The Popular Vote

[Gelston]

There's a difference between those two situations. You have to remember this guiding rule: a business is a public accommodation.

1. A Muslim could operate a grocery store and not stock alcohol and pork, and would be in their rights to do so. Similarly, a Hindu can operate a grocery store and not stock any meat items. Both of these exist today. None of the non-stocked items would be for sale to anyone at the store, thus it would not violate any discrimination laws.

2. The bakery owner would be selling to one type of customer (straight) and not selling to another type of customer (gay). That violates the principle above.

You can substitute any categories you want in the parentheses (white/black, male/female, etc.). Reason for the denial of service doesn't matter.

Otherwise, you just end up legitimating whites only lunch counters.

Actually, it all comes down to whether or not you think sexual orientation is a choice or not. If you think it is a choice, then it isn't equivalent to race.

[Kembal]

Actually, it all comes down to whether or not you think sexual orientation is a choice or not. If you think it is a choice, then it isn't equivalent to race.

By that argument, the bakery owner would be allowed to deny selling a cake to Jews, Hindus, Muslims, or any other religion (or an atheist, for that matter). Religious belief is a choice, after all.

[Parkbandit]

I'd be very surprised if any grocery store owner allowed an cashier to say they won't handle this product or that product. Owner would be in their rights to fire the employee immediately - basic function of the job.

Bakery owner needs to bake wedding cakes for all couples, gay or straight.
Cashier needs to handle and ring up all items, no matter if they have a religious objection to the item.

There's no difference between the two scenarios.

There is a major difference between the two scenarios though.

The cashier is an employee.. the bakery owner is the actual owner.

The employee follows the rules set forth by the owner.

[Wrathbringer]

Actually, it all comes down to whether or not you think sexual orientation is a choice or not. If you think it is a choice, then it isn't equivalent to race.

Sexual orientation cannot be a choice because, of his own free will, what man would choose another man's dirty shitty ass instead of vagina? No man, that's who.

[Wrathbringer]

By that argument, the bakery owner would be allowed to deny selling a cake to Jews, Hindus, Muslims, or any other religion (or an atheist, for that matter). Religious belief is a choice, after all.

Right. I think you're finally getting it.

[Gelston]

By that argument, the bakery owner would be allowed to deny selling a cake to Jews, Hindus, Muslims, or any other religion (or an atheist, for that matter). Religious belief is a choice, after all.

And I think they should be able to. I don't want to serve a cake to a dirty Zoroastrian.

[Kembal]

And I think they should be able to. I don't want to serve a cake to a dirty Zoroastrian.

What do you have against Zoroastrians?!

More seriously:

1. That violates the public accommodation principle.

2. I'm going to apply the principle you took above and reverse it a bit. Let's say, small town out in the middle of nowhere, minority are Christians, majority are Hindu. One of the Christian residents has a severe heart ailment and needs to be seen by a cardiologist immediately. Only cardiologist in town is Hindu, and refuses to see Christian patients. Would you find this acceptable?

Yes, the scenario I'm proposing would never happen in real life in the US. There was a situation pretty close to this in Ireland though: Catholic doctors refused to perform an abortion medically necessary for the life of the mother. Patient was Hindu. She died as a result.

[Gelston]

What do you have against Zoroastrians?!

More seriously:

1. That violates the public accommodation principle.

2. I'm going to apply the principle you took above and reverse it a bit. Let's say, small town out in the middle of nowhere, minority are Christians, majority are Hindu. One of the Christian residents has a severe heart ailment and needs to be seen by a cardiologist immediately. Only cardiologist in town is Hindu, and refuses to see Christian patients. Would you find this acceptable?

Yes, the scenario I'm proposing would never happen in real life in the US. There was a situation pretty close to this in Ireland though: Catholic doctors refused to perform an abortion medically necessary for the life of the mother. Patient was Hindu. She died as a result.

I'd wager there is a difference between critical life saving procedures and a cake.

[Parkbandit]

I'd wager there is a difference between critical life saving procedures and a cake.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-L005Gm6JXb8/VxKnjVL8HGI/AAAAAAAAC3A/fiTfJiPn4soKHe6w148VewlcVI0f8fkpACKgB/s1600/and_the_winner_is_hg_wht_18297.gif

[drauz]

The free market taking care of it wouldn't have involved the courts at all.

But thats the point I was trying to make... Even if the courts hadn't been involved they still would have shut down. The courts didn't have anything to do with that. They had plenty of money left over after paying the fine.

Just because the courts got involved doesn't mean the free market didn't handle it...

[Kembal]

I'd wager there is a difference between critical life saving procedures and a cake.

I took it to the logical extreme. So, based on your argument, certain services are subject to public accommodation principles, but others are not.

now the question: why even make a distinction? why not just subject all services and goods to public accommodation principles? why allow a business owner to discriminate based on religion or sexual orientation?

If the answer is that it's their "religious freedom" - then the question is, what about their religious faith is harmed by the sale of a cake?

[Methais]

I took it to the logical extreme. So, based on your argument, certain services are subject to public accommodation principles, but others are not.

now the question: why even make a distinction? why not just subject all services and goods to public accommodation principles? why allow a business owner to discriminate based on religion or sexual orientation?

If the answer is that it's their "religious freedom" - then the question is, what about their religious faith is harmed by the sale of a cake?

I think people refusing to sell gay cakes is retarded too.

But if the courts/government is gonna get involved in dumb shit like this, being consistent would be nice. Because instead it just makes it look like they're targeting certain groups. Which is pretty much the case.

Either apply the "rules" to everyone, or don't apply them at all.

[Gelston]

I took it to the logical extreme. So, based on your argument, certain services are subject to public accommodation principles, but others are not.

now the question: why even make a distinction? why not just subject all services and goods to public accommodation principles? why allow a business owner to discriminate based on religion or sexual orientation?

If the answer is that it's their "religious freedom" - then the question is, what about their religious faith is harmed by the sale of a cake?

Things deemed required for life should be regulated. Things deemed a luxury item though? No. Cake is a luxury.

[Kembal]

I think people refusing to sell gay cakes is retarded too.

But if the courts/government is gonna get involved in dumb shit like this, being consistent would be nice. Because instead it just makes it look like they're targeting certain groups. Which is pretty much the case.

Either apply the "rules" to everyone, or don't apply them at all.

I agree that it should be consistent as well, in terms of things for sale should be available for sale to everyone, regardless of their race/ethnicity/ gender/religion/sexual orientation. (which is the issue in question) Where do you feel there hasn't been consistency on this issue?

[Gelston]

I agree that it should be consistent as well, in terms of things for sale should be available for sale to everyone, regardless of their race/ethnicity/ gender/religion/sexual orientation. (which is the issue in question) Where do you feel there hasn't been consistency on this issue?

The thing that started the cake analogy. The muslim woman refusing to ring up alcohol or pork purchases. You must have just been paying attention the last couple pages.

[Kembal]

Things deemed required for life should be regulated. Things deemed a luxury item though? No. Cake is a luxury.


Aren't you creating a giant bureaucratic nightmare by having to sort things as "required for life" and a "luxury item"?

Pencils? Pens? Bread? Computers? Pair of scissors? Stapler? Taxi service? Airplane tickets?

Everything would need to be classified one way or the other. Not just cake.

It seems simpler (and honestly, more conservative) to me to say the public accommodation principle applies to everything and leave it at that.

[Gelston]

Aren't you creating a giant bureaucratic nightmare by having to sort things as "required for life" and a "luxury item"?

Pencils? Pens? Bread? Computers? Pair of scissors? Stapler? Taxi service? Airplane tickets?

Everything would need to be classified one way or the other. Not just cake.

It seems simpler (and honestly, more conservative) to me to say the public accommodation principle applies to everything and leave it at that.

I'm creating more jobs. Also, classifications for stuff already exist.

[Methais]

Cake is a luxury.

Tell that to an empath.

[Gelston]

Tell that to an empath.

I do not speak to fluff bombs.

[Kembal]

The thing that started the cake analogy. The muslim woman refusing to ring up alcohol or pork purchases. You must have just been paying attention the last couple pages.

Yeah, I didn't read through all the way back before posting.

For some reason, searching on the word "Muslim" in the thread doesn't pull up the original story about the alcohol/pork purchases. I do see the video Methais posted of gay people getting denied service in Muslim bakeries, and that's wrong too. Someone should've sued the hell out of them. (there's a very big homophobia problem in Islam, even as practiced here in the US.)

[HeyJoe]

The thing that started the cake analogy. The muslim woman refusing to ring up alcohol or pork purchases. You must have just been paying attention the last couple pages.

The cake analogy is a bad analogy though. The Muslim woman doesn't want to ring up pork because of what the item is, not because of who the buyer is. The baker doesn't want to sell the cake because it is going to be used by someone who is gay. A more appropriate analogy would be if the baker refused to sell cupcakes to anyone because his holy noodlyness deemed the cupcake to be a tool of pirates and therefore should not be handled by the devout.

[Gelston]

The cake analogy is a bad analogy though. The Muslim woman doesn't want to ring up pork because of what the item is, not because of who the buyer is. The baker doesn't want to sell the cake because it is going to be used by someone who is gay. A more appropriate analogy would be if the baker refused to sell cupcakes to anyone because his holy noodlyness deemed the cupcake to be a tool of pirates and therefore should not be handled by the devout.

No. The muslim is against the item being rung up because of her religion. The baker is against selling the item for the gay wedding because of their religion. It is a perfect analogy.

BOTH items were being refused to be sold due to religious principals.

[Methais]

No. The muslim is against the item being rung up because of her religion. The baker is against selling the item for the gay wedding because of their religion. It is a perfect analogy.

BOTH items were being refused to be sold due to religious principals.

I heard the cake itself was gay too.

What, you thought that was frosting?

[Latrinsorm]

Gay people: Will you sell me a gay cake?
Baker: No!
Latrin: Discrimination!

Non-muslims: Will you sell me some beer and pork?
Muslim cashier: NO!
Latrin: That's different!The cashier didn't say no.
Bus driver: Sorry black person you must ride at the back of the bus.
Latrin: Racism and discrimination.

Grocery store: You drink and eat pork you can't stand in this line
Latrin: Nobody is being refused service.The store didn't say you can't stand in this line.
The thing that started the cake analogy. The muslim woman refusing to ring up alcohol or pork purchases. You must have just been paying attention the last couple pages.The Muslim woman had nothing to do with the original story, and the person in the original story did not refuse to ring up any purchases.

The lengths you'll go to to avoid admitting you got played is pretty sad. It's not about inconsistency, it's not about hypocrisy, it's about you naively buying into a lie. It happens. Just take the L, sheesh.

[~Rocktar~]

The cashier didn't say no.The store didn't say you can't stand in this line.The Muslim woman had nothing to do with the original story, and the person in the original story did not refuse to ring up any purchases.

The lengths you'll go to to avoid admitting you got played is pretty sad. It's not about inconsistency, it's not about hypocrisy, it's about you naively buying into a lie. It happens. Just take the L, sheesh.

More like the lengths you will go to contort out of the fact that the two cases are because of the same issue and a massive hypocrisy.

[Latrinsorm]

More like the lengths you will go to contort out of the fact that the two cases are because of the same issue and a massive hypocrisy.The facts of the case are as I stated them. Everybody knows how easy you guys are to trigger. I think I said this back in the beginning, the sheer laziness of the lie is what I think would annoy me the most if I had been played as easily as you guys were, and thinking on it more it would annoy me as the puppetmaster too. A sloppy c/p, a false headline, and you guys were chomping at the bit. What's the fun in that?

[time4fun]

The facts of the case are as I stated them. Everybody knows how easy you guys are to trigger. I think I said this back in the beginning, the sheer laziness of the lie is what I think would annoy me the most if I had been played as easily as you guys were, and thinking on it more it would annoy me as the puppetmaster too. A sloppy c/p, a false headline, and you guys were chomping at the bit. What's the fun in that?

The amount of energy they put into constructing an alternative reality is astounding. Easiest way to make their heads explode? Present a fact.

[Gelston]

The amount of energy they put into constructing an alternative reality is astounding. Easiest way to make their heads explode? Present a fact.

You know all about alternate realities. That entire one you existed in prior to the election for instance.

[Parkbandit]

The amount of energy they put into constructing an alternative reality is astounding. Easiest way to make their heads explode? Present a fact.

LOL....


Erm. Quinnipiac has Clinton up 5, PPP has her up 4, CNN has her up 4, Muhlenberg has her up 4.

Her ground game is also beating up the RNC/Trump ground game in PA.

So...keep dreaming.

The thing that is amazing about you is no matter how often you post something really stupid, you can just brush it off and just keep on keeping on as if we can't look back and read it again.

http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/headline/public/2015/07/21/rtx1ktwv.jpg?itok=pge1yRyp

[Shaps]

The amount of energy they put into constructing an alternative reality is astounding. Easiest way to make their heads explode? Present a fact.

Fact: Trump Won.

Alternate Reality: Clinton Won.

Truly is astounding people that believe in alternate realities.

[time4fun]

Fact: Trump Won.

Alternate Reality: Clinton Won.

Truly is astounding people that believe in alternate realities.

Erm, Fact: Trump won the Electoral College vote and the Presidency.

Fact: Clinton won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes, which is approximately 2.1% of the vote.

[Gelston]

Erm, Fact: Trump won the Electoral College vote and the Presidency.

Fact: Clinton won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes, which is approximately 2.1% of the vote.

https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder800/500x/67157800.jpg

[Parkbandit]

Erm, Fact: Trump won the Electoral College vote and the Presidency.

Fact: Clinton won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes, which is approximately 2.1% of the vote.

You know what that win got Hillary?

A seat at this table. CEILING SHATTERED!

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Hillary-Clinton-phone-e1483015592286.jpg

Keep holding onto that "victory" because it's all you have left.

Can't wait until INS comes a knock knock knocking at your door.

[Thondalar]

Probably been said before, but...take away 1 state of the 50...just take away California...Trump won the popular vote.

OR we could just say Trump won the Electorates by a landslide, and the popular vote doesn't matter because we don't elect Presidents that way...probably also been said.

OR we could say well, hey, didn't work out for the popular vote THIS election, but, maybe in the future, we could get 38 States to agree to change how we elect Presidents from here out. I think that, too, has been said before.

:baby: :violin:

:deadhorse:

[BigWorm]

You're kidding yourself if you think Trump's win was any kind of landslide. Compared to other margins of victory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_El ectoral_College_margin) it is 46th of 56. Not even close to a landslide.

[Thondalar]

You're kidding yourself if you think Trump's win was any kind of landslide. Compared to other margins of victory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_El ectoral_College_margin) it is 46th of 56. Not even close to a landslide.

You might want to take a more objective look at your own da...no. NO.

This is the sort of "ooh, shiny" distraction-type shit that moves the topic away from the topic.

My post stands.

[drauz]

You're kidding yourself if you think Trump's win was any kind of landslide. Compared to other margins of victory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_El ectoral_College_margin) it is 46th of 56. Not even close to a landslide.

You could say it was a Republican landslide though.

[Pin]

No. The muslim is against the item being rung up because of her religion. The baker is against selling the item for the gay wedding because of their religion. It is a perfect analogy.

BOTH items were being refused to be sold due to religious principals.


I kinda lost track, or maybe this was stated in another post and not here, but, was the Muslim cashier in question the only cashier working at the time, or was there only one line you could go to in this store?

[Enuch]

Yeah, I didn't read through all the way back before posting.

For some reason, searching on the word "Muslim" in the thread doesn't pull up the original story about the alcohol/pork purchases. I do see the video Methais posted of gay people getting denied service in Muslim bakeries, and that's wrong too. Someone should've sued the hell out of them. (there's a very big homophobia problem in Islam, even as practiced here in the US.)

Depending on where you are in the US homophobia isn't so discriminatory that it's strictly a Muslim issue. I think people sleep on the fact of how much homophobia still exists. I live in a very affluent metropolitan area with really good schools and there is still homophobia. I don't think it's strictly a religious problem and people need to shake that thinking

[Androidpk]

The amount of energy they put into constructing an alternative reality is astounding. Easiest way to make their heads explode? Present a fact.

:lol2:

[Latrinsorm]

I kinda lost track, or maybe this was stated in another post and not here, but, was the Muslim cashier in question the only cashier working at the time, or was there only one line you could go to in this store?The Muslim cashier in question rang up any item offered for purchase by Wegmans. The store "respectfully asked" that customers with orders including pork or alcohol choose another lane, which implies there was another lane to choose from. The documentation of the actual store in question is pretty scarce because it happened so many years ago without any incident or complaint from the local area, so I can't definitively prove there was another lane open every time this cashier was on duty.

[drauz]

Erm, Fact: Trump won the Electoral College vote and the Presidency.

Fact: Clinton won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes, which is approximately 2.1% of the vote.

Or to put it another way, Clinton lost the popular vote in 49 states by a total of 1m. Then won the popular vote in CA by 4m votes.

[Latrinsorm]

You could say it was a Republican landslide though.Depends on if those handful of Republican Senators follow through on resisting Trump. Had Republicans gained seats in the Senate in 2016, it wouldn't matter.