What makes you think the discussion is limited to what the law is, versus what it should be, or more broadly, what the 'right' thing to do is, regardless of the law?
Your link does not necessarily refute the post you're replying to. Gay people are not a protected group under Federal law; nor, AIUI, are they in most states.
What's with everyone bending over backwards to equate Nazis with non-genocidal, non-terrorist groups of people?
Given the chance, gay people will try to live their lives in peace.
Given the chance, Nazis will try to exterminate billions of people.
Nazis haven't been systematically persecuted and killed for millennia. Ironically, gay people have been systematically persecuted and murdered by Nazis. Such persecution is why there are protected classes, which some governments recognize gay people as belonging to.
> What's with everyone bending over backwards to equivocate Nazis with non-genocidal, non-terrorist groups of people?
That's not what is happening, as I understood it. The grandparent simply refuted the general argument that "The business does not need to be accountable to anyone" by providing a counterexample whereby unconditionally following this argument can lead to an unwanted outcome.
Actually, it is that simple. The grandparent made a false equivalence. Sexual orientation, color of skin, race etc. is not a choice that someone makes. Your political orientation is a choice you make. One of them is not the same as the other.
Do you have insight on what small groups of Nazis say or do? Even the groups at the Unite the Right rally called for ethnic cleansing of the USA. Which could be seen on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIrcB1sAN8I
So have you tried actually believing something politically completely different from what you believe right now?
Because it's not really a choice. You can pretend play to advocate for whatever political ideology. The same way you can have sex with women even if you're gay or vice versa. You can choose your sexual behavior.
But political orientation is not really a choice. It is perhaps a result of your choices, early influences, social group, etc.
This is independent of anyone's political beliefs, there should be limits to radical jihadists, radical anti-democratic communists, radical anti-democratic fascists of all sort, etc. You can choose to pursue your political aims with non-violent means and practice tolerance.
The idea is that you can believe whatever you want, but as soon as you start to propagate violence and pose an active threat against democracy - like e.g. making detailed plans to overthrow the government, advertising that only certain people should be allowed to vote, etc - there should be reasonable limits.
There are millions who insist that their sex orientation is their choice. They can try X, experiment with Z, and whatever. That was part of the idea of "fluid genders" and sexual liberation in the sixties and especially seventies.
Your sexual orientation might not be a choice, but if and how you express it definitely is. "Oh, yes, Jews are subhuman. One bread please." is on the same level as "I love me some pussy, obviously, because i'm a man. One bread please".
How is forcing people to take up a different political view to buy bread better than forcing them to change their sexual preferences to buy bread? That whole protected group thing is completely nuts.
That will be very sad place when business is forced to service someone even being against it for their personal believe, just because that something is not their choice but rather a set in stone fact.
My brother in law is mentally ill.m and his local diving center won't take him for a dive. I have to ask him to sue them for refusal of service based on his sicknes and because his sickness is not his choice.
If the cake is denied because the baker doesn't want to create content they disagree with (as opposed to being denied merely because the requestor is homosexual), then why not?
Actually nobody knows why homosexuals are homosexual nor why Nazis are Nazis. There is very little scientific evidence to support any cause for either outlook.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group
HTH
Then the argument should be "The business does not need to be accountable to anyone, except with regards to protected groups".
However, that was not the argument that was made. The original argument is unconditional: "to anyone", period.
The grandparent pointed out this flaw. You are on the same side of the argument.
I don't care about the original argument, it wasn't made by me. Obviously the business has to respect the law.
Therefore comparing cloudflare and the bakery is dishonest, there you go.
2 replies →
What makes you think the discussion is limited to what the law is, versus what it should be, or more broadly, what the 'right' thing to do is, regardless of the law?
Good luck getting agreement on the "right" thing to do
Your link does not necessarily refute the post you're replying to. Gay people are not a protected group under Federal law; nor, AIUI, are they in most states.
The "gay bakery" case I'm aware of was in Northern Ireland
What's with everyone bending over backwards to equate Nazis with non-genocidal, non-terrorist groups of people?
Given the chance, gay people will try to live their lives in peace.
Given the chance, Nazis will try to exterminate billions of people.
Nazis haven't been systematically persecuted and killed for millennia. Ironically, gay people have been systematically persecuted and murdered by Nazis. Such persecution is why there are protected classes, which some governments recognize gay people as belonging to.
> What's with everyone bending over backwards to equivocate Nazis with non-genocidal, non-terrorist groups of people?
That's not what is happening, as I understood it. The grandparent simply refuted the general argument that "The business does not need to be accountable to anyone" by providing a counterexample whereby unconditionally following this argument can lead to an unwanted outcome.
In other words: it's not that simple.
Actually, it is that simple. The grandparent made a false equivalence. Sexual orientation, color of skin, race etc. is not a choice that someone makes. Your political orientation is a choice you make. One of them is not the same as the other.
2 replies →
Thank you for explaining it better than I could (I'm not an English native speaker ;-).
> Nazis will try to exterminate billions of people
I have never, ever seen anyone argue for exterminating people (except as /b/-tier provocation).
Not even the small group of people actually identifying as National Socialists do that, much less the numerous people the media would call "nazis".
The straw man arguments are getting out of hand.
Do you have insight on what small groups of Nazis say or do? Even the groups at the Unite the Right rally called for ethnic cleansing of the USA. Which could be seen on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIrcB1sAN8I
False equivalence. Your sexual orientation is not a choice. Your political orientation is.
So have you tried actually believing something politically completely different from what you believe right now?
Because it's not really a choice. You can pretend play to advocate for whatever political ideology. The same way you can have sex with women even if you're gay or vice versa. You can choose your sexual behavior.
But political orientation is not really a choice. It is perhaps a result of your choices, early influences, social group, etc.
My politicial mindset, today, is vastly different to my political mindset from 5 or 10 years ago.
It helps that I live in a country with more than 2 dominant political parties; it lets me think in shades of gray (rather than in black-and-white).
2 replies →
This is independent of anyone's political beliefs, there should be limits to radical jihadists, radical anti-democratic communists, radical anti-democratic fascists of all sort, etc. You can choose to pursue your political aims with non-violent means and practice tolerance.
The idea is that you can believe whatever you want, but as soon as you start to propagate violence and pose an active threat against democracy - like e.g. making detailed plans to overthrow the government, advertising that only certain people should be allowed to vote, etc - there should be reasonable limits.
1 reply →
Swing voters, the folks who decide every election in a modern democracy, would disagree with you.
2 replies →
>Your sexual orientation is not a choice.
Who says it's so for everybody?
There are millions who insist that their sex orientation is their choice. They can try X, experiment with Z, and whatever. That was part of the idea of "fluid genders" and sexual liberation in the sixties and especially seventies.
No, people insist that they are free to have ANY sexual orientation. This doesn't make your sexual orientation "a choice".
4 replies →
Religion is a choice, but you can't refuse to bake a cake for Seventh Day Adventists.
Your sexual orientation might not be a choice, but if and how you express it definitely is. "Oh, yes, Jews are subhuman. One bread please." is on the same level as "I love me some pussy, obviously, because i'm a man. One bread please".
How is forcing people to take up a different political view to buy bread better than forcing them to change their sexual preferences to buy bread? That whole protected group thing is completely nuts.
I just explained how it is different. Political ideology is a choice; sexual orientation is not.
4 replies →
Not that I am any way supporting DS, but political orientation is not very plastic.
That will be very sad place when business is forced to service someone even being against it for their personal believe, just because that something is not their choice but rather a set in stone fact.
My brother in law is mentally ill.m and his local diving center won't take him for a dive. I have to ask him to sue them for refusal of service based on his sicknes and because his sickness is not his choice.
If the cake is denied because the baker doesn't want to create content they disagree with (as opposed to being denied merely because the requestor is homosexual), then why not?
Look. We only apply those rules for sides we like.
Homosexuals are the way they were born.
Nazis are not.
Actually nobody knows why homosexuals are homosexual nor why Nazis are Nazis. There is very little scientific evidence to support any cause for either outlook.
Are you implying homosexuality is a choice?
1 reply →