210 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

I thought we were talking about Oregon here, not the entire United States. Or do you really think there is a valid case against them based of the 14th Amendment versus whatever laws Oregon may have?
 

Yes it would be discrimination if we are talking about the same bakery. But if this happened to be some bakery that only did gay weddings, then things would be different.

 

If such a bakery existed, it would be the same as a bar that refused to sell beer to anyone who wasn't Asian. Which is to say, also discriminatory. Just because they are gay is irrelevant.

 

Again confirming something like this is entirely up to the judge unless state laws of Oregon state are relevant in this specific case.

 

They never said "we don't serve gays here". Assuming there is no Oregon state law which would specifically applies to gay weddings, the judge could disregard the facts completely and come to a "valid" ruling based on whatever the hell he felt like.

 

Yes, the judge could disregard the facts completely. And in doing so, fail to uphold the responsibilities of his station. 

 

Public record is a matter of consideration for any trial. That the bakery went on public record saying the reason they didn't serve gays was because they think it is an abomination makes this very clear cut and easy. 

 

Of course there shouldn't even be "protected" classes under the notion that everybody is equal, but disregarding that this could only be considered a clear-cut case depending on the laws of Oregon.

 

This isn't what you think it is. A protected class is a classification. Classifications such as gender, race, religion, etc. This does not mean "females are a protected class." It means the entire class of gender is protected.

[Aimi]

how did a thread about the Tories - only the second-most-execrable major party in Britain - and about British television turn into a thread about all America all the time

[Inquisitor Recon]

The law would still consider it discriminatory if a straight couple were denied service. A straight and gay wedding are different only on the participants on the events. The couple are still the clientele of the bakery. State law's clear on this.

Well I guess I'm saying how things should work case versus whatever draconian laws in Oregon make refusing to provide a service for a wedding some form of discrimination. Maybe they should make antecedence mandatory next.

[Inquisitor Recon]

If such a bakery existed, it would be the same as a bar that refused to sell beer to anyone who wasn't Asian. Which is to say, also discriminatory. Just because they are gay is irrelevant.

The comparison would only be relevant if the bar provided some sort of service where it supplies the booze for parties and other events. If they refused an event with the reasoning of "we don't serve Asians" there would be a valid basis for such charges.
 

Yes, the judge could disregard the facts completely. And in doing so, fail to uphold the responsibilities of his station.

That be far from the first time a judge failed to uphold the responsibilities of his station.
 

Public record is a matter of consideration for any trial. That the bakery went on public record saying the reason they didn't serve gays was because they think it is an abomination makes this very clear cut and easy.

Opinions cannot be considered illegal. Did they specifically say "we do not serve gays" on the public record? That would be damning but otherwise whatever crazy stuff they want to say should not have an impact on the ruling.

isn't what you think it is. A protected class is a classification. Classifications such as gender, race, religion, etc. This does not mean "females are a protected class." It means the entire class of gender is protected.[/size][/background]

In reality it doesn't work that way. The protection afforded by such status only applies to some (those not the majority).

[In Exile]

I must have forgotten the last time a Republican senator put forward a "burn the witches" bill.

If we're culturally screwed up it isn't the result of Republicans in congress.

 

Well, Sarah Palin is an anointed witch hunter. Or is it just anointed by a witch hunter?

[In Exile]

Religion is not a "Get Out of Jail Free" card to do whatever you want. Everyone is free to pursue their own beliefs in private, but the second you become a public business entity, you are required to follow laws and guidelines about how you can refuse said services to others. That is part of doing business in the US (and nearly every other industrialized country, barring perhaps China and India).

 

More to the point, business don't actually act in a stateless environment. By which I mean they often ask for a great deal of legal benefits that are the product of the modern state - the chief one among them being the benefit of limited liability through incorporation - and are subject to a number of regulations designed to ensure the orderly provision of goods and services. Running a business is not an inalienable right. 

[Commander Rpg]

A straight and gay wedding are different only on the participants on the events.

The union between a man and a woman is always a wedding, regardless of the professed religion, because marriage is a natural institution, even before being a religious rite.

The union of two identic genders hasn't got the potential of an anatomic (pleasure) and breeding (offspring) unity, thus not constituting a wedding.

 

They wouldn't be the same thing even going on the far reaches of the unknown universe.

[In Exile]

Somewhat more on topic, I'm shocked that more people aren't, well, shocked that a political party is talking about axing (or at least effectively taking the ax to) a public news agency on the basis of their news coverage. I mean, sure, there are issues with having a government sponsored news station covering political events and - more importantly - exhibiting political views (i.e., not being wholly neutral, as if that were even possible). But I would think the idea of actually then taking the step to interfere with this news agency - which is certainly very dictatorial, even when you're in the right entirely - should be terrifying. 

 

The union between a man and a woman is always a wedding, regardless of the professed religion, because marriage is a natural institution, even before being a religious rite.

The union of two identic genders hasn't got the potential of an anatomic (pleasure) and breeding (offspring) unity, thus not constituting a wedding.

 

They wouldn't be the same thing even going on the far reaches of the unknown universe.

I don't know how to quite react to this, but (1) M/M and F/F couples can have awesome sex and (2) not every M/F couple is fertile. 

[Sigma Tauri]

The union between a man and a woman is always a wedding, regardless of the professed religion, because marriage is a natural institution, even before being a religious rite.

The union of two identic genders hasn't got the potential of an anatomic (pleasure) and breeding (offspring) unity, thus not constituting a wedding.

 

They wouldn't be the same thing even going on the far reaches of the unknown universe.

 

Weddings are just cultural ceremonies.

 

Really, your point is not important as Oregon law is concerned.

[Commander Rpg]

Not important as Oregon law is concerned.

 

It's important because a law isn't always moral just because it exists.

 

I don't know how to quite react to this, but (1) M/M and F/F couples can have awesome sex and (2) not every M/F couple is fertile. 

Potentially a male-female couple can have children, I've never said it's always effective. Potentially they can have children and that's biology.

Homosex couples don't bear the right anatomy to have sex: men have to use always anuses, women use sex toys or their other body parts. If that's commonly real for you, I'm impressed.

[Sigma Tauri]

It's important because a law isn't always moral just because it exists.

 

It's really not. You're the only one who's going to start a moral argument. This is a legal one, and it's a civil rights matter, too. Whether you agree with the law or not doesn't really matter. The couple broke the law.

 

Potentially a male-female couple can have children, I've never said it's always effective. Potentially they can have children and that's biology.

 

Weddings don't constitute the biology of the participants. It's a cultural ceremony acknowledging marriage. Everything else on that quoted post is dismissible.

[In Exile]

I think the idea is that the BBC is supposed to be impartial in its coverage. After all, the licence fee does not discriminate political affiliation, which means the BBC is supposed to serve everyone; regardless of whether you voted Tory, Labour, Lib Dem, UKIP, Green, SNP, or any of the little parties in Northern Ireland.

It's all crap, anyway. The BBC is first and foremost a post-Imperial "soft power" project. The Tories will kick and scream, but nothing will fundamentally change. Higher interests are at stake, namely nostalgia and inflated self-importance.

Anyway, this thread is probably going to get locked soon.

 

The BBC finds itself in a similar position to the CBC, and our Tories generally like the CBC as much as your Tories like the BBC. So I understand the argument, at least on a notional level - it's why I said it's a pretty problematic situation to have a public broadcaster report on such a politically charged topic as an election. 

 

I just think it's worrying that a political party essentially comes out in favour of muzzling a news organization. 

 

Homosex couples don't bear the right anatomy to have sex: men have to use always anuses, women use sex toys or their other body parts. If that's commonly real for you, I'm impressed.

 

Again, straight couples can (and do) 100% have sex in these same ways. 

[Inquisitor Recon]

There is nothing "natural" about marriage; it is a wholly man-made ceremony with nebulous function, meant to declare and confirm binding and ownership, but ultimately succeed at neither. For thousands of years, love didn't even have anything to do with marriage; it was all family relationships and social status.

When animals want to get some sexy time, they don't mess around with some useless social ceremony; they just go right ahead and start f***ing. We're the only dumb bastards in the whole animal kingdom to bother with such nonsense.

So we should behave like animals and not bother trying to be better than that? K.

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

What the fek has this got to do with DR WHO?

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

Oh i know.

Any hoo.

 

Oh and.

[Inquisitor Recon]

I was merely mocking the assertion that marriage is somehow "natural."

And in many, many ways, we already do behave like a bunch of wild animals. Things we do to be "better," are merely that; things we do. As unnatural and artificial as our technological inventions. We should not pretend otherwise and hold any of them as somehow sacred or untouchable.

And that includes marriage. As far as I'm concerned, marriage is just a social contract with some government benefits attached.

Things we do better we do better because we try to hold ourselves to a higher standard than mere animals, abandoning that does humanity no favors.

 

Marriage is indeed a social contract but there are reasons for the existence of it. As for the government's role in marriage if they feel the need to "revise" the definition of marriage under whatever pretenses people can come up with they might as well abandon it altogether as it becomes rather pointless. Leave it as a religious ceremony.

 

Anyway lets resume cursing those Republican Witch Hunters in some states preventing the progress that is forcing businesses to cater events they find objectionable (if the refused party can claim to be of a protected class, otherwise nobody cares). Truly they are America's version of ISIS.

[Inquisitor Recon]

Thread tittle could be porn tittle.

I wish I hadn't been informed of that.

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

Doubt id watch a porn with Tory in the title