The Political Discussion Thread

[aretood2]

the question is, do you not bake the cake because they are gay, in which case it is discrimination, or because you would not bake -that- cake for any reason, in which case it's more like someone not selling bacon. Supply to all, or do not stock are two different things.

Like not making a gay wedding cake versus a straight wedding cake? I guess the difference would be in the figurines at the top with any names used? If so, then I think that actually falls under the category of symbolic speech...which is protected or should be.

[Gatefan1976]

Like not making a gay wedding cake versus a straight wedding cake?

Are the ingredients different?

I guess the difference would be in the figurines at the top with any names used?

I want you to make me a wedding cake, no figures, just Sam and Sam Forever, will you make this cake?

If so, then I think that actually falls under the category of symbolic speech...which is protected or should be.

Symbolic is iffy, only flag burning has really been legislated on extensively. It could well be covered.

[Gatefan1976]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump...ry?id=48762642

[aretood2]

Are the ingredients different?

They could be, would that make a difference? Is that his way out? Say that for different types of weddings he'll offer certain ingredients? A Jewish ingredient, an Atheist ingredient, a Gay ingredient, a Trump supporter ingredient....

I want you to make me a wedding cake, no figures, just Sam and Sam Forever, will you make this cake?

"I want you to do 'Hitler was right, there was no holocaust, and all Mexicans are rapists'". Should I have the right to deny such a request? How about "I want you to write 'God does not exist and if he did he'd be a meanie'"? Or how about "Don't vote for Tood for city mayor"? That said, should I be able to deny making a wedding cake for my ex? How about for my High School bully?

But to answer your question...No, I only make wedding cakes with figure in them. I think that guy should have seen it coming and prepared for it. You can't force him to sell cakes without figures or to allow customization beyond a catalog of designs. If you can, then I wan't Chevrolet to make me a car of my own image OR ELSE!

Symbolic is iffy, only flag burning has really been legislated on extensively. It could well be covered.

Tinker vs Des Moines wasn't Symbolic speech? There's actually a few more. And then there's the issue of compelled speech. Can the state compel me to write any of the above messages?

[mad_gater]

Like not making a gay wedding cake versus a straight wedding cake? I guess the difference would be in the figurines at the top with any names used? If so, then I think that actually falls under the category of symbolic speech...which is protected or should be.

actually the argument being made is whether or not the government has the right to interfere in the operations of a privately owned business....GF evidently thinks it's just peachy to let the government run roughshod over a PRIVATTE business owners decisions in how to run their PRIVATELY OWNED business

and perhaps also doesn't seem to understand that the bakery owner in question makes plenty of stuff available for sale to EVERYONE...but that the making of a product, int his case a cake, for a specific event, in this case a wedding, is a contract service....and a private business owner here in the USA has every right to refuse to participate in any contract involving an event that the business owner does not wish to support by entering into said contract

to put it another way....if a black bakery owner has every right to refuse to make a cake for "KKK Appreciation Day," then a Christian bakery owner has every right to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding

[Gatefan1976]

They could be, would that make a difference? Is that his way out? Say that for different types of weddings he'll offer certain ingredients? A Jewish ingredient, an Atheist ingredient, a Gay ingredient, a Trump supporter ingredient....

No, it's not a way out.

"I want you to do 'Hitler was right, there was no holocaust, and all Mexicans are rapists'". Should I have the right to deny such a request? How about "I want you to write 'God does not exist and if he did he'd be a meanie'"? Or how about "Don't vote for Tood for city mayor"?

That's cute tood, but it does not address the question in the slightest. You know full well why I chose 2 names that could be male or female, to show the bias you just tried to dodge.

That said, should I be able to deny making a wedding cake for my ex? How about for my High School bully?

Nope.

But to answer your question...No, I only make wedding cakes with figure in them. I think that guy should have seen it coming and prepared for it. You can't force him to sell cakes without figures or to allow customization beyond a catalog of designs. If you can, then I wan't Chevrolet to make me a car of my own image OR ELSE!

Cute.

Tinker vs Des Moines wasn't Symbolic speech? There's actually a few more. And then there's the issue of compelled speech. Can the state compel me to write any of the above messages?

Tinker vs Des Moines was the first one that popped up actually. All I said was that flag burning has been the most covered part of symbolic speech. As for the state forcing you to write messages, that would not be symbolic speech, it would be literal speech, that's sorta a key difference between the two.........

[garhkal]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.c158beacd0a1

Since Muller was put there to investigate Russian collusion.. Nothing more, then since he's now expanding that to well beyond what was his initial 'mandate' why SHOULDN'T trump be looking to get rid of him..?

You would be denying us the legal rights that go with marriage, so yes... hostile.

You and me have Different definitions then of what being hostile is..

Civil unions and marriage do not have the same value as far as legal benefits and rights go.
So, of course it would have to be full marriage.

Then make it to where Civil unions DO grant the same legal benefits.

I say let him refuse to bake a gay marriage cake. More profit for the one who will do it.

I say that too, but it seems the LGBTQ lobby doesn't WANT to let that be the case. ANY affront to their push to get normalization to their agenda has to get CRUSHED down..

[Gatefan1976]

Since Muller was put there to investigate Russian collusion.. Nothing more, then since he's now expanding that to well beyond what was his initial 'mandate' why SHOULDN'T trump be looking to get rid of him..?

You know that part of finding out about collusion is finding out how they could leverage him, and if they have been doing it through his business, that's very much part -how- they get to collusion.

You and me have Different definitions then of what being hostile is..

If I wanted to deny you something, say, I don't think ex military people should vote because they could be possible murderers (because in my view anyone who kills for any reason is a murderer) based on "my beliefs", would you accept that? The answer should be "hell no".

Then make it to where Civil unions DO grant the same legal benefits.

Convince people that -that- should be the case, and it will be all good.

I say that too, but it seems the LGBTQ lobby doesn't WANT to let that be the case. ANY affront to their push to get normalization to their agenda has to get CRUSHED down..

Why shouldn't they?
If the argument is "I have freedom of speech to deny you equality", don't they have the right to crush you, as long as they do it via words and not violence?

[Annoyed]

the question is, do you not bake the cake because they are gay, in which case it is discrimination, or because you would not bake -that- cake for any reason, in which case it's more like someone not selling bacon. Supply to all, or do not stock are two different things.

My point was that why should a religious business owner, who takes his faith seriously and whose faith teaches him that participating in gay marriage is verboten be forced to surrender his right to operate his business as he sees fit and in accordance with his faith in order to bake a cake or provide a service that his religion tells him he shouldn't, thereby elevating the rights of the gay person above his.

The gay folks are demanding equal rights, and in the very act of doing so are saying that their rights are more important than the shopkeeper's. What a load of hypocrisy.

[Annoyed]

Since Muller was put there to investigate Russian collusion.. Nothing more, then since he's now expanding that to well beyond what was his initial 'mandate' why SHOULDN'T trump be looking to get rid of him..?

I can't defend Trump's attempts to stifle investigations. If his hands are clean, what's to hide?
But the way its playing is just like Hillary Clinton.. even though nothing has been proven, with this much smoke coming out of the windows, there's gotta be a fire someplace.
Don't get me wrong; I still strongly support the agenda Trump ran on. But the time may not be far off when it's time to let the VP step in and carry it out.

[aretood2]

That's cute tood, but it does not address the question in the slightest. You know full well why I chose 2 names that could be male or female, to show the bias you just tried to dodge.

Bais against gay weddings? Dear lord, the greatest secret in the world is out!

Tinker vs Des Moines was the first one that popped up actually. All I said was that flag burning has been the most covered part of symbolic speech. As for the state forcing you to write messages, that would not be symbolic speech, it would be literal speech, that's sorta a key difference between the two.........

But speech nonetheless, so my point is can the state compel speech? Let's ask some Jehovah's Witnesses about that...

The problem that I see here is that there are two areas being discussed. The first, that this is discrimination against the person. But that can only be true if the baker would not sell anything at all to a gay person. The Second is that this is discrimination against an activity or involvement in one. So the court will have to decide what is at play and what takes precedence.

Since Muller was put there to investigate Russian collusion.. Nothing more, then since he's now expanding that to well beyond what was his initial 'mandate' why SHOULDN'T trump be looking to get rid of him..?

From the hone of fair and balanced itself

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...-sessions.html

Here's an interesting part of it for me...

Trump’s 2016 pitch was centered on the idea that he, as a lifelong manipulator of a rigged system, was better suited than anyone to be in charge. Some may have thought that this meant Trump would know how to clean up Washington. But perhaps others just wanted him to win at the same dirty game.

...

Sessions obviously believed that Trump wanted to use his knowledge of the rigged game to clean it up. He may have misunderstood.

Now, Trump is contemplating what he no doubt feared from the time he launched his presidential campaign: That his entry into public life could bring down his family business.

The president knows that Mueller and his team are rooting through Trump’s finances. He can imagine Mueller leafing through Trump’s unreleased tax returns, poring over case files and deal books from Trump’s past business dealings with Russians. And that means all of it might one day come out in a report or at a trial for one of his “satellites.”

And also

Trump’s decision to grant the interview and his comments suggesting that he might yet try to stop the investigation, maybe by even firing Sessions, his deputy Rod Rosenstein and even Mueller himself reveal how much Trump is focused on the subject and the magnitude of the threat he believes it represents.

[garhkal]

You know that part of finding out about collusion is finding out how they could leverage him, and if they have been doing it through his business, that's very much part -how- they get to collusion.

Come again?? If russia is "Leveraging" him, that is not collusion, but being controlled.. Something entirely different, than "they worked/colluded with russia to steal the election"..

If I wanted to deny you something, say, I don't think ex military people should vote because they could be possible murderers (because in my view anyone who kills for any reason is a murderer) based on "my beliefs", would you accept that? The answer should be "hell no".

yes, cause its just a dumb idea, since without the military defending our rights to vote, to then turn around and deny THEM that right is just stupid.. BUT its not "hate ful"..

If the argument is "I have freedom of speech to deny you equality", don't they have the right to crush you, as long as they do it via words and not violence?

If they are using the corts to sue and force you to close down, that too me does qualify as violence.. Economic violence sure.. but violence none the less.

[SoulReaver]

Come again?? If russia is "Leveraging" him, that is not collusion, but being controlled..

control =/= blackmail

[Falcon Horus]

Marriage is the only legal form of slavery. If FH wants the right to be a slave....

I have been slave to life since I was born so I'm used to it...

Yet you would deny the devoutly religious bakery operator the right to operate his business according to the dictates of his religion by using the power of govt. to compel him to do a cake or whatever for a gay marriage.
Why are your rights more important than his?

Point me to where it says it goes against his religion to bake a cake for a same-sex marriage celebration?

If he offers the service to the public, denying to people who, in his mind are committing a sin, he also has to deny service to people getting married a second (or third, or fourth time). Does he do that?

I say let him refuse to bake a gay marriage cake. More profit for the one who will do it.

I'd say word of mouth should do the trick.
Bad customer service and the likes.

Are the ingredients different?

It could contain spit, or perhaps holy water to drive out the demons.

I like mine lactose-free so that I can at least stay inside PH's closet.

Then make it to where Civil unions DO grant the same legal benefits.

It already exists, it's called marriage.

My point was that why should a religious business owner, who takes his faith seriously and whose faith teaches him that participating in gay marriage is verboten be forced to surrender his right to operate his business as he sees fit and in accordance with his faith in order to bake a cake or provide a service that his religion tells him he shouldn't, thereby elevating the rights of the gay person above his.

Nobody is forcing him to participate in the marriage. He wasn't invited. All they wanted was a cake for the wedding. That's not participating in anything -- that's providing the service you're offering as a bakery, bake a cake and make money (and perhaps some good reviews).

The gay folks are demanding equal rights, and in the very act of doing so are saying that their rights are more important than the shopkeeper's. What a load of hypocrisy.

So, you consider the right of the shopkeeper to deny service to be of more value than two people who just wanted to order a cake?

You really don't see what you're doing here, do you.

I can't defend Trump's attempts to stifle investigations. If his hands are clean, what's to hide?

I hear he's trying to pardon himself --- no innocent ever had to pardon themselves. Guilty people, on the other hand, ...

Also, Spicey has left the building.

[Annoyed]

I have been slave to life since I was born so I'm used to it...



Point me to where it says it goes against his religion to bake a cake for a same-sex marriage celebration?

If he offers the service to the public, denying to people who, in his mind are committing a sin, he also has to deny service to people getting married a second (or third, or fourth time). Does he do that?

I don't remember the details offhand, but as I recall, there was a bakery that refused to bake a cake for a same sex couple; the couple or someone acting for them took it to the courts and the court ruled against the shopkeeper, eventually forcing him out of business.

As to what is acceptable, that should be up to the shopkeeper and how he interprets the word of his god. The state has no business sticking its nose into it.
So, the decision of the courts (so far) places more weight on the values of one person or group over that of another. How is that ethically right?