Colorado Baker Wins

[TahoeHorn 107]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

I don't know the answer, but I suppose it might be explained by demonstrable evidence that young men have more accidents than young women, but no such evidence exists regarding health care costs for the 2 demographics.

No.  Young women have much higher health care costs, mostly due to maternity costs.

[jimmyjazz 46118]

Just now, TahoeHorn said:

No.  Young women have much higher health care costs, mostly due to maternity costs.

Well . . . it's kinda hard to get pregnant without sperm, so maybe the rationale is that those costs should be spread across both groups?

I honestly have no idea what the actuarial cost drivers are in your examples.  I'm just thinking out loud.

[DixonHur 11364]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

but no such evidence exists regarding health care costs for the 2 demographics.

Oh really? 

Quote

Per capita lifetime expenditure is $316,600, a third higher for females ($361,200) than males ($268,700). Two-fifths of this difference owes to women's longer life expectancy. Nearly one-third of lifetime expenditures is incurred during middle age, and nearly half during the senior years. For survivors to age 85, more than one-third of their lifetime expenditures will accrue in their remaining years.

Link

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Women are also much more likely to go to the doctor for minor shit a man would skip.  And that’s the truth. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

4 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

No.  Young women have much higher health care costs, mostly due to maternity costs.

Interesting. Are you pro-choice now?  I would think that someone who is pro-life would also consider those healthcare costs to be borne by a brand new dependent who should have been added to the policy at conception or should be refused care.

 

In actuality though, the gender disparity in healthcare costs is "whole life" and much of it occurs in the extra years that women live.  They also have higher average healthcare costs as they age.  Pregnancy isn't much of a blip.

Edited June 4, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[JBJ 3664]

I said this a million times on the other board, but apparently it bears repeating:

The baker did not refuse to sell a wedding cake to the couple.  If he did, we probably would have seen a decision much like Ginberg's dissent - that the hostility toward religion would not have affected the outcome.

He refused to design a cake for the couple, which is an expression protected under the Colorado law and may be protected by the 1A.

[jimmyjazz 46118]

5 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Oh really? 

Link

It was a hypothesis.  I wasn't asserting those things to be true.  (Well, I do think it's likely young men cost more than young women when it comes to driving and accidents.)

[jimmyjazz 46118]

7 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Women are also much more likely to go to the doctor for minor shit a man would skip.  And that’s the truth. 

And this could be argued as good reason to charge young men more; i.e., lack of preventative health measures.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

7 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Women are also much more likely to go to the doctor for minor shit a man would skip.  And that’s the truth. 

Also more likely to go to a shrink which introduces regular and expensive charges to a group plan.  But maybe because of that, they're less likely to shoot up a school or mall.

[TahoeHorn 107]

2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

I know tons of black people who will just walk to the next restaurant if the first one won't serve them. What's the big deal?

We have gay bakeries and straight bakeries. They gays can go to the gay bakers and non-religious bakers, and the straights can go to the straight bakeries and the religious bakeries. Simple solution. 

Free markets everyone. 

When the GOP took over the Coroner's office here in 2010 the new Coroner had a meeting I attended to discuss his new policy to end the good ol' boy practices of sending the bodies without instructions to various funeral homes.  The Black funeral homes protested vigorously.  They wanted Black bodies sent to Black funeral homes and White bodies sent to White funeral homes.  The argument was that they'd end up there anyway and the Coroner was just adding to the cost of relocating the bodies once the families of the deceased showed up and specified what they wanted.  The corner was advocating a "blind" process" which did not give any funeral home an economic advantage (as was the case when Dem Coroners ran things).

(Our Coroner gets $10K per year, and gets his livelihood from a funeral home.  It is a lot of work, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights. You do the math.) 

[Dahobbs 17679]

5 minutes ago, JBJ said:

I said this a million times on the other board, but apparently it bears repeating:

The baker did not refuse to sell a wedding cake to the couple.  If he did, we probably would have seen a decision much like Ginberg's dissent - that the hostility toward religion would not have affected the outcome.

He refused to design a cake for the couple, which is an expression protected under the Colorado law and may be protected by the 1A.

Your assertion is noted. But your conclusion is far from certain. 

[Dahobbs 17679]

2 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

When the GOP took over the Coroner's office here in 2010 the new Coroner had a meeting I attended to discuss his new policy to end the good ol' boy practices of sending the bodies without instructions to various funeral homes.  The Black funeral homes protested vigorously.  They wanted Black bodies sent to Black funeral homes and White bodies sent to White funeral homes.  The argument was that they'd end up there anyway and the Coroner was just adding to the cost of relocating the bodies once the families of the deceased showed up and specified what they wanted.  The corner was advocating a "blind" process" which did not give any funeral home an economic advantage (as was the case when Dem Coroners ran things).

(Our Coroner gets $10K per year, and gets his livelihood from a funeral home.  It is a lot of work, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights. You do the math.) 

Is there a point to this anecdote?

[TahoeHorn 107]

15 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Interesting. Are you pro-choice now?  I would think that someone who is pro-life would also consider those healthcare costs to be borne by a brand new dependent who should have been added to the policy at conception or should be refused care.

 

...

I'm nominally pro-choice, and have been since I understood the issue.  (Prior to Roe v. Wade Which came when I was in college I had never thought about it.)  You assume my positions incorrectly quite a bit.  Why?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

And this could be argued as good reason to charge young men more; i.e., lack of preventative health measures.

I’ve read enough to believe preventative health care doesn’t save money. A lot is offset by sudden death.  

Widow maker heart attacks are cheap. 

The only preventative stuff that really saves costs is living a healthy lifestyle.  

[TahoeHorn 107]

6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Is there a point to this anecdote?

Yes.  The subject is how the marketplace actually forms around some of these areas (e.g. race), and how many actually want that when the government is trying to prevent it.

 

I bolded JBJ's point.  That should have been a big hint.

Edited June 4, 2018 by TahoeHorn

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

5 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

 You assume my positions incorrectly quite a bit.  Why?

People have a narrative they have to ascribe to people they don't agree with to make them look correct.

[Dahobbs 17679]

7 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Yes.  The subject is how the marketplace actually forms around some of these areas (e.g. race), and how many actually want that when the government is trying to prevent it.

 

I bolded JBJ's point.  That should have been a big hint.

Oh, i see. The minorities actually want separate but equal! Hoorah for Bugtussel and not-racism!

But seriously, your anecdote was about corruption. I dont want racism and I dont want corruption. The only people that do are racists and the corrupt. So, ill ask again, what on earth is your point? 

[Brisketexan 105311]

2 hours ago, po elvis said:

That is how I have always been. Why would people want to give their money to bigots, when if they are outed, you can know that and take your money elsewhere. But as someone on here pointed out to me, what about rural areas where there are no choices for the consumer?

Bigotry is cool again, at least it is in some places.  Good people, both sides, all that shit.

1 hour ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

that was the way of the world for the first half of last century.  people lived their entire lives in  discriminatory economies, and the discriminating parties fared just fine financially.  

 

as you say, 'people seem less scary if you know them.'  it is totally true.  but there is something in us that keeps us from naturally wanting to know people different from us.

It's really easy to say this shit as a party who would never be discriminated against.  But we've got literally hundreds of years of history right here in the USA where the bigots do fine, and the discriminated against folks eat shit.

1 hour ago, DixonHur said:

Things change.  Attitudes change.  We aren't living in the 1950's anymore.  I'd wager the vast majority of white Americans have a friend from another race, culture, religion, sexual orientation, etc. 

We aren't living in the 1950s anymore....and the dominant party controlling all branches of the Federal government LAMENTS THAT.  "Make America Great Again" -- did you not see the hats?  I mean, I know they look shitty, but still.  There is a strong pushback with respect to such progress, and a strong push to return to the 1950s, led by the people in power.  

1 hour ago, DixonHur said:

Yes, why is that so hard to understand.  There are a lot of things that I don't like...doesn't mean they should all be illegal.

Shame is a powerful tool.

It used to be.  Again, perhaps you've missed the news -- none of that matters anymore.  At all.  Be a bigot, be proud, no apologies.  That's what we're being told -- and indeed, when bigots have to pay a social price, people are screaming about how bullshit any consequences are.

[Newdoc 3453]

5 hours ago, David Dennison said:

That's easy to say when you aren't the one who believes his civil rights are being violated. It's like saying black people who were refused service for most of this nation's history should have just gone elsewhere. 

 

Edited June 4, 2018 by Newdoc

[GringoSalado 1652]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Be a bigot, be proud, no apologies.  That's what we're being told -- and indeed, when bigots have to pay a social price, people are screaming about how bullshit any consequences are.

Apparently folks on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission get paid (literally) to be bigots.

[Brisketexan 105311]

4 minutes ago, GringoSalado said:

Apparently folks on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission get paid (literally) to be bigots.

Seems like they were.

They had to answer to the law for it, and the law worked.  Of course, that's because they were state actors.

However, if they were private parties, they could just claim "religious freedom," and according the Hobby Lobby crowd, that's a free pass.  And the Trumpkins would be cheering their heads off. 

[TahoeHorn 107]

7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Oh, i see. The minorities actually want separate but equal! Hoorah for Bugtussel and not-racism!

But seriously, your anecdote was about corruption. I dont want racism and I dont want corruption. The only people that do are racists and the corrupt. So, ill ask again, what on earth is your point? 

I don't think the Dem Coroners' practices were corrupt.  That's too strong a word.   And the funeral homes didn't do anything wrong.  But everybody had a different idea of how the process should work.  If you were Coroner and there were no directions for where to send the body, how would you decide where to send it, knowing that many families would just do business with the funeral home which had the body when the family first learned of the death?  Would you for example send a body in a Hazel Green traffic accident to the funeral home in Hazel Green?  Would you send the body of a Black person to a Black funeral home or to the nearest funeral home?  The Dem Coroners used "custom" with a preference for their own funeral home if the custom wasn't obvious.  Black people went to Black funeral homes on a rotating basis.  Every funeral home wanted every body they could get.  But they all knew when customers left the funeral home as is, and when they decided to pick a new one.

Back to JBJ's point, I'll bet most of the gay population wants a gay baker.  There are certain demographics in our society which are especially inclined to do business with "their own".  I personally am oblivious to that sort of thing when I choose, say, an insurance agent.  But I can tell you that I know a bunch of people, and all gays I've known are in this group, who are acutely aware of these things when picking a vendor.  There are certain religious denominations here in Alabama where people seem fanatical about doing business with their own - everything from insurance agent and car dealer to Little League coach and ballet teacher.  It's creepy.  I can understand Blacks and gays being this way.  I kind of understand Church of Christ.  What's absolutely nutty is when the car dealer or banker has to be  a fan of the Crimson Tide, or at least not an Auburn fan.

[Dahobbs 17679]

7 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

I don't think the Dem Coroners' practices were corrupt.  That's too strong a word.   And the funeral homes didn't do anything wrong.  But everybody had a different idea of how the process should work.  If you were Coroner and there were no directions for where to send the body, how would you decide where to send it, knowing that many families would just do business with the funeral home which had the body when the family first learned of the death?  Would you for example send a body in a Hazel Green traffic accident to the funeral home in Hazel Green?  Would you send the body of a Black person to a Black funeral home or to the nearest funeral home?  The Dem Coroners used "custom" with a preference for their own funeral home if the custom wasn't obvious.  Black people went to Black funeral homes on a rotating basis.  Every funeral home wanted every body they could get.  But they all knew when customers left the funeral home as is, and when they decided to pick a new one.

Back to JBJ's point, I'll bet most of the gay population wants a gay baker.  There are certain demographics in our society which are especially inclined to do business with "their own".  I personally am oblivious to that sort of thing when I choose, say, an insurance agent.  But I can tell you that I know a bunch of people, and all gays I've known are in this group, who are acutely aware of these things when picking a vendor.  There are certain religious denominations here in Alabama where people seem fanatical about doing business with their own - everything from insurance agent and car dealer to Little League coach and ballet teacher.  It's creepy.  I can understand Blacks and gays being this way.  I kind of understand Church of Christ.  What's absolutely nutty is when the car dealer or banker has to be  a fan of the Crimson Tide, or at least not an Auburn fan.

(1) You didn't quote JBJ, you quote Neomoon;

(2) If you thought Neomoon's point supported anything like your anecdote, then it flew by you completely (hint: I alluded to his point when I mentioned separate but equal);

(3) All of these anecdotes and assumptions appear to support the notion that maybe people should be allowed to discriminate because that's really what everyone wants anyway. I'm glad the Supreme Court firmly rejected that notion decades ago (see 2). 

[GringoSalado 1652]

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

However, if they were private parties, they could just claim "religious freedom," and according the Hobby Lobby crowd, that's a free pass.  

I sincerely doubt that, but IANAL.

 

Meanwhile the state actor being paid to be a bigot is a worse problem IMO than a private baker doing so. I'm not forced to do business with the bigoted baker.

[Brisketexan 105311]

1 minute ago, GringoSalado said:

I sincerely doubt that, but IANAL.

 

Meanwhile the state actor being paid to be a bigot is a worse problem IMO than a private baker doing so. I'm not forced to do business with the bigoted baker.

I agree that a bigoted state actor is a worse problem -- in isolation -- than a bigoted private baker.

But we also have deep history of private discrimination.  We don't have to speculate how it works.  Move along, boy.  You can get dinner/hotel/auto parts/everything in the next town over, ya heah?  The good Lord doesn't want us mixin' with your kind.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

15 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Seems like they were.

They had to answer to the law for it, and the law worked.  Of course, that's because they were state actors.

However, if they were private parties, they could just claim "religious freedom," and according the Hobby Lobby crowd, that's a free pass.  And the Trumpkins would be cheering their heads off. 

I think government discrimination is just a fuck ton worse than a private actor's discrimination.  That's just me.

I think the Baptist church should be free to not host gay weddings.  But the county clerk should be fired and replaced if she refuses to issue a marriage license to a gay couple.

[JBJ 3664]

Not me.  Neomoon.

 

Dammit I'm way late.

Edited June 4, 2018 by JBJ

[TahoeHorn 107]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

(...

(3) All of these anecdotes and assumptions appear to support the notion that maybe people should be allowed to discriminate because that's really what everyone wants anyway. I'm glad the Supreme Court firmly rejected that notion decades ago (see 2). 

They support the notion that customers discriminate against vendors on a whole long list of reasons.  I do not address vendors discriminating against customers in this anecdote.  And I have argued specifically against that elsewhere.

I'll reiterate.  The anecdote is about customer v. vendor discrimination, not vendor v. customer discrimination.  Big difference.

[Brisketexan 105311]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I think government discrimination is just a fuck ton worse than a private actor's discrimination.  That's just me.

I think the Baptist church should be free to not host gay weddings.  But the county clerk should be fired and replaced if she refuses to issue a marriage license to a gay couple.

I do not argue with the conclusion that government discrimination is worse.  But when private discrimination is allowed to reach a certain level (and if allowed small, it is allowed big), it can actually become a bigger problem.  Do you think that the only bakery/hardware store/whatever it is in town should be able to discriminate against any group of people citing "religious freedom?"

I already cited umpteen examples, including matters that can be found in the Congressional Record, of religious justification for racial discrimination.  "Religious freedom" is not a trojan horse for broad-based discrimination -- it's an open transport device for broad-based discrimination, and has been used as such for centuries of our own history.

Bottom line, there's a huge segment of our country that wants to "Make Discrimination Great Again."  Fuck that shit.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

I do not argue with the conclusion that government discrimination is worse.  But when private discrimination is allowed to reach a certain level (and if allowed small, it is allowed big), it can actually become a bigger problem.  Do you think that the only bakery/hardware store/whatever it is in town should be able to discriminate against any group of people citing "religious freedom?"

I already cited umpteen examples, including matters that can be found in the Congressional Record, of religious justification for racial discrimination.  "Religious freedom" is not a trojan horse for broad-based discrimination -- it's an open transport device for broad-based discrimination, and has been used as such for centuries of our own history.

Bottom line, there's a huge segment of our country that wants to "Make Discrimination Great Again."  Fuck that shit.

You think we need these protected classes for gays?  What evidence is there for a need?  They are not protected in Texas and in the majority of jurisdictions for public accommodations.  Do you know a lot of gays having trouble getting served at a restaurant?  Or getting a room at a hotel?  Or getting turned away from a movie theater or a sporting event?  Or getting a cake made?

If this shit is so pervasive like it was preceding the Heart of Atlanta cases, why aren't we seeing it in the media or even social media?  The majority of states do not have public accommodation laws for sexual orientation.  Is this a real problem in those states like it was for the Heart of Atlanta plaintiffs?

[phdhorn 6224]

FYI, Jack Phillips, the defendant, wrote this today for USA Today:

Quote

Supreme Court decision says my faith is welcomed back in America: Cake artist Jack Phillips

Jack PhillipsPublished 1:20 p.m. ET June 4, 2018 | Updated 3:47 p.m. ET June 4, 2018

 

As a cake artist, the Supreme Court affirmed that the government has to respect my beliefs about how to conduct my business.

(Photo: Brennan Linsley, AP)

Storms, whether the actual or figurative kind, are a common but difficult part of life. One of the longest and most trying storms of my life came to an end Monday with the Supreme Court’s ruling in my case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

As a cake artist who owns my own shop, I have always been willing to serve everyone who walks through my doors. But that doesn’t mean that I create every cake requested of me. If asked to design a cake that celebrates an event or expresses a message in conflict with my faith, I’m obliged as a matter of conscience to decline. But I still offer those customers anything else in my shop and tell them that I’d gladly create them a cake for a different occasion. 

That is exactly what I did in July 2012, when I was asked to create a custom wedding cake to celebrate a same-sex marriage. But even though I offered to design the couple a cake for another event, they filed a lawsuit against me, commencing a six-year legal storm.

More: Here's why I can’t custom-design cakes for same-sex weddings

More: My pro-free speech views made me the target of a smear campaign at Vassar College

Most storms bring some elements of surprise. The lawsuit against me was no different. I was shocked at how many people dismissed my decision as making much ado about nothing. Yet those folks fail to understand that, as an artist, I pour my heart into my wedding cakes, and that my conscience will not allow me to celebrate something in direct conflict with my faith.

People don’t have to share my beliefs to support my freedom. They just need to agree that the decision should be mine to make — not the government’s to make for me. And it doesn’t hurt if they realize that depriving me of my freedom deprives them of theirs. If the government can force me to celebrate events and express views that violate my conscience, they can do it to anyone.

Storms tend not only to surprise but also to terrify. I’ve sure had my share of that. After the government forced me to stop designing wedding cakes, I lost 40% of my business. Since then, I’ve been worried that I’ll have to close my shop — that the revenue left won’t be enough to make ends meet.

And I’ve been greatly distressed by the death threats hurled at me. Few things approach the horror of hearing another vow to take your life.

I was also disturbed by this thought: If the Supreme Court would have ruled against me, what would have happened to the millions of other people of faith — from Christians to Jews to Muslims — who believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman? I worried that they would face the loss of their livelihood, financial ruin, death threats and even jail time for their beliefs.

More: Masterpiece Cakeshop reminds me of Jim Crow. We can't create new 2nd-class citizens.

POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media

The really big storms have another unsettling effect — they strip us of control. I can certainly identify with that. The government ordered me not only to stop doing the wedding work I love, but also to teach my remaining employees, all of whom are my family members, that I was wrong to operate my shop consistent with my faith. In other words, the state told me to tell my mother that the faith she taught me has no business influencing my life. 

And I was forced to turn over the future of my cake shop to nine Supreme Court justices. My fate was no longer my own.

As I waited for their decision, I wondered whether I’d see a break in the clouds — a ruling that the state was wrong to punish me for living according to my beliefs — or another looming storm. Would the court make clear that I don’t have to hide my faith? Or would it banish my beliefs and allow the government to bully me?

Now that the decision has arrived, I can see the sun once again. The Supreme Court affirmed that the government must respect my religious beliefs about marriage. It welcomed me back from the outskirts where the state had pushed me. At least for the moment, it has brought an end to my storm.

Jack Phillips is the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/06/04/colorado-baker-jack-phillips-supreme-court-masterpiece-cakeshop-column/669557002/

 

[Brisketexan 105311]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

You think we need these protected classes for gays?  What evidence is there for a need?  They are not protected in Texas and in the majority of jurisdictions for public accommodations.  Do you know a lot of gays having trouble getting served at a restaurant?  Or getting a room at a hotel?  Or getting turned away from a movie theater or a sporting event?  Or getting a cake made?

If this shit is so pervasive like it was preceding the Heart of Atlanta cases, why aren't we seeing it in the media or even social media?  The majority of states do not have public accommodation laws for sexual orientation.  Is this a real problem in those states like it was for the Heart of Atlanta plaintiffs?

Is it now?  Nope.

Once it is made clear that it's just fine, as a Member of Congress has expressly endorsed, then it will become more prevalent.  And when your same-sex friends who want to buy a particular house so that they can live close to work and in a good school district, are refused the sale because they are gay, Dana Rorbacher will be fine with it.  Maybe all gays won't be discriminated against.  But that couple will be.  If you're the person in the crosshairs of discrimination, suffering real effects, then is sucks shit through a straw.

This country is in a place where there is an army of folks, including our leadership, fighting for the right to be discriminatory shitbags.  Because that will "Make America Great Again."  Which anyone with a pulse knows is reference to back when the n---ers, spics, and queers knew to stay in their place.  We're fighting for the right to be fucking evil, and fuck people over.  The fact that we do so in the name of "religious freedom," well, that's just the poor-theology icing on the fucking cake (and hey, those poor-theology iced cakes are there for everyone!  YAY!)

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

Bottom line, there's a huge segment of our country that wants to "Make Discrimination Great Again."  Fuck that shit.

 There is not a huge segment of the American population wanting a return to the racist days of the pre 70's. There are always going to be bigots and racists in a society. We don't have a huge  segment of the population wishing for this. I put that % at 10% or less.  Maybe I'm just more optimistic about our nation than you are.  No, not maybe, I am more optimistic.

We would not have elected a black president with a huge segment of discriminatory people. 

 

[Brisketexan 105311]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

 There is not a huge segment of the American population wanting a return to the racist days of the pre 70's. There are always going to be bigots and racists in a society. We don't have a huge  segment of the population wishing for this. I put that % at 10% or less.  Maybe I'm just more optimistic about our nation than you are.  No, not maybe, I am more optimistic.

We would not have elected a black president with a huge segment of discriminatory people. 

 

In fairness, it doesn't take much to be more optimistic about our country than I am.

And electing a black president is what got us where we are today -- there are tens of millions of people who are really fucking pissed off about that fact.  Who voted for a president who blew every racist dog whistle (including blowing it specifically against that black president) known to man.

Sure there are always going to be racists and bigots in society.  We used to have the decency not to fucking elect them to the highest offices in the land.  But now, fuck yeah, it's all cool.

Quote

“Every homeowner should be able to make a decision not to sell their home to someone [if] they don’t agree with their lifestyle,” Rohrabacher told the Orange County Association of Realtors last week.

They used to have the decency to hide under the slime-covered rocks, where they belong.

Now, they rant at people openly, with no fucking shame.  And why should they have shame?  Being politically correct is bullshit!  Trump gave us the freedom to tell it like it is!

Good people on both sides!

For fuck's sake.  That's what we stand for as a country now.  Get fucking used to it.  America's gonna be Great Again, they're gonna see to it.

[jimmyjazz 46118]

15 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

You think we need these protected classes for gays?  What evidence is there for a need?  They are not protected in Texas and in the majority of jurisdictions for public accommodations.  Do you know a lot of gays having trouble getting served at a restaurant?  Or getting a room at a hotel?  Or getting turned away from a movie theater or a sporting event?  Or getting a cake made?

Why does the amount of discrimination matter?  If gays are being discriminated against and cannot find relief in the law, then the law needs to change.

[DanRydell 799]

 There is not a huge segment of the American population wanting a return to the racist days of the pre 70's. There are always going to be bigots and racists in a society. We don't have a huge  segment of the population wishing for this. I put that % at 10% or less.  Maybe I'm just more optimistic about our nation than you are.  No, not maybe, I am more optimistic.
We would not have elected a black president with a huge segment of discriminatory people. 
 

And then we elected a president whose racial views would have been regressive in 1865.

[GringoSalado 1652]

31 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Bottom line, there's a huge segment of our country that wants to "Make Discrimination Great Again." 

 

 

[Dahobbs 17679]

17 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

You think we need these protected classes for gays?  What evidence is there for a need?  They are not protected in Texas and in the majority of jurisdictions for public accommodations.  Do you know a lot of gays having trouble getting served at a restaurant?  Or getting a room at a hotel?  Or getting turned away from a movie theater or a sporting event?  Or getting a cake made?

If this shit is so pervasive like it was preceding the Heart of Atlanta cases, why aren't we seeing it in the media or even social media?  The majority of states do not have public accommodation laws for sexual orientation.  Is this a real problem in those states like it was for the Heart of Atlanta plaintiffs?

Some states have laws protecting sexual orientation, others don't. We agree, don't we, that the states that have enacted such legislation are entitled to enforce it, right? And, I'd hope we'd agree that if it becomes a problem (assuming, but not deciding that it currently isn't), that the other states (or even the federal government) should enact such legislation.

So, either way, we will have to decide how these various rights interact. And I think it is reasonable to suggest that the freedom of religious expression must not be so expansive so that it can used to justify wiping out decades of progress for civil rights.  

[Brisketexan 105311]

12 minutes ago, GringoSalado said:

 

 

The meme's cute.....if you're not in the crosshairs. 

We have fucking nazis march in our streets, and a president -- adored, unfailingly, by 40% of the population -- who won't even fucking condemn them.  As just one example of our descent into full-on shitbaggery.  Whistle past the graveyard all you want.  The folks who are more likely to end up in that graveyard aren't whistling.  They're scared shitless.

[EMAWesome 101]

6 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Here's the issue from the gay rights perspective: What if the couple had been black and the baker refused to serve them on religious grounds? Is sexual orientation not as important as race? What if the couple had been Muslim?

What if the baker had been Muslim?

[Brisketexan 105311]

10 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Some states have laws protecting sexual orientation, others don't. We agree, don't we, that the states that have enacted such legislation are entitled to enforce it, right? And, I'd hope we'd agree that if it becomes a problem (assuming, but not deciding that it currently isn't), that the other states (or even the federal government) should enact such legislation.

So, either way, we will have to decide how these various rights interact. And I think it is reasonable to suggest that the freedom of religious expression must not be so expansive so that it can used to justify wiping out decades of progress for civil rights.  

Religious freedom is the "Kings X" for everything.  Plenty of folks tell you "race is different."  But they don't tell you how.  If my sincerely held religious beliefs -- among them is the belief that black people bear the curse of Ham, and should not mix with whites in any capacity -- dictate that I don't serve them, then who are you to question them and even worse, tell me that I have to do business with these evil people?

Our national motto is now "Think of a 'dick move,' and we'll do it!"

[Brisketexan 105311]

Just now, EMAWesome said:

What if the baker had been Muslim?

Silly question - he'd be banned from coming into the country in the first place, if team Trump has its way.

Next question?

[CooterBrown 18027]

 There is not a huge segment of the American population wanting a return to the racist days of the pre 70's. There are always going to be bigots and racists in a society. We don't have a huge  segment of the population wishing for this. I put that % at 10% or less.
 

So, only 30,000,000 racists. No problem. For fuck’s sake.

[EMAWesome 101]

6 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Interestingly, my wife and I were just talking about this in the context of a certain denomination.  Now that the issues of homosexual ordination and marriage have been put to bed....there aren't really any more fights to be had, yet the folks who built their entire identity around "the struggle" have no other identity or playbook to go to.  So, they get angry if a congregation doesn't purposefully seek and call a gay pastor, etc.  It's not an uncommon phenomenon with such issues; the crusaders have a tough time figuring out what to do with their time when (1) the crusade is over and won, and (2) all they know how to do is crusade.

This is the ironic thing about liberals search for an utopian world.  When they find one they will be the least happy people living there.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Religious freedom is the "Kings X" for everything.  Plenty of folks tell you "race is different."  But they don't tell you how.  If my sincerely held religious beliefs -- among them is the belief that black people bear the curse of Ham, and should not mix with whites in any capacity -- dictate that I don't serve them, then who are you to question them and even worse, tell me that I have to do business with these evil people?

Our national motto is now "Think of a 'dick move,' and we'll do it!"

Race is different because 99 percent of us have no idea on someone’s sexual preference when serving them in the marketplace

[jimmyjazz 46118]

2 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

 

So, only 30,000,000 racists. No problem. For fuck’s sake.
 

 

I call bullshit, as Trump received 62,000,000 votes.  If you voted for Trump, you're a racist until proven otherwise.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

 

So, only 30,000,000 racists. No problem. For fuck’s sake.
 

 

 

More like 125 mil adults so that 30,000,00 turns into more like 12.5 mil. racists if it's that high. Just what do you think is a world wide number or % of what would be considered racist people ?  It's more than 10% I'll bet.  

[Dahobbs 17679]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Race is different because 99 percent of us have no idea on someone’s sexual preference when serving them in the marketplace

Is that a legal argument? Don't we usually look for principled reasoning when dealing with constitutional issues? I'm not sure how to apply the "most of us don't know about it" test or even what that test is testing. For instance, the issue of mixed-blood used to be pretty big. If a store-owner refuses to serve a guy who looks white, but the owner knows is 25% black, is the discrimination somehow more constitutionally tolerable in your eyes? 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I call bullshit, as Trump received 62,000,000 votes.  If you voted for Trump, you're a racist until proven otherwise.

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

[jimmyjazz 46118]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

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

That's a pretty weak argument.  "Former pejorative statement was lame, therefore it is always lame in the future."

Trump is an overt racist.  You vote for him, you own his views.  Sorry to all the racists on this board.  (Not really.)