- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Twitter at it again: "Unplanned" movie Twitter acct temporarily suspended
Posted on 3/31/19 at 10:47 am to Lsupimp
Posted on 3/31/19 at 10:47 am to Lsupimp
quote:
Because some Progressive Twitter hall monitor wants to create arbitrary rules to discriminate against specific widely- held, even majority opinions offered by specific individuals who has broken no Twitter rules.
Yeah I think this is what the libs are missing. It's ok to outwardly promote the murdering of babies, but not the saving of them.
Many are only asking for them to stay neutral, but they don't/won't. They just don't know they are doing anything wrong since they are stuck around each other out west.
1
Posted on 3/31/19 at 10:47 am to slackster
quote:
. He simply wouldn't make a custom cake for a gay wedding. There is a difference.
Supreme Court ruled narrowly on the cake thing. They did so (rightfully, in my view) because don’t want this ruling to apply to the scenarios I just described which could lead to widespread anti-gay discrimination.
Posted on 3/31/19 at 10:50 am to TOSOV
(no message)
This post was edited on 4/3/23 at 3:06 am
Posted on 3/31/19 at 10:52 am to Mr Perfect
The baker did not refuse service. They were free to buy any existing cake in the store. He refused to specifically CREATE a cake that violated his religious views. Like requiring a gay baker to create a cake that says “ no gay marriage “ for a Pentecostal Church or an anti- gun advocate to create a cake for a Smith and Wesson convention.
The question is you COMPEL someone to make something against their will, not can you deny service on political grounds.
The question is you COMPEL someone to make something against their will, not can you deny service on political grounds.
Posted on 3/31/19 at 10:52 am to Glorious
quote:
Twitter should be able to do this as a private company. But they champion themselves as giving a voice to everyone so censoring someone for being on one side of a very split topic is hypocritical
Ideally agree 100% with this. Though the "private company" rights have been watered down over the years by libs pushing all of their "wants" that have countered "rights of the majority".
Posted on 3/31/19 at 10:57 am to p&g
quote:
This post reminds me of Christian bake shop who refused to bake the homos a cake.
The “victims” just switched sides.
Posted on 3/31/19 at 10:58 am to Glorious
quote:
Twitter should be able to do this as a private company. But they champion themselves as giving a voice to everyone so censoring someone for being on one side of a very split topic is hypocritical
It shouldn’t be what they can and cannot do legally, I don’t think any true conservative wants that. Obviously trumpstan will melt down but they are rarely consistent with their ideology (see the poli-talk go from a libertarian board during the Obama era to a EO loving place it is now)
I think we as a society should give our business to companies that aren’t police states protecting people from wrong-think or businesses let the blue check mark lynch mob decide what should be there.
Posted on 3/31/19 at 10:58 am to Mr Perfect
I'd bet you just googled the case lol
Posted on 3/31/19 at 10:59 am to Lsupimp
The cake thing is lame and it's mostly sjw outcry. I see that side.
Buy if you want to run a business where you provide services/goods to the public, you have to follow government regulations, including discrimination laws. That’s the case for literally any business.
The SC ruling had to be made this way because of the future precedent it sets
Buy if you want to run a business where you provide services/goods to the public, you have to follow government regulations, including discrimination laws. That’s the case for literally any business.
The SC ruling had to be made this way because of the future precedent it sets
Posted on 3/31/19 at 11:02 am to fr33manator
quote:
quote:
to keep it on the straight and arrow.
quote:
What a dummy. The term is “straightened arrow”
Chickens damn "n-words" censorship it dropped the "n" to make sure I didn't offend the sensitivity ones on here.
Posted on 3/31/19 at 11:02 am to Mr Perfect
quote:
Wow dude. Just when I put you as my #1 poster you say this? SMH
, stop. quote:
Baking a cake is relatively minor but it sets a dangerous precedent. Can an ambulance driver refuse to help a gay person on religious grounds? Can restaurants begin to refuse minorities, as they did in the 1950’s as long as they cite a similar reason? It’s a slippery slope.
As you already mentioned, the SC ruled already. My comments are about the specific details of the cake case.
With respect to descrimination across the board, I think there are too many protected classes. My belief is that the free market in 2019 would quickly adapt and fill any void that descrimination would create.
Posted on 3/31/19 at 11:02 am to PrivatePublic
quote:
By who?
They're a private company, they can censor whatever the frick they want on their website.
how do you feel about christian bakers who are forced to bake cakes for LGBT weddings?
Posted on 3/31/19 at 11:04 am to slackster
quote:
, I think there are too many protected classes.
Agree
BUT sexuality should be one of them
Posted on 3/31/19 at 11:05 am to Mr Perfect
quote:There should be no protected classes.
BUT sexuality should be one of them
Posted on 3/31/19 at 11:05 am to CAD703X
quote:
how do you feel about christian bakers who are forced to bake cakes for LGBT weddings?
how do you feel about liberal ambulance drivers who are forced to drive trump supporters to the hospital?
Posted on 3/31/19 at 11:06 am to Mr Perfect
The issue is how far out does The State believe it can EXPAND regulations. Again, can they force a Muslim baker to CREATE a cake that blasphemes Islam ? Isn’t that a clear violation of his right to engage or not engage in Free Speech?
There is a societal consensus on both. We largely agree that an individual should never be DENIED SERVICE and we also agree that speech can not be COMPELLED by The State.
There is a societal consensus on both. We largely agree that an individual should never be DENIED SERVICE and we also agree that speech can not be COMPELLED by The State.
Posted on 3/31/19 at 11:06 am to Scruffy
quote:
There should be no protected classes.
sounds like something a baby boomer would say
Posted on 3/31/19 at 11:08 am to Lsupimp
quote:
can they force a Muslim baker to CREATE a cake that blasphemes Islam ? Isn’t that a clear violation of his right to engage or not engage in Free Speech?
tell the Muslim baker to GTFO of America if doesn't feel like engaging
Posted on 3/31/19 at 11:09 am to Mr Perfect
quote:
Agree
BUT sexuality should be one of them
I'd support anti-descrimination laws for basic services - food, shelter, health care, transportation - but I truly believe the market would keep companies in line on their own. I don't think a restaurant who only served whites would be very successful, for example. In theory it might sound like a great business, but the stigma attached to any patrons would be social suicide for most.
Posted on 3/31/19 at 11:11 am to Mr Perfect
quote:
They don’t have to bake a cake at all but if they are a business open to the public they can’t just sell to white people, or to black peoples, to straight people, or to gay people.
So is Twitter not a business "open to the public"?
quote:
This seems like common sense to me, especially because none of us would want to regularly be refused things available to other people because something is different about us.
Case of "whataboutUSism" at it's finest...
Page 4 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News