Michael Brown

[Ephirith]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The case we are using as an example was about forcing a baker to make a cake for a celebration. Not because they were gay, but because they were celebrating an event. He did not refuse service because they were gay. He refused service because he did not agree with the celebration they were conducting.

Don't be like that. Why did he disagree with the celebration? What is the difference between all the other celebrations he bakes cakes for, and that one? It was the gayness.

Do you think it would be okay for him to refuse service to an interracial couple because he disagrees with interracial marriage? You could make the same argument-- he did not refuse service because the groom was black. He refused service because he doesn't think blacks should marry whites. His only issue was the class + the celebration, not necessarily the class itself, right?

This would be illegal under the Civil Rights Act, just as the homo example would be illegal if homosexuality were a protected class.

[iruinedyourday]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You are still completely missing the point. This is not about civil rights for gays, or any other group. This is about freedom of association. The case we are using as an example was about forcing a baker to make a cake for a celebration. Not because they were gay, but because they were celebrating an event. He did not refuse service because they were gay. He refused service because he did not agree with the celebration they were conducting.

Being a specific color is not equivalent to practicing a specific action. They are entirely different. Your continued attempts to compare the two are growing old. They are not the same.

I cannot help but notice you have completely ignored the idea of compelled speech when I explained it to you. I take it by your omission, which is a form of speech, that you are telling me that you are fine with the government telling people how to vote, or which charities they should donate to, or which businesses they should not shop at? If this sounds dystopian that's because it is. You are literally defining a police state.

You're okay with it, and that scares the hell out of me.

look man, nobody shut down the fucking baker, they closed down becuse the community boycotted them for being assholes.

Be an asshole, you loose your business... its fucking capitalism... were going around in fricken' circles here dude.

Like my EC thread I'm sure there are a couple racist homaphobes that wont buy my spells but whatever, idc.

Also dude, your compelled speech shit that Ive asked you like 3 times to explain more clearly, I don't understand the words that are comin out of your mouth.

The only thing you should take from my omission is that I have no clue what the hell you're talking about and I don't care enough to try to google it to figure it out.

Seriously ask yourself, after our conversation do you really think I'm ok with the government telling people how to vote? I mean ffs if that's where we are after all this then we have REALLY BEEN wasting our time and we should end this immediately.

[Toofliss]

Originally Posted by Ephirith [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Don't be like that. Why did he disagree with the celebration? What is the difference between all the other celebrations he bakes cakes for, and that one? It was the gayness.

Do you think it would be okay for him to refuse service to an interracial couple because he disagrees with interracial marriage? You could make the same argument-- he did not refuse service because the groom was black. He refused service because he doesn't think blacks should marry whites. His only issue was the class + the celebration, not necessarily the class itself, right?

This would be illegal under the Civil Rights Act, just as the homo example would be illegal if homosexuality were a protected class.

Do you think he would have refused to bake them a birthday cake for someone? He didn't have an issue with the person, but he did not want to support gay marriage.

If I went into a copy center owned by a gay man/woman and proceeded to request that they make up 500 signs that said "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" and the clerk refused to make them -- would you then be ok with him being forced to have the signs printed up for me?

You can't discriminate after all and you can be forced to print up whatever I ask(make) you to do. I think it's a scary idea that they could be compelled to do it.

[iruinedyourday]

Originally Posted by Toofliss [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Do you think he would have refused to bake them a birthday cake for someone? He didn't have an issue with the person, but he did not want to support gay marriage.

If I went into a copy center owned by a gay man/woman and proceeded to request that they make up 500 signs that said "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" and the clerk refused to make them -- would you then be ok with him being forced to have the signs printed up for me?

You can't discriminate after all and you can be forced to print up whatever I ask(make) you to do. I think it's a scary idea that they could be compelled to do it.

guys, reality called and said the rights of Americans are under WAY more duress in Ferguson than at the fucking stupid bakery and the imaginary Kinkos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zbR824FKpU

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Originally Posted by Aviann [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Maybe if someone makes a comparison with a traumatic moment in your life, you will better understand the point being made... Here we go.

Remember in high school when nobody talked to you and you sat in the corner alone for lunch everyday?

Well it's probably because you are a wannabe bronie, you wear dresses, and you are straight up fucking weird. Also in most cases, even if you are defending equality, you still shit up your posts with a lack of respect and a know-it-all attitude.

Why would anyone want to hold conversation or argument with you for longer than a page or two, like, ever? lol

Sounds like you have another issue.

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

look man, nobody shut down the fucking baker, they closed down becuse the community boycotted them for being assholes.

Be an asshole, you loose your business... its fucking capitalism... were going around in fricken' circles here dude.

Like my EC thread I'm sure there are a couple racist homaphobes that wont buy my spells but whatever, idc.

Also dude, your compelled speech shit that Ive asked you like 3 times to explain more clearly, I don't understand the words that are comin out of your mouth.

The only thing you should take from my omission is that I have no clue what the hell you're talking about and I don't care enough to try to google it to figure it out.

Seriously ask yourself, after our conversation do you really think I'm ok with the government telling people how to vote? I mean ffs if that's where we are after all this then we have REALLY BEEN wasting our time and we should end this immediately.

You don't care enough to type "compelled speech" into google but you care enough to write several paragraphs about why you don't care about typing "compelled speech" into google. Good job. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[radditsu]

Shut up you white idiots.

[iruinedyourday]

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You don't care enough to type "compelled speech" into google but you care enough to write several paragraphs about why you don't care about typing "compelled speech" into google. Good job. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If someone is screaming at me about something without trying to explain it to me while simultaneously chastising me about it and saying I want the government to force people what to vote for - over a conversation about civil rights, all while I ask him to be more clear... then yea I don't feel compelled to try to understand the a-hole on my own.

good for you for trying to be a douche bag enemy of everyone, yet again kaga.

[Eliseus]

As more news come to light in this case, this guy definitely deserved to be shot. I would actually think there was something wrong with the cop if he didn't shoot.

PS, pedobob is still full of shit and stupid.

[iruinedyourday]

I have little doubt that any of you that are happy the cops shot someone will ever change your position, no matter what happens.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by Ephirith [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Don't be like that. Why did he disagree with the celebration? What is the difference between all the other celebrations he bakes cakes for, and that one? It was the gayness.

This would be illegal under the Civil Rights Act, just as the homo example would be illegal if homosexuality were a protected class.

Should the baker be forced to make a cake for a man celebrating his infidelity?

Laws are force and they should only be used when necessary. Anti-miscegenation laws existed, and the general political climate created a situation that was absolutely untenable for minorities, and so the law stepped in. The consequence of that law is that people lost the right to refuse service on the basis of a protected class. Imagine that there was no racism in the 60's. Imagine if only 1 out of 10,000 merchants would not provide services to any of the protected classes. Would the civil rights act be necessary? Laws are about striking a balance. Unpopular speech must be protected the most precisely because it is unpopular. It is only when that unpopular speech causes real problems whose harm is greater than the harm of eliminating that speech should the law be passed.

Additionally, we're not talking about vital services such as food, housing, and medicine which is largely what drove the conversations vis a vis denial of service because the institutions denying the service were often the only providers available effectively shutting minorities out of those essentials. We're talking about non-essentials like wedding photography and cakes. This is a huge difference in scale, and law and policy are unwieldy tools. Unintended consequences are always afoot, and the hammer doesn't need to be pulled out because a few people are denied cakes.

Morally, most people would believe it's wrong to refuse service on the basis of interracial marriage, and it is also illegal. Anti-miscegenation today is a legal, moral, and ethical aberration. Refusing service to a gay marriage (or celebration of infidelity, or an abortion, or whatever hotbutton issue), however, is not a moral or ethical aberration in our time and place. It is a moral norm. Therein lies the difference.

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday

if someone is screaming at me about something without trying to explain it to me while simultaneously chastising me about it and saying I want the government to force people what to vote for - over a conversation about civil rights, all while I ask him to be more clear

I've explained it to you several times. You want to talk about government policy and the incredibly nuanced field of constitutional law, yet you can't even bother to do five minutes of cursory research? I've done more than my part to break the concept down for you. If you can't understand the idea that speech is more than words, then you have no business discussing politics much less the practice of constitutional law.