billsfan89

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.

Except he doesn't say gay marriage should be allowed under the law. He does the old libertarian cheat that "The government should stay out of marriage" and that's a recently held belief as he was outright against gay marriage up until recently when that became such an unpopular belief that he had to pivot to the "neutral" position. Shapiro also fears that public school will teach children tolerance of gay couples that are married. Once again preaching his religious feelings over the laws of the land (In a country where gay marriage is legal why would a public institution teach students otherwise.) I just don't see this guy as providing any value to public discourse other than being a new generations Sean Hannity. I am not against conservative pundits at all, but rather why is this guy held up as some intellectual when he doesn't really offer anything new? Is anything else I said about Shaprio inaccurate in your opinion?

Ben Shapiro is a partisan hack. Shapiro's big mantra is "Facts over feelings" yet he constantly wants to put his religious feelings and beliefs into laws that impact everyone in society. Shapiro is just a new generations Sean Hannity consistently spouting right wing talking points and going after soft targets overwhelming people he knows are underinformed with sophistry and straw man arguments. How can you fashion yourself an intellectual if your best intellectual feat is making uninformed college kids look uninformed? Shapiro also has no consistent principles. He will routinely chastise the left wing for calling Trump and his supporters Nazi's and fascists. However, he would routinely make those comparisons to people within the Obama administration and others he deemed to be on the left. He even as recently as 2017 called the organizers of the Women's march Nazi's for ***** they did to Taylor Swift. That's not to say that Shapiro is wrong in this clip but rather that I just ***** hate this guy in general.

I always see Star compared to guys like Snacks Harrison and other big run stuffers who make right around the same amount of money as Star. I just don't see Star as having the same impact as those guys. Don't get me wrong Star is a good active defensive tackle who holds some center of gravity. But Snacks Harrison is an immovable object in the center of the defense. Snacks despite grading out as an average interior pass rusher is currently graded as the number 7 DT in metrics that greatly favor interior pass rushers. Now that's not to say that PFF and Football Outsiders grades are the be all end all. However for the type of contract, Star holds I think you want one of the top rush interior defenders in the league who can collapse the pocket somewhat. Star is a good interior run defender for sure but he is only playing on early downs and he isn't quite dominant at that role. Once again that's not to say that Star's role doesn't have value and that he isn't good at what he does. But rather that the type of role Star does (Interior run stuffer) isn't highly valued and for the contract Star has he should be an elite type of player. I really wanted Star going into free agency too, I thought 8 million aav would get it done and be a modest overpay (which you have to do in free agency.) However what the team gave Star was a significant overpay.

At the very least they should have picked up Derek Anderson the moment they traded AJ.

Star does his role well, my main issue is the fact that he is just massively overpaid for a run down defensive tackle. Dude will be on the cap for over 11 million next season.

Gordon hasn't light it up for the Pats just yet, don't get me wrong he has been solid the past two weeks but he has yet to go out and be a major factor in the game. If Gordon is anywhere close to what he was at his best for that Pats team then look out because they are going to be super scary. Gordon at a high level is a legit number 1 receiver, Gronk is the second best tight end in the game, Edleman is a legit slot receiver, White out of the backfield is a very good pass catching back, Michel is looking very good as an early down back between the tackles, while Hogan and Paterson are nice complementary players. Now if Gordon gets hurt/suspended or just never becomes close to what he was then the offense comes down to Earth a bit as they don't have that one commanding reviving threat but they still probably are a top offense in the league.

I actually wouldn't hate the move to trade for Fitz, A 6th rounder for Fitz would massively improve the QB situation for the rest of the season.

I don't know if Allen will pan out but I honestly don't know what people expected Allen to look like 5 starts into his rookie year playing with a very very subpar supporting cast. Also the defense playing lights out makes Allen have to play a more conservative game plan. Overall Allen looks like a raw rookie with a high ceiling he may or may not be able to tap into. His performance is what should be expected.