[ 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[Last 50 Posts]

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.  

 No.7056

What are the actual arguments against putting more people on the Court?

Serious question. This political position is being treated akin to "legalize crystal meth" or "make the age of consent eight years old" or whatever, and I'm genuinely wondering why. It sounds fine.

 No.7060

File: 1602471562078.jpg (386.08 KB, 1000x1000, 1:1, Kizumonogatari-II-Nekketsu….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>7056
The Supreme Court is supposed to be able to act as a check on whatever party is in power, to ensure that it can't ram through unconstitutional laws.  In some 3rd-world dictatorships, the judiciary is controlled by puppets to the party in power -- this is something that our system should try to avoid.  (Fortunately, Trump's SCOTUS appointments and a vast majority of his lower-court appointments are principled jurists -- not because Trump cares about judicial independence, but because his nominees come from the Federalist Society, which does care.)  A norm of expanding the Supreme Court whenever a different party takes control of both the Presidency and the Senate would erode judicial independence.  

 No.7061

File: 1602479827764.png (61.25 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, courtPackingTrends.png) ImgOps Google

>The risk of court packing is the one thing that keeps me from supporting Biden

Isn't this something that didn't even come up until this week? Until just recently I hadn't heard those words mentioned unless someone was talking about McConnell. I have a hard time believing that this is the issue that has been giving you cold feet about Biden all year.

 No.7062

>>7061
>Isn't this something that didn't even come up until this week?
No. It came up almost as soon as Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett (or perhaps even as soon as Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, but I didn't notice).

>>7061
>I have a hard time believing that this is the issue that has been giving you cold feet about Biden all year.
Biden's terrible position on the Second Amendment also bothered me.  But with Trump's most recent Supreme Court nomination, there was a short period of time when I felt that I could rely on the Supreme Court to protect the second amendment and that I would vote for Biden.

 No.7069

Adding more Supreme Court justices is not something Biden has ever proposed or even talked about, so why would he need to disavow it?

It would be like asking him to disavow wearing women's clothing. If it's not something he's ever been associated with, there's no need to for him to do so.

 No.7070

>>7062
You're aware of the Republican party's hypocrisy on this issue, right? Their refusal to appoint Obama's pick for the supreme court because it was "an election year", only to turn around and force through their own pick in the middle of an active election. You only ignore this because you favor the outcome, protection for you guns. But it's hypocritical and underhanded of them and will endanger the rights of dozens of people who are not guns.

It pains me to see you constantly be so blinded to potential suffering of others to protect pieces of metal designed for killing. I want to believe you have more empathy than this.

But in any case, Biden has not said he is going to add more supreme court justices in any capacity and cannot do so on his own. So this is not even anything you have to worry about. It's fear-mongering from his opponents, after their own massive hypocrisy and underhandedness. Don't fall for it.

 No.7071

>>7069
>so why would he need to disavow it?
He was specifically asked about it by the moderator of the first debate.

 No.7073

>>7070
>You're aware of the Republican party's hypocrisy on this issue, right?
Yes.  Their refusal to even hold hearings for Merrick Garland was inexcusable.

>>7070
>It pains me to see you constantly be so blinded to suffering of others to protect pieces of metal designed for killing.
I support the Second amendment precisely because it it can help prevent the suffering of innocent people.  You and I might disagree on how much The Second amendment can help prevent or overthrow tyranny in the modern world.

>>7070
>Biden has not said he is going to add more supreme court justices
He said that in the primaries, but now he refuses to confirm it.

 No.7074

>>7043
Interesting.  I have no opinion except that the number of supreme court justices seems like something that should have been specified in the constitution.

Unless it's considered a feature of separated power that the executive and congress may add justices until they get what they feel they need from the judicial branch.

 No.7077

>>7060
Talk about the Supreme Court being fair and impartial is all well and good, but it's not. You and I both know that. Republicans and conservatives want bobblehead justices that will ram right-wing ideology down the throats of the American people, law and philosophy be damned, and do whatever the hardcore fringe insists. That's reality.

That's why Obamacare is likely to get repealed. That's why abortion rights are likely to get repealed. That's why gay rights are likely to get repealed. That's why voting rights are decaying every day so that it's harder and harder to actually do what you want on Election Day. If the law mattered and philosophy also mattered, then even conservative and Republican appointed justices would uphold precedent in order to maintain basic civic administration and human rights. But they don't do that.

The Republican Party shoving through ABC without even holding hearings for Garland is a crying example of how they don't care about policy here. It's nothing principled. It's all ideology.

Why shouldn't the Supreme Court reflect the will of the people as expressed through law and philosophy, established through long precedent? Why not pack the court? And prevent right-wing hacks from putting ideology over people?

 No.7078

>>7077
through ACB

 No.7079

>>7077
I find it hard to disagree. Biden has not stated he wants to do this, but would it even be a bad thing if he did?

>>7073
>He said that in the primaries, but now he refuses to confirm it.

I'd like a source on that. Biden sometimes stutters, an issue he's dealt with since childhood. It does not mean he is unintelligent, but it does mean we have to pay close attention to his exact words.

 No.7085

>>7077
Just as much as Democrats want bobble head justices that will ram in left wing ideology down the throats of the American people, law and philosophy be damned.

 No.7088

File: 1602510272194.jpg (111.56 KB, 600x800, 3:4, Futaba.Akane.full.1363867.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>7077
>You and I both know that. Republicans and conservatives want bobblehead justices that will ram right-wing ideology down the throats of the American people, law and philosophy be damned, and do whatever the hardcore fringe insists.
No, I disagree with that.  I think the Republicans generally nominate people who are committed to conservative principles of jurisprudence.

>That's why Obamacare is likely to get repealed.
I disagree with that too.  https://reason.com/2020/10/02/how-judge-barrett-ruled-in-the-texas-aca-case/

>The Republican Party shoving through ABC without even holding hearings for Garland is a crying example of how they don't care about policy here. It's nothing principled. It's all ideology.
Most Republican politicians (like Democratic politicians) unfortunately aren't very principled.  But the judges whom they appoint generally are principled.

>Why shouldn't the Supreme Court reflect the will of the people
Because the Supreme Court is supposed to be a check on popular but unconstitutional laws.

>Why not pack the court?
As I explained in >>7060:
>A norm of expanding the Supreme Court whenever a different party takes control of both the Presidency and the Senate would erode judicial independence.  

>>7079
>I'd like a source on that.
Oh, sorry, I think I misworded that.  What I meant that is that Biden opposed court packing during the primaries.  
https://iowastartingline.com/2019/07/05/joe-biden-interview-talk-about-the-future-in-dem-primary/

 No.7089

Why Amy Coney Barrett is Unlikely to Have Any Meaningful Effect on the Future of the ACA:
https://reason.com/2020/10/12/why-amy-coney-barrett-is-unlikely-to-have-any-meaningful-effect-on-the-future-of-the-aca/

 No.7090

>>7085
Yeah, left-wing ideology like... gay people having the right to get married... And women... having authority over their own bodies...

The monsters!

If you could not tell, that was sarcasm. I'm making a point that what you are called "left-wing ideology" are things that grant rights to minority and marginalized groups. The "right-wing" is trying to take those rights and freedoms away.

 No.7094

>>7090
Yeah, or like right wing ideology like ... Property ownership, freedom of religion, basic security, and free trade.

Again; this type of thing of present on both sides.
This is just pointless tribalism. Nothing more than saying "my side good your side bad!"

 No.7111

>>7094
But you see, no one on the left is actually coming after those things. It's all being blown out of proportion to scare people on the right.

One side poses a real threat to the rights of marginalized groups, and the other poses a fake, made up threat to the group still very much in power and the majority.

 No.7115

File: 1602558947532.png (998.64 KB, 1568x1037, 1568:1037, LWA-35.png) ImgOps Google

>>7111
Joe Biden, on his very campaign page, threatens to "Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines".  Here "assault weapons" means "scary-looking rifles with a pistol grip" and "high-capacity" means "standard-capacity".
https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/#

 No.7116

>>7115
And?

 No.7118

>>7116
I wouldn't describe Biden's gun plan as a "fake, made up threat".

 No.7122

>>7118
Yeah, because that's on the same level as me being allowed to marry my fiance, being able to afford health insurance with a pre-existing condition, women being able to abort a pregnancy safely, not being discriminated against because I'm gay...

 No.7123

Instead of just dismissing everything as tribalism, can we admit that there's a fundamental ethical difference between these two views=

A) The Supreme Court needs to be part and parcel of a gigantic, dominating federal government that functions as an iron fist in order to restrict individual liberties as much as possible, accruing ever more authority to Washington: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, abortion rights, LGBT rights, freedom of assembly, voting rights, and everything else being crushed like wheat grains in a mill in the midst of a right-wing Big Brother / Nanny State government.

B) The Supreme Court needs to be a check against the power of the government in order to protect and defend individual liberty from the ever constant attempt to expand Washington: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, abortion rights, LGBT rights, freedom of assembly, voting rights, and everything else being held under careful protection like diamonds under plexiglass despite what the right-wing believers in a Big Brother / Nanny State administration want.

It's not that complicated. Either the best government is that which governs least, or government is an active force for social engineering that must be allowed to mold the people like clay. Either the Supreme Court expands the abilities of those in power and shrinks liberty or vise versa.

 No.7124

The lone exception that I can see as far as civil liberties go to the general trend is that the right-wing tends to support private gun rights and the majority of society (moderates, progressives, liberals, the far-left, the apolitical in general, etc). I see that point. In that exception, the right-wing is for a smaller government.

I find this personally regrettable. As has been pointed out multiple times, banning assault weapons, however they're defined, does essentially nothing to reduce crime. And even if it did, there's still the matter of fundamental human liberties at stake: self-defense being paramount as something every free citizen ought to be able to do.

Nonetheless, it strikes me as genuinely bonkers to look at this one exception to the general rule and act as if literally nothing in the world matters except for it. That's... quite a stretch. I can't understand the mindset at all.

 No.7125

>>7124
*and the majority of society... disagrees.

 No.7126

File: 1602593544169.jpg (65.79 KB, 800x745, 160:149, 1440987250420.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>7122
RKBA is a clearly enumerated Constitutional right.

>>7123
>>7124
Right-of-center justices support freedom of speech and freedom of religion just as much as (and in some aspects even more than) left-of-center justices.  In regards to abortion rights, LGBT rights, freedom of assembly, and voting rights: most restrictions imposed by government (acting as sovereign) come from state governments (and their political subdivisions), not the federal government.

>>7124
>Nonetheless, it strikes me as genuinely bonkers to look at this one exception to the general rule and act as if literally nothing in the world matters except for it. That's... quite a stretch. I can't understand the mindset at all.
The general trend over the past few decades has been increasing popular support for LGBT rights.  The only recent infringements by government (acting as sovereign) that I recall are the bathroom bills that criminalize using the """wrong""" bathroom, and those seem to be increasingly unpopular.  So, as time goes on, the judicial branch might not be very important for LGBT rights, because the legislative branch can be relied upon instead.  And sometimes even justices applying conservative principles of jurisprudence rule in favor of LGBT rights, as in Bostock v. Clayton County  (2020).

And the jurisprudential principles employed by judges are important in their own right, regardless of the outcome that they lead to.  One of the main complaints about Roe v Wade is that it is unmoored from the actual text of the Constitution.

>>7125
A majority of the population believes in the Second Amendment to some degree, even if they support restrictions on so-called """assault weapons""".

 No.7128

>>7116
And that's a right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, considered vital to our civil liberties by most gun owners.

 No.7129

>>7123
It's baseless tribalism precisely because you assume that left = good, and right = bad.

The right would say that the Supreme Court needs to be a check against the power of the government in order to defend individual liberty as well, after all.
It's just that you do not agree with the things they care about, and frankly, as a result, assume their motives as "evil".

 No.7130

>>7126
Something worth adding in relation to the abortion issue is, the right doesn't see it as restricting a right, but rather, protecting a right, as they consider a pregnancy to be a child.

I think we can all agree that killing a 3 month old baby would be wrong.
The question then becomes "When does life begin".

This is why this petty tribalism bullshit is such a pain.
Rather than even attempt to understand the motives involved here, it's just "left = good! right = bad!"

 No.7134

>>7118
Only if you value guns over people. Which I don't think I should have to tell you, but is something you shouldn't do.

>>7128
You people are actually comparing the right to own ONE TYPE of dangerous killing weapon to gay people's right to get married and women's right to have autonomy over their own bodies? Do you realize how stupid that sounds?

 No.7139

>>7134
I consider the right to keep and bear arms more important than the right to get married, personally.
I don't consider marriage a big deal, and certainly as lesser than the ownership of the means to defend myself.

As to abortion, like I said, the perspective for the pro-life concerns itself with the right of the child.

 No.7140

File: 1602614704115.jpg (580.05 KB, 421x800, 421:800, 1435287866197.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>7134
>Only if you value guns over people.
I don't value guns for their own sake.  I value guns precisely because (1) I value people and (2) guns are best means of defense for people to protect their lives and liberty.

>>7130
>The question then becomes "When does life begin".
Even assuming that life begins at conception,  Judith Jarvis Thomson presents a good argument [1] that, in many cases, a pregnant woman still has a self-defense right to use whatever level of force is necessary to remove the fetus from her body, even if this leads to the death of the fetus.  This argument applies most clearly in the case of rape, and I'd say that it applies pretty clearly in the case of attempted-but-failed contraception as well.  Probably worth a read if you haven't seen this line of argument before.

[1] Thomson, Judith Jarvis. “A Defense of Abortion.” Philosophy & Public Affairs, 1971.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion
https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

 No.7141

>>7140
Personally, I think the right to eviction is a better argument than self defense.
But, yeah, I'm just trying to give the right wing perspective that isn't "HAHA WE EVIL GIB POWERA" .

 No.7143

>>7129
It's not that "left = good" and "right = bad".

It's that "left = smaller government and more personal freedom" and "right = larger government and less personal freedom".

 No.7144


 No.7146

File: 1602620216807.jpg (191.73 KB, 600x750, 4:5, 1437384178419.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>7143
Once upon a time, Republicans stood for fiscal responsibility and smaller government.  Unfortunately, that has kinda gone the way of the Dodo with Trump.

Let's take a look at Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018).  In that case, the left position was to create a civil rights commission (bigger government) and require a baker to bake and decorate a cake for a gay marriage (more personal freedom for gay couple, but less personal freedom for baker).

So, I'd say it's a more complex relation than what you described in >>7143.

 No.7147

>>7139
It's not a child and has no rights until it is capable of independent, sapient thought. So that's a non-issue. That would only affect very very late term abortions. Possibly only ones right before birth, but that's debatable.

Either way, it does not affect abortion before a brain has formed and thought is even possible.

 No.7148

>>7146
I strongly disagree with that characterization as far as the case and with the specific issue in general.

It's well-established as a part of classical liberalism and basic rule of law going back to Locke and others that one person's right to act is limited directly by other people's right not to be harmed by those actions. This applies obvious to laws against murder. Laws against rape. Etc. Those laws expand personal freedom and don't restrict it because harming another person isn't a part of liberty as its truly understood.

That the modern right-wing narrowly supports a Christian fundamentalist right for one person to harm another (not that they give a shit about religious liberty in general, especially when it comes to the Jews and Muslims as well as others that the fundamentalist Christians also oppose as well as the LGBT).. I can't see that as being supportive of liberty at all.

 No.7149

>>7139
>marriage isn't a big deal to me personally

On the contrast, I think that denying somebody their basic right to exist and to express their sincere religious faith, their personal identity, their sense of love, their meaning of life, and everything else is a pretty horrifying evil.

You're not killing them. You're killing their reason to live. That's... well, it's not the same. But it's up there.

 No.7150

>>7149
And you apply this to Muslim people as well, yes?

 No.7151

>>7143
I'm not so sure
I'd consider the UK to be far further left than us, and yet they are far, far less free.
You get arrested for jokes there, after all

>>7147
Sapience may well mean after a certain age you're no longer human either, though. Loss of cognitive function is a common side effect of getting old after all.

And this aside, we have laws concerning nonsapient creatures anyway. It's illegal to intentionally set your dog on fire, for instance, as that is cruel.

>>7149
I do not believe marriage dictates one's right to exist

Also, this only goes as far as legal recognition, didn't it?
Pretty sure you could still do all the rest, the state just wouldn't recognize it.

>You're not killing them. You're killing their reason to live
If their only reason to live predicates on the state acknowledging their marriage, I'd suggest there's more important issues at play.

 No.7152

>>7148
Refusing to create a customized product for someone doesn't hurt them.
Forcing someone to create something for someone else is slavery, which I would argue does hurt them.

 No.7153

>>7150
Yes, the seething hatred of Muslims expressed by the right-wing is disgusting.

 No.7154

>>7151
Marriage may be a meaningless piece of paper to you, but you're, and I'm trying to put this politely and genuinely avoid being mean, a highly unusual individual in that circumstance.

 No.7155

>>7152
That's a pretty Orwellian re-definition of the situation here.

But let's assume a little bit of it... so, by your logic, every apartment building on a block being 'White's Only' such that anybody who's not white is effectively forced to be homeless would be fine then?

 No.7158

>>7155
As my memory goes, that's what happened.
A custom product was requested, and refused.

>so, by your logic, every apartment building on a block being 'White's Only' such that anybody who's not white is effectively forced to be homeless would be fine then?
No.
Likewise, if the cake was in the stand with a pricetag on it, and they refused to sell, I'd agree that is also unacceptable.
Custom work is different, however.
I do not believe it is acceptable to force artists to create something. The same as if I do not want to work with mahogany, I do not think I should be forced to.

>>7154
I'm not so convinced. Marriage on the whole is in decline, last I heard.
Besides that, again, it's only whether or not the state recognizes it.
You can still get married. It is merely not recognized by the state.

And, again, I have to reiterate; If your sole reason to live is to have the state recognize your marriage, you might have other issues at play which are more important.

 No.7160

>>7158
Putting marriage aside for a moment, I fail to see why the magic word 'artist' somehow gives somebody a license to ensure that social harm against minorities continues.

Suppose that a popular cartoonist on Deviant Art or some other website announced that due to the 9/11 attacks and other acts of Islamic related violence that she refuses to accept any work from anybody that she sees as a 'towelhead'. Would you consider that okay? She's an 'artist', after all.

 No.7162

>>7160
I do not consider a craftsmen, if you dislike the term artist, refusing to create something that they do not wish to "social harm against minorities".

>. Would you consider that okay? She's an 'artist', after all.
No, because that's refusing the patron, not the creation.

If she refused to create works which contained what she considered to be a 'towelhead', that's a different matter.
That is, I would say, her right to do.
Likewise, if someone only ever wanted to paint black people, and refused commissions to paint white people.
That is fine.

 No.7163

>>7158
>>7160
To pick the very most apt comparison, suppose that somebody walks into an art gallery looking to buy a piece that's prominently displayed on the main wall, and she's informed that the gallery doesn't sell to Jews. Again, would that be okay? Because it's 'artist' related?

 No.7165

>>7162
We are talking about businesspeople directly stating that a certain classification of individual is inferior and therefore refusing to serve them. That's what we're talking about. That's the case.

 No.7166

>>7163
Yes.
Once again;
The person, not the craft.

If you go into that gallery and demand a painting of a jew, I do not think people should be forced to acquiesce to such a request.

>>7165
That is your characterization, not mine.
I disagree.

 No.7167

>>7160
I think the legal rule should be that it's okay to discriminate based on the nature of the requested work product, but not okay to discriminate based on the personal attributes of the requester.  E.g., a baker can have a policy of refusing to create same-sex-themed cakes, not but a policy of refusing to sell to gay customers.

 No.7169

>>7166
Your characterization is simply false. At issue is that Christian fundamentalist businesses are refusing to serve LGBT people at all the same as they would to the non-LGBT. This goes way beyond cakes. It's hotels. It's hospitals. It's all kinds of organizations.

 No.7171

>>7169
So you claim. But this conversation was in relation to the cake matter.
If you'd like to talk about some other matter, it's probably best to make that clear.

As it pertains to refusing to make a custom cake for a couple, as is my understanding of the 'gay cake' thing, I do not believe anyone should be forced to make something they do not wish to.

 No.7172

>>7169
Art is a form of protected speech.  In general, outside the commercial advertising exception, the government cannot force someone to create speech that he disagrees with.  Renting a hotel doesn't have the same freedom-of-expression issue.

 No.7173

>>7167
You can think that the legal rule should be that, hypothetically, but it's a distinction that can't apply in real-life circumstances because what's happening is that people are being refused because of who they are and not what they want.

Suppose we were talking about a Germanic neo-paganist bakery that stated that because of its religious beliefs that the Jews are demons descended from cursed mud that it wouldn't provide cakes that had a Jewish name written on them or cakes to a Jewish couple or to a mixed Jewish and gentile couple.

Would you be fine with that? After all, Jews can still buy plain cakes if they refuse to identify themselves. They're only refused their names. Or the right to ask the baker to express support for their crossbreeding.

 No.7174

>>7171
>I do not believe anyone should be forced to make something they do not wish to.

Can you truly defend this principle? You keep dancing around.

Why are you okay, then, with forcing at gunpoint a baker at a White's Only Lunch Counter to against his will provide to a black customer but swap the terms and it's different for the LGBT?

 No.7175

>>7172
We're not talking about speech. We're talking about harm done to individuals through discrimination of commercial products. This isn't speech.

I'm not forced to express support for the religious belief of Judaism if the government forces me against my will to let Jews eat at my lunch counter, me forced against my will to prepare for them like anybody else.

 No.7176

>>7173
>what's happening is that people are being refused because of who they are and not what they want.
That can rightfully be outlawed.  The customers should be refused only because of what they want, not who they are.

> wouldn't provide cakes that had a Jewish name written on them
>Would you be fine with that?
Yes.  That is discrimination based on the work product.

> wouldn't provide ... cakes to a Jewish couple or to a mixed Jewish and gentile couple.
>Would you be fine with that?
No.  Discrimination based on protected attributes of the customer shouldn't be allowed.

 No.7177

>>7167
This is how I understand it as well. And how I think it ought to be, honestly.
>>7173
>Suppose we were talking about a Germanic neo-paganist bakery that stated that because of its religious beliefs that the Jews are demons descended from cursed mud that it wouldn't provide cakes that had a Jewish name written on them
It certainly skirts the line, I'd say. It's a question to consider. Ultimately, I think I'd lean to still no, mostly because I don't think a service that offers custom messages on cakes should be forced to make one that says "gas the jews".
The point of principle is that they are universal, after all.

>or cakes to a Jewish couple or to a mixed Jewish and gentile couple.
Again, this is different. You've conflated the two things, despite them being pointed out to you numerous times as the main issue.

If I refused a white person from shopping at my gallery, that's wrong.
If I said to a white person who wanted a painting of their white grandfather that I do not paint white people, that would be fine.
>>7174
>Can you truly defend this principle?
Yes, I can.
>You keep dancing around.
This coming from the guy who picked up and ran with the goalpost the moment he started losing the argument.

>Why are you okay, then, with forcing at gunpoint a baker at a White's Only Lunch Counter to against his will provide to a black customer but swap the terms and it's different for the LGBT?
I don't.
You're just not paying attention to what I've actually said.

The cake maker should be required to make the same cake he made for another couple.
He should not, however, be forced to make a custom cake with something he disagrees with on it.

If I sell Jill a sing that says "I LOVE COCK", but then refuse to sell James a sign saying the same thing, that'd be wrong. Because it's the same product.
However, if I sold Jill a sign that said "I LOVE COCK" with a text bubble coming from a woman, and then James wanted one with a text bubble coming from a man, it would be fine to refuse to create that for James.

 No.7178

>>7175
>We're not talking about speech.
I am.

>We're talking about harm done to individuals through discrimination of commercial products. This isn't speech.
The speech is the artistic creation.

>I'm not forced to express support for the religious belief of Judaism if the government forces me against my will to let Jews eat at my lunch counter, me forced against my will to prepare for them like anybody else.
Right, because the product served to Jews is the same product served to everyone else.  If the government forced you to slaughter the animals in accordance with the kosher standards of the Talmud, that would be an infringement of your religious freedom.

 No.7179

>>7176
>>7177
Why is government putting a gun to somebody's head telling them "serve that product" somehow magically different depending solely on whether or not the business claims that it's a "custom"?

Are you seriously unaware in the history of the African-American civil rights movement that this is exactly the argument used by the racist businesses?

They were craftsman preparing special products at those lunch counters, and that's why they wouldn't serve black customers. Black customers wanted special treatment, supposedly. They only served things that white people wanted, supposedly.

 No.7180

>>7179
Equality.

If I sell a plank to Jim for 20$, but I won't sell the same thing to Jack for 20$, that's wrong.
If, however, I sell a plank to Jim for 20$, and Jack wants a dowel for 20$, I shouldn't have to make him one.

Frankly, I think this ought apply to political orientation as well. I think it's wrong to boot someone, for instance, with a Trump hat from your restaurant.

>Are you seriously unaware in the history of the African-American civil rights movement that this is exactly the argument used by the racist businesses?
No. I just do not care.
They don't counter the arguments made.

>They were craftsman preparing special products at those lunch counters, and that's why they wouldn't serve black customers.
If the craftsmen was told to create a 'black sandwich', then he shouldn't be forced to.
But, if he was told to make the same sandwich he made for everyone else, he should sell it, just like he sold it to everyone else.

>Black customers wanted special treatment, supposedly.
Wanting the same thing as everyone else isn't special treatment.

> They only served things that white people wanted, supposedly.
That would be fine.
The problem would be if they refused to sell the same thing that they sold to white people, to black people.

 No.7181

>>7177
>>7178
Do you both seriously not get that out in the real world a businessman who hates Jews/Muslims/blacks/the-LGBT/etc is going to use exactly this talk? It's a transparent fig leaf for the actual practice.

In the real world, if I go somewhere and ask for a cake, and they say "we don't support your lifestyle", it's based on who I am and not what specifically I happen to want, whether it's a certain name written on a cake or whatever else. Of course, when I get mad, the place is going to belatedly claim "but we'd serve you if you wanted a straight cake" even though that wasn't the case at all. That's how life is.

 No.7182

>>7180
The cake situation is still a near-exact parallel to the White's Only Lunch Counter situation.

All I want is the exact same treatment as anybody else. That's it. Period.

Everybody else gets a cake with their name on it. Everybody else gets to pick their flavor. Everybody else gets service with a smile.

Treat me equal. The same. As everybody else.

 No.7183

File: 1602635305277.jpg (138.96 KB, 1012x860, 253:215, bc6599cf80d617da94824a2da7….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>7179
>Why is government putting a gun to somebody's head telling them "serve that product" somehow magically different depending solely on whether or not the business claims that it's a "custom"?
It's not.  That's not the claim.  The claim is the government cannot force the creator to create a different product that he doesn't want to create.

 No.7184

>>7181
>Do you both seriously not get that out in the real world a businessman who hates Jews/Muslims/blacks/the-LGBT/etc is going to use exactly this talk?
I don't care.
They can if they want.
They'll still have to sell the same thing they sold to everyone else, however.

If they really want to keep the Jews out, I'd advise making every loaf of bred with a swastika marking on it.
But you're still going to have to sell a Jew that bread with a swastika mark, if they come in and want one.

>It's a transparent fig leaf for the actual practice.
You think that.
I don't really care if that's how you see it.
I'm not overly concerned with the optics aspect. I tend to make judgements only off of what I believe is right.

>In the real world, if I go somewhere and ask for a cake, and they say "we don't support your lifestyle", it's based on who I am and not what specifically I happen to want, whether it's a certain name written on a cake or whatever else.
If you just ask for a cake, you'd be provided a regular cake like everyone else.

> Of course, when I get mad, the place is going to belatedly claim "but we'd serve you if you wanted a straight cake" even though that wasn't the case at all.
If you asked for a normal cake that everyone else got, why wouldn't that be the case?

Your hyperbolic analogy makes no sense. It doesn't seem related to anything we've actually argued here.

 No.7186

>>7181
Well, if someone could prove that, then they would have a viable claim of unlawful discrimination.

 No.7187

>>7182
You think that.
I disagree.

>All I want is the exact same treatment as anybody else. That's it. Period.
Then you get a boring regular cake, that everyone else gets.
You can add whatever you want to it, if you so desire.

>Everybody else gets a cake with their name on it.
True, which is why I said it's a bit more of a questionable line.
But, like I said, if I say "everyone else gets their message on their cake!", I do not think that is good enough reason to force a Jewish baker to make a cake that says "Gas the jews".

>Everybody else gets to pick their flavor
You can pick your flavor.
Last I heard, there's no "black" flavor.

> Everybody else gets service with a smile.
Depends on where you go. I don't always get that.
I don't even usually get that these days, with the Covid thing.

 No.7189

>>7183
>>7184
It's not a different product. It's not a special service. It's the same service. It's the same custom.

LGBT couples want the same cake. The same writing. The same service. The same treatment.

It's the businesses arbitrarily picking out certain customers and denying them that service. Being unfair. Being unreasonable.

Why can't you both understand that?

If Bob says "I will put whatever the fuck you want on this canvas", and he suddenly balks because I'm Jewish or whatever else, you agree that that's wrong, yes?

Why can't you also agree that if Bob balks at the idea of drawing a star of David that it's also wrong?

He said that he offered a service to everybody. He said that anything goes. He lied.

 No.7190

>>7189
>LGBT couples want the same cake.
If the want the same cake that heterosexual couples get, then the baker should create it for them.

 No.7191

>>7189
That's how you see it. I disagree.

>LGBT couples want the same cake.
OK.
You get a cake with a man and a woman on it, like everyone else got.

>It's the businesses arbitrarily picking out certain customers and denying them that service.
If you go in there, ask for a wedding cake with two men on it as a straight man, and they give it to you, yeah, that would be a problem.
Then you'd have a solid case for discrimination, I'd say.
But, I don't think we're talking about that.

>If Bob says "I will put whatever the fuck you want on this canvas", and he suddenly balks because I'm Jewish or whatever else, you agree that that's wrong, yes?
I would call him out for being a liar, sure.
But it's his right not to, say, write "Bob is a massive cocksucker who loves penis in his ass".

>Why can't you also agree that if Bob balks at the idea of drawing a star of David that it's also wrong?
Would you force a Jewish baker to make a cake with a swastika on it?

 No.7192

>>7186
>>7187
Even if you don't think that it should be necessarily illegal, could you at least agree that the lying is wrong?

If everybody gets their cake and their message, then everybody gets their cake and their message.

If you're going to have a rule saying "I will put a message on a cake if and only if I agree with it and apply it in my own personal life", then that's... well, it's a transparent fig leaf for discrimination, but setting that aside: it's one thing to be honest and say ahead of time what you think.

We're talking about going "Anything goes" and then anything doesn't go.

 No.7193

>>7191
>You get a cake with a man and a woman on it, like everyone else got.

No.

The promise is the same service as anyone else.

That means that I get to have me and my partner on the cake like everybody else.

Again, treat me the same as everyone else.

 No.7194

>>7192
>Even if you don't think that it should be necessarily illegal, could you at least agree that the lying is wrong?
Yes, if the shop advertises that it will create whatever custom message is asked for, then it should stick by its offer.

 No.7195

>>7191
If a Jewish businessman genuinely and sincerely hated gentiles in general and refused to serve some particularly offensive gentle, like declining to serve Robert Spencer asking for lox and bagels at a deli, then I'd say that: tough like. Serve anybody. I don't care if he's odious.

Everyone gets the same treatment. Everyone gets the same equal rights. Fair is fair.

 No.7196

>>7195
*tough luck.

 No.7197

>>7191
>>7193
Again, this is the exact same argument used in the context of the African-American civll rights movement.

>You get a white man and a white woman on your cake with white names spelled out, like everybody else got.

>No damn way I'm letting a white man and a black woman sit together atop your cake, and your black name is disgusting, no special treatment.

But they weren't asking for special treatment. They just wanted equality. Fair is fair.

 No.7198

>>7192
Sure, lying is wrong.

If they say we'll write whatever you want at the custom engraving shop, and then they balk at your "gas the jews" request, they weren't 100% honest.
But, that's still their right to refuse service there.

>>7193
Pounding your fist on the table isn't liable to convince anyone.

You get what everyone else gets. A plastic man and a plastic woman.
If you really want, you could always get a pair of cakes, and take one plastic man and one plastic woman, and swap them around.

But that's the thing; You can create what you want. You can modify your own property. You can't force someone else to modify or create it for you.

>>7195
>If a Jewish businessman genuinely and sincerely hated gentiles in general and refused to serve some particularly offensive gentle, like declining to serve Robert Spencer asking for lox and bagels at a deli, then I'd say that: tough like. Serve anybody. I don't care if he's odious.
I agree.
However, if a gentile walked into a Jewish store and asked for non-kosher bread, the jews in that store do not have to make it for him.

 No.7199

>>7195
>If a Jewish businessman ... refused to serve ... Robert Spencer asking for lox and bagels at a deli, then I'd say that: tough like. Serve anybody. I don't care if he's odious.
What if Spencer requested that a swastika be drawn on his lox and bagels?

 No.7200

>>7198
It's more than lying. It's harm. It's active discrimination.

At a philosophical level, if you understand that lying is wrong, can you also see why lying in multiple circumstances might also be illegal as well?

 No.7201

>>7197
So you say, and I repeat that I do not care.
It doesn't counter the argument.

>You get a white man and a white woman on your cake with white names spelled out, like everybody else got.
Names are cultural, not racial.

>No damn way I'm letting a white man and a black woman sit together atop your cake, and your black name is disgusting, no special treatment.
That's his right. He's an asshole, a scumbag, but it's his right.
If he refuses to sell you the same cake he sells everyone else, though, then you've got a problem on hand.

Do have to question why you are so desperate to give bigots money, at that point, but, eh, maybe there's only one cake maker.

 No.7202

>>7198
No, I want what everybody else gets. Their partners. Together.

Fair is fair. Nobody is being forced to do anything. I just don't want who I am to be discriminated against.

 No.7203

>>7200
>At a philosophical level, if you understand that lying is wrong, can you also see why lying in multiple circumstances might also be illegal as well?
I suppose you could argue for false advertising or breach of contract, sure.

Same as if they refused to let you write "Gas the jews" on your cake.

 No.7204

>>7198
>If they say we'll write whatever you want at the custom engraving shop, and then they balk at your "gas the jews" request, they weren't 100% honest.
>But, that's still their right to refuse service there.

You bring this up, but seriously: if I gave that shop my $100 or whatever it was, and I got bilked like that, most normal people would say that even if I'm a scumbag I should get my fair treatment. I'm a customer. Fair is fair. They promised what they promised. It would be illegal fraud such that I could legitimately get them in trouble with the cops.

 No.7205

>>7198
Can you see that non-kosher bread is a totally different, thing?

LGBT couples want, again, the same treatment. As everybody else. Fair is fair.

 No.7206

>>7201
If my boss told me that he refused to "employ anybody called Goldstein, because I don't want to get scammed", you would damn well think that he's a racial bigot, and he'd be right.

 No.7207

>>7201
>>7206
*and you'd be right

 No.7208

>>7204
I think you might have difficulty in court, but, sure, you could probably hassle them on false advertising.

>>7205
Not really, no.

>LGBT couples want, again, the same treatment. As everybody else. Fair is fair.
OK, you get the regular cake with a plastic man and a plastic girl.

 No.7209

>>7206
>>7207
Humorous typo, but what's the point here?

 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 ]