Gay wedding cakes
I think society after the passage of the CRA is meaningful more free for African Americans, and that freedom comes at negligible costs to anyone else.
Not really. White supremacists add an additional premise: the inevitability of their own racism.
It's not a compliment. When I say "frustrating" I don't mean in the sense of it being challenging because you argue well. I mean in the sense that you are often obnoxious, ignorant, and argue in apparent bad faith.
I only engaged in this meta-discussion about your posting because you brought it up. I'm not too interested in evaluating everyone's posting. Although I think you are confused about lagtight, as far as I can tell he basically agrees with your position.
Maybe this has been brought up already, but you know the same US principles of freedom and the US civil rights laws that protect gays and racial groups also protects your Christian sect from being discriminated against.
It's quite clear the the more inclusive you try to be for everyone with laws, the more and more you push out those people who actually are the norm, and then you get Donald Trump. Once the norm is gone, you dont have a society anymore. This is actually the major line of thinking with groups like the alt right. Limited to this they are quite correct, their solutions are of course idiotic.
What is truly distinctive about the alt-right is not the claim that we need some kind of social norm of what it means to be American, but that this social norm has to be based on a racial and/or ethnic identity, and in the case of America, that racial identity is white European. I'm pretty skeptical of the prior claim, but the latter is clearly false. America is made up of its people, and almost 40% of Americans are not white. You can't have a national identity for a democratic country like the US that excludes that many people. Thus, the alt-right understanding of America cannot function as a unifying ideology for the US. Whatever they are talking about, it is not about America as it actually is (assuming, as we can't, that we aren't actually talking about ethnic cleansing).
What is truly distinctive about the alt-right is not the claim that we need some kind of social norm of what it means to be American, but that this social norm has to be based on a racial and/or ethnic identity, and in the case of America, that racial identity is white European.
I'm pretty skeptical of the prior claim, but the latter is clearly false. America is made up of its people, and almost 40% of Americans are not white.
You can't have a national identity for a democratic country like the US that excludes that many people. Thus, the alt-right understanding of America cannot function as a unifying ideology for the US. Whatever they are talking about, it is not about America as it actually is (assuming, as we can't, that we aren't actually talking about ethnic cleansing).
That's a very recent trend though. Prior to immigration changes in the late 1960's America was by a vast majority, white European.
I disagree completely that America can't function as majority white European; certainly it did so quite well for nearly 200 years. I'm not alt-right though, so I don't care particularly about this point.
I disagree completely that America can't function as majority white European; certainly it did so quite well for nearly 200 years. I'm not alt-right though, so I don't care particularly about this point.
So the christian customers who were verbally abused and then thrown out of the coffee shop by the gay owner, around the same time as the "gay cakes" incident, there was no uproar about that, and no legal case ( I dont know whether that was because they didnt make a complaint), should the coffee shop owner face the same punishments as the christian baker?
While I think this is true of most Republicans, I am not impressed by the nihilistic wing of the GOP base that gets off on drinking liberal tears, triggering the libs, shocking PC conventions and the other performative acts of political dominance that Trump has exemplified and encouraged.
Huh? There are lots of republican countries outside Europe.
Of course I agree that America can function with an explicitly pro-white European ideology in theory
What the alt-right gets very, very wrong about this is that they think the problem is racial diversity.
- laws supporting white supremacy have been the law of the land for most of America's history. What I'm saying is that the alt-right goal of returning to that time again is either delusional or extremely sinister. Our country is today too racially and ethnically diverse and egalitarian to include any single race or ethnicity as part of what it means to be American. Doing so will inevitably lead to the kind of social conflict that national identities/ideologies are supposed to tamp down on. I have no problem with people who want to celebrate their European heritage. What I oppose are the attempts by the alt-right to exclude people without that heritage.
The left also calls it 'racism' which it is only insofar as the vast majority of people wishing to come to the USA are brown. The intent is not 'racist' however, which is something the left just cannot seem to understand. These consistent and malevolent misrepresentation of the concerns of the right are why Trump and his followers brand leftist media organizations 'fake news.' It's amazing to me so many smart people on the left can fall for it, but it really comes down to both sides refusal to listen to each other. It's easy to misrepresent someones opinion when 1) ones own opinion is heavily contingent upon perceived injustices created by the other side and 2) you have no idea what the other side's actual opinion is and don't do a damn thing towards understanding it.
So the christian customers who were verbally abused and then thrown out of the coffee shop by the gay owner, around the same time as the "gay cakes" incident, there was no uproar about that, and no legal case ( I dont know whether that was because they didnt make a complaint), should the coffee shop owner face the same punishments as the christian baker?
So the christian customers who were verbally abused and then thrown out of the coffee shop by the gay owner, around the same time as the "gay cakes" incident, there was no uproar about that, and no legal case ( I dont know whether that was because they didnt make a complaint), should the coffee shop owner face the same punishments as the christian baker?
The whataboutism is strong here. IIRC neeel was one of the gang who thinks the CRA is bad, that society should be allowed to fire anyone or deny them access to public goods for being black, or christian, etc. Certainly doesn't want to take these basic protections enshrined in western democracies and include LGBT people in the same jurisprudence. So it is doubly hard to take seriously the faux concern about the poor homophobic victims being "verbally abused".
I suspect he is referring to this story. It certainly wasn't for "only being" Christian, this was a group aggressively promoting hateful, homophobic propaganda around the city that the owner, quite reasonably, took offense to.
The whataboutism is strong here. IIRC neeel was one of the gang who thinks the CRA is bad, that society should be allowed to fire anyone or deny them access to public goods for being black, or christian, etc. Certainly doesn't want to take these basic protections enshrined in western democracies and include LGBT people in the same jurisprudence. So it is doubly hard to take seriously the faux concern about the poor homophobic victims being "verbally abused".
The whataboutism is strong here. IIRC neeel was one of the gang who thinks the CRA is bad, that society should be allowed to fire anyone or deny them access to public goods for being black, or christian, etc. Certainly doesn't want to take these basic protections enshrined in western democracies and include LGBT people in the same jurisprudence. So it is doubly hard to take seriously the faux concern about the poor homophobic victims being "verbally abused".
there was no "faux concern", I just wondered if the same standards applied.
Here is the kicker: the same standards DON"T apply, at least not legally. Christians and blacks have extra legal protections here. Gay people do not. I think your whataboutism is immediately thrown out if brought to court, but there is at least a question, a possibility of legal action, when the "victim" is a homophobic Christian. If the "victim" is a hateful gay, there isn't even a CRA-esque law that might in theory be applicable because, at least federally, it is entirely ok to kick out gay people simply for being gay. That is the asymmetry that I think should be corrected, that gay people should have the same legal protections we've given other groups for decades.
And of course it is "faux concern". You want none of these protections for anyone, right? As in, you aren't actually concerned about aggressive homophobes being told they are offensive and getting kicked out, right? You think there should be no legal protections against that, right?
Absolutely. If a hateful, anti-christian group had been proseltyzing around town with ludicrous fearmongering, I'd expect a christian coffee shop who quite rightfully told them that this was offensive. But I wouldn't then leave out every shred of context and try to present it as just random christians being verbally abused.
Here is the kicker: the same standards DON"T apply, at least not legally. Christians and blacks have extra legal protections here. Gay people do not. I think your whataboutism is immediately thrown out if brought to court, but there is at least a question, a possibility of legal action, when the "victim" is a homophobic Christian. If the "victim" is a hateful gay, there isn't even a CRA-esque law that might in theory be applicable because, at least federally, it is entirely ok to kick out gay people simply for being gay. That is the asymmetry that I think should be corrected, that gay people should have the same legal protections we've given other groups for decades.
And of course it is "faux concern". You want none of these protections for anyone, right? As in, you aren't actually concerned about aggressive homophobes being told they are offensive and getting kicked out, right? You think there should be no legal protections against that, right?
Here is the kicker: the same standards DON"T apply, at least not legally. Christians and blacks have extra legal protections here. Gay people do not. I think your whataboutism is immediately thrown out if brought to court, but there is at least a question, a possibility of legal action, when the "victim" is a homophobic Christian. If the "victim" is a hateful gay, there isn't even a CRA-esque law that might in theory be applicable because, at least federally, it is entirely ok to kick out gay people simply for being gay. That is the asymmetry that I think should be corrected, that gay people should have the same legal protections we've given other groups for decades.
And of course it is "faux concern". You want none of these protections for anyone, right? As in, you aren't actually concerned about aggressive homophobes being told they are offensive and getting kicked out, right? You think there should be no legal protections against that, right?
How is it faux concern? again, I want to know if someone ( Pokerlogist in this case) applies the same standards. I have no idea where you get "faux concern" from? I havent expressed any concern, other than whether the same standards are applied.
Regardless, it seems pretty silly for government to force muslims to bake wedding cakes for sikhs, or any other example you want to come up with. Why don't you apply your reasoning and argumentation and fight the good fight in that arena? Is this really about equal rights? It seems, at least coming from people like you, less like a civil rights action and more like a biased and intolerant power display, because you don't seem to really give a **** about equal rights. It seems like you just want government muscle behind your victim group.
I am not sure your portrayal of "proseltyzing around town with ludicrous fearmongering" and "aggressively promoting hateful, homophobic propaganda around the city" is accurate. Do you have any links or anything I can read that will show that?
How is it faux concern? again, I want to know if someone ( Pokerlogist in this case) applies the same standards. I have no idea where you get "faux concern" from? I havent expressed any concern, other than whether the same standards are applied.
How is it faux concern? again, I want to know if someone ( Pokerlogist in this case) applies the same standards. I have no idea where you get "faux concern" from? I havent expressed any concern, other than whether the same standards are applied.
The same standards don't apply because, when you actually include the context, this isn't remotely the same legal situation. I believe this case would be immediately thrown out under current federal law. Where there IS an inconsistency, is anyone who advocates for the status quo, that christians and blacks should be protected but gay people should not be.
Nobody ITT has been advocating that you should never be subject to the "verbal abuse" of being called offensive. Nobody ITT has advocated that public accomodation laws should be meaningfully strengthed to the point where you can't kick out people like Huckabee Sanders, that businesses have no rights to remove anyone from their establishments. Far from it. So when somebody who wants to entirely remove the CRA-style laws, is worrying about fringe cases you clearly don't think are bad yourself, and nobody ITT is worried about either, it is hard to take it seriously.
However, since you have led off, once again, with this disgusting, homophobic question right back on the ignore list your new account goes.
is sexual preference an immutable characteristic?
For those who don't follow along closely, it would be more informative and functional for you to link back to a previous exposition on that topic than to just call it disgusting and shut down the conversation.
You're welcome to dig through the beginning of the thread where I elaborated at some length to neeel actually iirc about why I found that particular line of questioning so homophobic. I've also made over 75 posts ITT addressing many issues from probably every major poster here. So I reject the charge that I'm avoiding difficult questions.
Many people ITT have opposed extending the current legal canon that came from the CRA to include gay people. There have been a lot of arguments. The overwhelming majority I did not label as homophobic. I was opposed to the comparison to pedophilia, and to the "naturalistic" argument about whether being gay was immutable. So i reject the charge that I'm doing this frequently.
Many people ITT have opposed extending the current legal canon that came from the CRA to include gay people. There have been a lot of arguments. The overwhelming majority I did not label as homophobic. I was opposed to the comparison to pedophilia, and to the "naturalistic" argument about whether being gay was immutable. So i reject the charge that I'm doing this frequently.
You seem pretty ignorant about the story you are referencing. Is this why you presented it as simply christians getting "verbally abused" without any shred of the context? I've shared the link. Quotes and links to the homophobic propaganda they were distributing around the city are right there.
Then theres one that says "Love hasnt won yet". I dont see whats homophobic about that one.
The one with the rainbow hands dropping a dead foetus, I dont think , for example, its suggesting that gay people kill foetuses. Its pointing out who ( in their opinion) is really oppressed. I can see that someone might find it offensive though.
The one talking about god, is pointing out what the rainbow symbolises for christians.
I will concede that christians in general are perceived as anti-gay, and I can see how you would assume that any time christians talk about gays, its going to be negative.
I dont think you get to just stick "homophobic" on something and think youve proved anything.
The same standards don't apply because, when you actually include the context, this isn't remotely the same legal situation. I believe this case would be immediately thrown out under current federal law. Where there IS an inconsistency, is anyone who advocates for the status quo, that christians and blacks should be protected but gay people should not be.
Nobody ITT has been advocating that you should never be subject to the "verbal abuse" of being called offensive. Nobody ITT has advocated that public accomodation laws should be meaningfully strengthed to the point where you can't kick out people like Huckabee Sanders, that businesses have no rights to remove anyone from their establishments. Far from it. So when somebody who wants to entirely remove the CRA-style laws, is worrying about fringe cases you clearly don't think are bad yourself, and nobody ITT is worried about either, it is hard to take it seriously.
for the 3rd time, I asked about this case, because I wanted to see whether the same standards were applied consistently. I dont know why thats so hard to understand? yes , in both cases I think both people have the right to refuse service. but I am asking what someone else thinks
You are free to argue ( as you have done) that its not the same, and therefore the standard doesnt apply. I would appreciate if you stopped the strawmanning though.
Actually, when you bizarrely created a second account, I never got around to ignoring your second account. It meant I accidentally read the start of this post without realizing it was you.
However, since you have led off, once again, with this disgusting, homophobic question right back on the ignore list your new account goes.
However, since you have led off, once again, with this disgusting, homophobic question right back on the ignore list your new account goes.
Is sexual preference an immutable characteristic?
But, you should also ask whether immutability is, or should be, relevant to legal classifications addressing discrimination or legal rights. Just as an example, religion is clearly not an immutable characteristic but we deem it worthwhile to treat religious identity as a protected class. I think the tendency to arrive at immutability as a criterion for determining which characteristics ought to be protected derives from the analogy to race/ethnicity, and I get the appeal of trying to find simple criteria, but there's nothing that forces us into that choice, and in fact we don't insist on its importance elsewhere.
For a more comprehensive argument both about the science and the legal issues, this article is worth reading.
Actually, when you bizarrely created a second account, I never got around to ignoring your second account. It meant I accidentally read the start of this post without realizing it was you.
However, since you have led off, once again, with this disgusting, homophobic question right back on the ignore list your new account goes.
However, since you have led off, once again, with this disgusting, homophobic question right back on the ignore list your new account goes.
Because that is progressive strategy-->to insinuate moral corruption as the ultimate source of his opponents argument. That way he never has to deal with problems with his own viewpoint, and can basically win every interaction without putting forth logic or substance at all.
To the best of my knowledge there is no single simple answer to this. Some, perhaps the majority, of people experience their sexual preferences as immutable, but those preferences are also reinforced socially. Others experience that their preferences change over time, but not necessarily in a way that is entirely consciously motivated. There's also a problem here with potentially conflating mutability with ontology, i.e. people's preferences may be both somewhat mutable but not in a way that we have much conscious control over, although I think it's also wrong to say people don't make any conscious choices about sexual orientation at all, under any circumstances. In any case, the simplest answer is no, sexual preference is not an absolutely fixed and immutable characteristic for all people.
But, you should also ask whether immutability is, or should be, relevant to legal classifications addressing discrimination or legal rights.
Just as an example, religion is clearly not an immutable characteristic but we deem it worthwhile to treat religious identity as a protected class.
What LGBT activists seem to want is not equal protection from government as religion as they've had that for quite a number of years. What they seem to want is government power behind the social and moral acceptance of their behavior/preference, religious people be damned. You certainly don't see Christians going around saying atheists shouldn't be able to criticize Christianity or calling them disgusting bigots for doing so. Yet, as witnessed multiple times in this thread, that strategy has been absolutely crucial in LGBT activists gaining leverage over criticism. What we have here is not a civil rights issue over an immutable characteristic, but a moral one. The painting of opponents in definition and substance as moral villains is illustrative of this fact.
I think the tendency is to arrive at immutability as a criterion for determining which characteristics ought to be protected derives from the analogy to race/ethnicity, and I get the appeal of trying to find simple criteria, but there's nothing that forces us into that choice, and in fact we don't insist on its importance elsewhere.
Citation needed.
We're not talking about social stigma here, we're talking about anti-discrimination law. That's what "protected class" refers to, and as a matter of law religion is a protected class. See titles II, III, and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
We're not talking about social stigma here, we're talking about anti-discrimination law. That's what "protected class" refers to, and as a matter of law religion is a protected class. See titles II, III, and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I can see that the posters that were being distributed had rainbows or rainbow flags on them. Im not sure I see what was homophobic. Theres one that has a speech about being self obsessed. Is it that it is saying that gay people are self obsessed? Its not clear, it says "we", so perhaps they mean everyone ( if that was the case, then I suppose they might not have the rainbow background).
Whether something applies legally, and whether an individual applies the same standards consistently, are 2 completely different things.
...
You are free to argue ( as you have done) that its not the same, and therefore the standard doesnt apply.
...
You are free to argue ( as you have done) that its not the same, and therefore the standard doesnt apply.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE