My favorite thing about the gambling case was reading the results and having no clue which justices voted which way. I would have (likely) sided with the liberals on that one.

That’s the thing though, it presents itself as being the Wild West but in reality is far from it. Cash is still king as far as reddit is concerned. Wikipedia is considered truth in our society and money buys you the resources to control Wikipedia. Money buys truth.

There is nothing about that relationship that make Wikipedia unique

Who are the true truthers? Hopefully everyone is taught a healthy dose of skepticism. I feel most humans are naturally pretty skeptical.

I'm not so sure. Most people believe what they are told.

I feel like the idea of some “objective truth” is mostly nonsense. What matters is the class character of the account. Wikipedia has progressively taken on a more and more bourgeoisie class character.

So what you may be seeking is what media outlets/accounts/etc have a proletarian class character?

This is an underrated post

I know you do, birdman!

Anybody who cites wikipedia without first understanding the underlying source is an idiot.

Devastating sub-post about IANAW

I'm happy **** is acceptable again. It's like my third favorite word.

read Thomas' concurrence. he does a great job making the "artistry" argument.

open the decision and Ctrl+F "ascribed"

this is the majority opinion in a nutshell:

basically - the baker's arguments were weak and it would be difficult for the baker to win on his own, but he was treated like an ******* and not just a nutjob

It's an interesting line between the stigma caused by not serving people and the stigma in calling people nutjobs. I guess it's whatever one can justify.

I'm guessing both are trying to assert their power over other humans.

God is undead


wikipedia is a convenient starting point, not an ending point, for inquiry

Are you a rationalist or an empiricist, IANAW?

Thought is the penumbra of the echo of experience.

So an empiricist then?

More like biggerfish, amiright?

the distinction is also that he wasn't refusing to serve gay people. he was refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding. he would bake a cake for gay people's birthday party

the state also ignored that distinction imo

why should that be of significance?

would he bake a cake for a non-gay wedding?

That is not a distinction. It's not as if they were asking him to perform the wedding or express support for their right to marry.

They were asking him to bake a ****ing cake, deliver it, and get the hell out. He wasn't asked to render any kind of opinion on the event he was delivering it to, nor should he.

Oh God, I knew it was a mistake opening this thread.

Right, it wasn't about the celebration. It was about offering one service to one class of people and not offering that same service to a different class of people

i didnt say i agree but this is why 2 liberals even voted in favor of the baker

he felt it was against his religion to bake them a cake for their wedding

he served other gay people and would make them a cake for other reasons

you may think he doesn't have that right but the court, including two liberals on it, felt colorado was 100% wrong to ignore his religious feelings and reason for not making it

and that's why the vote was 7-2 and not 5-4

They didn't say his religious views were right, nor grounds for discrimination. Only that they should have been allowed in his defense.

Had Colorado allowed him to use it as a defense, the ruling most likely would have gone against him. Meaning his religion is not grounds for discrimination.

should a baker be able to refuse to bake a cake with swatzikas?

should a baker be able to refuse to bake a cake with racial slurs such as the N-word


a baker cannot refuse to serve a nazi, but can refuse to put hate speech on the cake for the nazi

yes i am aware a gay wedding cake isnt hate speech. but he feels the gay wedding is against his religion and was refusing based on that.

i already said i am mixed on the decision and agree it could set a very dangerous precedent

i am just explaining why even the 2 liberals on the court sided with the baker.

because the state completely dismissed his religious feelings and decided he was a bigot

which is not the case