TPercy wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

TPercy wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

TPercy wrote:3) There is ZERO descrimination here. Employers simply have the choice to reject providing conctraception. descrimination is "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex." what group is getting discriminated against?

Very specifically, tying contraception into discrimination is a fair point, but seemingly a red herring in of itself. Unless I misunderstand you, you are advocating that discrimination on religious grounds should be protected, right?

"No. No private business should be forced to provide a service to someone if it goes against their religious values."

I'll ask again how far does this policy extend? Do business owners have a right to refuse service to everyone and anyone they choose so long as they claim religious freedom?

Yes and free speech. If you don't like the the business just go to the other one down the street.

A vast majority of the people in this country identify as religious. Many are based on the premise the observance of any other religion is wrong. We can also find passages in all religious text that can be interpreted to justify pretty much all forms of discrimination.

I shudder to think what a society would look like where you need to shop around find businesses and employers who approve of the color of your skin, your gender, your sexual orientation, your choice of religion, or whether you choose to observe a religion at all.

I think what you advocate may sound more palpable when you take for granted the vast majority people won't do this, so protecting those who would doesn't sound so unreasonable.

But in application what you describe sounds horrifying.

Not exactly. At the end of the day businesses want to make money. If you decide not to give your services to a particular group of people, you make less money and depending on how bad the PR is, you will get run out of business in a blink of an eye.

So religious beliefs are so important they must be allowed to be able to use them to discriminate, but the safeguard against people using them is business interests?! I don't get your reasoning at all.

Knickoftime wrote:

TPercy wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

TPercy wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

TPercy wrote:3) There is ZERO descrimination here. Employers simply have the choice to reject providing conctraception. descrimination is "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex." what group is getting discriminated against?

Very specifically, tying contraception into discrimination is a fair point, but seemingly a red herring in of itself. Unless I misunderstand you, you are advocating that discrimination on religious grounds should be protected, right?

"No. No private business should be forced to provide a service to someone if it goes against their religious values."

I'll ask again how far does this policy extend? Do business owners have a right to refuse service to everyone and anyone they choose so long as they claim religious freedom?

Yes and free speech. If you don't like the the business just go to the other one down the street.

A vast majority of the people in this country identify as religious. Many are based on the premise the observance of any other religion is wrong. We can also find passages in all religious text that can be interpreted to justify pretty much all forms of discrimination.

I shudder to think what a society would look like where you need to shop around find businesses and employers who approve of the color of your skin, your gender, your sexual orientation, your choice of religion, or whether you choose to observe a religion at all.

I think what you advocate may sound more palpable when you take for granted the vast majority people won't do this, so protecting those who would doesn't sound so unreasonable.

But in application what you describe sounds horrifying.

Not exactly. At the end of the day businesses want to make money. If you decide not to give your services to a particular group of people, you make less money and depending on how bad the PR is, you will get run out of business in a blink of an eye.

As I say, what you describe sounds horrific. And businesses could very well survive refusing to service black and/or LGBTQ people given the demographic makeup of this country. And there are places in the country where the PR hit wouldn't be that bad either.

I know, I really don't get how anyone would see that as progress.

I don't get the reasoning either - is it moral, is it practical? If it's motivated primarily by morality why is it reliant on business interests to be kept in check? Doesn't that mean it's dependent specifically on the opposite premise to the one used to justify it?

Knickoftime wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

didn't confuse my choice as a misplaced protest that'll likely have the opposite of the intended effect.

For someone who has no fukking idea of what the intended effect was, it's amusing you have an opinion about it. Your inability to take anything not aligned with your POV without trying to ridicule it shows that you aren't very liberal, tolerant or open minded in your thinking.

You are not left leaning, anymore than the vacant pant suit you voted for. But you are right about Hillary being closely aligned to your way of thinking.

Centrist garbage

Looks like football ended early today.

The good news is in a few years, empty, belligerent bombast like this won't seem like such a good idea as it does to you now.

And you've made it perfectly clear what the intended effect was.

Football didn't end, I was overzealous in my mowing, took care of the exposed co-ax canoe, I am without a working internet or TV connection

I think I can tell where the empty belligerent bombast is coming from. I don't go around telling people why they can't make their own choices and should use my reasoning instead. And whether Trump **** up or not is independent of whether Hillary would have fukked up. As much as you try to weave it into some alternate reality horse****.

smackeddog wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

TPercy wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

TPercy wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

TPercy wrote:3) There is ZERO descrimination here. Employers simply have the choice to reject providing conctraception. descrimination is "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex." what group is getting discriminated against?

Very specifically, tying contraception into discrimination is a fair point, but seemingly a red herring in of itself. Unless I misunderstand you, you are advocating that discrimination on religious grounds should be protected, right?

"No. No private business should be forced to provide a service to someone if it goes against their religious values."

I'll ask again how far does this policy extend? Do business owners have a right to refuse service to everyone and anyone they choose so long as they claim religious freedom?

Yes and free speech. If you don't like the the business just go to the other one down the street.

A vast majority of the people in this country identify as religious. Many are based on the premise the observance of any other religion is wrong. We can also find passages in all religious text that can be interpreted to justify pretty much all forms of discrimination.

I shudder to think what a society would look like where you need to shop around find businesses and employers who approve of the color of your skin, your gender, your sexual orientation, your choice of religion, or whether you choose to observe a religion at all.

I think what you advocate may sound more palpable when you take for granted the vast majority people won't do this, so protecting those who would doesn't sound so unreasonable.

But in application what you describe sounds horrifying.

Not exactly. At the end of the day businesses want to make money. If you decide not to give your services to a particular group of people, you make less money and depending on how bad the PR is, you will get run out of business in a blink of an eye.

As I say, what you describe sounds horrific. And businesses could very well survive refusing to service black and/or LGBTQ people given the demographic makeup of this country. And there are places in the country where the PR hit wouldn't be that bad either.

I know, I really don't get how anyone would see that as progress.

I don't get the reasoning either - is it moral, is it practical? If it's motivated primarily by morality why is it reliant on business interests to be kept in check? Doesn't that mean it's dependent specifically on the opposite premise to the one used to justify it?

TPercy wrote:Actually..SCRATCH THAT.

At this point, all of this becomes a case where two rights are in conflict: Freedom of Speech vs Freedom towards the pursuit of property. However neither right takes precedent over the other for all situations and I think they should be judged on a case by case basis.

Nevertheless, in the case of the baker, the baker's freedom of expression rights definitely trumps the gays right to pursuit of property. The baker shouldn't be compelled in this case to create a piece of art for something that he doesn't believe in.

Then I can't imagine any scenario in which discrimination can't be justified.

Welcome to a world in which you can be denied housing or service in a restaurant because of the color of your skin.

TPercy wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

TPercy wrote:Actually..SCRATCH THAT.

At this point, all of this becomes a case where two rights are in conflict: Freedom of Speech vs Freedom towards the pursuit of property. However neither right takes precedent over the other for all situations and I think they should be judged on a case by case basis.

Nevertheless, in the case of the baker, the baker's freedom of expression rights definitely trumps the gays right to pursuit of property. The baker shouldn't be compelled in this case to create a piece of art for something that he doesn't believe in.

Then I can't imagine any scenario in which discrimination can't be justified.

Welcome to a world in which you can be denied housing or service in a restaurant because of the color of your skin.

Not really. If a straight man asked the man to bake a cake for a gay wedding he would have been denied aswell. The baker isn't discriminating against a certain class of people; rather a certain class of objects just like how an employer can refuse to provide birth control but can't refuse to provide birth control to someone because of their race or gender.

In your case, the restaurant owners free speech someone in denying a service to a a class of people is trumped by a persons of colors right to equal access.

So baker sells coffee and tea and has a few tables set up in his shop. Two guys walk in holding hands. Baker can't refuse to serve them coffee and a donut and let them eat in his shop, but if the inquire about a wedding cake that he can refuse.

Do I understand you correctly?

In an extraordinary rebuke of a president of his own party, Mr. Corker said he was alarmed about a president who acts “like he’s doing ‘The Apprentice’ or something.”

“He concerns me,” Mr. Corker added. “He would have to concern anyone who cares about our nation.”

FLAG: Was Pence leaving Colts game a political stunt? Reporters were told to stay in van bc "there may be an early departure from the game."

"After all the scandals involving unnecessarily expensive travel by cabinet secretaries, how much taxpayer money was wasted on this stunt?"
- Rep Adam Schiff

Nazis brandishing torches in Charlottesville gets ZERO outrage from Mike Pence.

But guys quietly kneeling to protest killing is outrage?

It's ALL for show. Nothing else.

Case in point( In a ridculously hilarious fashion)

Is there any bigger story on the world stage today, than the mental fitness of the President of the United States?

smackeddog wrote:

TPercy wrote:

Case in point( In a ridculously hilarious fashion)

What exactly do you find hilarious in that video? Looked like someone who'd experienced a life time of abuse and discrimination for his sexuality reaching boiling point. Is it fair that he took it out on those particular people? No, but I don't see what's hilarious or ridiculous.

1) you have no evidence of that and it is far fetched to assume that anyone who reacted the way he did has suffered from abuse just because he is gay.

2)His argument for them to leave was beyond irrational and thus funny to me.