[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.7043[View All]

File: 1602444152352.jpg (27.83 KB, 650x650, 1:1, biden-vam0sp8bpyw41.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Why won't Joe Biden disavow court packing?  The risk of court packing is the one thing that keeps me from supporting Biden.  If he and Kamala Harris would credibly promise to veto any court-packing legislation, he'd have my vote.  
90 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.7210

File: 1602636822414.png (3.08 MB, 1923x1874, 1923:1874, 1559759091351.png) ImgOps Google

>>7205
Two plastic men on a cake conveys a different message than a man and woman.  It conveys support for same-sex marriage.  The government cannot force an unwilling person to create speech that he opposes.

 No.7211

>>7199
If the business stated that, fair is fair, anybody could have anything drawn on their bagels in... I don't know, fine cream icing... and then Spencer came in and gave them their money and asked for a swastika, then he'd be a complete douche-bag.

But it would still be his right as a customer to be treated like everybody else, fair as fair, because the place took his dosh and made a promise and ought to deliver.

Doing otherwise is genuine harm: it's commercial fraud that even Ayn Rand devotees ought to think should be illegal, let alone most people think should be illegal.

 No.7212

>>7208
That's not the same treatment.

This is exactly the same as me marrying a black woman and a business refusing to have a black figurine. Can't you see that? Come on.

 No.7213

>>7211
If what deli offered only to create messages that it approves of?

 No.7214

>>7208
>>7209
It's the same treatment. LGBT people want the same treatment. Fair is fair.

 No.7215

>>7210
No, two plastic men doesn't convey a different message. It's fair treatment. It's equality.

 No.7216

>>7211
I'd say you'd have a hard time in court, but, sure, you might be able to get a minor bit of trouble for false advertising.

It'd be funny to see stores have to be very, very specific with their wording, though.
You just know 4chan trolls will be scrolling through pages on pages of legaleez to figure out how best to skirt by the instructions.
>>7212
>This is exactly the same as me marrying a black woman and a business refusing to have a black figurine.
Yes, I agree.

>>7214
Sure. Same treatment. So a plastic man and a plastic girl.

 No.7217

>>7210
A commercial product being offered to everybody regardless of the type of person isn't speech. It just isn't.

 No.7218

>>7217
True, it falls under "expression".
But, likewise, people have a right to freedom of expression.

 No.7219

>>7216
Two plastic men or two plastic girls. Fair is fair. Equality. Same treatment.

 No.7220

File: 1602637206867.jpg (107.27 KB, 700x686, 50:49, 1559760667254.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>7215
>No, two plastic men doesn't convey a different message.
Huh?  Do you really believe that?  If so, you're quite different from most people in that respect.  A vast majority of the population would see it as conveying a different message than an opposite-sex plastic couple.

 No.7221

>>7219
Sure. Buy two cakes and swap them out.

 No.7222

>>7213
If a deli put up a "We will only approve messages from people who aren't black, gay, Jewish, transgender, or whatever else that MAGA doesn't approve of", I would at the very least admire them sincerely for their honesty.

I would still see it as illegal discrimination, though. They're targeting the person. It's different than whether or not a service is offered in the first place.

 No.7223

>>7220
If you want to talk about most people, actually by a margin of 2/3 to 3/4 discrimination against people based on their race, religion, gender, LGBT status, or whatever at the workplace is widely disapproved of and laws against situations such as the cake related fuckery are widely supported.

 No.7224

>>7222
That's identity. They can't do that.
It'd have to be "We will only approve messages that convey a white heteronormative western centric christian set of values and beliefs" or somesuch.

 No.7225

>>7218
It's a commercial product.

Do you think that I have the right to sell you a donut full of broken glass just because it's my "free expression as a baking craftsman"?

 No.7226

>>7217
>A commercial product being offered to everybody regardless of the type of person isn't speech.
In US legal terminology, "speech" is widely used to refer to any form of protected expression, not just verbal utterances.  So, in this sense, books and other commercial products are said to be 'speech'.

 No.7227

>>7221
No, fair treatment. Same as everybody else. Equality.

 No.7228

>>7225
If it's an assembly line commercial product, then you get what's in the box. I can't demand a pink variant of my favorite gundam. I get what they make.

If you mean commercial as in they sell it, I do not think an artist should be forced to paint something they do not want to, just because they take commissions.

>Do you think that I have the right to sell you a donut full of broken glass just because it's my "free expression as a baking craftsman"?
Yes.
So long as you're labeling it appropriately.

 No.7229

>>7227
Yes. Which is what you get.

 No.7230

File: 1602637632041.jpg (185.19 KB, 1546x1546, 1:1, 1559759787953.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>7223
Yes, discrimination based on the attributes of the customer is illegal and widely condemned.  But a creator has a First Amendment right to refrain from creating speech that he disapproves of.

 No.7231

>>7225
>Do you think that I have the right to sell you a donut full of broken glass just because it's my "free expression as a baking craftsman"?
If you're selling it as food, no.
If you're selling it as art, yes.

 No.7232

>>7229
Good. Two men next to each other. Or two women. And names written in icing.

Fair is fair. Same treatment as everybody else. Equality.

 No.7233

>>7232
Nah. You wanted equality, so you get the same thing everyone else got; A man and a woman in cheap chinese plastic.

 No.7234

>>7228
>An artist shouldn't be forced to do something that they don't want to

You earlier admitted that you would force an artist at gunpoint, in the sense of having it be illegal, to serve individuals that he or she detests because it's not acceptable to discriminate based on a possible patron's race, gender, religion, etc.

Or are you saying that, as in the case of the art gallery manager refusing to sell her paintings to a Jewish person, you'd be okay with that?

 No.7235

>>7233
Same treatment. Fair is fair. It's not hard.

 No.7236

>>7235
A cake with two plastic men is the not the same as a cake with a plastic opposite-sex couple.  The exact finished product is what is compared for sameness, not a template with parameters for sex/gender.

 No.7237

>>7235
I agree. It's not hard. Plastic man and plastic lady like everyone else gets.
>>7234
>You earlier admitted that you would force an artist at gunpoint, in the sense of having it be illegal, to serve individuals that he or she detests because it's not acceptable to discriminate based on a possible patron's race, gender, religion, etc.
Did I? I don't think I did. If so I may have mistyped. Nonetheless, can you please point to the post where that happened?

>Or are you saying that, as in the case of the art gallery manager refusing to sell her paintings to a Jewish person, you'd be okay with that?
I am not okay with that, as I'm pretty sure I said before.

 No.7238

I'm trying to understand this distinction behind made here:

1. It's not slavery to force Bob to draw for somebody he hates.
2. It's not slavery to force Bob to draw something that he hates provided that he's upholding a commercial bargain where he took fair-and-square paid money and offered to do "whatever".
3. It's not slavery to force Bob to even in the first place propose clearly and distinctly what he will do instead of letting it all be vague.
4. It's the same as slavery to force Bob to draw something that he personally when he said that, as a fig leaf for discriminating against people that he detests, he says that he won't draw a certain whatever.

 No.7239

>>7236
>>7237
Again, what's being asked for is the same treatment.

The baker offers to put whatever on the cake. Two men count as whatever. Two women count as whatever.

 No.7240

>>7230
>a creator has a First Amendment right to refrain from creating speech that he disapproves of

So an artist can refuse to paint a Jewish person's concept because he or she hates Jews and disapproves of their ways? No. That's not allowed.

 No.7241

>>7239
I think the baker just offers to make a default wedding cake.
I've not heard of an offer to put whatever.
>>7238
>2. It's not slavery to force Bob to draw something that he hates provided that he's upholding a commercial bargain where he took fair-and-square paid money and offered to do "whatever".
No, it is, it's just that he could potentially be liable for false advertising, which as I understand it isn't exactly going to be a major problem for him.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/False+Advertising
>"To establish that an advertisement is false, a plaintiff must prove five things: (1) a false statement of fact has been made about the advertiser's own or another person's goods, services, or commercial activity; (2) the statement either deceives or has the potential to deceive a substantial portion of its targeted audience; (3) the deception is also likely to affect the purchasing decisions of its audience; (4) the advertising involves goods or services in interstate commerce; and (5) the deception has either resulted in or is likely to result in injury to the plaintiff.
It'd be hard to prove injury, I think.

>3. It's not slavery to force Bob to even in the first place propose clearly and distinctly what he will do instead of letting it all be vague.
The language of this is sloppy and I have no idea what you're trying to say.
>4. It's the same as slavery to force Bob to draw something that he personally when he said that, as a fig leaf for discriminating against people that he detests, he says that he won't draw a certain whatever.
This is likewise.
Can you please rephrase?

 No.7242

File: 1602638766193.png (150.35 KB, 1042x868, 521:434, 1559759088046.png) ImgOps Google

>>7238
For every message m, it is illegal for the government to force a speaker to create a product that conveys m if the speaker disagrees with m.

>>7239
>Again, what's being asked for is the same treatment.
The same treatment in that sense would result in different messages in different cases.  The creator may reject requests for a message that he disagrees with.

 No.7243

>>7240
No, but they could refuse to paint a Jewish image depicting, say, the star of david over a lady her daughter in an attic.

 No.7246

File: 1602639190343.png (492.51 KB, 1024x974, 512:487, 1559758883965.png) ImgOps Google

>>7240
>>a creator has a First Amendment right to refrain from creating speech that he disapproves of
>So an artist can refuse to paint a Jewish person's concept because he or she hates Jews and disapproves of their ways?
I think you're having a hard time understanding the difference between discriminating based on (1) the nature of the requested work, versus (2) the attributes of the person making the request.  Considerate Panda and I have been trying to explain this to you, but it doesn't seem to be sticking.  Is there anything we can do to help you with this?

 No.7247

>>7241
It's the offer to put whatever that's what we're talking about. Christian fundamentalist businesses that hate LGBT people (and other groups) are using as a fig leaf the claim that they don't want to give LGBT people "special treatment" when those LGBT people want the same on their cakes as everybody else. Despite the fact that there's almost always no prior claim that they'd be refused.

 No.7248

>>7247
>It's the offer to put whatever that's what we're talking about.
If a bakery does offer to put whatever message the customer wants, then the bakery should abide by its offer.  I highly doubt that the wackjob religious-fundamentalist bakers who refuse to make LGBT-themed cakes are advertising such an offer, though.

 No.7249

>>7246
It seems to me like what you're doing is the same as saying "I don't believe that Jews should pay a higher tax than gentiles, I just want a higher tax on yarmulkes".

I get that you're pretending that there's an ironclad distinction here, but there isn't. A tax on yarmulkes is a tax on Jews. That's just how it is.

Similarly, a policy of "You can false advertise your products and avoid giving LGBT people equal treatment so long as you belatedly claim that something about them being LGBT isn't a message that you like, that's not the same thing as refusing to serve the LGBT"... that's the same thing. It's refusing to serve LGBT people.

I mean, practically, if you walked up to my lemonade stand that said "Lemonade For Everybody" and asked for a drink only to have me say "Sorry, I don't customize drinks for people with blue shirts. Have an empty glass instead."... you'd recognize immediately that it's an empty dodge. I just don't like you.

 No.7250


 No.7252

>>7247
> Christian fundamentalist businesses that hate LGBT people (and other groups) are using as a fig leaf the claim that they don't want to give LGBT people "special treatment" when those LGBT people want the same on their cakes as everybody else.
Again, that is how you see it.

>Despite the fact that there's almost always no prior claim that they'd be refused.
Elaborate.

>>7248
>If a bakery does offer to put whatever message the customer wants, then the bakery should abide by its offer.  
Should I can definitely agree with.
Legally, the question is of damages.
And, I think there it should remain.
I don't think it's entirely reasonable to expect people to have perfectly exactly what they do 100% of the time on their small and often limited advertising space.

 No.7253

>>7249
Just declaring something so without argument does not make it true.

It can "seem" to you like whatever your heart desires.
That doesn't mean anything.

>I mean, practically, if you walked up to my lemonade stand that said "Lemonade For Everybody" and asked for a drink only to have me say "Sorry, I don't customize drinks for people with blue shirts. Have an empty glass instead."... you'd recognize immediately that it's an empty dodge. I just don't like you.
Yeah, it's almost like this is a shit example, that we've explained to you dozens of times WHY it's a shit example, yet repeatedly you keep coming back to it.

Speaking of "seems", it "seems" to me like you've run out of actual counters, and are only able to resort to repeating what has already been thoroughly addressed again and again.

Let me put this as simplistically as I possibly can for you:
"NO SELL TO RED SHIRT" = bad.
"NO SELL RED SHIRTS" = fine.

 No.7254

File: 1602640220929.jpg (495.59 KB, 1070x726, 535:363, 1559759442502.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>7249
>It seems to me like what you're doing is the same as saying "I don't believe that Jews should pay a higher tax than gentiles, I just want a higher tax on yarmulkes".
The difference here is that it is the government doing the discriminating.  And there is a special prohibition on the government discriminating based on religiously-motivated factors.

>>7249
>I get that you're pretending that there's an ironclad distinction here, but there isn't. A tax on yarmulkes is a tax on Jews.
A refusal to bake LGBT-themed cakes has a disparate effect on LGBT customers, but it isn't discrimination against them.  If a large, publicly-traded corporation uses an (edible ink)-jet printer to mechanically create cakes automatically from a PDF that the customer uploads, without any human creative involvement, then maybe the corporation shouldn't be allowed to specifically reject LGBT-themed cake images.  But for a small, closely-held shop (with a manual creative process), creating the cake requires the shop personnel to be personally involved in the creation of the message.

 No.7255

>>7252
>>7253
>>7254
We're going to have to agree to disagree. Again, you're both drawing a line that doesn't exist in the real-world. It's just not there.

A tax on yarmulkes is a tax on Jews. There's no point in stressing over the fig leaf. Similarly, if a anti-gun Democratic President made ammunition several times more expensive somehow, it would be recognized as a restriction on gun rights, even if the fig leaf was offered if it weren't so.

I'll just have to restate: a policy of "You can false advertise your products and avoid giving LGBT people equal treatment so long as you belatedly claim that something about them being LGBT isn't a message that you like, that's not the same thing as refusing to serve the LGBT"... that's the same thing. It's refusing to serve LGBT people.

LGBT people just want the same treatment. The same thing. Equality. Walk into a place and be the same as any other customer. That's it.

I know that you guys might want the last word, so have at it.

 No.7256

>>7255
I'm not so convinced it does. You keep saying it, but you've not proven it.

>Similarly, if a anti-gun Democratic President made ammunition several times more expensive somehow, it would be recognized as a restriction on gun rights, even if the fig leaf was offered if it weren't so.
Sure. Massive taxes on ammunition would constitute an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.
"Fig leaf" has nothing to do with it.
Likewise, a 200$ tax stamp infringes on the right to keep and bear arms.

>You can false advertise your products
Legally speaking, you can certainly sue for this.
You just have to prove damages.

> and avoid giving LGBT people equal treatment so long as you belatedly claim that something about them being LGBT isn't a message that you like
No, you have to give them equal treatment.
That means the same product you give everyone else.

>that's not the same thing as refusing to serve the LGBT
Refusing to give them a custom product, different from what they provide to others, no, that isn't.
Refusing to give equal treatment? That is.

I guess this is the issue. You see refusing to give the same thing as everyone else got inequal treatment, whereas I do not.

 No.7257

File: 1602640923091.jpg (37.97 KB, 680x680, 1:1, e23.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>7255
>Similarly, if a anti-gun Democratic President made ammunition several times more expensive somehow, it would be recognized as a restriction on gun rights,
The Second Amendment protects arms in general, not just guns.  Ammunition is sometimes a necessary component of a complete, functional arm.

>A tax on yarmulkes is a tax on Jews.
As I said earlier, it's different when the government is doing the discriminating.  The First Amendment is a restriction on the power of government and a protection of the rights of the people.

>LGBT people just want the same treatment.
And I agree that it is unfortunate that they sometimes can't get it.  But sometimes protecting the principle of freedom of speech means that assholes can get away with being assholes.  It is part of the price of living in a free country.

 No.7260

>>7257
I'm not going to deny letting you have the very last word over both me and Panda, but I feel required to say: Vore is a bad fetish and you should feel bad.

 No.7261

>>7257
>>7260
r.e. your sheep vore post

 No.7263

>>7260
Meh. They are the only source of decently drawn maws.

 No.7265

File: 1602641580659.jpg (56.03 KB, 800x676, 200:169, 1560023973851.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>7261
>r.e. your sheep vore post
Um, that's a "vore fetish" image?  Just looks like a cute, silly Wooloo image to me.  

>>7260
> Vore is a bad fetish and you should feel bad.
Should a baker be allowed to refuse to bake a cake decorated with a "vore fetish" image?

 No.7267

>>7265
>Should a baker be allowed to refuse to bake a cake decorated with a "vore fetish" image?
Yes, provided he pays the appropriate "weird fetish" premium.

ft. a furry


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]