U.S. Politics: He's an Idiot, Plain and Simple

[SweetPea]

4 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Actually, I think you do. The entire Civil Rights movement was about African-Americans having the same access to services as other citizens, wasn't it? And on the legal side of things, it was relatively successful, right?
So if I'm correct, you can't refuse a contract with someone on account of their skin color (or their disability, or the fact they're pregnant... etc).

And having read a few lines about this case (Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission) I think it's important to underline the fact that it does not declare discrimination of homosexuals on religious grounds constitutional. In fact, as lawyers would say, the decision "did not reach constitutional questions." The decision was essentially technical: because the Colorado Civil Rights Commission used inappropriate language to describe religious beliefs, the SCOTUS decided that the shop's owner's 1st Amendment rights were not being respected. It did not rule on the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which remains in place, meaning...

You really DO have the freedom to "forcibly enter into a business contract with someone else."

Okay, maybe my wording wasn't the best, but there is a difference between having access to basic services like public transport, and forcing others into creative commission contracts. I think this is what was argued in this case.

[Holy Sith!]

13 hours ago, Pony Empress Jace said:

People should probably stop projecting onto Mrs. Trump. Mrs. Trump is an adult woman who allegedly is intelligent or something and she chooses to be Mrs. Trump because being Mrs. Trump is her ideal lifestyle.

She's not sympathetic. She's not a victim. She's not secretly against her husband. 

Mrs. Trump sold herself to Donald. The most consideration she warrants is a passive hope the bargain was worth it.

Melania knew what a POS Donald is when she agreed to serve as Wife No. 3. She may not have anticipated how exponentially his faults would amplify her shame when he stepped into the most glaring spotlight in the world.

I love the fact that her popularity "ratings" are higher (pity points?) than Donald's, which must really rankle in Donald's narcissistic mind. Following Donald's frequent practice, she may simply be attempting to "distance" herself from her husband's idiotic actions by disappearing from the public eye.

[Shryke]

9 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Okay, maybe my wording wasn't the best, but there is a difference between having access to basic services like public transport, and forcing others into creative commission contracts. I think this is what was argued in this case.

There are limits to how you can and cannot do business with people. You can't deny someone service because of their race based on various conditions.

The issue with this specific case afaik was basically that the guy refused to have any business with them because they were gay.

 

Basically, think about firing someone. You can fire a black person for being a lazy worker who doesn't show up to work on time. You can't fire them for being black.

[Rippounet]

2 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Okay, maybe my wording wasn't the best, but there is a difference between having access to basic services like public transport, and forcing others into creative commission contracts. I think this is what was argued in this case.

Maybe it was argued, but the SCOTUS ended up not ruling on that issue. Well, Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Gorsuch (to some extent) kind of did, but the majority in the decision did not. And without an actual SCOTUS decision on the constitutional issue, the laws remain as they were. Also, Kennedy wrote that if the Commission had been more respectful of religious beliefs he would have sided with it in his decision, meaning that if the Court had ruled on the constitutional issue, the baker would have lost.

This decision doesn't change that much, it simply means that in cases focusing on anti-discrimination, religious beliefs must be respectfully dismissed. It's a small step in a scary direction, but as things stand, you can "force others into creative commission contracts."

 

[Jace, Extat]

@Tywin et al. you'll tap that ketchup or replace it with your own goddamn blood! 

To the rest of you. My comments stand, I do not feel the need for an extensive follow up.

Melania will share the gibbet with the rest the Trumps maybe she'll even turn heads on the way up with that modeling experience.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Keep your whip and your lycra suit, Jace. I stand for freedom and liberty, and I will not succumb to the yolk of your tyranny! 

[mankytoes]

36 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

Okay, maybe my wording wasn't the best, but there is a difference between having access to basic services like public transport, and forcing others into creative commission contracts. I think this is what was argued in this case.

So to be clear, if, say McDonalds said "we aren't serving Jews anymore", you'd be in favour of their right to do that?

[Gertrude]

11 minutes ago, Shryke said:

The issue with this specific case afaik was basically that the guy refused to have any business with them because they were gay.

Is this actually the case or was it just that he refused to make a cake celebrating a gay wedding? Like if the couple walked in the shop hand-in-hand and wanted to buy a dozen cupcakes, would they have been refused? I'm asking because I don't actually remember, but there have been other instances where this was stated by the owner to be where the line was drawn.

Not that it should make a difference, but I'm curious. I've found that articulating why refusing a cake is not cool difficult to articulate persuasively, and this tends to be a sticking point.

[Cas Stark]

3 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

Is this actually the case or was it just that he refused to make a cake celebrating a gay wedding? Like if the couple walked in the shop hand-in-hand and wanted to buy a dozen cupcakes, would they have been refused? I'm asking because I don't actually remember, but there have been other instances where this was stated by the owner to be where the line was drawn.

Not that it should make a difference, but I'm curious. I've found that articulating why refusing a cake is not cool difficult to articulate persuasively, and this tends to be a sticking point.

Yes, he only refused to make a custom cake.  

[TrueMetis]

Would the cake have been significantly different than any other wedding cake? Even if so I don't consider that a very strong defence but virtually all wedding cakes are "custom" but aside from the plastic bride and groom, which I've never actually seen in any of the handful of wedding's I've been to, there's generally nothing to distinguish between wedding cakes.

Google wedding cakes, look at all the different ones. Aside from again the ones with bride and groom on top there's no differentiating a gay wedding cake from a straight wedding cake.

ETA: Oh and since he's hiding behind religion for his bigotry, I'll accept he hold these beliefs for religious reasons when he stones someone to death for working the sabbath. Until then he can fuck off. Religious reasons my ass.

[Rippounet]

11 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Would the cake have been significantly different than any other wedding cake? Even if so I don't consider that a very strong defence but virtually all wedding cakes are "custom" but aside from the plastic bride and groom, which I've never actually seen in any of the handful of wedding's I've been to, there's generally nothing to distinguish between wedding cakes.

Google wedding cakes, look at all the different ones. Aside from again the ones with bride and groom on top there's no differentiating a gay wedding cake from a straight wedding cake.

Yeah I agrre that the only thing distinguishing the cakes would be the little plastic figures on top. But that alone is hugely symbolic for people.
Reminds me of that aunt of mine (very white) who lives in Atlanta and married an African-American. She told us about struggling to find a baker for her cake. And that was only about ten years ago, not that long before Obama was elected.
I think it goes to show that conservatives will fight for their right to discriminate and use the flimsiest excuse. Not that this is new or anything...

[Chaircat Meow]

1 hour ago, Shryke said:

There are limits to how you can and cannot do business with people. You can't deny someone service because of their race based on various conditions.

The issue with this specific case afaik was basically that the guy refused to have any business with them because they were gay.

 

Basically, think about firing someone. You can fire a black person for being a lazy worker who doesn't show up to work on time. You can't fire them for being black.

Well according to this article he didn't refuse to have any business with them. He refused to bake a cake for their wedding but offered to provide them with other baked goods if they so desired. 

There was a very similar case in the UK. The supreme court, very wrongly in my view, found against a Christian couple who refused to make a cake with icing on it saying 'Support Gay Marriage.' People shouldn't suffer legal menaces if they don't wish to publish messages they don't agree with. How would a gay baker feel if they had to do some icing saying gay sex is sinful? This goes beyond restricting speech, it is actually forcing someone to put forward a view they don't hold. 

However, in the case in the US it is not really clear whether this cake was going to look different to other similar confectionery so it is arguably not the same situation. 

[chuck norris 42]

Getting back to the OP, Would anyone be surprised if he did something unwise?

[Altherion]

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

This decision doesn't change that much, it simply means that in cases focusing on anti-discrimination, religious beliefs must be respectfully dismissed. It's a small step in a scary direction, but as things stand, you can "force others into creative commission contracts."

I don't think that's what it says. As far as I can tell, it's the equivalent of "Case decided on technical grounds. For broader concerns, come back and ask later." I would be very surprised if you could "force others into creative commission contracts" -- our government generally doesn't rock the boat like that.

[LongRider]

Oppsie, Manny's been a bad boy.....
Mueller Accuses Paul Manafort of Attempted Witness Tampering

Quote

Federal prosecutors on Monday accused President Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, of attempting to tamper with witnesses in his federal tax and lobbying case.

In court documents, prosecutors working for the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, said that Mr. Manafort tried to contact witnesses by phone and through an encrypted messaging program.

 

[LongRider]

I hope Mueller revokes his bail and send his villainous ass to jail and it takes a long, long time for his trial to come before the court.

[Rippounet]

30 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I would be very surprised if you could "force others into creative commission contracts" -- our government generally doesn't rock the boat like that.

Those weren't my terms (I used quotation marks every time).
On a certain level though, anti-discrimination laws do force people to do things against their will. That's precisely why anti-federalism made a comeback after the Brown decision.
So I don't know about the government "not rocking the boat like that." The U.S. government has always been fine with limiting individual liberties, it's just more careful not to say it as clearly as other governments when it does, for obvious ideological reasons.

30 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I don't think that's what it says. As far as I can tell, it's the equivalent of "Case decided on technical grounds. For broader concerns, come back and ask later."

I fail to see any difference with what I wrote. The technicality was the Commission's lack of respect for the baker's religious beliefs.

The only thing we might disagree on here is how to interpret the decision. When the SCOTUS doesn't reach a decision on constitutional grounds, it means it decides not to strike down the law in question. You can perfectly see it as meaning it wants a better case to rule on the constitutional issues at stake, but since Kennedy (the swing vote on the Court) was clear about his personal opinion on the matter, in this particular case one can say the SCOTUS effectively upheld the Colorado anti-discrimination law: one way or the other, as long as the composition of the Court doesn't change, anti-discrimination laws are safe.

[Yukle]

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I think it goes to show that conservatives will fight for their right to discriminate and use the flimsiest excuse. Not that this is new or anything...

If the right-wing is accused of being racist, it's a sign that the liberals are against free speech.

If a man wants to walk down the street holding his husband's hand, it must be kept out of the public eye because who wants to see that?

[Shryke]

2 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Well according to this article he didn't refuse to have any business with them. He refused to bake a cake for their wedding but offered to provide them with other baked goods if they so desired. 

There was a very similar case in the UK. The supreme court, very wrongly in my view, found against a Christian couple who refused to make a cake with icing on it saying 'Support Gay Marriage.' People shouldn't suffer legal menaces if they don't wish to publish messages they don't agree with. How would a gay baker feel if they had to do some icing saying gay sex is sinful? This goes beyond restricting speech, it is actually forcing someone to put forward a view they don't hold. 

However, in the case in the US it is not really clear whether this cake was going to look different to other similar confectionery so it is arguably not the same situation. 

He refused to make a wedding cake, period. There was no discussion of messaging or design or anything. It was straight up "No wedding cake for you" because they were gay. He refused to sell them any kind of wedding cake. There was no ask for "FUCKING OTHER MEN IN THE BUTT IS AWESOME!! FUCK GOD IN THE BUTT!!!!" to be added or anything. Straightforward discrimination. They hadn't even started to discuss decorations or anything.

[Yukle]

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

... one way or the other, as long as the composition of the Court doesn't change, anti-discrimination laws are safe.

Sadly, that doesn't seem likely, given the ages of the sitting justices and the fact that the Republicans could possibly make a few gains in the Senate.