The Mizzou/Yale/PC/Free Speech Topic

[boyst]

SYMBOLIC OF THE LEFTS STRUGGLE AGAINST REALITY:

 

New Christopher Nolan WWII Movie Dunkirk Portrays White People as White, Runs Afoul of Diversity Police.

It used to be that high-profile Hollywood World War II movies got called out for taking liberties with the facts. These days, theyre getting in trouble for being too historically accurate.

Take The Dark Knight director Christopher Nolans new movie Dunkirk, which recreates the defense and evacuation of British and Allied forces from Northern France in May-June 1940 during the early stages of the World War II.

The blockbuster stars Jack Lowden, Mark Rylance, Tom Hardy and, er, Harry Styles. It is set to be released July 21.

Plenty of people have taken to social media to express why they wont be seeing it, and its all to do with the movie being too white. (Not sure if theyre aware, but the vast majority of British and Allied forces were white.)

that's ok. White folks don't go to movies anymore anyway

[B-Man]

I post lots of articles...................I really recommend reading this one......

 

 

 

 

Three Thoughts on the Masterpiece Cakeshop Cert Grant

by David French

 

Today the Supreme Court granted review in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. This is an important — and dangerous — case for civil liberties. It involves a bakery owner who refused to bake a custom cake for a gay wedding, and Justice Kennedy may well be the swing vote. I have three initial thoughts:

 

First, don’t let anyone tell you that this case is about status-based discrimination. The bakery is no more discriminating against gay people than a baker discriminates against white people if he declines to bake a Confederate flag cake. The baker bakes cakes for gay customers. He didn’t want to lend his talents to send a specific message — namely, approval of gay marriage.

 

Second, don’t let counterfactuals dissuade you from embracing liberty. A number of people are asking whether the state should “let” a baker decline to bake a cake for an interracial marriage. Here’s the bottom line: Creative professionals should never be required to lend their unique talents to express any form of message they dislike. Don’t make black lawyers oppose civil rights, don’t make liberal fashion designers design clothes for conservative politicians, and don’t require racists to design cakes for interracial couples. Some people use liberty wisely. Some people abuse liberty for immoral ends. But we can’t limit liberty only to the wise and just.

 

Third, if Justice Kennedy views this case primarily through the LGBT lens, then the First Amendment may well lose. Kennedy is obviously proud of his long line of LGBT-friendly precedents, and that pride has even led him to a relatively rare First Amendment misstep, so it will be critical to explain to him (and the other justices, of course) that this isn’t a case about “discrimination” but rather about forced speech. Framing matters, and the other side will wrongly frame the case as raising the specter of Jim Crow. The right framing is found in the First Amendment.

 

My Twitter timeline is already filling with people talking about this case — with far more heat even than the Supreme Court’s travel ban decision. Expect a building media frenzy, one dominated by allegations of hate and bigotry.

 

The sexual revolutionaries are butting heads with the First Amendment. May free speech prevail.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/448990/three-thoughts-masterpiece-cakeshop-cert-grant

Edited June 29, 2017 by B-Man

[Doc Brown]

I post lots of articles...................I really recommend reading this one......

 

 

 

 

Three Thoughts on the Masterpiece Cakeshop Cert Grant

by David French

 

Today the Supreme Court granted review in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. This is an important — and dangerous — case for civil liberties. It involves a bakery owner who refused to bake a custom cake for a gay wedding, and Justice Kennedy may well be the swing vote. I have three initial thoughts:

 

First, don’t let anyone tell you that this case is about status-based discrimination. The bakery is no more discriminating against gay people than a baker discriminates against white people if he declines to bake a Confederate flag cake. The baker bakes cakes for gay customers. He didn’t want to lend his talents to send a specific message — namely, approval of gay marriage.

 

Second, don’t let counterfactuals dissuade you from embracing liberty. A number of people are asking whether the state should “let” a baker decline to bake a cake for an interracial marriage. Here’s the bottom line: Creative professionals should never be required to lend their unique talents to express any form of message they dislike. Don’t make black lawyers oppose civil rights, don’t make liberal fashion designers design clothes for conservative politicians, and don’t require racists to design cakes for interracial couples. Some people use liberty wisely. Some people abuse liberty for immoral ends. But we can’t limit liberty only to the wise and just.

 

Third, if Justice Kennedy views this case primarily through the LGBT lens, then the First Amendment may well lose. Kennedy is obviously proud of his long line of LGBT-friendly precedents, and that pride has even led him to a relatively rare First Amendment misstep, so it will be critical to explain to him (and the other justices, of course) that this isn’t a case about “discrimination” but rather about forced speech. Framing matters, and the other side will wrongly frame the case as raising the specter of Jim Crow. The right framing is found in the First Amendment.

 

My Twitter timeline is already filling with people talking about this case — with far more heat even than the Supreme Court’s travel ban decision. Expect a building media frenzy, one dominated by allegations of hate and bigotry.

 

The sexual revolutionaries are butting heads with the First Amendment. May free speech prevail.

 

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/448990/three-thoughts-masterpiece-cakeshop-cert-grant

 

 

 

I always think of the Seinfeld "no soup for you" episode when cases like this are brought up. A private business has every right to deny a customer as long as they don't violate the Civil Rights law of 1964 which a private business can't deny a person based on race, color, religion, or national origin. People with disabililties are protected under the Americans with Disability Act. Nothing about denying a person based on sexual orientation yet on a national level so I'm going to have to side with the baker on this one.

[boyst]

 

I always think of the Seinfeld "no soup for you" episode when cases like this are brought up. A private business has every right to deny a customer as long as they don't violate the Civil Rights law of 1964 which a private business can't deny a person based on race, color, religion, or national origin. People with disabililties are protected under the Americans with Disability Act. Nothing about denying a person based on sexual orientation yet on a national level so I'm going to have to side with the baker on this one.

i believe a business should be able to deny anyone for anything at any time they want - race, educational level, sexual orientation, religion, hair color, etc.

 

if target put out a rule that said the mentally ill can use the bathroom of their choice and they lose customers who are not as mentally unhinged, they are perfectly within their right.

 

if a cake shop refused to bake cakes for straight muslim men because the muslin men had ugly beards, they should be able to do so.

 

freedom is freedom.

[DC Tom]

 

I always think of the Seinfeld "no soup for you" episode when cases like this are brought up. A private business has every right to deny a customer as long as they don't violate the Civil Rights law of 1964 which a private business can't deny a person based on race, color, religion, or national origin. People with disabililties are protected under the Americans with Disability Act. Nothing about denying a person based on sexual orientation yet on a national level so I'm going to have to side with the baker on this one.

 

7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled just this past April that the Civil Rights Act protects sexual orientation, as well. I believe that's the reason it's being heard by the Supreme Court.

 

Personally...I think it's pretty much bull ****. The LGBT community would have us think this is Rosa Parks at the front of the bus. It's not. Rosa Parks didn't have any options - she couldn't sit at the front of any bus. The LGBT crowd is fighting for the right to force specific people bake wedding cakes.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled just this past April that the Civil Rights Act protects sexual orientation, as well. I believe that's the reason it's being heard by the Supreme Court.

 

Personally...I think it's pretty much bull ****. The LGBT community would have us think this is Rosa Parks at the front of the bus. It's not. Rosa Parks didn't have any options - she couldn't sit at the front of any bus. The LGBT crowd is fighting for the right to force specific people bake wedding cakes.

Another key distinction, perhaps the most important distinction, is that Rosa Parks was being discriminated against by the government, which had forbade her from sitting at the front of a bus.

[IDBillzFan]

Another key distinction, perhaps the most important distinction, is that Rosa Parks was being discriminated against by the government, which had forbade her from sitting at the front of a bus.

 

Ironically, who is being discriminated against by local governments?

 

The Christian bakers.

[boyst]

 

7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled just this past April that the Civil Rights Act protects sexual orientation, as well. I believe that's the reason it's being heard by the Supreme Court.

 

Personally...I think it's pretty much bull ****. The LGBT community would have us think this is Rosa Parks at the front of the bus. It's not. Rosa Parks didn't have any options - she couldn't sit at the front of any bus. The LGBT crowd is fighting for the right to force specific people bake wedding cakes.

 

 

 

you're welcome

[B-Man]

ASHE SCHOW: Trump Administration Signals End To Campus Star Chambers.

For years, college campuses across the country have been conducting witch hunts to expel or punish men accused of sexual assault. Those may soon be coming to an end, thanks to the Trump administration.

 

 

 

Matters for the police and the courts should be left to the police and the courts.

[DC Tom]

 

ASHE SCHOW: Trump Administration Signals End To Campus Star Chambers.

For years, college campuses across the country have been conducting witch hunts to expel or punish men accused of sexual assault. Those may soon be coming to an end, thanks to the Trump administration.

 

 

 

Matters for the police and the courts should be left to the police and the courts.

 

 

Good. I'm all for colleges providing support resources to victims of sexual assault, to help and encourage them to pursue justice through proper, legal channels.

 

But the misapplication of Title IX to turn colleges into an ersatz justice system was complete, grotesque bull **** that didn't serve the rights of anybody involved.

[IDBillzFan]

 

Good. I'm all for colleges providing support resources to victims of sexual assault, to help and encourage them to pursue justice through proper, legal channels.

 

But the misapplication of Title IX to turn colleges into an ersatz justice system was complete, grotesque bull **** that didn't serve the rights of anybody involved.

 

 

But how about that Mika facelift, amirite??!?!?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

 

 

But how about that Mika facelift, amirite??!?!?

Scarborough must TRULY be desperate. That woman is a harpy.

[B-Man]

Here’s How Anti-Conservative Academic Discrimination Works: Students loved Keith Fink’s free-speech classes at UCLA. Other professors did not.

 

 

 

 

the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights should investigate this.

[B-Man]

CIVIL WAR ON THE LEFT, PART 42: HOT WATER AT STARBUCKS

Starbucks thinks of itself as a fully progressive company. Which is what makes this story all schadenfreudey to the max:

 

 

Muslims Are Boycotting Starbucks Over the Company’s Pro-LGBT Stance

 

Parkasa, a hard-line Muslim group in Malaysia that touts around 700,000 members, is joining another Muslim group in Indonesia, Muhammadiyah, in calling for the boycott of Starbucks.

 

Almost 30 million people belong to Muhammadiyah, the second-largest mainstream Muslim organization in Indonesia. They have denounced the popular coffee chain over the company’s former chief executive’s past praise for the gay community. Both organizations want Starbucks’ operating license to be revoked because the stance goes against Islamic teachings.

 

“Our objection is because they are promoting something that is against the human instinct, against human behavior and against religion. That’s why we are against it,” Amini Amir Abdullah, head of Perkasa’s Islamic affairs bureau,

stated to Reuters

in an interview earlier this week. Homosexuality goes against the country’s constitution.

 

 

 

 

Since for the Progressive mind Muslims are an oppressed people, whatever will Starbucks do?

 

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/07/civil-war-on-the-left-part-42-hot-water-at-starbucks.php

 

.

Edited July 11, 2017 by B-Man

[Nanker]

[row_33]

Now what are they whining about....

Edited July 12, 2017 by row_33

[Tiberius]

i believe a business should be able to deny anyone for anything at any time they want - race, educational level, sexual orientation, religion, hair color, etc.

 

.

This is messed up.

[B-Man]

North Carolina wants to legislate free speech on campus

 

Toto, I’m pretty sure we’re not in Kansas anymore. In fact, I’m no longer entirely sure that we’re in the United States. The same nation which was founded by a group of upstart pamphleteers who dared to challenge the conventional wisdom and traditions of Europe has now reached the point where one of the original colonies feels it has to pass a law so that students on college campuses can actually hear a variety of opinions.

[4merper4mer]

This is messed up.

Why?

[boyst]

Why?

stop asking him why.

 

it's bad enough to reply to him but to actually ask him why or try to engage information from him to get him to respond is pathetic. stop. just stop it now. if we ignore him life is better. we can't ignore him when everyone replies and just feeds him, then bills808, and happydays, and others join in.

 

ppp needs to either moderate itself or get someone else to.