LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 167
0 members and 167 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 4,499, 10-26-2015 at 07:55 AM.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-26-2018, 08:20 AM   #1306
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 20,182
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
I didn't omit racism. I just kind of figure at this point, any comment on why we imprison people is assumed to start with, "In addition to racism,..."

People who are interested in punishing people are inherently suspect sorts. You've got to be a very strange fuck to think, "I want to devote my time to making sure punishment is meted out." It's a psychologically creepy mindset.

I get we need to have these weird people in society. But I don't want to hang out with any of them. I don't even want them near me.
Well, those weird people are likely coming a highway near you soon! Or are you outside the 100 mile limit for ICE roadblocks?
__________________
A wee dram a day!
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is offline  
Old 06-26-2018, 09:17 AM   #1307
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,041
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan View Post
I don't do discrimination claims, my understanding is sexual orientation discrimination suits are brought under the sex discrimination laws.

I'm pretty sure if there were a law, against discriminating against propagandists with challenging understanding of fact or truth, it'd be cited (incorrectly) in hundreds of memes all over the internet.
also to Thurgreed-

People on FB contrast Sarah's not being able to eat with the baker, because Sarah choose to work for Trump, whereas the baker is discriminating against how people are, not what they choose. To me this implies some constitutional right. But i don't think there is a right for a couple reasons- first the Ollie's BarBQ case was about the civil rights Act making it illegal to not let people eat in one's restaurant based upon race. The question was is Ollie's "in commerce." If there was a "right" to eat there then there wouldn't need be the law, or any "in commerce" test. As to sexual preference, I know cities pass "human rights" laws that extend protections based upon preference- here again, this implies there is no con right to get a cake if the baker doesn't want to make it- perhaps there is a law violated, at least in some locations.

But I'm not up on con law at all, so i am asking for a sanity check from the scholars here.
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts

Last edited by Hank Chinaski; 06-26-2018 at 09:19 AM..
Hank Chinaski is offline  
Old 06-26-2018, 09:36 AM   #1308
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 20,182
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
also to Thurgreed-

People on FB contrast Sarah's not being able to eat with the baker, because Sarah choose to work for Trump, whereas the baker is discriminating against how people are, not what they choose. To me this implies some constitutional right. But i don't think there is a right for a couple reasons- first the Ollie's BarBQ case was about the civil rights Act making it illegal to not let people eat in one's restaurant based upon race. The question was is Ollie's "in commerce." If there was a "right" to eat there then there wouldn't need be the law, or any "in commerce" test. As to sexual preference, I know cities pass "human rights" laws that extend protections based upon preference- here again, this implies there is no con right to get a cake if the baker doesn't want to make it- perhaps there is a law violated, at least in some locations.

But I'm not up on con law at all, so i am asking for a sanity check from the scholars here.
It sounds like you're on a search for state action. In Red Hen v. Smoky Eyed Liar, isn't Smokey the State? 3rd Amendment case.
__________________
A wee dram a day!
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is offline  
Old 06-26-2018, 10:30 AM   #1309
Adder
I am beyond a rank!
 
Adder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 17,113
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
Umm, what? Protected class means con right, correct?
Not necessarily.

Quote:
But if it takes a law to say a restaurant can’t discriminate based upon race then that isn’t a right
Wrong.

Quote:
Is there a parallel law that extends it to gay people?
Many states and municipalities have laws that extend civil rights protections to gay people. Indeed, the Masterpiece decision was decided on whether Colorado appropriately enforced it's version.

ETA: Having seen your further response to TM, apparently you weren't just trolling, so I may have over-snarked.

Last edited by Adder; 06-26-2018 at 10:39 AM..
Adder is offline  
Old 06-26-2018, 10:33 AM   #1310
Adder
I am beyond a rank!
 
Adder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 17,113
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SEC_Chick View Post
Some people seem to be totally cool with the freedom of association thing, but only as long as it is their side "winning" by being assholes.
Show me a demonstrated history of discrimination against conservatives in public accommodations and maybe I'll care.

Quote:
And it had nothing to do with Trump, but everything to do with idiots like Maxine Waters.
Yes, the angry black lady made them to do it. They can't be blamed.
Adder is offline  
Old 06-26-2018, 10:37 AM   #1311
Not Bob
Moderator
 
Not Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Podunkville
Posts: 6,034
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
also to Thurgreed-

People on FB contrast Sarah's not being able to eat with the baker, because Sarah choose to work for Trump, whereas the baker is discriminating against how people are, not what they choose. To me this implies some constitutional right. But i don't think there is a right for a couple reasons- first the Ollie's BarBQ case was about the civil rights Act making it illegal to not let people eat in one's restaurant based upon race. The question was is Ollie's "in commerce." If there was a "right" to eat there then there wouldn't need be the law, or any "in commerce" test. As to sexual preference, I know cities pass "human rights" laws that extend protections based upon preference- here again, this implies there is no con right to get a cake if the baker doesn't want to make it- perhaps there is a law violated, at least in some locations.

But I'm not up on con law at all, so i am asking for a sanity check from the scholars here.
With the caveat that I used to be a con law junkie, but have never been a con law scholar ...

In the Supreme Court’s gay wedding cake case, the Court limited its holding by focusing on procedural aspects relating to how the Colorado Civil Rights Commission handled the baker’s claim that his freedom of religion permitted him to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple.

In the 1960s restaurant cases, the Supreme Court held (based upon the Civil Rights Act of 1964) that freedom of religion did not permit a public accommodation to refuse to serve customers based upon race, color, religion, or national origin.

I understand that certain states and cities prohibit discrimination based upon membership in a political party, so if Mrs. Sanders was kicked out of the DC Red Hen, it would be a violation of the law, but it wasn’t against the law in Virginia. And I don’t believe being a Republican or a member of the Trump Administration is a protected class under federal law or jurisprudence.

The ethics and wisdom of refusing service to Mrs. Sanders, or of booing Secretary Nielsen and Mr. Miller is another issue. And I’m finding myself more and more in agreement with Representative Waters than I am with Speaker Pelosi. There is a big difference between now and when I politely shook the hand of then-Speaker Gingrich at a restaurant in 1995 and the hand of Justice Thomas at a law school function in 2006. At least in my mind.
Not Bob is offline  
Old 06-26-2018, 10:37 AM   #1312
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,041
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder View Post



Many states and municipalities have laws that extend civil rights protections to gay people. Indeed, the Masterpiece decision was decided on whether Colorado appropriately enforced it's version.
So I was right? This is exactly what i said.
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
Hank Chinaski is offline  
Old 06-26-2018, 10:41 AM   #1313
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,041
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Bob View Post

In the 1960s restaurant cases, the Supreme Court held (based upon the Civil Rights Act of 1964) that freedom of religion did not permit a public accommodation to refuse to serve customers based upon race, color, religion, or national origin.
Okay, but that is that the baker's right doesn't trump (Hi Thurgreed!) the law. But that says my understanding is correct- w/o the law the restaurant (or hotel) could refuse service? Not making any argument, just wanting to make sure i understand the law.
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
Hank Chinaski is offline  
Old 06-26-2018, 10:51 AM   #1314
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 26,077
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy View Post
What really pisses me off about the damn bakers is not their politics, it is that they give Christianity a bad name. The religion I cling to is a faith in which God is not a bigot.
I can't credibly claim to be an atheist because I can't entirely disprove the existence of some creating force.* But I can and do insist on strident agnosticism.

We can easily prove that all religions are fairy tales. And that if there is a creative force, it's in no way related to and communicated with via religion. Jesus, Moses, Mohammed - none of them have anything to do with God. They're historical figures, or characters, in myths and stories. So from one long lapsed Christian to you -- perhaps dispense with the rituals altogether. If a thing must be clinged to, and so many mountains of evidence prove it is not at all divine, and in no way endorsed by any creative force, is it worth following? And particularly where it can be so easily and neatly used to justify not only bigotry but slavery (the Big Three all endorsed slavery).

I think if there is a creative force, it's diametrically opposed to organized religion. Nothing could create so much and yet be tied to something so counterproductive.

______
*Try as I might, scientifically, logically I can't get there. And this effort involves substantial efforts to use Hitchens' Razor to knock out the theist position. No matter how I labor in that regard, the fact that this universe exists renders me unable to say there's no evidence supporting the existence of a creative force that may be defined loosely as "God."
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
Old 06-26-2018, 10:53 AM   #1315
Not Bob
Moderator
 
Not Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Podunkville
Posts: 6,034
Go and do likewise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SEC_Chick View Post
People like Ty thinking they understand conservatives in middle America is why we have Trump. I have seen a few #NeverTrumpers move to Trump agnostics and are now are full on MAGA. And it had nothing to do with Trump, but everything to do with idiots like Maxine Waters. I'm increasingly resigning myself to Trump 2020.

I'll go back to clinging to my guns and religion, now.
Do you really think so? Is Ty’s arrogance and the condescension of the coastal liberals on social issues really enough to drive you and people like you to vote for Trump as a way of retaliating against the arrogance, smarminess, and condescension of liberals? Why not support a Ted Kennedy to Trump’s Jimmy Carter instead?

As for religion, I wouldn’t call myself a good Catholic by any means, but at least the Church is being consistent with its version of Christianity - pro-life means more than just being anti-abortion, and its answer to WWJD is found in the four Gospels in places like the Parable of the Good Samaritan, where a lawyer asked Jesus “who is my neighbor?”
Not Bob is offline  
Old 06-26-2018, 10:58 AM   #1316
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 20,182
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder View Post
Yes, the angry black lady made them to do it. They can't be blamed.
This part really is remarkable. The idea seems to be that it's ok not to have your own moral compass, and just to react to others.
__________________
A wee dram a day!
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is offline  
Old 06-26-2018, 11:02 AM   #1317
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 20,182
Re: Go and do likewise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Bob View Post
Do you really think so? Is Ty’s arrogance and the condescension of the coastal liberals on social issues really enough to drive you and people like you to vote for Trump as a way of retaliating against the arrogance, smarminess, and condescension of liberals? Why not support a Ted Kennedy to Trump’s Jimmy Carter instead?

As for religion, I wouldn’t call myself a good Catholic by any means, but at least the Church is being consistent with its version of Christianity - pro-life means more than just being anti-abortion, and its answer to WWJD is found in the four Gospels in places like the Parable of the Good Samaritan, where a lawyer asked Jesus “who is my neighbor?”
There is no one more condescending or smarmy than a right-wing evangelical.

I've got pretty strong faith that God isn't a bigot, but wouldn't pretend to be able to speak on Her behalf. Who knows, may She really does just want everyone to give money to Franklin Graham, vote for Trump, and wave guns at liberals. But the way some of these folks speak on behalf of the Lord makes me cringe.
__________________
A wee dram a day!

Last edited by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy; 06-26-2018 at 11:20 AM..
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is offline  
Old 06-26-2018, 11:02 AM   #1318
Not Bob
Moderator
 
Not Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Podunkville
Posts: 6,034
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
Okay, but that is that the baker's right doesn't trump (Hi Thurgreed!) the law. But that says my understanding is correct- w/o the law the restaurant (or hotel) could refuse service? Not making any argument, just wanting to make sure i understand the law.
I’m pretty sure that current equal protection principles would prevent the BBQ owner from discriminating based upon race because of his religion, even if the Civil Rights Act was thrown out.

But that is just the supposition of a former con law junkie. Maybe tell one of your versions of Fenwock to spend an hour or so on Westlaw to find a solid answer?
Not Bob is offline  
Old 06-26-2018, 11:16 AM   #1319
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 26,077
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
With Sarah Huckabee Sanders getting asked to leave the Red Hen restaurant, people are pointing to the hypocrisy of outrage from conservatives who supported the right of the Colorado baker to decline to serve a gay couple. And other people have pointed out that liberals are told that a failure to respect opposing views will provoke a backlash from conservatives, something that never comes up when conservatives, e.g., wear shirts that say "fuck your feelings."

There's no hypocrisy. It's all of a piece. Conservatives do not care about process and equality. They care about outcome and hierarchy. They believe that Sarah Sanders Huckabee deserves deference and gay couples do not. The point of the "fuck your feelings" shirts is that liberal feelings do not matter and conservative feelings do. Conservatives do not believe in the Golden Rule. They believe, I've got mine, and fuck you. Since Trump expresses that better than anyone else, they adore him for it. People who thought they were conservative who disagree are discovering that they are no longer conservative.
"Feelings" should not have any place in policy or law. The correct word is "rights."

You have certain rights upon which I cannot infringe, regardless of my "feelings" about whether and to what extent you should have those rights.

So lump me in with the "fuck your feelings' crowd in regard to policy and law. Policy and law are not the place where we assuage anyone's "feelings." There is no obligation to make sure people's feelings are not hurt. We can and should discuss things like feelings, but that's between private individuals, not a matter for govt intervention.

But the rest of your point - that most conservatives today (and almost all Trumpkins) aren't conservatives at all, is accurate. Conservatives today favor government intervention where they wish to make others behave as they desire and demand enforcement of negative rights where they are being compelled to behave in a manner they do not like. That's not conservative at all. Nor is it liberal. It's authoritarian. Which explains why they like Trump so much.

It's not hyperbole to argue rabid Trump supporters are quasi-fascists. I don't know if the criticism ultimately sticks because I think if Trump became a true authoritarian, these people would have significant buyer's remorse and rally against him. But they are "temporarily deluded quasi-fascists."

True conservatives, libertarians, moderates, quasi-conservatives, and quasi-libertarians are adrift. I don't know where we go. I'm just floating around, and occasionally my boat runs past Hank's or SEC Chick's or Slave's and we wave to each other. But we really don't have a place in Trumpland.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
Old 06-26-2018, 11:17 AM   #1320
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 32,939
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SEC_Chick View Post
I thought I would stop by since I have cooled off a bit, but I see Ty has it under control and can tell you all about what Conservatives think and believe.

For the record, Ty is wrong, and my twitter feed was full of people saying that Jack Phillips shouldn't have to bake a cake AND that the Red Hen should be able to deny SHS service, though the situations are not really comparable, as the cake case pertained specifically to furtherance of what is to many believers a sacrament, and thought Masterpiece was not decided on this basis, decorating a cake for a wedding is certainly more expressive than say throwing together a Caesar salad. See the twitter feed of every National Review contributor for confirmation (or specifically, David French, whose most recent Ordered Liberty podcast deals specifically with this issue). And many conservatives also thought that SHS bringing it up on twitter was a jackass move, but whatever. There was a fair amount of pointing out that the people cheering the Red Hen also largely intersected with the "Bake that cake, bigot!" crowd, but that's to be expected. Some people seem to be totally cool with the freedom of association thing, but only as long as it is their side "winning" by being assholes. I'm sure that the same people will be equally thrilled when someone like Cecile Richards is booted from a restaurant.

People like Ty thinking they understand conservatives in middle America is why we have Trump. I have seen a few #NeverTrumpers move to Trump agnostics and are now are full on MAGA. And it had nothing to do with Trump, but everything to do with idiots like Maxine Waters. I'm increasingly resigning myself to Trump 2020.

I'll go back to clinging to my guns and religion, now.
"People who thought they were conservative who disagree are discovering that they are no longer conservative." I was thinking of you when I said that, actually. Your twitter feed may be full of those people, but you have been left to guard an isolated outpost while the rest of the army is fighting its battles somewhere else. If conservatives thought like you, we wouldn't be here.

"People like Ty thinking they understand conservatives in middle America is why we have Trump." This, on the other hand, is quintessentially conservative nonsense. No one votes for Trump because of what I think or say. (Oddly, no one ever suggests that people changed their minds to vote for Hillary because of "Fuck your feelings" shirts.)
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
Tyrone Slothrop is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:36 AM.