Kim Davis's Professional Victimhood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-12-2015, 12:14 PM
RE: Kim Davis's Professional Victimhood
(18-12-2015 06:20 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  Yes, one more question.

If you had a company that prints shirts , and Kim Davis herself came in and asked you to print 1000 shirts saying.
"All gays will burn in hell for eternity"
Would you do it?

And don`t give me "hate speech" excuse, it is a religious belief shared by few billion people. So would you discriminate against her religious belief or not?


No, and not because it's her or her stupid shit. I'd have a consistent policy across the board to not propagate hate speech. And so long as I applied that standard consistence, and didn't make exceptions for some hateful shirts while not allowing others (i.e. discriminating), then I'd be both perfectly legal and hold the moral high-ground.


Back to the baker analogy, you don't have to cater weddings. But if you do, you cannot discriminate. Likewise if I chose not to print shirts with hateful messages, and I don't make exceptions (discriminate), then I'm good. I won't make anti-gay shirts in the same way I won't make anti-christian shirts.


But making anti-christian shirts while refusing to make anti-gay shirts would be the equivalent of catering straight weddings, but not catering gay weddings.


And fuck her religious beliefs, the First Amendment doesn't grant her a right to a soap box and a megaphone.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2015, 12:26 PM
RE: Kim Davis's Professional Victimhood
(18-12-2015 11:10 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  Yes, there will be people who will use this right to discriminate against others, but it is a smaller price to pay then to infringe on peoples freedom.

What's freedom, then?

Do you mean freedom of action? Because to say that one's freedom of action is not infringed upon by being actively discriminated against would be absurd - is it then better if that's only being done by "[some] people" as opposed to "the government", as if it were reasonable to reify either? Because then we're just left where we're always left. There are pros and cons to every policy.

After all, you literally just said you approve of some anti-discrimination provisions - just not others? I'm left wondering how you separate the categories, because that claim makes the stated argument spurious, since you've admitted that there are circumstances in which you're willing to infringe upon that freedom just the same.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
18-12-2015, 12:34 PM
RE: Kim Davis's Professional Victimhood
She was proven to be a liar. She claimed to have "met with the Pope", and in her interview with NPR repeatedly refused to answer questions about who else was in the room. Turns out, it was not a private "meeting" at all.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/the-real-...57462.html

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2015, 12:43 PM
RE: Kim Davis's Professional Victimhood
(18-12-2015 12:14 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(18-12-2015 06:20 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  Yes, one more question.

If you had a company that prints shirts , and Kim Davis herself came in and asked you to print 1000 shirts saying.
"All gays will burn in hell for eternity"
Would you do it?

And don`t give me "hate speech" excuse, it is a religious belief shared by few billion people. So would you discriminate against her religious belief or not?


No, and not because it's her or her stupid shit. I'd have a consistent policy across the board to not propagate hate speech. And so long as I applied that standard consistence, and didn't make exceptions for some hateful shirts while not allowing others (i.e. discriminating), then I'd be both perfectly legal and hold the moral high-ground.


Back to the baker analogy, you don't have to cater weddings. But if you do, you cannot discriminate. Likewise if I chose not to print shirts with hateful messages, and I don't make exceptions (discriminate), then I'm good. I won't make anti-gay shirts in the same way I won't make anti-christian shirts.


But making anti-christian shirts while refusing to make anti-gay shirts would be the equivalent of catering straight weddings, but not catering gay weddings.


And fuck her religious beliefs, the First Amendment doesn't grant her a right to a soap box and a megaphone.

Ok, that sounds reasonable, as long as the policy is consistent I can live with it.

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Slowminded's post
18-12-2015, 12:59 PM
RE: Kim Davis's Professional Victimhood
(18-12-2015 05:05 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  
(18-12-2015 04:11 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Congrats, you've set back social progress by decades.

Also, what happens when people around you refuse service to you because you're an atheist? What happens when you can't fuel up your car because no gas stations serve atheists? What happens when you lose your job because now you cannot reliably make it to work without fuel? Conversely, what happens when your employer fires you once they find out you're an atheist?

Nondiscrimination polices are put in place for a very good reasons. Atheist, being one of the most fear and vilified demographics, shouldn't be the once questioning these needed protections. Because if people could openly discriminate against us more than they already do, you know damn well they would.

And what happens if a nazi comes into the Jewish owned bakery and demands a cake with a swastika and a "Happy Auschwitz day" on it? Or a KKK member asking for cake with a depiction of a black man being hanged?
If you owned a bakery would you make such a cake?
If you owned a printing company and someone comes with a request of you printing pamphlet with racial slurs, or a picture of a twin towers collapsing with a "when infidels die, God is happy " writing. Or a picture of a child being decapitated with a sing "Sharia law is God`s will"
How about this, would you print it for the WBC, thinking "Well, I shouldn`t discriminate against their beliefs " or would you think "fuck off , fuckin` bastards"?

[Image: fkco5x.jpg]

How would you feel if you were required to print that by law?

It works both ways you know. If you don`t want your beliefs being discriminated against and refused to be serviced based on them , than you can´t discriminate against others beliefs no matter how wrong ( you think ) they are.

What you view as a social progress is actually a sward with very sharp edges on both sides , it should be wielded very carefully.

This has been tested already. The baker offered supplies to write whatever they wished on a cake (I believe it was an anti gay slogan or bible verse).

The court said that was fine, they didn't refuse to sell them a cake.

There is nothing written that a baker be required to put anything on a cake. Unless that's the primary function of their business. It's a courtesy point. Some are uncomfortable doing it, because they feel they have crappy handwriting.

Also if a bakery has a consistent policy against hate speech, they can refuse anyone's business. It's about fairness.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2015, 05:29 PM
RE: Kim Davis's Professional Victimhood
I'm trying to figure out which point in this thread has almost popped my head off the most. I think I've settled on the following (and no offense meant to you, EK, as I know you mean well here):

(18-12-2015 05:53 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Hate speech isn't protected under the First Amendment.

So, I'm going to start there and work my way through.

First and foremost, I think the entire "hate speech" dichotomy is beyond ridiculous. There is no such thing as "hate speech". There is speech and a bunch of people who's feelings were hurt. But, that notwithstanding, the entire reason there is a First Amendment is so-called hate speech. Speech that people are not offended by does not need protection. Speech that upsets people, that is offensive, that is unpopular, that is in contradiction to standard norms or beliefs, is the type of speech that absolutely requires protection. You fight hatred and bigotry by shedding the cold light of truth on repressive ideas, not by censoring them. This is not a First Amendment issue, btw. That is not in play in any of this. I'm just responding to this one comment because that belief drives me bonkers.

Second, this business about "I have a right not to mow your lawn or my freedoms are being oppressed" is bullshit. Back in the 60s, a duly elected Congress, acting under authority of Constitutional law, passed laws that they deemed necessary that made it illegal for businesses to discriminate against people who fit into certain classes. Those classes include race, religion, sex, national origin, and ethnicity (I'm missing a few). Sadly, they don't currently include sexuality, although many states have protections. You don't like it, don't open a business to the public.

This business about "the Jewish guy asked to bake a cake for the KKK" is nonsense. Being a bigot is not a protected class under the law. You can refuse to serve an individual customer because you find him or her offensive. What you can not do is refuse to serve a class of people that is protected under the law, or refuse to serve an individual because they are part of that protected class. Being a racist asshole is not a protected class. In some states, being gay is. So, you refuse to bake a wedding cake for gay people on those states, you're shit out of luck.

As a secondary point I think there is an obvious, logical difference between refusing to serve someone simply because of what they are, vs refusing to serve someone because of who they choose to be. You choose to be an asshole but you are born gay. Or black. Or some ethnicity. I suppose religion is arguably a choice but freedom of religion is one of the founding principles of this country and no one is really arguing against not being able to discriminate against religion (as long as the religion in question isn't Islam).

And finally, the idea that christians can compare themselves to people who fought for equality because they can no longer shit on a minority group with impunity is so repugnant I find it difficult to even find the words to describe it. Fuck Kim Davis and her scumbag friends.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BnW's post
18-12-2015, 06:56 PM (This post was last modified: 18-12-2015 07:17 PM by Slowminded.)
RE: Kim Davis's Professional Victimhood
(18-12-2015 05:29 PM)BnW Wrote:  Second, this business about "I have a right not to mow your lawn or my freedoms are being oppressed" is bullshit. Back in the 60s, a duly elected Congress, acting under authority of Constitutional law, passed laws that they deemed necessary that made it illegal for businesses to discriminate against people who fit into certain classes. Those classes include race, religion, sex, national origin, and ethnicity (I'm missing a few). Sadly, they don't currently include sexuality, although many states have protections. You don't like it, don't open a business to the public.

We are discussing strictly what US law has to say about it?

Quote:This business about "the Jewish guy asked to bake a cake for the KKK" is nonsense. Being a bigot is not a protected class under the law. You can refuse to serve an individual customer because you find him or her offensive. What you can not do is refuse to serve a class of people that is protected under the law, or refuse to serve an individual because they are part of that protected class. Being a racist asshole is not a protected class. In some states, being gay is. So, you refuse to bake a wedding cake for gay people on those states, you're shit out of luck.

Well, here ( one of the places that is not governed by laws passed by US Congres )
being a bigot and/or a racist asshole seems to be a protected class as well as being gay.

From the anti discrimination law

1) the terms "discrimination" and "discriminatory treatment" means any unwarranted discrimination or unequal treatment, or omission (exclusion, restriction or preference), in relation to individuals or groups as well as members of their families, or persons close to them, the overt or covert manner, based on race, color, ancestry, citizenship, nationality or ethnic origin, language, religious or political beliefs, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, financial status, birth, genetic characteristics, health status , disability, marital and family status, previous convictions, age, appearance, membership in political, trade union and other organizations and other real or presumed personal characteristics (hereinafter: personal characteristics);


So yeah, if a member of a Nazi Party wants you to make a cake for their annual party , even if your grandparents were killed in Auschwitz you can't discriminate against nazis and refuse based on their political beliefs or like you said ,you're shit out of luck.

Quote:As a secondary point I think there is an obvious, logical difference between refusing to serve someone simply because of what they are, vs refusing to serve someone because of who they choose to be.
Obvious difference is obvious , yet , the law is clear that you can't discriminate against somebody based on what they chose to be ( like being a member of a political organization ) in the exactly the same way that you can't discriminate based on what they are.
Law in this case doesn't recognize the difference between what you are and what you choose to be.

Quote:Fuck Kim Davis and her scumbag friends.
That is my point exactly. You are expressing these feeling towards her on a Internet forum, all I am saying is that you should be able to tell that to her face if she entered your shop. "Fuck you and your scumbag friends, get out of my shop".

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2015, 07:27 PM
RE: Kim Davis's Professional Victimhood
(18-12-2015 06:56 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  
Quote:Fuck Kim Davis and her scumbag friends.
That is my point exactly. You are expressing these feeling towards her on a Internet forum, all I am saying is that you should be able to tell that to her face if she entered your shop. "Fuck you and your scumbag friends, get out of my shop".

You can, that is not illegal. She and her scumbag friends are not a protected class.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2015, 07:31 PM
RE: Kim Davis's Professional Victimhood
Well, in the US you can. I'm not sure where you live or how your laws are interpreted so I can't comment on anything else you said. I'm qualified to speak about the law in one country, and barely qualified at that.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2015, 07:46 PM
RE: Kim Davis's Professional Victimhood
(18-12-2015 07:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-12-2015 06:56 PM)Slowminded Wrote:  That is my point exactly. You are expressing these feeling towards her on a Internet forum, all I am saying is that you should be able to tell that to her face if she entered your shop. "Fuck you and your scumbag friends, get out of my shop".

You can, that is not illegal. She and her scumbag friends are not a protected class.

But would she have the grounds to claim that you are discriminating against her because of her religious beliefs?

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: