Hey Beans, not even close. Not to hijack thread but:
What is it with men in power i.e. Bill Clinton, Arnold et all…you would think they could get some ASS from a woman that doesnt look like she was run over by a goddamn asphault paver !
Anyway…
Will be a very interesting election cycle on the Independent and Republican side…
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
These are FEDERALLY protected classes of people. Please tell me how a business can now be compelled to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding that conflicts with their religious beliefs.
[/quote]
Simple - it has nothing to do with federally protected classes of people. A number of states have state laws on the books that prevent businesses who are providing goods or services from discriminating based on sexual orientation (either in hiring or in serving a customer) if the business is an entity of public accommodation and so wishes to do business in the state in question. All of these cases have been pursued by state AG offices enforcing the applicable state non-discrimination laws.
[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
Hey Beans, not even close. [/quote]
Not even close what? To being serious?
Dude Arnold? He’s been out of any sort of legitimate political conversation for quite awhile now.
And birtherism? About a dude that the establish will never let on the ticket?
Fuck are you even talking about here?
End of the day, Bush has the ability to fund raise to actually compete in the primary. Paul doesn’t, and neither does Cruz.
I don’t know about Walker, and Carson is pissing into the wind. (He’s a good conservative mind, but his stance on the 2nd is too much for me to vote for him.)
It’s going to be Jeb and Hilary, and Hillary is going to win in a “landslide” according to the MSM, while the popular vote is like 60% of the able voters and a 3% swing. And I’m fine with this. The Economy is garbage right now, and we’re looking at hard times. I don’t mind the Democrats taking the heat on it.
Rubio is a big amnesty / “immigration reform” sell out and Walker said some disturbing stuff too. Jeb just wrote a big sob story book with a radical open borders libertarian on how Americans suck and need to allow millions of strangers from Honduras and Guatemala to come to the country illegally and stay. So essentially there is no chance to save the republic with any of those candidates except maybe Walker who appeared to back away from his amnesty statements. But still it’s worrying as hell to hear a candidate talk like that. But yeah, Rubio is a no deal as far as I’m concerned for his pandering to illegals and the separatists.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
TB, one more note on this Night Watchman <> Big Govt Socialist spectrum:
If you even remotely think that the octopus we have today is nothing more than an appropriate response to the “installation of markets, technology, and globalization,” you are plumb, completely and totally off your self-perceived reasonable rocker. Our central government along with many state governments (municipal ones, even) is a Gov’t Gone Wild extravaganza of epic proportions never witnessed in the history of the planet even at proportional levels.
No, no, no, it’s not just urbanization requiring increased, necessary regulation. No, it’s much closer to Tocqueville’s quote about the public’s realization that it can access the largess of the treasury.
[/quote]
Thanks for the elongated bumper sticker sloganeering, but I am trying not to derail the topic of this thread. Maybe start another one?
[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
Angry Chicken: They should be able to do what they want and serve who they want as long as they are not discriminating against a federally protected class of people. Fags aren’t federally protected…
So … How Ya gonna feel when a “fag” goes and kicks your ass ?
[/quote]I imagine it wouldn’t feel any different than any other asskicking I ever got… Why? Care to address my point? For the record, I am VERY pro “do what ever the fuck you want”. That includes fags marrying each other. I fully support it and have protested FOR that right. Standing arm and arm with a crowd of fags. Are you taking issue with my use of the term, “Fag”? Cuz that’s what all my gay friends call themselves. Or is that word going the way of “nigga”, where ONLY black people can say it? You know how liberals like to control and censor language (but protect free speech as long as it doesn’t affect THEM) TBH, I don’t give a fuck…[quote]
Ok, lets get back to it…CRUZ is a CANADIAN ! Not eligible for the Presidency of the United States !
If a foreign born citizen was Eligible, do you not think that the Repube’s wouldnt have thrown Arnold up there Already ?
Food for foreign thought ?[/quote]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
One guy we haven’t discussed is Rubio. He did not do well in the CPAC poll and I think we can safely assume it’s because of his amnesty position.
Nonetheless, he has some impressive features.
What do you think?[/quote]
Much like Obamacare, in a general national election, amnesty has become a third rail.
It’s perfect storm for Democrats to hammer anyone against it. The GodKing himself with his magic awesome pen signed one, and they can turn around and say “Reagan did it too”. Much like Obamacare… Irrelevant how it polls, that shit is here to stay. So I understand both Rubio’s and Bush’s stance on amnesty. (It’d be cool if they could come up with some sort of alternative that made these folks earn citizenship rather than just “hey, you broke the law, but so do we so fuck it”. )
The uninformed legion that votes based on 30 second sound bites during commercial breaks of Daily Show and Duck Dynasty decide elections. The Democrats have a much stronger coalition in this area and a far superior ground game, due to the unban population density. (That and all the dead and multiple voters they have on their side.)
Republicans have a massively steep uphill battle in national elections. Thankfully they have a solid grasp on the House, and can make inroads in the Senate. Unfortunately they fuck that up in practice, but one can hope and dream I guess they will stop being Democrat Lite, or just completely dropping the ball.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I imagine it wouldn’t feel any different than any other asskicking I ever got… Why? Care to address my point? For the record, I am VERY pro “do what ever the fuck you want”. That includes fags marrying each other. I fully support it and have protested FOR that right. Standing arm and arm with a crowd of fags. Are you taking issue with my use of the term, “Fag”? Cuz that’s what all my gay friends call themselves. Or is that word going the way of “nigga”, where ONLY black people can say it? You know how liberals like to control and censor language (but protect free speech as long as it doesn’t affect THEM) TBH, I don’t give a fuck…
[/quote]
You can do whatever you want, but it is a pejorative term that is generally thrown around as a way to demean homosexuals. I never hear any of my gay friends use the term, so no, in this part of the country it’s not case where gay men or women use the term, as some African-Americans use the term “nigga,” whereas those who are not part of the social minority group cannot use the word without causing offense. I don’t see the point in using the term when it’s generally just a pejorative slur, especially one that has been used in a hateful, hurtful manner towards many homosexuals for much of their lives. Why use a word, just because you can, if it’s typically associated with hate or disrespect?
[quote]JR249 wrote:
as some African-Americans use the term “nigga,” whereas those who are not part of the social minority group cannot use the word without causing offense. [/quote]
More accurate:
[quote]JR249 wrote:
as some African-Americans use the term “nigga,” whereas those who are white cannot use the word without causing offense. [/quote]
Since moving for college, outside of HipHop, I’ve heard more non-Black people use the term than Black people. ANd no, I’m not talking about ignorant whites.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Since moving for college, outside of HipHop, I’ve heard more non-Black people use the term than Black people. ANd no, I’m not talking about ignorant whites. [/quote]
We had a problem with this in our building, and despite blow back from some members of the African-American community, we decided that no version of the term would be tolerated if they wanted an anti-racism climate enforced in the school. We weren’t going to punish white kids for use of the word “nigger” while allowing the black students to get away with throwing around “nigga.” Despite some initial hostility, the problem has largely gone away, and some black students were also punished for having used their cultural spin on the term.
I have great idea - how about we grow up and use neither epithet for gays or blacks? Thanks in advance.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
The point is…they were sued because of their religious beliefs…and the GOV ruled they had too do it. Is that fair?[/quote]
Is it fair to force people to serve black people?[/quote]
So if I went into a bakery owned by a gay couple with a t-shirt that said “fuck you faggot” and said I wanted them to bake for my wedding.
You would expect them to have to do it?
The black lunch counter argument is played out. Gays are not a protected class, and nobody should be forced to work against their religious beliefs…which ARE a protected class.
[quote]UtahLama wrote
So if I went into a bakery owned by a gay couple with a t-shirt that said “fuck you faggot” and said I wanted them to bake for my wedding.
You would expect them to have to do it?
The black lunch counter argument is played out. Gays are not a protected class, and nobody should be forced to work against their religious beliefs…which ARE a protected class.[/quote]
Your analogy is flawed here. In some states, under state law, gays are a protected class, i.e., sexual orientation is one area where you cannot discriminate against a customer, as are other categories such as race, sex, age, etc. It depends on the state in question, but in those states, if you wish to do business as a public accommodation, you cannot base your refusal of service on the sexual orientation of the customer. However, you can basically deny service for any other reasons, including the words written on a customer’s shirt, since that is not a protected “class” if you will.
You can debate whether or not that should override the owner’s free exercise of religion, but as it stands, those are the laws in some states and until a higher court recognizes a limited right to refuse service based on religious exercise, those laws still stand if you are operating a business that’s open for public accommodation.
One point I would also make is that while we think of race as a “class” among other similar “classes” - and it is, technically - race ia unlike any other class or category because of our history with slavery and the issues trying to bring people formerly degraded as chattel property and crushed under generations of searing racism into society.
In other words, in light of that unique (and terrible and complicated) history, you can’t make apples to apples comparisons to other classes when trying to make the case for or against legal requirements regarding other classes.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
One point I would also make is that while we think of race as a “class” among other similar “classes” - and it is, technically - race ia unlike any other class or category because of our history with slavery and the issues trying to bring people formerly degraded as chattel property and crushed under generations of searing racism into society.
In other words, in light of that unique (and terrible and complicated) history, you can’t make apples to apples comparisons to other classes when trying to make the case for or against legal requirements regarding other classes.[/quote]
Yeah, but I think that takes the argument into one of useless semantics. I think most are using “class” to refer to a specific group of people, in this case a social minority group, i.e., a group of people who have been singled out and treated unequally or subject to past prejudices due to some aspect of their identity.
To that end, it’s apples to oranges for any of the said “classes,” because the degree of treatment has varied, by time and place, based on a race, ethnicity, sex/gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc. The experiences of no two groups here are the same, and I think most reasonable people understand that. You could even make the same argument about race itself, because the experiences of American Indian subgroups, black Americans and Asian Americans, for example, where racial prejudices are concerned, differ markedly as a whole.
[quote]JR249 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote
So if I went into a bakery owned by a gay couple with a t-shirt that said “fuck you faggot” and said I wanted them to bake for my wedding.
You would expect them to have to do it?
The black lunch counter argument is played out. Gays are not a protected class, and nobody should be forced to work against their religious beliefs…which ARE a protected class.[/quote]
Your analogy is flawed here. In some states, under state law, gays are a protected class, i.e., sexual orientation is one area where you cannot discriminate against a customer, as are other categories such as race, sex, age, etc. It depends on the state in question, but in those states, if you wish to do business as a public accommodation, you cannot base your refusal of service on the sexual orientation of the customer. However, you can basically deny service for any other reasons, including the words written on a customer’s shirt, since that is not a protected “class” if you will.
You can debate whether or not that should override the owner’s free exercise of religion, but as it stands, those are the laws in some states and until a higher court recognizes a limited right to refuse service based on religious exercise, those laws still stand if you are operating a business that’s open for public accommodation.
[/quote]
Like many issues involving constitutional law, the law against discrimination in public accommodations is in a constant state of change.
On a state by state basis mostly.
People will argue that anti-discrimination laws in matters of public accommodations create a conflict between the ideal of equality and individual rights.
Does the guaranteed right to public access mean the business owner’s private right to exclude is violated? In my opinion yes… but for the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved.
I am a proponent of individual liberty and I have a problem with laws like the Unruh Civil Rights Act being used MUCH more broadly than was originally intended.