The Political Discussion Thread

[jelgate]

Federation credits were used when dealing with species that we're not part of the Federation band still used money.

So basically you admitted to being lazy and impatient. No wonder your arguments don't make sense.

[Annoyed]

Federation credits were used when dealing with species that we're not part of the Federation band still used money.

So basically you admitted to being lazy and impatient. No wonder your arguments don't make sense.

But where onscreen did they first indicate no money in use? Series/Episode? First onscreen reference I can think of is TNG era "First Contact"; Picard explaining Starfleet to Lily.

[Gatefan1976]

Starfleet is -NOT- the federation.

[thekillman]

It's called "My lady of perpetual exemption", John oliver made it as a joke:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y1xJAVZxXg

Yea i forgot the name.

[Falcon Horus]

That decision in the bakery case (so far, SCOTUS has it now) elevates the rights of the gay couple above the rights of the business owner. That is my objection.

What happened to equal right of being served? They are human beings who would like a cake... and they chose this baker who credits himself as an artist to make it for them. He should have been delighted that they came to him for his cake, and instead he judges them on their sexual preference cause his religion says it's wrong.

That's not elevating the couple's rights, that's literally making them less than yours. Because this whole case isn't about being served, it's about having the right to discriminate against other people with whome you do not agree or whatever. And you only see the cake and the religious baker, and the gay couple, but I see a dangerous presedent in the making.

[mad_gater]

What happened to equal right of being served? They are human beings who would like a cake... and they chose this baker who credits himself as an artist to make it for them. He should have been delighted that they came to him for his cake, and instead he judges them on their sexual preference cause his religion says it's wrong.

That's not elevating the couple's rights, that's literally making them less than yours. Because this whole case isn't about being served, it's about having the right to discriminate against other people with whome you do not agree or whatever. And you only see the cake and the religious baker, and the gay couple, but I see a dangerous presedent in the making.

no....it was the gay couple forcing the bakery owner to participate in a PRIVATE contract pertaining to an equally PRIVATE event that he clearly had no desire to be associated with.....freedom of association is also a hallmark of a free society...if you aren't free to choose for yourself which people and events you wish to associate yourself with then you do NOT live in a free society

freedom to be served only pertains to goods and services for sale to the general public, not goods and services produced under private contract

[Annoyed]

What happened to equal right of being served? They are human beings who would like a cake... and they chose this baker who credits himself as an artist to make it for them. He should have been delighted that they came to him for his cake, and instead he judges them on their sexual preference cause his religion says it's wrong.

That's not elevating the couple's rights, that's literally making them less than yours. Because this whole case isn't about being served, it's about having the right to discriminate against other people with whome you do not agree or whatever. And you only see the cake and the religious baker, and the gay couple, but I see a dangerous presedent in the making.

We will never agree on this.
I understand where you're coming from, but I see it differently.
You see him not wanting to make the cake for the gay couple as discrimination against them.

I see the business as private property, which it is. He built it from the ground up, bought it, inherited it or whatever, it belongs to him. It's his property, just as anything else he may own is. Businesses have the right to deny service to anyone they choose. We've had this discussion over and over, with me using the example of nightclubs and bars being able to select whom they let in on a whim.

We also have freedom of religion in this country. If his faith teaches that it's wrong to participate in a gay wedding, he has the right to operate his private property according to the dictates of his faith.

There are two legitimate points of view on this issue; no matter which way SCOTUS rules, someone's rights are going to get trampled upon. I come down on the side of property rights and freedom of religion. At the end of the day, the gay couple can go find another bakery who will be happy to make the cake for them, but the bakery owner can't go anywhere to have his right to follow his faith and to operate his business as he sees fit restored.
[EDIT]
PS: Ruling in favor of the gay couple would set some nasty precedents as well; the government dictating that a private business must offer a service isn't something I would relish, and it would have freedom of religion implications, too.
[/EDIT]

[Annoyed]

Starfleet is -NOT- the federation.

Quite true. I did use the wrong term there. It should have read "the Federation".

[Falcon Horus]

Have a soundbite, or not:

Hear Trump's judge pick admit he discriminates against gay people

"Guess what? I attend a conservative Baptist church. We discriminate, alright. On the basis of sexual orientation, we discriminate," Jeff Mateer said during a speech to the National Religious Liberties Conference in 2015, "Does that mean I can't be a judge? In some states, I think that's true, unfortunately."

He also provided a roadmap for businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ people without legal repercussions.

And a few transcripts from his lovely speeches, if you like to get a feel of this guy.

I get an ISIS vibe -- the Catholic version anyway.

[Annoyed]

Have a soundbite, or not:

Hear Trump's judge pick admit he discriminates against gay people



He also provided a roadmap for businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ people without legal repercussions.

And a few transcripts from his lovely speeches, if you like to get a feel of this guy.

I get an ISIS vibe -- the Catholic version anyway.

That site won't load completely for me, I don't see any audio file. Won't even let me read the whole article.

But based on your quote above, he's describing his church.

"Guess what? I attend a conservative Baptist church. We discriminate, alright. On the basis of sexual orientation, we discriminate," Jeff Mateer said during a speech to the National Religious Liberties Conference in 2015, "Does that mean I can't be a judge? In some states, I think that's true, unfortunately."

I would expect a conservative baptist church to discriminate based on orientation, AFAIK, the bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong.

[garhkal]

What happened to equal right of being served? They are human beings who would like a cake... and they chose this baker who credits himself as an artist to make it for them. He should have been delighted that they came to him for his cake, and instead he judges them on their sexual preference cause his religion says it's wrong.

WHich baker are we on about here??

IIRC the one in Colorado was MORE THAN willing to bake the cake, he just wasn't up for catering their wedding..

[Annoyed]

WHich baker are we on about here??

IIRC the one in Colorado was MORE THAN willing to bake the cake, he just wasn't up for catering their wedding..

I'm talking about this one:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/u...-cakeshop.html

The new case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, No. 16-111, started in 2012, when the baker, Jack Phillips, an owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., refused to create a cake for the wedding reception of David Mullins and Charlie Craig, who were planning to marry in Massachusetts. The couple filed discrimination charges, and they won before a civil rights commission and in the courts.
Continue reading the main story
The Trump White House
The historic moments, head-spinning developments and inside-the-White House intrigue.

Obama Attacks Tactics of Republican Candidate for Governor in Virginia
OCT 20
Senate Approves Budget Plan That Smooths Path Toward Tax Cut
OCT 19
Will Mitch McConnell Help His Friend Get a Health Care Deal?
OCT 19
Full Transcript and Video: Kelly Defends Trump’s Handling of Soldier’s Death and Call to Widow
OCT 19
For the Senate’s Budget Blueprint, It’s Better Late Than Never
OCT 19

See More »
Recent Comments
Bob June 27, 2017

How did mr. Phillips' "deeply held" religious beliefs allow him to vote for a thrice married serial adulterer who dodged the draft and brags...
Bob June 27, 2017

If our biggoted Supreme Court sides with mr. phillips I think they should force mr. phillips to include the following on his business'...
Richard Grayson June 27, 2017

We know how the Supreme Court's Three Stooges will vote. They will be throwing pies at the married couple.

See All Comments

“This has always been about more than a cake,” Mr. Mullins said. “Businesses should not be allowed to violate the law and discriminate against us because of who we are and who we love.”

Mr. Phillips, who calls himself a cake artist, argued that two parts of the First Amendment — its protections for free expression and religious freedom — overrode a Colorado anti-discrimination law and allowed him to refuse to create a custom wedding cake.

I don't think catering was involved.

[Gatefan1976]

We will never agree on this.
I understand where you're coming from, but I see it differently.
You see him not wanting to make the cake for the gay couple as discrimination against them.

I see the business as private property, which it is. He built it from the ground up, bought it, inherited it or whatever, it belongs to him. It's his property, just as anything else he may own is. Businesses have the right to deny service to anyone they choose. We've had this discussion over and over, with me using the example of nightclubs and bars being able to select whom they let in on a whim.

We also have freedom of religion in this country. If his faith teaches that it's wrong to participate in a gay wedding, he has the right to operate his private property according to the dictates of his faith.

There are two legitimate points of view on this issue; no matter which way SCOTUS rules, someone's rights are going to get trampled upon. I come down on the side of property rights and freedom of religion. At the end of the day, the gay couple can go find another bakery who will be happy to make the cake for them, but the bakery owner can't go anywhere to have his right to follow his faith and to operate his business as he sees fit restored.

Why do you find the rights of two social constructions more important than the rights of the people living in the society?
Follow up question on property rights. If the storekeeper is -renting- the space, does the lease holder have the right to dictate to the shopkeeper who they can or cannot serve?

[Annoyed]

Why do you find the rights of two social constructions more important than the rights of the people living in the society?
Follow up question on property rights. If the storekeeper is -renting- the space, does the lease holder have the right to dictate to the shopkeeper who they can or cannot serve?

1: The right to own property is part and parcel of what the United States is, just as much as freedom of religion is.

2: That would depend upon the details of the individual lease. I would not expect to see any terms regarding whom he must serve, but I suppose someone could right them into a lease.

[Gatefan1976]

Quite true. I did use the wrong term there. It should have read "the Federation".

No, money in the form of credits does exist in the federation, it even exists in Starfleet. The point I was making is that Starfleet is not the totality of the Federation.
As for what Picard says to lily, there are far more examples of money existing than the single reference that you constantly quote on this issue.