And I've said I don't believe you should be able to discriminate who you do business with when you're open to/catering to the public, regardless of religious, racial or sexual views.  No one has forced anyone to open a business, but if you do you have to meet the letter of the law.   The rub for some is what constitutes an infringement on religious rights.  There is no grey area with respect to race or sexual orientation IMO.  Bathroom issues are still a sticky subject for many, but there are ways to deal with that as well to provide people with privacy/safety.  

This debate has moved from that to racial issues nothing about the trans world till your post now, for the most part.

 

 

Actually the debate is about LGBTQ status vs radical Christianity and so are the hundreds of religious freedom bills flooding legislatures. And don’t think for a second my gay brothers, lezzie sisters and my trans and genderqueer family aren’t in this together bc we are.  

 

This isn’t isolated. Hobby lobby was a devastating blow that opened all of this shit up and the radical folks on the right are funded and organized and are coming for codified protection of active and meaningful discrimination.

[DixonHur 11367]

4 minutes ago, troph said:

I’m quoting/paraphrasing the law. You can disagree all you want to but the issue here is the civil rights act vs hobby lobby.

I thought the issue here was a baker in Colorado?

[David Dennison 18946]

11 minutes ago, Tennesseehorn said:

Give me a fucking break. 

Well, it is full of racists. That's a fact.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

11 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I couldn't disagree more.  At the end of the day, a private company has ONE decision maker.  That's not the case for a publicly held company.  Public companies have shareholders, CEOs, sometimes founders, and board members.  Plus, because their stock is publicly traded they are beholden to the SEC, aka the US government.  There's also a reasonable chance that the government owns part of these companies through pension plans, etc.  They definitely fall into the public sector in my mind.

Edit:  By "one decision maker" I mean one person who decides if they are going to be a bigoted business.

Stop splitting hairs. The terms public and private are interchangeable in that they are not gov't run companies, but private citizens whether they answer to a board, shareholders  or a single owner.