The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

Yet, you support those who have the power to affect them in their own home.
You are guilty via proxy.

Can I as a straight white guy get a cake -ANYWHERE-?
YES.
Gay bakers would make me a cake, anyone would make me a cake.
I want gay people's rights not to be "better" than mine, but EQUAL to mine, like women, or anyone else.
Where in the USA can you go and get discriminated against JUST for being a white guy who likes women??

WHY?

Annoyed is a moron, plain and simple, don't ask me to justify that statement, you just are a moron.

NONE of those things would exist if there were no need for them. If employers or schools treated Adam, Achmal and Adrienne the same, there would be no need for it.
I don't want preferred treatment, but if you refuse to let "the other" in without needing to be coerced then you are giving preferential treatment.

Yet, you want to elevate the rights of the gay couple above the right of the bakery owner to run his business as he sees fit by forcing him to provide a service that conflicts with his religion.

[Starsaber]

Yet, you want to elevate the rights of the gay couple above the right of the bakery owner to run his business as he sees fit by forcing him to provide a service that conflicts with his religion.

If baking a cake conflicts with his religion, why did he become a baker in the first place? It doesn't matter what the cake is for, it's just a cake, not a religious artifact.

[thekillman]

Yet, you want to elevate the rights of the gay couple above the right of the bakery owner to run his business as he sees fit by forcing him to provide a service that conflicts with his religion.

66468a7af2e4ae94fe1e048e63b6addd.jpg

[Annoyed]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42470[/ATTACH]

I'm pretty sure that individual isn't the owner of the business.

[SoulReaver]

Abortion is murder, plain and simple.

insh'Allah

[Gatefan1976]

I'm pretty sure that individual isn't the owner of the business.

So the owners rights are more important than the workers rights?

[aretood2]

Yet, you support those who have the power to affect them in their own home.
You are guilty via proxy.

Can I as a straight white guy get a cake -ANYWHERE-?
YES.
Gay bakers would make me a cake, anyone would make me a cake.
I want gay people's rights not to be "better" than mine, but EQUAL to mine, like women, or anyone else.
Where in the USA can you go and get discriminated against JUST for being a white guy who likes women??

An all women's gym. The Womyn's studies department at Berkeley University. Domestic Violence shelters and support groups. Certain neighborhoods will chase you away (Sure you'll buy/rent in, but the neighbors won't be too kind).

However, these bakers aren't refusing to sell cakes to gay men. They've sold cakes to gay men. Birthday cakes, random cakes, and one of them was more than willing to sell wedding cakes (he drew the line at catering himself)

That said, I'm not one to agree with the assessment that selling a cake violates any sort of biblical principle. I can understand it, and I'd have to know more about the bakers. For example,
Kim Davis would have been labeled a um....woman of the night...based on her constant serial marriages and bits of adultery in Ancient Israel.

[SoulReaver]

Certain neighborhoods will chase you away (Sure you'll buy/rent in, but the neighbors won't be too kind)

feminazi neighbourhoods?!? (where?)

[Gatefan1976]

An all women's gym. The Womyn's studies department at Berkeley University. Domestic Violence shelters and support groups. Certain neighborhoods will chase you away (Sure you'll buy/rent in, but the neighbors won't be too kind).

Why do such places exist tood?

[Annoyed]

So the owners rights are more important than the workers rights?

In the workplace situation, yes.

You don't really grasp the basics of our economic system, do you? The person, place or thing that owns the business is lord & master while "on the clock". That's the way it works here. Maybe things are different in the land of the 'roo, but that is the general idea in the U.S.

[Gatefan1976]

In the workplace situation, yes.

You don't really grasp the basics of our economic system, do you? The person, place or thing that owns the business is lord & master while "on the clock". That's the way it works here. Maybe things are different in the land of the 'roo, but that is the general idea in the U.S.

Not the point I was making, we were talking about rights.
I understand how your economy works just fine.

[jelgate]

I say we refuse to serve Annoyed because he is old

[Womble]

I say we refuse to serve Annoyed because he is old

I did not know you were in his service. Does he at least pay well?

[Annoyed]

Not the point I was making, we were talking about rights.
I understand how your economy works just fine.

I'm not so sure you do, or you would understand my answer.

The picture depicted a walmart employee expressing her own values as Walmart policy while on the clock, performing her job, in company uniform. She doesn't get to do that. If Sam Walton decides he can't sell condoms for whatever reason, he has that right. Same with the Ham. He owns the business, and he can decide to sell or not sell anything he chooses. Just as the CVS drugstore chain chose to stop selling cigarettes because the owners didn't think selling a product that damages health was something a drugstore should be doing.
If that employee in the picture wants to start a business, she can, and then she can choose not to sell Condoms or Ham. If she wants to go stand on a public streetcorner and proclaim that people shouldn't buy Condoms or Ham, she's free to do so.

But while being on Walmart's clock, performing her job, she doesn't have the right to set store policy. If she doesn't want to sell these items, she can quit. But she doesn't have the right to set policy for Walmart.

This is the exact same argument we just had with regards to the NFL players. The owners of the NFL chose to allow them to continue their protests, so they will continue. If the owners had decided not to allow them, then they wouldn't be allowed to continue without repercussions, such as getting fired.

That's how our system works. If you start, inherit or otherwise become the owner of private property, you have the right to operate it as you see fit.

[aretood2]

I'm not so sure you do, or you would understand my answer.

The picture depicted a walmart employee expressing her own values as Walmart policy while on the clock, performing her job, in company uniform. She doesn't get to do that. If Sam Walton decides he can't sell condoms for whatever reason, he has that right. Same with the Ham. He owns the business, and he can decide to sell or not sell anything he chooses. Just as the CVS drugstore chain chose to stop selling cigarettes because the owners didn't think selling a product that damages health was something a drugstore should be doing.
If that employee in the picture wants to start a business, she can, and then she can choose not to sell Condoms or Ham. If she wants to go stand on a public streetcorner and proclaim that people shouldn't buy Condoms or Ham, she's free to do so.

But while being on Walmart's clock, performing her job, she doesn't have the right to set store policy. If she doesn't want to sell these items, she can quit. But she doesn't have the right to set policy for Walmart.

This is the exact same argument we just had with regards to the NFL players. The owners of the NFL chose to allow them to continue their protests, so they will continue. If the owners had decided not to allow them, then they wouldn't be allowed to continue without repercussions, such as getting fired.

That's how our system works. If you start, inherit or otherwise become the owner of private property, you have the right to operate it as you see fit.

You are, of course, excluding several laws that do place limits on employers. There is nothing fundamentally offsetting in establishing that the state has a vested interest in protecting citizen rights within the confines of their employment. That is a fantasy of your own making, a popular one that sadly you are not alone in. And here is what you are missing in this conversation.

Companies and businesses will fire you if you publicise unpopular views on your own dime and time and place. Did you watch the last episode of the Orville? That's really where we are heading. Social media ends up telling your employers if you ought to keep your job or not. Not your productivity, not your work ethic, not your qualifications, and not your fidelity to doing your job as required, but public opinion. For example, in Canada a guy got fired from a channel, Damian Goddard, over "performance issues" which happened coincidentally after he tweeted "I completely and wholeheartedly support Todd Reynolds and his support for the traditional and TRUE meaning of marriage" in relation to a sporting controversial issue up there related to Hockey I think...they're Canadians. He tweeted on his own time using his own personal account. Yeah, I don't buy their excuse, he got fired for his tweet.

If you are not free to say your mind, then freedom of speech essentially disappears. It does not matter that the government can't stop your speech if at every turn some private entity will ruin your life over it. In essence, that freedom becomes nullified. You say something bad about a political party on twitter? YOU'RE FIRED! So what's the point of freedom of speech then? How about freedom of association?

Ironically you do take issue with Campuses limiting speech, ignoring that students agreed to the university's terms and conditions when applying for and attending that university. It's no different than creating an account here. The only exception would be public colleges, and they do tend to be a lot more cautious about limiting speech as a result.