Free Speech - Trump gets fingered / She gets fired - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14907525
So you want a future based on your own feelings.

You talk like you are "liberating" us from something but you are really just promoting a plan to enslave everyone to literally regulated interactions where there is no room for opinions or free choices.

Very liberating.
#14907529
Verv wrote:So you want a future based on your own feelings.
How the fuck do you get that out of what I said? :eh: Engage the brain before typing next time.

Verv wrote:You talk like you are "liberating" us from something but you are really just promoting a plan to enslave everyone to literally regulated interactions where there is no room for opinions or free choices.
:lol: I never said that, nor does that make any sense, whatsoever. Come back and post when you aren't pissed.
#14907713
One Degree wrote:Listing who you can not discriminate against is discrimination. It also confuses the issue.

No, there isn't any inverse proposition introduced in the resolution of the equation here. Neither is the introduction of any "confusing" complication necessary.

The real issue is can a baker choose who he wants for customers and what level of government should make this decision?

Here we agree.

I think the baker accepts public responsibility when applying for a business license. This obligates him to operate under public law (which now bans discrimination.) If he wants to retain his "right to discriminate" he must forgo legal recognition and remain an independent, artistic, status. In most communities this will limit his options with regard to commercial exploitation. Such people are free to choose, but cannot "have their cake and eat it to."

As soon as you start listing who he can and can not refuse, you end up on a path of passing laws for every decision that baker may choose to make.

No ... the action is specific, not migratory. This case regards a law already passed, further legislation is neither required or contemplated.

Zam
#14907717
Zamuel wrote:No, there isn't any inverse proposition introduced in the resolution of the equation here. Neither is the introduction of any "confusing" complication necessary.


Here we agree.

I think the baker accepts public responsibility when applying for a business license. This obligates him to operate under public law (which now bans discrimination.) If he wants to retain his "right to discriminate" he must forgo legal recognition and remain an independent, artistic, status. In most communities this will limit his options with regard to commercial exploitation. Such people are free to choose, but cannot "have their cake and eat it to."


No ... the action is specific, not migratory. This case regards a law already passed, further legislation is neither required or contemplated.

Zam


The laws you are using to argue against me are the same laws I am saying create the problem. The law should ONLY say whether the business owner can or can not discriminate. It is when you start listing WHO he can not discriminate against that you create a migratory problem. The law can simply say, “you can not discriminate, you must serve everyone who enters”, but it does not say that which results in legal discrimination unless your group gets added to the list. How can it be right and wrong to discriminate in a law to prevent discrimination? It is an oxymoron.
#14907735
One Degree wrote:but it does not say that which results in legal discrimination unless your group gets added to the list.

There is no such list ... There are "guiding principles" which have been legislated and defined by previous supreme court decisions. In this case the "guiding principles" are Colorado's anti discrimination law. The case is open and shut and has been decided by both Colorado's discrimination commission and a state court in favor of the gay couple.

The Supreme court should have rejected the case, it's decided the issue twice in the past, going back as far as a unanimous decision in the 60s in which it's comments decried the identical "religious" argument as "frivolous." But political considerations (Trump) got it on the docket and the court is evenly split on that political basis. Judge Kennedy is likely the deciding vote and I (for one) am confident he will affirm precedent.

Zam
#14907737
Zamuel wrote:There is no such list ... There are "guiding principles" which have been legislated and defined by previous supreme court decisions. In this case the "guiding principles" are Colorado's anti discrimination law. The case is open and shut and has been decided by both Colorado's discrimination commission and a state court in favor of the gay couple.

The Supreme court should have rejected the case, it's decided the issue twice in the past, going back as far as a unanimous decision in the 60s in which it's comments decried the identical "religious" argument as "frivolous." But political considerations (Trump) got it on the docket and the court is evenly split on that political basis. Judge Kennedy is likely the deciding vote and I (for one) am confident he will affirm precedent.

Zam


I am dizzy. That was a quick turn from the general to the specific. This will never be ‘settled’ by the federal courts just like abortion. We will just vacillate. It should be a state decision at most. These are cultural differences that can not be agreed upon by 300,000,000 people.
#14907749
One Degree wrote:I am dizzy. That was a quick turn from the general to the specific. This will never be ‘settled’ by the federal courts just like abortion.

Pay attention, it's already been settled (by the SC) twice (though one case was racial rather than sexual preference oriented.)

It should be a state decision at most.

It was, again, Colorado decided twice against the baker.

But you can't deny recourse to the supreme court. Anyone can ASK. It is the court's prerogative to pick and choose what it will hear. That choice was prejudiced by presidential pressure which is also being applied to obtain a reversal. You did know that the Trump administration filed an "Amicus" brief with the court in favor of the baker?

But as I mentioned, Kennedy can't be bought and he has rigorous standards. I think he will affirm Colorado's case.

Zam
#14907755
Zamuel wrote:Pay attention, it's already been settled (by the SC) twice (though one case was racial rather than sexual preference oriented.)


It was, again, Colorado decided twice against the baker.

But you can't deny recourse to the supreme court. Anyone can ASK. It is the court's prerogative to pick and choose what it will hear. That choice was prejudiced by presidential pressure which is also being applied to obtain a reversal. You did know that the Trump administration filed an "Amicus" brief with the court in favor of the baker?

But as I mentioned, Kennedy can't be bought and he has rigorous standards. I think he will affirm Colorado's case.

Zam


It will be interesting. I think there is a chance you are wrong. I think even the Supreme Court is swayed by how they perceive the future. Their decision will be based upon whether they believe ‘Trumpism’ is here to stay or not.
#14907824
Albert wrote:Why is Godstud talking about his feeling so much in this thread?
I do so because the right-winger's arguments tend to all be about "feelings". When you, and others, can start formulating arguments based on something else, I won't mention feelings anymore. :D
#14907841
Godstud wrote:I do so because the right-winger's arguments tend to all be about "feelings". When you, and others, can start formulating arguments based on something else, I won't mention feelings anymore. :D


Is it opposites day?

Let's try this from the top.

I support liberty and freedom that means doing as you please without constraint insofar as you are not directly hurting others. This means the liberty to use your property as you see fit.

You believe that business owners cannot use their proeprty as they see fit because it would be discrimination. We also arne't talking about a hospital here denying treatment (the extreme example); we are talking about catering services and flower arrangements 99% of the time.

So you are the stone cold rationalist with no feelings involved...

And yet you think that a baker should be forced to cater an event they do not believe in because it would otherwise be discrimination.

Why?

It seems you would be more likely to invoke feelings than anyone else.

What's your definition of liberty?
#14907843
GodStud, I also would like to note that for a guy who is so feelingless and calm, you seem to be really into the ad hominem attacks. I am actually surprised that this is tolerated by the mod team. PoFo used to be a pretty button down affair everywhere outside of Gorkiy.
#14907844
Verv wrote:I support liberty and freedom that means doing as you please without constraint insofar as you are not directly hurting others.
Discrimination and prejudice is "directly hurting others". This is historically factual. Once you recognize that, we can continue with our discussion.

Verv wrote:GodStud, I also would like to note that for a guy who is so feelingless and calm, you seem to be really into the ad hominem attacks. I am actually surprised that this is tolerated by the mod team.
Feel free to report it if you feel it's too far. I'll try to refrain, but please don't misinterpret my argument and try to tell me what I am saying.
#14907850
Alright, so if I say that I choose to not be the caterer for your wedding, or if I say that I do not bake customized cakes in celebration of gay weddings, etc., I am discriminating against you, and directly hurting you?

If I were to make a request that someone were to bake a cake that they found offensive as a custom order for an extreme political viewpoint of my own, would they have to comply with that, because if they weren't they would be violating my rights and directly hurting me?

Feel free to elaborate and take all the space that you need.
#14907854
Verv wrote:If I were to make a request that someone were to bake a cake that they found offensive as a custom order for an extreme political viewpoint of my own, would they have to comply with that, because if they weren't they would be violating my rights and directly hurting me?
Baloney. We're not talking about someone with a violent ideology who wants to harm you, and someone like that would likely not go to you for business in the first place.. You're talking about someone that would cause you harm. I am not talking about that.

A person's sexual orientation, skin colour, etc. do nothing to harm you, in any way. You are free to have your beliefs, but when you discriminate against others based on that belief, then you are harming someone else.

Your freedom of religion is not harmed by serving homosexuals cakes. You can search the Bible all year and not find anywhere where it says to treat sinners badly. In fact, Jesus actively promoted the opposite.

Liberty is great, until it limits the liberties of another person. You condone it, but can't seem to see the harm it can do to a society if everyone were to suddenly be able to serve only the people they preferred.

Freedom of religion is not freedom to inflict your religion upon others. It's freedom to practice your religion, within the confines of society. Discrimination harms society, as a whole, so that's where your freedom ends.
#14907868
My liberty is actually being hurt if I am forced to do anything, Godstud.

Liberty is the act of being unhindered in what you do. So how would my liberty not be hurt if I was forced to provide labor for something that I think is immoral?

Here is another question: if discrimination is 100% illegal, then you would agree that the only grounds for which a Hotel can refuse service to an Alt Right seminar or Alt Right gathering would be if it literally was already booked and already in business, right? They have to otherwise host an Alt Right event.

Wouldn't it be upsetting for Jewish or Indina-American or black American people who own hotels to be subjected to hosting an event for an organization against their interests?

Likewise, imagine a private clothier who specializes in making vestaments for Catholic clergymen. If he was forced to knowingly make custom made clothing mimicking Catholic monastic clothing and other official vestaments to be used in the production of film or photography mocking Catholicism through adult entertainemtn and some such, would that not violate his conscience?

I do not understand how allowing the rights of people to choose to withhold their labor protects Liberty: it violates the liberty of the people involved.
#14907869
Crantag wrote:Godstud was, in plain English, denouncing politics of feelings (rightwing feelings), and was accused of doing the opposite of that, i.e. engaging in the thing which he was specifically denouncing.

Reading comprehension is a thing which seems to be lacking for some in here.


Goddstud's very position is:

- If you do not do what the minority wants, you are harming him. Correct?

In this case, because you didn't bake him a cake... You harmed him.

How?

Was it physical?

No.

You hurt his feelings.

:lol:

They are building a Russian Type nuclear reactor..[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Hamas are terrorist animals who started this and […]

It is possible but Zelensky refuses to talk... no[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@skinster Hamas committed a terrorist attack(s)[…]