I do not share your opinion. Provided Bob isn't in-fact a Russian troll, he's still an American.

Pop quiz, which is the best political party?
.
.
.
.
.
.
Trick question, the best party in America is America.

“We’re so glad to see so many of you lovely people here tonight. And we would especially like to welcome all the representatives of Illinois’s law enforcement community that have chosen to join us here in the Palace Hotel Ballroom at this time. We certainly hope you all enjoy the show. And remember, people, that no matter who you are and what you do to live, thrive and survive, there’re still some things that makes us all the same. You. Me. Them. Everybody. Everybody.”






That said,

They'll get their own misery when they feel the policy they helped create begin to affect them. Trust me, it doesn't need help. My dad is scrambling trying to save for his retirement at 65 and scoffs at the idea of the stimulus checks he got, refuses to cash the "biden bucks"

Let me tell you. Jeff Bezos? Mark Zuckerburg? They don't give a shit about moral quandaries when offered free money, they take it, happily.
If you're pulling down millions every year and cook the books a bit, that's "smart." Walk in to a social security office with a baby on your arm a day early, that's "criminal," (almost like stealing).

Do that enough + a bunch of VERY-MUCH-NOT billionaires voting for it and u have the republican party.


-----------------

I also don't care for the malformed logic they practice. Another republican acquaintance of mine called me a "segregationist" because I said trans-athletes should be able to play on the team of their self identified sex.

Whether you agree with me on that or not, me saying that they SHOULD play on an integrated team does NOT make me a segregationist, unless you completely redefine the word.

------------------




Finally, I do agree there is some room for some anger. I don't like it when the GOP or their sycophants go on a "Let's take rights away from someone today, AS A TEAM!"

When the message is the OPPOSITE of "There are still some things that make us all the same," it's infuriating. Because if it can happen to them, it can happen to you.

Take what's happening with their complaints of "cancel culture"
Coca Cola, Disney, etc etc private companies and bakeries

The new and improved supreme court helped establish that private businesses can discriminate against you based on a genuine philosophical or religious belief. Bakery vs the gay couple "TAKE THAT, GAYS!!!"

They didn't realize that that meant ALL businesses could now do that. But again, if it happens to them, it can happen to you.

Bob here is like one of the fans throwing garbage on the field when Jackie Robinson gets up to bat. "WHY DON'T YOU JUST GET YOUR OWN NEGRO -ERR TRANS LEAGUE?"


He truly doesn't know he's being manipulated.



p.s. https://www.npr.org/2018/06/04/605003519/supreme-court-decides-in-favor-of-baker-over-same-sex-couple-in-cake-shop-case

Now, it's easy to point out "LOOK!!! no no no it's not!!! see! it says right here, they CANT just do it if you're not this specific baker." That's not stopping this guy from 6 days ago

https://w ww.whas11.co (link too long) m/article/news/investigations/focus/radcliff-kentucky-tax-preparer-refusing-business-to-lgbtq-couples/417-c2575ded-feed-45d8-b6f7-49016ec9eba3

made a tiny^ https://tinyurl.com/myd5ubrc

Who's "THEY" ???

The fuck are you talking about, I do not recognize the phrase "basically erase" that's not the same as erase? "wash away" etc?

https://duckduckgo.com/
https://www.torproject.org/download/

https://ahmia.fi/ or http://msydqstlz2kzerdg.onion/ if you're already on Tor WARNING this is ACTUALLY uncensored everything. (as in regular + deep + dark web) Be sure to report anything that constitutes a crime to the FBI "Hey, I'm not associated with this, but I just came across it on the internet accidentally, https://www.fbi.gov/tips " lest you potentially can be charged with abetting would - be crimes that you are actually not responsible for.

Now you can find anything. Done.

----------------------------

BUT AS USUAL
BUT AS USUAL
BUT AS USUAL
BUT AS USUAL
BUT AS USUAL
BUT AS USUAL that's not really what you believe, just what you've been saying.


I remember the cakeshop, I thought it was okay to do that if you were a private company?

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States that dealt with whether owners of public accommodations can refuse certain services based on the First Amendment claims of free speech and free exercise of religion, and therefore be granted an exemption from laws ensuring non-discrimination in public accommodations


Remember? Good, right? A privately (non-gov) owned business can kick out and not provide service to anyone they want right? Conservative. The private businesses aka google and amazon, decided they don't like your nazi bullshit. AND you're glad they're able to kick you back to the 14th page right? It's their right to do so thanks to the new conservative SCOTUS yes? Happy? Dumbass.

IF YOU GIVE UP RIGHTS FOR ONE GROUP IT'S NOT JUST GAY WEDDING CAKES IT'S EVERYONE'S RIGHTS.


That case they argued was a free speech case. The bakery has the freedom to not display messages in the form of pixels on the screen errrrr frosting on the cake. Just like Google can choose to not display messages in the form of frosting on a cake errrrrr pixels on a screen. What do you think the rest of us were so pissed about? You're over there cheering on them taking away our rights and now it's come full circle. What? you didn't think it would affect your rights to say things?

Shouldn't have listened to that Golden Idol.

agreed.

I would add that science/doctors have been pushed out by the administration from day one, to the point that they use it to attack biden ("he's going to listen to the scientists!")

also, the inconsistency he is referring to for example in restaurants and flights, is entirely driven by economics, not science. Those are two of the hardest hit industries worldwide, you have a president who has made it clear he prioritises business over public health, of course they made some theatrical protocol to make it seem safer when really, its not.
(same in my country, and having a bakery myself have had to do the same stupid dance).

Pointing at the survival of christie, trump or any other celebrity, no matter how overweight, old or whatever, is not analogous to the experience of normal people who cant afford that level of treatment, most wouldnt have access to it even if they could afford it. not to mention that we dont even really know long term effects for survivors, including importantly how long the immune response lasts.

That whole segment just came off as the typical selfish "i dont think this will kill me, lets get back to normal" BS. Weve known for a long time now that what makes coronavirus dangerous isnt its mortality rate, its the combination of a long asymptomatic incubation period and airbone transmission that make it highly contagious, when hospitals collapse the mortality rate spikes.

I actually agree that we have to learn to live with this because i dont think a vaccine is nowhere near close to ready for global deployment, but i thought his arguments were terrible and his focus selfish.

***finally anecdotal experience here in Chile, 3 friends have gotten covid-
44 year old, former national team field hockey, good shape
41 year old, former point guard national team basketball, good shape
38 year old, professional poker player, overweight bordering on obese.

the 44 year old was in the hospital for 12 days, no ventilator, felt aches and pains for a solid month after going home
the 41 year old was in the hospital for 28 days, ventilator (and the induced coma that comes with it), still feels physically drained
the 38 year old had a fever for 3 days and never went to the hospital, is feeling fine

Between different strains and different body/blood types, comparing one case to another doesnt seem to work

well this hits me close.

I live in chile, in a rural area that was one of the few not in quarantine in the area. i have a bakery and since march even before govt mandate we shifted to takeaway and closed off the shop to customers, and reduced our shift to one person on site for only 4 hours, with PPE. a week ago, a guy from out of town came (taking advantage there was no quarantine here and thus notaries like the one next to me are open) and asked to use the bathroom, my employee refused and the guy then made a one minute video showing 2 people show up without masks, he walks up and starts berating them for not respecting the law and everyone there (mostly old ladies) basically got too scared to defend themselves, so the video looks bad. we ended up on the news, shut down, huge fine, for customers' behavior outside our shop- all because of a video that intentionally made it appear like we were serving people normally when that wasn't the case.

so im now more sensitive to the corona righteous as well as these short viral videos in general. unless those people eating outside were following her around and intentionally coughing on her, there is nothing to justify her using mace on them, but i agree that the video doesnt show enough to establish that. people everywhere need to adapt to the new reality and im all for prevention including hard quarantines where necessary, but we also have to be reasonable about how we approach one another and understand there are acceptable risks, such as having picnics or playing tennis, and unacceptable ones like not wearing a mask indoors or in groups.

The supreme court also ruled today that the civil rights act of 64 includes the LBGTQ community under "discrimination based on sex".
No longer can you be fired, denied housing, or service (sorry bakeries, get ready to make cakes for gay weddings or shut down) for being gay, lesbian, or otherwise non cisgender.

Bad day in court for "conservatives". Not to worry, discrimination is perfectly legal in Russia. Have a nice trip.

"We love the low carb Julian Bakery bread"

There's your problem right there. Bread shouldn't be low carb. Bread IS carbs (and gluten too). If you want to cut back on the carbs, stop eating bread!

Same goes for butter.

Don't eat a crap version of the real thing, just eat proper bread and maybe less of it.

clearly a vegan bakery

Hmmmm...I stand corrected and change my position.

You're correct, occupation is not a protected class, so I think the black bakery could legally refuse the police for being racist dicks.

If they want to be totally fair and balanced, they shouldn't refuse them, but I think the law allows it. The extreme of that 'slippery slope' ends with red and blue businesses (here in the US) and political affiliation identification required for service anywhere, so I don't recommend discriminating against customers for any non essential/personal reason....also, duh, money is money...dolla dolla bills yall!

Thanks to asshats abusing their religious privileges, that's where we are today. Many places do require businesses offering a service to not discriminate based on personal preference.

If that Muslim baker makes Buddha cakes and Jesus cakes on request, yes....so he should limit his creativity across the board or not at all....or work in his mosque bakery.

If they make made to order pro choice cakes, yes, they should make made to order anti choice cakes.

If they make on request cakes for other notable figures, no....but I would expect Hitler to look pretty horrible.

Easy solution here, stop doing made to order cakes. Offer only what you're comfortable making, not requests, not personalized...have a catalog. Once you offer to make what the customer requests, you give up your right to be offended by it, for cash.

Edit: Keep in mind, this is often about being offended not by what they're asked to make, but who the customer is. Not rainbow wedding cakes with leather clad grooms and cocks everywhere, but fancy white cakes with flowers for a gay wedding.
Side note, Jews can't refuse service in their public establishments to any German, can they, and they have a much better reason to do so.

Our legal system up here already has codified that 'idiocy', and it's been in place quite awhile.

The women's only clothing optional spa that tried to say 'no penises allowed' is legally at odds with the provincial human rights code:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/male-genitalia-policy-spurs-backlash-at-toronto-women-s-spa-1.3456844

The Canadian charter of human rights also lists freedom from discrimination as being no different for choice/behaviour things like religion, alongside birth traits like race or gender. So legally our system doesn't think rejecting a clergy application for being atheist as any different to rejecting it because of race.

And I kind of hate using a 'trivial' and much trumpeted example from America but a bakery not wanting to make a cake based on people's sexual preferences was declared illegal:
http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/

I'll try to summarise my last paragraph better.

The Democratic party needs to reach out to people that didn't vote Hillary. They are instead choosing to condemn those that didn't vote Hillary as racists or friends of racists. They need to be doing the exact opposite. They need to find things to compromise on and reach out to the people that didn't vote Hillary. That doesn't have to necessarily be on any of the ideas I've tossed out above, but they've gotta do something.

A last point, the moral relativism or correctness of the cause here isn't the only thing that matters. If you can't convince a majority of the population that you are on the side of their self interest and liberties and freedoms, then you are going to lose. The things I've listed are examples of the left taking away freedoms that many on the right consider important or even fundamental to them. If no compromises can be made, the Democrats haven't got much reason for optimism about the next election looking any better.

@Zawash -- all true. And yet, just because Calvin and Hobbes and Bill Watterson are/were awesome, it doesn't make IP and copyright rules any more sensible.

My opinion: those respectful and well-done parodies and homages (say, Pants are Overrated's Hobbes and Bacon) are fair use. The person/people that drew Calvin peeing on things? Fair use also. There is a big difference between "tasteless" and "should be illegal".

Selling car decals with those images is different, because then you're treading all over the "not for profit" element of fair use. However, tracking down tons of small-scale infringers on that, or even worse, average people who simply buy the decals/shirts/whatever and likely don't know or care to know about IP and copyright laws is ... a losing battle at best, and punitive towards *fans* of the IP at worst.

There are many many examples of going to idiotic (IMO) lengths to protect IP. Disney suing local bakeries for drawing some character in icing on top of a kids birthday cake. Metallica suing Napster, University internet hosts, and even individual downloaders of their music. Teachers being sued for playing a clip of a TV show, movie, or song as part of their lessons. Etc. etc.

At some level, copyright is a good thing. Or at least a necessary evil. But the litigious zeal with which IP and copyright are "protected" these days seems like we've lost sight of the "art before commerce" element that is a huge part of why Calvin and Hobbes was so awesome. And why IP is something worth protecting (within sensible limits).

Biblically, Hebrew slaves. Historically otherwise it appears they and various other captive slaves were held and used in Egypt.

Egyptian labor build the pyramids. Citizen workers. conscript and contract both, lived in worker villages located around the construction sites. There has been much modern excavation of the villages. Residences, bakeries, and such has been found.

True story: I once got tear gassed in Paris. I was in a taxi going down a narrow lane. The woman driving in front of us stopped to go into a bakery blocking traffic. When she came back out the taxi driver called her something unspeakable in French. She threw a canister at us and for the next 10 minutes I couldn't see and I could barely breathe.

Because of this, Paris is an awful place and I've never been back. That may not mean anything to you, but it made a difference in my life. So dismiss it as an anecdote all you want. But you'll never convince me or anyone else who went through this experience. Be thankful you never had to.

Some disconnected thoughts:

I didn't mean to say what you weren't saying. Apologies. I do like what you said here, "for her to use her basic human right to not be discriminated against as a woman to leverage those men into a difficult position, sounds like a crappy thing to do." Yes, a crappy thing. I think we'd better get used to it; at least in the United States where people want to adhere to the letter of the law when it comes to asserting their rights.

Am I wrong in assuming you live outside of the States? If so that makes it easy for me to understand your stance on religious rights being unequal with other rights.

I am not insisting that discrimination be protected. Far from it. If you were being discriminated against you would want me in your corner. I detest discrimination. What I find interesting about all of the cases you mentioned, the only reason a gay couple has given for asking the state to enforce the anti-discrimination laws is over the issue of marriage and the issue of marriage alone. The photographer and bakers apparently served the gay community in other capacities from their storefronts without incident. No lawsuits, no nothing. I think we have to ask 'why?" What is it specifically about marriage that would cause a Christian (or a Muslim, or any number of religions for that matter), to say, "I can't participate in that?" I suspect that if the couple in question had been a man and two or three women getting married that the business owners response would have been the same - that is not our understanding of marriage, sorry we can't in good conscience go there." At the risk of repeating myself, their refusal isn't about the people they refused. It is specifically about the act of marriage.

As an aside, I find it ironic to the nth degree that the State of Oregon is trying to legally compel the bakery owners to participate in a ceremony that is illegal in the State of Oregon. Marriage among gays in Oregon is illegal. Sigh. This is why I wish religion, of any sort, would get out of the business of telling people what to do. I would like to see a withdrawal from the legislation of religious tenets that are not in line with the US Constitution. Then gays could marry freely in this country and this argument could be put away.

Many of the problems in this world could be resolved if the religionists didn't feel like they needed to make everyone outside of their religion believe and behave like they do. As I see it, in a free society, a religious belief should not be able compel those outside that belief to do anything.

You may be familiar with openly gay author/blogger Andrew Sullivan who has written about this subject. He says: I would never want to coerce any fundamentalist to provide services for my wedding – or anything else for that matter – if it made them in any way uncomfortable. The idea of suing these businesses to force them to provide services they are clearly uncomfortable providing is anathema to me. I think it should be repellent to the gay rights movement as well.

There is, of course, extensive writing on this issue by all sides and we may never be able to untangle it here but I have enjoyed getting your perspective.



“what is to stop the members of Westboro Baptist Church from showing up at a bakery run by gays and demand they cater an anti-gay event?” answer; Anti-discrimination laws.

I hope you're right. I hope we never have an opportunity to find out. But here is, in part, the text of Oregon's law:

Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.

"Religion" doesn't not have a special designation of 'unless' in there. I can see those Westboro Baptist a-holes notice that and will have some gay bakers baking a cake for them every day of the week.

All of this discussion is really a digression of my initial post which was to say: If our communities were stronger, if we'd risk more relationally, if we'd put down the electronics and get to know each other, it sure would be a lot easier to get along. We would have less use for the legal system to resolve our differences.

Let me ask you, have you ever seen a law change someone's heart? I haven't.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't suggest the Muslim men were not discriminating. I simply stated that the Canadian woman who wanted to force devout Muslim men to cut her hair, for her to use her basic human right to not be discriminated against as a woman to leverage those men into a difficult position, sounds like a crappy thing to do. Just as if a mixed race couple were to find Archie Bunker to ask him to cater their wedding solely for the purpose of crying foul when they get discriminated against by the well known racist.

But that's not what's going on with the wedding couple, the photographer or the bakers. You are insisting that discrimination should be protected as a fundamental human right if someone calls it their “religion” and I find that idea abhorrent. So does the State of Oregon.

The bakers can't discriminate against a gay couple on religious grounds just as Archie Bunker can't deny blacks from drinking from the same water fountain as him. The difference between these two analogies is Archie Bunker wouldn't then turn around and suggest that his right to be a bigot is a fundamental human right that is on par with black's rights to not be discriminated against.

“what is to stop the members of Westboro Baptist Church from showing up at a bakery run by gays and demand they cater an anti-gay event?” answer; Anti-discrimination laws.

As stated many times above, your right to religion extends to the tip of your nose. That's how and why physical rights trump religious rights.