Arizona's new anti-gay law.

[100% Wolf]

Damn dude, a lot of people are bitter, but they don't talk about killing people.

The people who wrote the Bible talked about it

[100% Wolf]

I think after a gut-wrenching scene where he beats his wife and molests his own children, Kid will get hit by a bus. But instead of being squished and dying fast, he'll be mangled under it... his flesh twisted and deformed so much that the bleeding is topped. Authorities will struggle for 13 hours trying to delicately cut him out of the wreck, ultimately being unable to remove him with killing him. Eventually, his vitals crash. He suffers massive brain damage (in addition to his existing brain abnormalities) and ends up a vegetable. Except, he has full awareness. He just can't respond at all. He spends the next 45 years kept alive by machines. The other occupant in his long-term care facility urinates in his mouth every night.

Budget cuts eventually cause the hospital to remove him from life support. His body shrivels up from atrophy and malnourishment. Loaded on to a hospital cart, he is misplaced and forgotten. Rats in the hospital basement **** in his mouth and provide him sustenance... all the while he curses feminism silently inside his mind... blaming his battered wife for his predicament.

I smell a Nobel prize in Literature.

[Sava]

I don't understand why an award for literature would be named after a guy who invented dynamite.

[100% Wolf]

Someone had to pay for it!

Will the name be changed in the future utopia where robots deliver food for free? My guess is it'll be called the Obama prize

[Sava]

It will be named after me not Obama, duh!

[100% Wolf]

Obama Peace Prize
Sava Prize in Literature
etc.

[Sava]

The peace prize will be named after Putin.

[100% Wolf]

Ben Kenobi memorial prize in Economics

[Ben Kenobi]

view gays seems to be analogous to the way Nazis viewed Jews.

Are you suggesting that:

1, my statistic concerning children born outside of marriage is incorrect, or?

2, my statistic concerning poverty associated with children born outside of marriage is incorrect, or?

3, that avowed Communists like Gramsci deliberately set out to attack the traditional family?

Which one of these three is incorrect?

[Ben Kenobi]

I think it's wrong to discriminate based on race, yes.

Do you think it's wrong for a black club to refuse service to a white patron. Yes or no?

I did not.

And then you turn around and do just that.

You said businesses should be able to discriminate. I just wanted you to clarify that your position is that any business should be able to discriminate against black people if they want.

I think any privately owned business should be able to refuse any client.

I don't know why you want to drag marriage into this.

You're the one arguing that marriage is a part of this. Not me. I'm arguing specifically that marriage isn't a fundamental individual right. I'm stating that the state has pressing interests to regulate marriage.

What I meant was that if you understand why discrimination against black is bad

I think that the right to freedom of association is an important fundamental freedom. If a business chooses to exercise it where it discriminates against black people - that is entirely their decision. The same for white folks, etc.

that race is a piss poor way of judging a person

I think that if a business wishes to have a particular image associated with the business, that is entirely their right to cultivate such an image. I don't think that a Mexican restaurant should be forced to hire while folks.

that it would become clear that other piss poor ways of judging a person like sexuality would also clearly be bad.

Depends on the job. If I want someone who's a Catholic school teacher, then discrimination is an entirely appropriate response.

It doesn't matter if I can prove it or not

In order to prove that discrimination occurred, yes, it does matter if someone can prove that someone is or is not gay.

I just shouldn't discriminate against him because he's gay. (This holds true whether he's gay or not.)

So what you're saying is that anyone can claim, after the fact, that they were discriminated against because they were gay, despite the fact that the business in question had no way of accurately determining that they were gay.

Don't be silly. There are many measures of progress.

Then my post is quite relevant.

The evidence for the First not having been abolished is that it's still in the Constitution.

So then my argument prevails.

The evidence for SCOTUS interpreting the First differently than you is in their upholding the Civil Rights Act rather than ruling it unconstitutional as you claim it is.

So provide a citation from SCOTUS showing where they interpret the CRA to remove the right to freedom of association.

Both of these things are readily evident.

Which explains why we've seen no citation confirming this to be the case.

[100% Wolf]

Are you suggesting that:

1, my statistic concerning children born outside of marriage is incorrect, or?

2, my statistic concerning poverty associated with children born outside of marriage is incorrect, or?

3, that avowed Communists like Gramsci deliberately set out to attack the traditional family?

Which one of these three is incorrect?

1. For any statistic concerning "children born outside of marriage" most of the sample is going to consist of single mothers, not gay couples, ****.
2. See above
3. I have no idea who Gramsci is or why you think the possibility that a Communist was opposed to traditional families is relevant. HURR DURR COMMUNISTS SUPPORT UNIVERSAL LITERACY SO I'M AGAINST IT

You have no real facts to back up your prejudice against homosexuality, fascist twit.

[Ben Kenobi]

1. For any statistic concerning "children born outside of marriage" most of the sample is going to consist of single mothers, not gay couples, ****.

So you're conceding then that I have a point.

You have no real facts to back up your prejudice against homosexuality, fascist twit.

Your argument amounts to choosing to drill another hole in a boat that's already taking on water.

[Aeson]

Do you think it's wrong for a black club to refuse service to a white patron. Yes or no?

Of course I think it's wrong. It's silly to even ask the question given that I've never supported any sort of race based discrimination and assert that race based discrimination should not be done in any case.

And then you turn around and do just that.

There is nothing wrong with drawing an analogy between the two. The simple fact was that what you initially quoted and claimed was an analogy was not an analogy.

I think any privately owned business should be able to refuse any client.

Yes, I knew that before we even started. I just wanted to make sure everyone knows that you think businesses should be able to deny service to blacks because of their race.

You're the one arguing that marriage is a part of this.

I didn't mention marriage before you brought it up.

In order to prove that discrimination occurred, yes, it does matter if someone can prove that someone is or is not gay.

You're still a bigot if you discriminate against someone you think is a homosexual, even if they happen to not be a homosexual and you're just confused. I know being a bigot doesn't matter to you, but it certainly does to me.

So what you're saying is that anyone can claim, after the fact, that they were discriminated against because they were gay, despite the fact that the business in question had no way of accurately determining that they were gay.

Anyone can claim anything of course. (Outside of a very limited set of claims, like "Fire" in a theater.) Whether or not they can prove it is a question. If you have video of a shop owner telling some guys to get out of their cafe because he doesn't serve "fags" ... then it's probably a pretty easy thing to "prove" that the shop owner was discriminating against homosexuals. Even if none of the guys in question were actually homosexual.

Then my post is quite relevant.

No, it's wildly inapplicable. The context of the argument is very clear, as is the context of my use of "progress". I have since clarified further (to explicit) the context of my use of "progress".

So then my argument prevails.

Only if SCOTUS agrees with your interpretation. Which they obviously don't.

So provide a citation from SCOTUS showing where they interpret the CRA to remove the right to freedom of association.

It's your assertion that they are incompatible. Mine is that SCOTUS has upheld their interpretation of the First and CRA. This is obvious from the fact that the First is still in the Constitution, and CRA has not been ruled as unconstitutional.

Which explains why we've seen no citation confirming this to be the case.

I cite reality. The first is still in the Constitution (so can not be claimed to have been abolished), and CRA has not been ruled as unconstitutional.

We can clearly see the First is still in the Constitution. No court case is needed for that.

CRA (1964) is still in effect (common knowledge), but since you're deficient in that regard, Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States is one case where SCOTUS has upheld the CRA while the First still remained part of the Constitution.

[100% Wolf]

So you're conceding then that I have a point.



Your argument amounts to choosing to drill another hole in a boat that's already taking on water

A point about single mothers? Sure. How does your bigotry toward homosexuals make things any better? It doesn't. Go **** yourself. You're like a cockroach that was accidentally born in a human shell for some reason.

[Ben Kenobi]

Of course no. It's silly to even ask the question given that I've never supported any sort of race based discrimination and assert that race based discrimination should not be done in any case.

Ok. Some here (Fun is one), believe that discrimination against the 'powerful' is positive discrimination.

There is nothing wrong with drawing an analogy between the two. The simple fact was that what you initially quoted and claimed was an analogy was not an analogy.

Then a prospective Gay Rights Act needs to go through the same legislative process as the Civil Rights Act rather than piggybacking.

Yes, I knew that before we even started. I just wanted to make sure everyone knows that you think businesses should be able to deny service to blacks because of their race.

I believe that legally, they should be permitted to do so. Do I believe ethically that they should do so? No. I believe for almost all businesses that it would be negative. I can see some businesses where it would be a positive for them.

I didn't mention marriage before you brought it up.

Then you concede that marriage has nothing to do with the Civil Rights Act?

You're still a bigot if you discriminate against someone you think is a homosexual

If, as you say, I have no way of knowing whether someone is in fact homosexual, it becomes impossible for me to discriminate against them.

Either - it is possible to tell or it is not. If it's impossible to tell, then discrimination is also not possible.

Now, as a business, if I know that hiring someone who may be homosexual opens me up to discrimination lawsuits that I cannot protect myself from - what's the rational response? The rational response to protect my business is to hire people that I know where they stand.

I know being a bigot doesn't matter to you, but it certainly does to me.

Proof matters to me. If you cannot prove that someone is or isn't homosexual, then you cannot discriminate against them.

Anyone can claim anything of course.

Legally, doing so post facto has serious issues.

Whether or not they can prove it is a question.

At present the standard of proof seems to be that if the plaintiff says that they are gay, this is in fact proof that they are so.

If you have video of a shop owner telling some guys to get out of their cafe because he doesn't serve "fags"

Legally, he's not permitted to sell cigarettes. If they insist on smoking the owner of the establishment is permitted to remove them from the premises.

that the shop owner was discriminating against homosexuals. Even if none of the guys in question were actually homosexual.

How could you prove that the shop owner himself didn't engage in smoking fags?

No, it's wildly inapplicable. The context of the argument is very clear, as is the context of my use of "progress". I have since clarified further (to explicit) the context of my use of "progress".

Given that you claim 'progress' as justification for changing the laws, then yes, your definition of progress becomes and important part of the discussion. Perhaps you should rescind the thesis that 'social progress' is an effective argument in favor of your position.

I've shown that in actually, society has not actually progressed over this span, so it's simply claiming something that is not true.

Only if SCOTUS agrees with your interpretation. Which they obviously don't.

If it's obvious, citations should be easy.

It's your assertion that they are incompatible. Mine is that SCOTUS has upheld their interpretation of the First and CRA.

Well, then prove it. I've already cited the first amendment and you've conceded that freedom of association is protected by the First. Given that you've also asserted that the first is still in effect, this leaves us with you proving that the CRA actually abrogates freedom of association for private business owners.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States is one case where SCOTUS has upheld the CRA while the First still remained part of the Constitution.

carefully limited to enterprises having a direct and substantial relation to the interstate flow of goods and people

Seems to me a rather curious, (and unconstitutional fwiw), expansion of the interstate commerce clause.

Does this apply to a Christian Baker?