On Sep 15, 2015, balducci wrote:
Here's a story most of you probably missed, it being in Canada and all.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/ca.......3225224

A city bus driver nearing the end of his 1 year probationary period calls press conferences to announce that he refuses to drive the City of Calgary's one rainbow-coloured pride bus that was going to be in service for 1 week. Mind you, no one ever asked him to drive it. Of course, he also makes obligatory comments against the gay lifestyle etc. Talks about how abhorrent it all is to the street church he belongs to.

The City has cause to fire him for violating various conditions of him employment (especially as he was only a probationary driver in the first place), and eventually does so. The City notes that this guy used social media to post Nazi-related content. The fellow denies this, says he hates Neo-Nazis etc.

Yet, coincidentally, his Church features, front and center, on its home page an article about a Neo-Nazi supporting the driver and protesting the same bus.

Sigh.

I think no on should be discriminated against, but this political theater is tiresome. Don't get service you want, go elsewhere.

On Sep 16, 2015, landmark wrote:

Quote:

I think no on should be discriminated against, but this political theater is tiresome. Don't get service you want, go elsewhere.

Some people find tiresome that which doesn't seem to affect them directly. I think there are more mature ways to think about what it takes to fight for a principle.

On Sep 16, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 16, 2015, landmark wrote:

Quote:

I think no on should be discriminated against, but this political theater is tiresome. Don't get service you want, go elsewhere.

Some people find tiresome that which doesn't seem to affect them directly. I think there are more mature ways to think about what it takes to fight for a principle.

Should a black-owned bakery be required to provide a cake for a KKK party?

On Sep 16, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 16, 2015, landmark wrote:

Quote:

I think no on should be discriminated against, but this political theater is tiresome. Don't get service you want, go elsewhere.

Some people find tiresome that which doesn't seem to affect them directly. I think there are more mature ways to think about what it takes to fight for a principle.

Should a black-owned bakery be required to provide a cake for a KKK party?

On Sep 16, 2015, landmark wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 16, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 16, 2015, landmark wrote:

Quote:

I think no on should be discriminated against, but this political theater is tiresome. Don't get service you want, go elsewhere.

Some people find tiresome that which doesn't seem to affect them directly. I think there are more mature ways to think about what it takes to fight for a principle.

Should a black-owned bakery be required to provide a cake for a KKK party?

Were the lesbians part of an organization that initiated and celebrated the murders and oppression of other people? I may have missed that.

Yes, yes, I know , it was just an example. That said, yes, the bakery doesn't have the right to turn down a lawful request. But maybe we can talk a little more about issues like this.

This is the kind of question that comes up all the time when the KKK petitions to rally in neighborhood. The ACLU correctly supports their right to march. On the other hand, given the limited resources of orgs like the ACLU, I think they could make the same point defending others--no need to waste money on the KKK.

On the other hand, I support the right of others to beat the crap out of the KKK.

I mean I can play the law game, but ultimately the laws are selected and enforced by the powers that be; to think that there is some overall fairness that will be approached is too idealistic in my opinion. First amendment pieties are so often used selectively in a world where money is free speech and corporations are people. There is a real difference between workers and owners, oppressed groups and elites, and ultimately one has to choose which side one is on.

This is a bit to chew on, I know, but ultimately one has to deal not in hypotheticals, but what is.

On Sep 16, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
I think the KKK comparison is not applicable. Unlike the LGBT community, the KKK is a hate group, and is viewed as such by the federal government.

So no, I don't think a black baker could be forced to make a cake for the KKK, any more than the baker in NJ could be forced to write Happy Birthday Adolph Hitler on a birthday cake for a child whose racist parents had actually named him that. (And who stupidly challenged the baker in court and ended up having the kid taken away from them by the Division of Youth and Family Services.)

So all the decisions are relative and based on your feelings about the parties involved.

Let's go with Rockwall's trite, homophobic, "it pays to be gay" non-sequitur.

On Sep 16, 2015, landmark wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 16, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 16, 2015, landmark wrote:

Quote:

I think no on should be discriminated against, but this political theater is tiresome. Don't get service you want, go elsewhere.

Some people find tiresome that which doesn't seem to affect them directly. I think there are more mature ways to think about what it takes to fight for a principle.

Should a black-owned bakery be required to provide a cake for a KKK party?

Were the lesbians part of an organization that initiated and celebrated the murders and oppression of other people? I may have missed that.

Yes, yes, I know , it was just an example. That said, yes, the bakery doesn't have the right to turn down a lawful request. But maybe we can talk a little more about issues like this.

This is the kind of question that comes up all the time when the KKK petitions to rally in neighborhood. The ACLU correctly supports their right to march. On the other hand, given the limited resources of orgs like the ACLU, I think they could make the same point defending others--no need to waste money on the KKK.

On the other hand, I support the right of others to beat the crap out of the KKK.

I mean I can play the law game, but ultimately the laws are selected and enforced by the powers that be; to think that there is some overall fairness that will be approached is too idealistic in my opinion. First amendment pieties are so often used selectively in a world where money is free speech and corporations are people. There is a real difference between workers and owners, oppressed groups and elites, and ultimately one has to choose which side one is on.

This is a bit to chew on, I know, but ultimately one has to deal not in hypotheticals, but what is.

On Sep 16, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
I think the KKK comparison is not applicable. Unlike the LGBT community, the KKK is a hate group, and is viewed as such by the federal government.

So no, I don't think a black baker could be forced to make a cake for the KKK, any more than the baker in NJ could be forced to write Happy Birthday Adolph Hitler on a birthday cake for a child whose racist parents had actually named him that. (And who stupidly challenged the baker in court and ended up having the kid taken away from them by the Division of Youth and Family Services.)

The Supreme Court established the judicial precedent for suspect classifications in the cases of Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81 [5] and Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944).[6] The Supreme Court recognizes race, national origin, religion and alienage as suspect classes; it therefore analyzes any government action that discriminates against these classes under strict scrutiny.

In Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in its Findings of Fact commented that sexual orientation could be considered a suspect class but, on the facts presented Proposition 8 failed even to satisfy the much more deferential rational basis review.[7] The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska held the same in Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning,[8] but was reversed on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

On Sep 16, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:

The LGBT community is not a hate group.

On Sep 15, 2015, landmark wrote:

Quote:

The question for the bakers issue is If I have to service the customer, do I have also be a part of a service I don't agree with

So if I walk into your hardware store looking for a nail, I have to explain to you why I want it before I can buy it from you because I might be using it in a service of which you don't approve?

Is that really the position you're defending?

On Sep 17, 2015, Kabbalah wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 16, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:

The LGBT community is not a hate group.

They aren't?

On Sep 17, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Sep 15, 2015, landmark wrote:

Quote:

The question for the bakers issue is If I have to service the customer, do I have also be a part of a service I don't agree with

So if I walk into your hardware store looking for a nail, I have to explain to you why I want it before I can buy it from you because I might be using it in a service of which you don't approve?

Is that really the position you're defending?

At a federal level, there's quite possibly a distinction between a hardware store and a bakery.