- 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: Serious question/hypothetical for you legal eagle types
Posted on 2/27/14 at 4:05 pm to Scruffy
Posted on 2/27/14 at 4:05 pm to Scruffy
quote:
But you can't discriminate based off of the other person's religion which is a choice.
I'm not arguing one way or another. I was just honing in on the argument made for making homosexuality a protected class.
You bring up the other end of the debate which presents a logical conundrum -- which forces us to face the fact ...
At the end of the day a "protected" class is defined in our modern times as what can keep one party in power over the other.
It's all really about rallying votes. It's all really about power.
This post was edited on 2/27/14 at 4:06 pm
0
Posted on 2/27/14 at 6:50 pm to L.A.
quote:
Do you agree with the court's decision to force the baker to do this?
They actually aren't having to bake a cake. They're just subject to a fine for refusing the couple service. I would also like to add I think the couple are being big douches about all of this. They could have just gone somewhere else. I understand them being mad, but come on.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 7:11 pm to L.A.
I love Chick-fil-A but they are closed on Sunday because of religious observation.
I'm thinking I will sue to force them to serve me chicken on Sunday.
I'm thinking I will sue to force them to serve me chicken on Sunday.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 7:18 pm to Toddy
quote:They are entitled.
I understand them being mad, but come on.
Entitled people act entitled.
e.g., William Kennedy Smith was entitled, so he raped women.
The system entitled him to do it.
Ugly?
Yes?
Entitled people will ultimately do what they are entitled to do
Posted on 2/27/14 at 7:58 pm to Toddy
quote:
They actually aren't having to bake a cake. They're just subject to a fine for refusing the couple service. I would also like to add I think the couple are being big douches about all of this. They could have just gone somewhere else. I understand them being mad, but come on.
I've always thought the best way to handle these situations for each side was this:
Same sex couples should recruit someone whose fiance(e) has a unisex name. Only one half of the couple visits the bakery. After the wedding, they come back and thank the baker for the cake.
If you're the baker, you should tell same sex couples "All proceeds from this transaction will be donated to Ralph Reed. Your call."
This post was edited on 2/27/14 at 7:59 pm
Posted on 2/27/14 at 8:00 pm to L.A.
quote:
For instance, let's say you own a bakery and a guy comes into your store wearing a brown shirt, with a swastika arm band. He tells you he wants to order a cake for their upcoming social event. Would the courts force you to bake that cake, even though you are repulsed by their activities?
I'm sure it's already been said, but you can't deny service for an arbitrary reason. You could probably make a decent argument that the swastika arm band would offend other patrons and could affect your business.
Either way, it's completely different than when you're dealing with a protected class (I don't think anyone knows what sort of protected class homosexuals fall into).
Posted on 2/27/14 at 8:28 pm to Toddy
quote:That's better, but dtill disturbing IMO.
They actually aren't having to bake a cake. They're just subject to a fine for refusing the couple service
quote:Agreed. My guess is that 99.9% of the bakeries in the area would love to have their business.
I would also like to add I think the couple are being big douches about all of this. They could have just gone somewhere else. I understand them being mad, but come on.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 8:44 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The gay couple are members of a "protected class."
If they choose to target an orthodox muslim baker because of his "antigay beliefs", that is their prerogative. If they demand he make a cake with the image of Muhammed overseeing a gay wedding, it is their right to expect it be made, to command it be made . . . or force the baker to shutter his business.
For the baker it is a sacrilege. For the couple it is a "point to be made". The government is their enabler. Their target is an individual unequal and inferior under the law. The muslim is a lesser citizen than his tormentors.
The eventual extension is for gays to view it as their government-given right to demean, belittle and exclude such lesser citizens.
What an impressive post this is. This sums up my feelings about how violation of property rights is absolutely way more evil than the baker being a bigot and refusing to serve gay people.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 8:46 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
In fact, this bill in AZ has been so egregiously misrepresented by the media that 99.9% of people don't realize that it is nothing more than a clarification on AZ's version of Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) - a federal statute which permits those accused of breaking the law with a "religious practice" defense.
Correct.
It was a freedom bill, not a discrimination bill that the loudmouths thought it was.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 9:43 pm to cwill
so the NM Elaine Photography, LLC outcome could not happen in an Arizona city such as Phoenix that in fact does have anti-discrimination laws that apply to sexual orientation? that's what this RFRA amendment was about.
Posted on 2/28/14 at 7:14 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
For the baker it is a sacrilege. For the couple it is a "point to be made". The government is their enabler. Their target is an individual unequal and inferior under the law. The muslim is a lesser citizen than his tormentors.
quote:
You and I disapprove of bigotry. But the private virtue of tolerance and the public virtue of pluralism require us to countenance things we do not approve. Tolerance means accepting the fact that other people's values might be very different than your own. Pluralism means eschewing the use of political power as a means for 'correcting' those values.
The idea of tolerating intolerance sounds suspiciously paradoxical, but so do a lot of other good ideas—like freedom of speech for advocates of censorship. In fact, freedom of speech has a lot in common with tolerance: Neither of them means a thing unless it applies equally to those we applaud and those who offend us most viscerally.
Tolerance is ennobling, which is why we should teach it to our children. Pluralism is insurance against tyranny, which is why we should demand it of our government. To speak up for even the most despised minorities is both morally right and politically prudent.
Posted on 2/28/14 at 7:36 am to UncleFestersLegs
Ezra Levant spells it out for all of us.
I saw a funny video of a gay pride demonstration where the transgenders were upset the lesbians didn't consider them to be real women. You need a scorecard these days to determine which party is the most aggrieved.
quote:
Faith McGregor is the lesbian who doesn’t like the girly cuts that they do at a salon. She wants the boy’s hairdo.
Omar Mahrouk is the owner of the Terminal Barber Shop in Toronto. He follows Shariah law, so he thinks women have cooties. As Mahrouk and the other barbers there say, they don’t believe in touching women other than their own wives.
quote:
Oh, McGregor is politically correct. But just not politically correct enough. It’s like poker.
A white, Christian male has the lowest hand — it’s like he’s got just one high card, maybe an ace. So almost everyone trumps him.
A white woman is just a bit higher — like a pair of twos. Enough to beat a white man, but not much more.
A gay man is like having two pairs in poker.
A gay woman — a lesbian like McGregor — is like having three of a kind.
A black lesbian is a full house — pretty tough to beat.
Unless she’s also in a wheelchair, which means she’s pretty much a straight flush.
The only person who could trump that would be a royal flush. If the late Sammy Davis Jr. — who was black, Jewish and half-blind — were to convert to Islam and discover he was 1/64th Aboriginal.
I saw a funny video of a gay pride demonstration where the transgenders were upset the lesbians didn't consider them to be real women. You need a scorecard these days to determine which party is the most aggrieved.
This post was edited on 2/28/14 at 7:40 am
Posted on 2/28/14 at 7:38 am to UncleFestersLegs
quote:
UncleFestersLegs
quote:
Let me illustrate with one of those stylized examples economists love so much. Mary owns a vacant apartment; Joe is looking for a place to live. If Joe disapproves of Mary's race or religion or lifestyle, he is free to shop elsewhere. But if Mary disapproves of Joe's race or religion or certain aspects of his lifestyle, the law requires her to swallow her misgivings and rent the apartment to Joe.
Or: Bert wants to hire an office manager and Ernie wants to manage an office. The law allows Ernie to refuse any job for any reason. If he doesn't like Albanians, he doesn't have to work for one. Bert is held to a higher standard: If he lets it be known that no Albanians need apply, he'd better have a damned good lawyer.
These asymmetries grate against the most fundamental requirement of fairness--that people should be treated equally, in the sense that their rights and responsibilities should not change because of irrelevant external circumstances. Mary and Joe--or Bert and Ernie--are looking to enter two sides of one business relationship. Why should they have asymmetric duties under the antidiscrimination laws?
When the law is so glaringly asymmetric, one has to suspect that the legislature's true agenda is not to combat discrimination on the basis of race, but to foster discrimination on the basis of social status. By holding employers and landlords to a higher standard than employees and tenants, the lawmakers reveal their underlying animus toward employers and landlords
LINK
Posted on 2/28/14 at 9:26 am to cwill
quote:
Looks like the unknowingknight actually got something right as one thing isn't a choice, it's what you are like black or female and the other is - racist a-hole.
So it's ok to discriminate if the basis is freely chosen? So another restaurant could cater ONLY to Nazis without running afoul of the law?
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News