Colorado Baker Wins

[SDG 3319]

7 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I thought the issue here was a baker in Colorado?

It is and the court only ruled that the baker wasn't given a fair shake by the State.  

Edited June 5, 2018 by SDG

[troph 24798]

I thought the issue here was a baker in Colorado?

The opinion is odd but at its core it’s public accommodation laws vs hobby lobby/religious beliefs

[SDG 3319]

Just now, troph said:

The opinion is odd but at its core it’s public accommodation laws vs hobby lobby/religious beliefs

The court didn't rule on any of that.  

[Tennesseehorn 101]

49 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Remind me who the ambassador to Germany is.

Token gay guy that’s all.   Of course he may be bi-sexual or 50% gay.  

[David Dennison 18860]

Is it too much to ask that we stop allowing people to be assholes while hiding behind a completely made up supernatural being?

[Orca of Peace 109]

11 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

My "rules" apply to anyone.  It applies to any type of business and any type of customer:

1.If the business is supplying a standard product to the general public it must supply it to all, unless there is some overriding government dictate (e.g. national security concern for selling supercomputers).

2. If the business is providing a custom product (e.g. defending a business in a patent lawsuit) then they are totally free to decide to whom they provide their service.

A $2000 cake to a gay wedding is governed by rule #2.  Flowers to a gay wedding is governed by rule #1.  The "gay wedding part doesn't have shit to do with deciding which rule applies.  Nor does race, religion, national origin or favored football team.

 

 

elaborate flower arrangements can be a custom product

[Incredulity 11671]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Is it too much to ask that we stop allowing people to be assholes while hiding behind a completely made up supernatural being?

The government?

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19101]

3 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Worse than Hitler and Wels?

HRC was also the only moderate Dem around. Maybe the last moderate to win a primary given our current climate. So, as someone in finance, who is going to be a "better" Dem candidate than Hillary for you?  Definitely not Bernie.  He would actually be coming to redistribute your wealth. Your best bet would have been to stop Trump in the GOP primary.  That will still be your best bet in 2020 because Hillary was the closest you were ever gonna get to a Dem that supports trickle down economics. She is also pro free trade, unlike both Bernie and Trump.  The next Dem candidate will probably be closer to Bernie than Hillary.

It is like you think I am a necon or even remotely support the GOP.  I do not.  However, HRC expected people to get behind her because it was her turn and she was a woman, which were both shitty reasons to vote for her. She never gave me a reason to either trust her or want her as President.  I actually almost didn't vote, which is something I have done in the past, but I, unlike many that claimed they did, voted Johnson and Weld, because they were the best choice of what was out there.  

Also, trickle down doesn't work.  Neither does Keynesian.  I am very much more of an Austrian that believes in Free Markets, though I do acknowledge, unlike some, that government has its place.  I just have no trust that our government won't grossly overstep.

 

 

[Mole 4333]

9 minutes ago, troph said:

The opinion is odd but at its core it’s public accommodation laws vs hobby lobby/religious beliefs

I'd say that at its core it's about public accommodation vs. personal expression; in other words, what constitutes artistic expression/speech?

Edited June 5, 2018 by Mole

[DixonHur 11304]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

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.  

Your lack of understand and/or appreciation for the operation's and ownership differences between public and private businesses doesn't constitute "splitting hairs".  When the government has the possibility of owning part of your company, you cease to be a private entity. 

As to the civil rights act, as well intentioned as it is, I'd be willing to be that if a challenge made it to SCOTUS, that Title II would be deemed unconstitutional.   

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Is it too much to ask that we stop allowing people to be assholes while hiding behind a completely made up supernatural being?

And yet.................. you manage to be one all by yer lonesome with no help whatsoever from anyone.....

[FondrenRoad 4378]

32 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.

The companies that we are talking about yield to the SEC when they feel it's the right move, but they aren't beholden to it. They are borderless. Governments are nuisances to be played against one another. Do you think the US government could shut Google down entirely?  Impossible.  Could they even shut them down in the USA?  Doubtful. US agencies ride on the backs of these companies. They aren't even in a position to play catch up. At the end of the day, the US is only part of Google's business.  I wouldn't be surprised if they dont already have a failsafe HQ relocation plan. 

Amazon will probably be the first to really test the "beyond governance" waters. It is true that they dont have one decision maker though. They are a bureaucratic mess like any pseudo government. It's even funnier that you think someone with shares in a pension fund has any control at all. Bezos could tell pension managers to fuck off himself.  Neither really has much control over what development teams put out so that they can get to "rest and vest" however. Yet Amazon employed developers can throw shit out there with little oversight to see what works. Same with Google. 

But to bring it back to the OP, the issue is that both Amazon and Google could be antigay if they wanted to be.  Their operations in the US should be forced to play fair, just like bakeries. If they want to leave over it, they can. 

Edited June 5, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, DixonHur said:

Your lack of understand and/or appreciation for the operation's and ownership differences between public and private businesses doesn't constitute "splitting hairs".  When the government has the possibility of owning part of your company, you cease to be a private entity. 

As to the civil rights act, as well intentioned as it is, I'd be willing to be that if a challenge made it to SCOTUS, that Title II would be deemed unconstitutional.   

How does the gov't become owner of a company within normal circumstances ?  Or are you advocating for nationalization ?  

And within the discussion at hand it's still private citizens owning the company not the gov't.

[DixonHur 11304]

3 minutes ago, Mole said:

I'd say that at its core it's about public accommodation vs. personal expression; in other words, what constitutes artistic expression/speech?

I don't think you need to qualify it with the word "artistic".  I think if it were challenged, it would be on the basis of a breach of 1st Amendment rights.

[Tennesseehorn 101]

18 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Is it too much to ask that we stop allowing people to be assholes while hiding behind a completely made up supernatural being?

With that attitude I really feel sorry—-no I pity you if you think this is it in terms of your existence.  Seriously.  

[FondrenRoad 4378]

10 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

It is like you think I am a necon or even remotely support the GOP.  I do not.  However, HRC expected people to get behind her because it was her turn and she was a woman, which were both shitty reasons to vote for her. She never gave me a reason to either trust her or want her as President.  I actually almost didn't vote, which is something I have done in the past, but I, unlike many that claimed they did, voted Johnson and Weld, because they were the best choice of what was out there.  

Also, trickle down doesn't work.  Neither does Keynesian.  I am very much more of an Austrian that believes in Free Markets, though I do acknowledge, unlike some, that government has its place.  I just have no trust that our government won't grossly overstep.

 

 

I get that the "her turn" nonsense was pure bullshit. And it caused plenty of well deserved hatred. Is it her fault though that no suitable Democrat decided to run against her?  It was really their fault. 

However, Trump actually offered nothing to anyone from an economic standpoint.  I'll also revise my previous post given your post here.  I actually think HRC was your perfect economic candidate if you had gotten over the "her turn" stuff.  She is much more in line with your thinking than Johnson. And certainly more than Trump. Although I do think that Trump will end up pure trickle down with nearly zero protectionism, like his GOP predecessors, by the end of it.  Not for his lack of trying though. 

[David Dennison 18860]

5 minutes ago, Tennesseehorn said:

With that attitude I really feel sorry—-no I pity you if you think this is it in terms of your existence.  Seriously.  

I pity you for being so scared.

And this is it. When you die, that's all.

Edited June 5, 2018 by David Dennison

[Tennesseehorn 101]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

I pity you for being so scared.

And this is it. When you die, that's all.

I’m not scared at all. In fact I know there is something magnificent after this life. In the end you’ll wish you would have thought differently. 

Edited June 5, 2018 by Tennesseehorn

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

11 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

I get that the "her turn" nonsense was pure bullshit. And it caused plenty of well deserved hatred. Is it her fault though that no suitable Democrat decided to run against her?  It was really their fault. 

However, Trump actually offered nothing to anyone from an economic standpoint.  I'll also revise my previous post given your post here.  I actually think HRC was your perfect economic candidate if you had gotten over the "her turn" stuff.  She is much more in line with your thinking than Johnson. And certainly more than Trump. Although I do think that Trump will end up pure trickle down with nearly zero protectionism, like his GOP predecessors, by the end of it.  Not for his lack of trying though. 

Are you seriously trying to say people just chose not to run against her ?   She used the entire DNC apparatus (they gave her control of the party during the 2016 election cycle) to discourage anyone who thought about running against her right down to Biden.  She was a mafia queen in every act she every engaged in, and in the end people grew tired of her self centered schtick.

She was annointed by her fawning media sources a full 2 years before the actual election.  She was projected to win that far out.  Nobody in the DNC who valued their political life was going to run against her.  Yep quite the party of the people that DNC.

And Fondrens line about everyone loving her is the biggest pile of hoerseshit since his last post. Nobody liked Hillary.  Hillary doesn't like anyone other than herself.  Anyone claiming to like her was either on her staff, scared shitless of her or trying to score points with her.

Edited June 5, 2018 by Onboard 2.0

[David Dennison 18860]

1 minute ago, Tennesseehorn said:

In the end you’ll wish you would have thought differently. 

That is straight up fear talking. 

 

 

[Dahobbs 17534]

19 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Your lack of understand and/or appreciation for the operation's and ownership differences between public and private businesses doesn't constitute "splitting hairs".  When the government has the possibility of owning part of your company, you cease to be a private entity. 

As to the civil rights act, as well intentioned as it is, I'd be willing to be that if a challenge made it to SCOTUS, that Title II would be deemed unconstitutional.   

What?!

First, you dont seem to understand that words can have different meanings in different contexts. When we are talking about private and public for constitutional purposes, the meaning is very distinct between private and public when referring to stock ownership. They are not the same terms and dont have the same meanings.

 

Second, you think Title II is going to be found unconstitutional? You realize, it has already been challenged, right? You would have to completely rewrite a hundred years of precedent to reach your conclusion. 

[Tennesseehorn 101]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That is straight up fear talking. 

 

 

This really isn’t the thread for this subject BUT tell me how beliving in something that is so much better than this existence is fear talking?  

[David Dennison 18860]

1 minute ago, Tennesseehorn said:

This really isn’t the thread for this subject BUT tell me how beliving in something that is so much better than this existence is fear talking?  

You're afraid of what happens to you if you don't believe. That's the only reason you believe in something so patently absurd. Why else would you believe in something that not one shred of evidence supports?

[Brisketexan 105139]

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.

Shit, I’ve just found the only true North. And you know that’s right.

We’re no different than we were 100, 500 years ago. Shit, our current leadership is fighting against the simple scientific method that was the product of the enlightenment. We CRAVE a return to complete ignorance, we fall right in line when the piper plays the old racist and xenophobic hits. We are savages, and our natural state is hateful tribalism. Always has been. Always will be. That’s the game, and don’t hate the player, hate the game.

Body count. Do the body count. The scoreboard doesn’t lie. The greatest social movements of the 20th century are nothing compared to even the more middling bloodbaths of the century.

What we think is good about our culture is an easily-erased veneer, and ultimately, a lie. The truth is on the scoreboard. The truth is sitting in the White House. That’s the truth. The horrifying thing is not that something so contrary to what we are ascended to power; it’s that someone who is EXACTLY what we are ascended to power, and we can no longer pretend otherwise. The veneer has been wiped away.

[Tennesseehorn 101]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You're afraid of what happens to you if you don't believe. That's the only reason you believe in something so patently absurd. Why else would you believe in something that not one shred of evidence supports?

Not one shred of evidence  huh?  I guess you think everything that is this planet was strictly by chance?  Really?   

[EMAWesome 101]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Shit, I’ve just found the only true North. And you know that’s right.

We’re no different than we were 100, 500 years ago. Shit, our current leadership is fighting against the simple scientific method that was the product of the enlightenment. We CRAVE a return to complete ignorance, we fall right in line when the piper plays the old racist and xenophobic hits. We are savages, and our natural state is hateful tribalism. Always has been. Always will be. That’s the game, and don’t hate the player, hate the game.

Body count. Do the body count. The scoreboard doesn’t lie. The greatest social movements of the 20th century are nothing compared to even the more middling bloodbaths of the century.

What we think is good about our culture is an easily-erased veneer, and ultimately, a lie. The truth is on the scoreboard. The truth is sitting in the White House. That’s the truth. The horrifying thing is not that something so contrary to what we are ascended to power; it’s that someone who is EXACTLY what we are ascended to power, and we can no longer pretend otherwise. The veneer has been wiped away.

The truth is you are projecting your inner fears as a reality that does not actually exist.

[David Dennison 18860]

Just now, Tennesseehorn said:

Not one shred of evidence  huh?  I guess you think everything that is this planet was strictly by chance?  Really?   

Of course. 

[DixonHur 11304]

24 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Second, you think Title II is going to be found unconstitutional? You realize, it has already been challenged, right? You would have to completely rewrite a hundred years of precedent to reach your conclusion. 

Your first paragraph was gibberish, so I stopped reading, but the second one has my interest piqued.  Please show your work.

Edit: I think I found what you're talking about, but if so, it's not saying what you're claiming.  

I'm assuming you're talking about Heart of Atlanta?  That case wasn't related to the 1st Amendment, the case was specifically dealing with hotels as part of interstate travel.

In the opinion, they explicitly said they were not making a ruling of constitutionality in the broad sense. Basically they ruled that Congress had the right to create title II. Period.

Edited June 5, 2018 by DixonHur

[FondrenRoad 4378]

22 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Are you seriously trying to say people just chose not to run against her ?   She used the entire DNC apparatus (they gave her control of the party during the 2016 election cycle) to discourage anyone who thought about running against her right down to Biden.  She was a mafia queen in every act she every engaged in, and in the end people grew tired of her self centered schtick.

 

Shwe was annointed by her fawning media sources a full 2 years before the actual election.  She was projected to win that far out.  Nobody in the DNC who valued their political life was going to run against her.  Yep quite the party of the people that DNC.

Yep. Dems chose not to run against her.  Mostly because many of them actually like her. I know you may find that shocking since you're all Fox News, but she is and was actually liked as a person by most people that have met her. But it was her turn in 2008 too, as far as the DNC was concerned. She used the apparatus then too. Obama decided to run. How did that work out?

It was somewhat of a weird cycle though. The old Dems didn't want to be Pres or wanted her to be Pres and the young Dems like Booker and Gillibrand were 2 to 3 years short of an Obama type run. 

Edited June 5, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[Section4Row36Seat8 76]

Some people may think this Baker is an asshole but if he is a true follower of Jesus and trying to live the sermon on the mount, he couldn’t in good conscience supply his talents to help celebrate something he believes to be a celebration of a transgression against God(sin). Jesus himself says that followers of Him will have to choose between the laws of man and the law of God. 

The reason that a lot of followers of Jesus see a difference in discrimination between sexual orientation and race or gender can be described like this:

Gender or race are endowed by the Creator. You don’t choose to be black, white, brown, red, male or female. Those are sacred and I don’t think a person truly trying to follow the teachings of Jesus could defend discrimination against those sacred qualities that can only be ordained supernaturally.

Followers of Jesus see marriage in the same way. It is a sacred institution established by God between a man and woman and the baker could not in good conscience apply his talents to celebrate something that transgresses a sacred gift from God. 

In this case the baker said the gay couple could buy a cake from his bakery that is already made and use it as they wish. He just couldn’t use his artistic talents to help them celebrate something he disagrees with based on religious belief. 

You may disagree with everything I wrote and that is fine. We have that freedom in this country.

You may disagree with all the beliefs of the baker and that is fine too.  I imagine in America today the majority believe sexual orientation isn’t a choice. I think in this baker’s mind he would differentiate sexual orientation with acting on sexual orientation. 

I would wager to say he would liken the decision to act on sexual preferences the same as the decision to act on a predilection to alcoholism, pedophilia, lying, or any other number of vices that are held to be sins by those trying to follow the teachings of Jesus.

If he were a wine maker I doubt he would serve a drunk man a bottle of wine or if he was a taxi driver, drive a pedophile to the local elementary school if he knew the intentions of the person were to have a sex act with a child.

They may not be equivalent in the eyes of the law of the land but there is some equivalence between the examples just given and the celebration of sexual sin from the Followers of Jesus perspective. 

Until we are ready to outlaw beliefs except those established by the government, then we supposedly still have religious freedom in this country and I don’t see how the court could have ruled otherwise that they did.  

 

 

 

[Brisketexan 105139]

The truth is you are projecting your inner fears as a reality that does not actually exist.

Yeah. Guess I invented the Holocaust, WWI, the Rwandan genocide, Bosnia, lynchings, slavery, Jim Crow, and folks now saying and doing hateful and racist shit all over the place openly and proudly all over the US since Trump’s election. My silly imagination.

We’re evil fucks. Them’s the rules. I didn’t make em, I’m just observing them.

[Dahobbs 17534]

15 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Your first paragraph was gibberish, so I stopped reading, but the second one has my interest piqued.  Please show your work.

Seriously, do you not understand that in the finance sector the terms public/private refer to whether a company's stock is listed with a public exhange (e.g., nasdaq, new york stock exhange), where as for purposes of public accomandation laws they refer to whether the business is open to the public? It is a very important distinction that you need to understand to have any ability to discuss these topics. 

As to your other point:

Judicial Validation

Title II became an immediate target in the courts. In particular, the owner of the Heart of Atlanta Motel in Atlanta, Georgia, and the owner of Ollie’s Barbe­cue, in Birmingham, Alabama, brought separate suits arguing that Title II was unconstitutional and seeking injunctive relief. The cases worked their way to the Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on them together and ulti­mately upheld Title II in two separate rulings. The Court ruled in Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. U.S. (1964) that Congress had plenty of authority under the Commerce Clause to ban racial discrimination at the hotel because the hotel catered to interstate travel­ers and it therefore affected interstate commerce. The Court ruled the same day in Katzenbach v. McClung (1964) that Congress had plenty of author­ity under the Commerce Clause to ban racial discrimination at Ollie’s Barbecue because a good portion of the food used by the restaurant was imported from out of state, and the restaurant there­fore affected interstate commerce. The Court said in both cases that Congress had an impressive legislative record tying racial discrimination in places of public accommodation to interstate commerce. And it flatly rejected the claim that Congress could not ban race discrimination—and enact this kind of “morals” legislation—under the Com­merce Clause

https://www.americanbar.org/publications/insights_on_law_andsociety/14/winter-2014/civil-rights-act-of-1964--enduring-and-revolutionary.html

 

Edited June 5, 2018 by Dahobbs

[Tennesseehorn 101]

15 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Of course. 

You’re hilarious.  You must be a sock. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Yeah. Guess I invented the Holocaust, WWI, the Rwandan genocide, Bosnia, lynchings, slavery, Jim Crow, and folks now saying and doing hateful and racist shit all over the place openly and proudly all over the US since Trump’s election. My silly imagination.

We’re evil fucks. Them’s the rules. I didn’t make em, I’m just observing them.

You need a doctor.  Now we're just mere steps from a Rwandan like genocide. Your vision of America is a fucked up imaginary land, and I hope you can get the professional help you need.

There is nothing happening in America that should cause anyone to make the comparisons you're flailing away at.  The Holocaust ??!!  The head swims with your pessimism and fear mongering.

[David Dennison 18860]

1 minute ago, Tennesseehorn said:

You’re hilarious.  You must be a sock. 

What's hilarious is a grown man believing in intelligent design. It's exactly like believing in Santa Claus.

[skeeter 454]

 

[Brisketexan 105139]

You need a doctor.  Now we're just mere steps from a Rwandan like genocide. Your vision of America is a fucked up imaginary land, and I hope you can get the professional help you need.
There is nothing happening in America that should cause anyone to make the comparisons you're flailing away at.  The Holocaust ??!!  The head swims with your pessimism and fear mongering.

Genocides don’t happen. Until they do.

Stable countries don’t descend into totalitarian chaos. Until they do.

Democratic institutions and the rule of law don’t die. Until they do.

We’re playing with fire. Chances are, it will eventually catch.

EVERY country is mere steps away from being Rwanda. The thin veneer of civilization - that’s the way it is.

[David Dennison 18860]

3 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

You need a doctor.  Now we're just mere steps from a Rwandan like genocide. Your vision of America is a fucked up imaginary land, and I hope you can get the professional help you need.

There is nothing happening in America that should cause anyone to make the comparisons you're flailing away at.  The Holocaust ??!!  The head swims with your pessimism and fear mongering.

We've had holocausts in America, brah.

The tribes and slaves out front should have told you.

[Brisketexan 105139]

We've had holocausts in America, brah.
The tribes and slaves out front should have told you.

No, that stuff can’t happen here.

Also, don’t be black in Tulsa in 1921. If you are, you only have yourself to blame.

None of that stuff can happen here.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, David Dennison said:

We've had holocausts in America, brah.

The tribes and slaves out front should have told you.

We had those things happen a hundred years or more ago. Jim Crow is gone, lynchings do they happen ?  Trying to even make the most casual of attempts to say we're on the verge of them happening because Trump is is office is so galacticly stupid it boggles the mind.  It's remedial fear mongering 101. 

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

No, that stuff can’t happen here.

Also, don’t be black in Tulsa in 1921. If you are, you only have yourself to blame.

None of that stuff can happen here.

  How old are you ?    1921 ? Almost 100 years ago. We aren't even remotely the same nation now.  Your sad attempt to say we're going in that direction is a cry for help .

[David Dennison 18860]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

We had those things happen a hundred years or more ago. Jim Crow is gone, lynchings do they happen ?  Trying to even make the most casual of attempts to say we're on the verge of them happening because Trump is is office is so galacticly stupid it boggles the mind.  It's remedial fear mongering 101. 

Yes, lynchings still happen in America.

[Brisketexan 105139]

We had those things happen a hundred years or more ago. Jim Crow is gone, lynchings do they happen ?  Trying to even make the most casual of attempts to say we're on the verge of them happening because Trump is is office is so galacticly stupid it boggles the mind.  It's remedial fear mongering 101. 
 

Nothing to see here.

[Brisketexan 105139]

  How old are you ?    1921 ? Almost 100 years ago. We aren't even remotely the same nation now.  Your sad attempt to say we're going in that direction is a cry for help .

The fact that we’re led by a bunch of folks who regret that progress is louder than any cry I’ve let out. We need to ship all those beaners and ragheads outta here, too - just listen to the Trumpkins, they’re not shy about telling you. And that’s how we MAGA.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

21 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

We've had holocausts in America, brah.

The tribes and slaves out front should have told you.

Unfortunately, we are the holocaust champions. We cleared out a whole continent and were able to write the story afterward as the "good guys."  We did it so well that we often forget it ever happened. Hitler was following our model, both in genocide and eugenics.

Our ability to ignore our own historic flaws and move on always as a self-perceived righteous actor may be unparalleled in world history.  Even the most liberal American believes that America will end up doing the right thing in the end even if it takes a while to get there.  Even brisket will be back on board when Seoul is a crater and a new admin gives a mea culpa.  That's just the machinations of America. Bumps on the way to righteousness. Maybe. Really, we may be worse now than we were when slaughtering the Indians. At least then, our message was consistent.  They could run or fight, but they knew what we were really about. Our word is worthless now. Guaranteed to change and be completely dishonored in 4 or 8 years. 

Edited June 5, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[DixonHur 11304]

29 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Seriously, do you not understand that in the finance sector the terms public/private refer to whether a company's stock is listed with a public exhange (e.g., nasdaq, new york stock exhange), where as for purposes of public accomandation laws they refer to whether the business is open to the public? It is a very important distinction that you need to understand to have any ability to discuss these topics. 

As to your other point:

 

 

After 20 years of doing M&A, I'm 100% sure I've forgotten more about corporate finance than you've ever known.

And I guess you missed this part where it says...

"The applicability of Title II is carefully limited to enterprises having direct and substantial relation to the interstate flow of goods and people"

That leaves a whole lot of green pasture for a challenge.

[Guest]

48 minutes ago, Section4Row36Seat8 said:

Some people may think this Baker is an asshole but if he is a true follower of Jesus and trying to live the sermon on the mount, he couldn’t in good conscience supply his talents to help celebrate something he believes to be a celebration of a transgression against God(sin). Jesus himself says that followers of Him will have to choose between the laws of man and the law of God. 

The reason that a lot of followers of Jesus see a difference in discrimination between sexual orientation and race or gender can be described like this:

Gender or race are endowed by the Creator. You don’t choose to be black, white, brown, red, male or female. Those are sacred and I don’t think a person truly trying to follow the teachings of Jesus could defend discrimination against those sacred qualities that can only be ordained supernaturally.

Followers of Jesus see marriage in the same way. It is a sacred institution established by God between a man and woman and the baker could not in good conscience apply his talents to celebrate something that transgresses a sacred gift from God. 

In this case the baker said the gay couple could buy a cake from his bakery that is already made and use it as they wish. He just couldn’t use his artistic talents to help them celebrate something he disagrees with based on religious belief. 

You may disagree with everything I wrote and that is fine. We have that freedom in this country.

You may disagree with all the beliefs of the baker and that is fine too.  I imagine in America today the majority believe sexual orientation isn’t a choice. I think in this baker’s mind he would differentiate sexual orientation with acting on sexual orientation. 

I would wager to say he would liken the decision to act on sexual preferences the same as the decision to act on a predilection to alcoholism, pedophilia, lying, or any other number of vices that are held to be sins by those trying to follow the teachings of Jesus.

If he were a wine maker I doubt he would serve a drunk man a bottle of wine or if he was a taxi driver, drive a pedophile to the local elementary school if he knew the intentions of the person were to have a sex act with a child.

They may not be equivalent in the eyes of the law of the land but there is some equivalence between the examples just given and the celebration of sexual sin from the Followers of Jesus perspective. 

Until we are ready to outlaw beliefs except those established by the government, then we supposedly still have religious freedom in this country and I don’t see how the court could have ruled otherwise that they did.  

 

 

 

This is a good first post, imo.

 

Also, imo, Brisket needs to get on his low-T meds STAT. The hormones firing all over the place in his manopause state has made him sound like a loon. Has he always been this berserk? Or is he truly the one of us all who is "woke" and his shouting to all from the mountain tops that the British are coming and we are just ignoring him. To me, it seems more Cassandra than Revere, but Lord help us if he's right.

[troph 24798]

Arthur Jones - a holocaust denier and outspoken white nationalist received 20,000 votes in the outskirts of Chicago in his uncontested bid for the Republican nomination for Congress. He will likely lose as the district is heavily Democratic. Yet he still received 20,000 votes and is on the ballot.

Brisket has reason to be alarmed.

[Chrispy 132]

8 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Yes, lynchings still happen in America.

Agreed, autoerotic asphyxiation is on the rise. 

[LongestHorn 759]

Colorado Baker isn't a professional pitcher?  Or catcher?