billsfan89

I don't think laws against segregating businesses that serve the general public are slavery. Sorry.

If it is slavery (And I do not think it is) to force business to not racially segregate than I am fine with that. If you genuinely think the civil rights act enslaves business owners then we are just not going to agree on this. I honestly did not know that the civil rights act was such an evil piece of legislation.

I would argue that not serving someone because they are white or gay is an aggressive act. Who is more violated in a situation a person who steps into a business and is told that they are not good enough to purchase a good their with their money simply because of the color of their skin or a business owner forced to not segregate their business based off of racial or other lines that fall under the civil rights act? I agree that both are having their freedoms limited but who is having more harm done to them? That business owner is still allowed to kick people out for almost any reason, they are still allowed to have a dress code, they are still allowed to run their business to associate themselves with who they want as long as it isn't based off of lines that fall under the civil rights act, and there are many other ways besides blanket segregation they can control their clientele (You can even racially segregate a private club or business that requires membership and doesn't serve the public if you so choose.) Whereas if you are white and the business is black only your only other option is to take your business elsewhere, you might have no way to access that service or good simply because you are who you are. If you still feel that a business owners freedom of association is a greater freedom than the ability for people to live in a society without segregation then we simply have a different view of the world.

To do so without repression from the law you do not have that ability.

Poor wording on my part (I should have said ability to, I wrote it late and choose poor phrasing), but the fact is that in any society you are giving up the ability to do things as a condition of you being able to live in that society. You do give up your ability to hurt or harm other people without repercussions by living in a society, no one really has any issue with that because we all understand the non-aggression principle and have common sense. Then there are other abilities/rights like the right/ability to segregate your business that we give up because we understand the tremendous negative impacts that can have. I would also argue that by excluding people based off of characteristics they have little to no control over is doing harm to them thus a violation of the non-aggression principle in some form (or though there is certainly room to argue that.)

No a Jewish bakery shouldn't have to have to bake a custom cake with a Nazi flag on it if it finds that to be obscene or against their values. But the person requesting the cake would not have a civil rights violation case because Nazi is not a nation of origin thus not a protected class. Nazi does not equal German, that's a very big component of why your argument falls apart. So because Nazi does not equal German that makes your analogy faulty and not in anyway disproving of my point that you can't discriminate generally against a protected class. For example if that gay couple wanted a cake depicting a gay sex act the baker could refuse and there would be no civil rights case because that baker would have refusing on obscenity grounds and grounds that the obscenity is not solely tied to the fact that they are just gay (The baker can rightfully claim that he would have declined to do a cake depicting any sex act.) The race card was not a Strawman because we are talking about the civil rights act and I am drawing a connection to it because on what grounds can you be forced to serve people? When does it tread into what you define as slavery? Are you saying that any business that is forced to serve people it doesn't want to serve is a slave? I am genuinely asking these questions because do you find that the civil rights act forcing people to not discriminate just on immutable characteristics that fall into a protected class an undue burden onto businesses? I find the comparison to slavery a very strong and loaded analysis because in what way is taking peoples money to do a service anything close to slavery. These business owners are getting compensated for their work. Are doctors that can't deny patients service if they are unable to pay slaves? If you offer a custom service to the public you can't refuse that service only (key word only) on the basis of sexual orientation. If you offer that service to the general public you have to serve the general public the same. Yes there are many instances where one can refuse service but the civil rights act imposes reasonable (In my opinion) limits on why you can't serve people. I just fail to see where this falls into slavery. Living in a society requires you to give up certain freedoms. I give up my right to murder you and you give up your right to murder me. There is always a limitation of freedom unless you live in total anarchy (I am not saying you want to live in total anarchy, I am just establishing a baseline.) I am more than willing to give up my right to have a public business that openly discriminates against classes of people in order to live in a society where I know I can patronize any public business. If you feel the freedom to not serve people just based on Race, Sexual Orientation, or any other method you so choose supersedes peoples rights to have access to public businesses then we have fundamentally different opinions on the type of society we want to live in. I appreciate your honesty in what freedom you value and we just honestly see the value of that freedom differently.

Does your freedom of religion allow you to not serve black people if it goes against your religion?

From reading the judgement and reading various interpretations I am reading that this does not set the precedent that you can refuse a ceremony but not people (If I am reading what you wrote correctly.) Its seems to me there were many extenuating circumstances in this case that made it unable to set a precedent. For one gay marriage was not legal in Colorado when they ordered the cake and the court also took issue with how the Colorado Civil Right Commission handled the bakery treating them with hostility instead of neutrality as required by law. In Kennedy's opinion it establishes that they could not rule more broadly which does not set the precedent due to the fact that the ruling was based off the aforementioned circumstances and not off of any right to free expression. Now when a similar case gets kicked back up to the Supreme Court I think that argument about ceremony vs. person will be used. However that argument will likely fail because if it is a service that they would offer to anyone then you can't discriminate based off of sexual orientation once again due to the civil rights act and sexual orientation falling under a protected class.

They actually did not set any precedent with this case. It likely will be taken to the Supreme Court again. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/06/the-court-slices-a-narrow-ruling-out-of-masterpiece-cakeshop/561986/ Kennedy wrote, “the adjudication concerned a context that may well be different going forward.” Thus, “the outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts.”

That's a bad example with the Kosher restaurant. If it is not a service they offer then you can't order something that isn't on the menu. You can't be denied a service that they offer based off of an immutable quality that falls under a protected class. I can't go to a Vegan restaurant and order a hamburger. The debate comes down to do you think that sexual orientation is a protected class of people that you can't generally and overtly discriminate against? Legally speaking sexual orientation is a protected class. So if sexual orientation is a protected class than your religion is not a valid reason to say you will not provide them a service that you would provide anyone else who is willing to pay. People tried to make religious freedom arguments to refuse service to black people and it didn't work because it violated the civil rights act. Also if you want to abolish legal marriage and replace it with civil unions for everyone then I honestly wouldn't have any issue because everyone is playing by the same rules. It doesn't become separate but equal. However if marriage is the legal term then it should be accessible to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. The Legal system has defined what qualifies as a religion and what can fall into a protected class, these laws and definitions are part of the civil rights act and the amendments to it that followed. If you are advocating for repealing the civil rights act in the interest of the freedom to segregate and discriminate then fine but just say it. That's often been the libertarian argument against it but don't tap dance around it. If you are a white business owner that only wants to serve white people you shouldn't be forced by the government to do so is their argument. The only other argument that you can say is that sexual orientation is not a protected class of people. Legally speaking they are. So if you feel that a baker shouldn't be allowed to say they wouldn't bake a cake for an interracial wedding but should be allowed discriminated against gay people then you are arguing that gay people should't be afforded those protections. And stop with this my side *****. If you throw ***** or body fluid in protest that is public indecency and probably assault and you should be punished for it. Antifa are idiotic and I will not defend them same as I can't ascribe the far rights actions to you.

Common sense and human decency.

The legal term refers to immutable characteristics. Race, Gender, Religion, Age, Sex, and Sexual Orientation are the classes that you can't discriminate against. That applies equally to all people and are not special privileges for minority groups. You can't be a black owned business that serves the public but refuses service to white customers. These protections are applied to everyone. A gay owned business can't say they do not serve straight people. https://www.upcounsel.com/is-sexual-orientation-a-protected-class Are you really saying that Nazi=German? That is your defense? This is intellectually insane for you to make that comparison. The Nazi party was a political party that is defunct, that does in no legal or ethical sense qualify as discrimination of a protected class. I honestly can't believe you are arguing this. Are you seriously saying that a business that only wants to serve white people are slaves? If you are advocating for voluntary segregation fine but come out and say it. Don't be selective of what kinds of segregation you think is OK based on an absurd definition of slavery.

Nazi's are not a protected class of people. I don't understand how you could possibly equate the two. Equating the term slavery is an astonishing leap of logic (And rather insulting) because one people are getting paid to make a cake and you wouldn't say this about a baker refusing to bake a cake for an interracial wedding because that violated their religious beliefs. Is it slavery if someone wants to have a whites only business? I stand somewhat corrected, but the case did not uphold the rights of the bakers expression as a reason to why they won the case. The court did not rule based off of free speech grounds. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/06/the-court-slices-a-narrow-ruling-out-of-masterpiece-cakeshop/561986/ Kennedy wrote, “the adjudication concerned a context that may well be different going forward.” Thus, “the outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts.”

You know the team is going to somehow scratch out 3-4 more wins to win 5-6 games and get a pick outside the top 5. The defense is too good and the organization always seems to have a knack of winning 2 meaningless games on the backend of a season to ***** up draft positioning.

If the logistics work out travel wise then I think the NFL Will have a team in London at some point. But if the Chargers are not working out in LA then I honestly think they should give San Diego a chance to get the team back. San Diego is a big city with a good amount of money in it, the team has a history there, and the city has the infrastructure to make the NFL work. I know they didn't want to move in the first place but the city would not budge on a stadium deal. Hopefully if they back out of LA they try and make San Diego work again.

I think they are going to be cautious with Allen. I would be shocked as long as Anderson looks even remotely decent if they don't stick with him until the Dolphins game December 2nd where Allen can come back and play the last 5 games of the season after resting 6 weeks. If the Bills go 1-2 in the next 3 games they slide to 3-6, still possible to make the playoffs but the team isn't rushing Aaron Rodgers back to try and salvage a season. If the Bills go 0-3 (which is very possible if they lose to the Colts) in the next 3 then the team is 2-7 and the season is cooked. If Allen was healthy and you are 2-7 then go for it let the rookie play. But there is no need to risk further injury by playing him a week or two early. I just don't see a reason to rush Allen back until at least week 12 against the Jags which would be after the bye week. If the Jags are playing great defense or Anderson is playing better than expected maybe sitting Allen until the Dolphins game might be the better idea.

Here is a few links to Shapiro's history on the issue. He never makes it about the government shouldn't be involved in marriage. He thinks (or at least thought) at the time that gay marriage would destroy heterosexual marriage. There is another interview on Youtube where he states he used to be outright against it on a legal level and I can't find it but I will search at another time and edit it in. https://www.creators.com/read/ben-shapiro/02/07/the-homosexual-assault-on-traditional-marriagehttps://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/ben_shapiro_636974?src=t_gay_marriageWhile you do have the freedom to practice your religion and certain protections under the law to do so, your religion is not a blanket protection to do whatever you want. You can claim it is a religious belief to not pay overtime but you still have to pay overtime. Yes, that is an extreme and rather stupid example but I think you get what I am going for your religious belief is not some blanket protection.As to gay marriage being an issue of control I simply don't see it that way. I see it more as a group of historically very marginalized people wanting the same rights and protections afforded to them as anyone else. If a church is forced to marry a gay couple I will be the first person to cry that is ***** up and a violation of that organization's rights (Church's are not technically public institutions as you have to become a member of a parish so they can discriminate.)Bakers and other public services not being able to hide behind their religion to discriminate against a same-sex couple I do not get as being some egregious violation. If your religion was against non-Christian marriages would it be OK to not serve non-Chrisitan couples? Either all discrimination is OK or none of it is in my mind. The legal standing is that if you are a public institution you must be willing to serve the public and not discriminate based off of immutable qualities (Race, Gender, Sexual Orientation.) Sexual Orientation is a protected class (link below) so I do not see the difference between a baker refusing a cake for a black person, a Muslim, or a gay person. https://www.upcounsel.com/is-sexual-orientation-a-protected-class The context of the public and the entire public is that you can't choose to only serve all white people. If you are a business open to the public then you can't discriminate based off of immutable qualities. Sexual orientation is a protected class. I see no difference as to someone claiming a custom cake made for a gay wedding violates their religious beliefs and someone claiming a custom cake for an interracial wedding violates their religious beliefs. https://www.upcounsel.com/is-sexual-orientation-a-protected-classEven in the case of the Colorado Bakery, the court agreed that you couldn't discriminate against gay couples due to religious beliefs they won the case in a non-prescident setting case because of the way the state agency acted towards the bakery and not based off the principle of it being a custom cake.https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/04/politics/masterpiece-colorado-gay-marriage-cake-supreme-court/index.html"The court held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed hostility toward the baker based on his religious beliefs."

A bakery that serves anyone off the street who has the money to pay for their services by definition serves the public. Unless you are a business that has membership requirements to obtain a service then legally speaking you serve the public and you can't discriminate based off of immutable characteristics (Race, Gender, Sexual Orientation, things people can't change about themselves in any reasonable fashion.) Yes you are free as a public institution to refuse service to anyone but legally speaking you can't base that refusal on immutable characteristics.

I think the whole argument of civil unions OK but just don't call it marriage is basically advocating for a separate but equal system which philosophically I think states that there is something wrong with a homosexual marriage that isn't equal to that of a relationship with a man and a woman in a legal sense. If a government is truly secular and there is no good non-religious argument against issuing marriage licenses to same-sex adults then I fail to see why you can deny people the same legal standing. I also fail to see what the slippery slope argument is in gay marriage. If a church is forced to marry a same-sex couple I will be the first person to say that is too far and a violation of that churches freedom of association and religion. But from what I can tell that is simply not happening in any even remotely significant manner. But bakeries that serve the entire public being forced to bake a cake or cater a same-sex wedding is treating gay couples with basic protections under the law. If you serve the public you have to serve the entire public. Yes, you can deny service to anyone but you can't do so based off of immutable characteristics.

My position is backed by their shift in opinion serving a pragmatic purpose coinciding with convenient timing. It also is backed by their general lack of consistent principles and their partisan nature. I can't prove anyone is lying about what their opinion is anymore than you can confirm they are telling the truth. I gave you my reasons for why I think their shift in opinion is an insincere way to be both for and against something at the same time so as not to piss off two opposing audiences. If you disagree with those reasons and think my assessment is motivated by my own confirmation bias/general disdain for them, then I honestly can't dissuade you. I look at the circumstances that their shift to a libertarian position took them to and I think that their shift was done more so as a means to an end as opposed to a genuine change of heart. I don't honestly think Sean Hannity and Shaprio thinks the government shouldn't have issued them a marriage license. Is it possible that's the case? Of course., but I am just giving my opinion on the matter and how it appears to me.

Shapiro and Hannity were against the state sanctioning gay marriage for many years before shifting to a libertarian position on the issue to avoid sticking to an increasingly unpopular position. They were not holding a personal position (to which anyone is certainly entitled to) they were holding a policy position that would impact many people's lives. The criticism I have with them on this is that they didn't shift their stated position because of a legitimate intellectual revolution but rather to preserve their popularity. To me you certainly are entitled to believe and interpret your religion how you want to. However when it comes to advocating for public policy that everyone has to follow your religion is not evidence to support changes to public policy esp in a country that has a definitive separation of church and state as one of its founding principles. Now if there are non-religious moral (as in moral arguments that go beyond this is what the bible or my religious texts say) and legal arguments that exist outside of religious texts then that is a different story. Also as a side note I think the "Take it to the States" mantra is also a bit disingenuous of an argument. For some issues I think it makes sense so this is not a blanket argument. But I think that saying that people "Can Vote With Their Feet" makes the proposition that it is easy for people to up root their lives to go to other states that have policies they agree with. It's not always a realistic proposition for someone to leave their job, family, friends, and everything they know behind just to go a state that has a policy or policies they agree with. Can I saw for sure that they are 100% liars? No, it's almost impossible to prove that. But in my opinion, their shift in position coinciding with the unpopularity of their original position makes the timing of their change in beliefs look more like a business decision than an actual intellectual change.Toss in the fact that the position they took was one that seems to be designed to protect themselves from pissing off two audiences in a very calculated manner and I think there is very legitimate grounds to be very suspicious of their new position.I think guys like John Stossell or Penn Gillette have the sincere belief that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage and they have held that belief for a long time and it is in line with their overall philosophy. Nancy Grace is an awful human being. Rachel Maddow is a partisan left wing hack. Hillary Clinton is a scumbag who lost due to arrogance and here generally being a bad person. Bernie Sanders is a guy with good intentions and genuinely trying to represent working people, I didn't agree with all of his policies but he was the best of all the flawed choices out there.

Obama and Hillary were full of ***** too, shifting an opinion to adjust to changes in popularity. Just because I criticize right wing hacks like Shapiro doesn't mean there aren't plenty of hacks on the left.

I don't know too much about Tomi in general (Although she is definitely easy on the eyes) but from what I have seen from her I don't think she is really sincere about most of her beliefs (I think she saw an emerging right-wing alternative market and latched onto it.) I also don't see any interesting ideas coming from her (granted my exposure to her is limited) seems mostly like she caught fire because she was a passionate hot girl spouting off fairly typical right-wing talking points. The only interesting thing I ever saw her do was come out as pro-choice which got set her career in that space back.

I am against the pivot because I don't sincerely believe that this is a change of belief amongst most conservative pundits. It's a calculated move to appeal to the most people and not a legitimate critique of the government's involvement in marriage. Guys like Hannity and Shapiro spent many years being outright against gay marriage and then the moment it became a 50/50 issue among conservatives and an unpopular position amongst the general public they suddenly shifted to a calculated position that allowed them to straddle both sides. If this was a pivot that didn't coincide with the shifting of public opinion I would be more inclined to think it was an intellectually based change of opinion instead of a PR move. The use of the term "Libertarian Cheat" is the context of calling their move to a libertarian position a cheat to appeal to a mass audience as opposed to a sincere intellectual decision.

The context of the "Old Libertarian Cheat" is that the belief is a soft way for conservatives to be against gay marriage without looking like they are against gay people/gay rights. That's not to say that there aren't sincere libertarians who would just abolish marriage as a government institution. There are a lot of libertarians who have held that belief for decades. Those people aren't cheating or doing something inconsistent with their principles. However, in the case of Shapiro and a lot of other conservatives, in the past 4-5 years, they have only pivoted to that Libertarian position because it is wildly unpopular to be outright against gay marriage. But there are enough conservatives still holding onto old beliefs where you can't come out and be for gay marriage either. The whole I am against the government being involved in marriage thing is now being used as a mostly soft middle ground to allow a lot of conservative pundits to straddle a middle line among an older more traditional audience and a new less socially conservative audience. It comes across to me as a cheat because it is just a soft way to be against something. If you have an unpopular opinion stand by it, to go to a more vague position that you probably don't believe just to save face with both audiences is a cowardly move.