Author Topic: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?  (Read 107158 times)

TheOldestYoungMan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 749
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #950 on: February 08, 2018, 06:35:58 PM »

Are you aware that the Constitution was drafted 82 years before the first known appearance of the word "homosexual" in print? I'm guessing not, because that's a patently absurd statement to make.


What's that you say?  Exactly what I was saying?  That there isn't a constitutional protection for the thing you care about protecting, so maybe pull your head out of your ass when things finally start to break your way, and buy some cake elsewhere?  Instead of picking a fight you might not win, a fight that might result in a federal definitional clarification that excludes your class?  Hmm?  Hmm?  Particularly when we're talking about something like cake?  Not jobs or access to benefits or anything important but fucking cake?  Smug and dismissive as fuck didn't even bother to read.

The term did not exist at the time the document was written.  Like taking a document from the 1920's and pointing out that Hawaii isn't a state.

*smashes head into table*  Yes! Exactly!  That's what I'm saying!  The thing isn't in there!  I'm not saying the framers intended to enshrine bigoted behavior as a right, I'm saying the freedom to practice religion IS in there and the prohibition on discrimination against homosexuals IS NOT.  You're absolutely right about why it isn't, but that doesn't matter, the constitutionality of the protection is murky vs. the absolute first amendment protection for the baker.

In a clash between first amendment rights and ...unmentioned things... the track record isn't great for the unmentioned things.  It was only after the establishment of specific protected classes in the CRA? it's late and I'm too lazy to look it up, but at some point the protected classes were defined, and that's what allows for discrimination related legal violations.  The nature of the enforcement of those laws results in some de-facto protected classes in most areas.  As in, some businesses, afraid of breaking a law, don't discriminate against, as an example, homosexuals, because they aren't sure if that's protected or not.

Right now homosexuals enjoy a de-facto status as protected, and there's startlingly little legal precedent on the subject.  The wise baker behaves as though they are protected.  The foolish homosexual argues they were discriminated against.

A foolish baker met two foolish homosexuals and lost.  All homosexuals may lose.

Because of cake.

TheOldestYoungMan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 749
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #951 on: February 08, 2018, 06:39:32 PM »
Not entirely clear to me that it was an illegal choice though.

Fortunately, we've already proven you don't know what the fuck you're talking about when it comes to legality . . .

Yes Stv because I incorrectly assume I can conduct business in America following the American laws I clearly don't know anything.  I should assume that the laws of Canada apply to me despite living, I don't know, four Canadas away from Canada.

TheOldestYoungMan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 749
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #952 on: February 08, 2018, 06:41:32 PM »

Seems it was clear to the Colorado court system, which I expect to be dramatically more familiar with Colorado laws than you are.

I don't know about dramatically more, I like to think I have a certain flair.

zoltani

  • Guest
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #953 on: February 08, 2018, 06:42:17 PM »
But I'm certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, it is wrong to use violence to compel the baking of cakes, and that's what happens if you say the owner/operator of a cake shop can't refuse a commission, and his reason why doesn't matter.

Are you also sure that is wrong to use violence to compel the preparation of sandwiches for black people at your lunch counter?  Because we do that, too.  There was a whole movement about it.

There sure as hell were a lot of people who felt it was right and proper and their "Good Christian Duty" to use force to stop black people from eating at a lunch counter reserved for whites only.

See for yourself.  The footage here is from the period and is germaine to the lunch counter example.  It *is* the lunch counter example.   The voice-over is also part of the historical record, that of Trump campaign speeches.   I grew up in the south - I recognized the code words in Trump's speeches.  For those of you without the "benefit" of that background, I think the message will become quite clear as you watch and listen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFZ-1EojoFM

May they rot in hell for their bigotted actions and attitudes.   

I, for one, don't have a single issue with the use of force to stop those bigots.  It's the only thing that will stop a lot of them.   If we can reach their children before the attitude of their parents fossilizes their brains, they might be saved with education and love.  Their parents?  Short of a miracle, that won't happen.

I propose a program to give a massive dose of psychedelics to create ego loss. It'll cause them to question everything they know and feel more connected with their fellow human beings. Fuck man, the 60s had it!

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4987
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #954 on: February 08, 2018, 06:48:42 PM »

Are you aware that the Constitution was drafted 82 years before the first known appearance of the word "homosexual" in print? I'm guessing not, because that's a patently absurd statement to make.


What's that you say?  Exactly what I was saying?  That there isn't a constitutional protection for the thing you care about protecting, so maybe pull your head out of your ass when things finally start to break your way, and buy some cake elsewhere?  Instead of picking a fight you might not win, a fight that might result in a federal definitional clarification that excludes your class?  Hmm?  Hmm?  Particularly when we're talking about something like cake?  Not jobs or access to benefits or anything important but fucking cake?  Smug and dismissive as fuck didn't even bother to read.

The term did not exist at the time the document was written.  Like taking a document from the 1920's and pointing out that Hawaii isn't a state.

*smashes head into table*  Yes! Exactly!  That's what I'm saying!  The thing isn't in there!  I'm not saying the framers intended to enshrine bigoted behavior as a right, I'm saying the freedom to practice religion IS in there and the prohibition on discrimination against homosexuals IS NOT.  You're absolutely right about why it isn't, but that doesn't matter, the constitutionality of the protection is murky vs. the absolute first amendment protection for the baker.

In a clash between first amendment rights and ...unmentioned things... the track record isn't great for the unmentioned things.  It was only after the establishment of specific protected classes in the CRA? it's late and I'm too lazy to look it up, but at some point the protected classes were defined, and that's what allows for discrimination related legal violations.  The nature of the enforcement of those laws results in some de-facto protected classes in most areas.  As in, some businesses, afraid of breaking a law, don't discriminate against, as an example, homosexuals, because they aren't sure if that's protected or not.

Right now homosexuals enjoy a de-facto status as protected, and there's startlingly little legal precedent on the subject.  The wise baker behaves as though they are protected.  The foolish homosexual argues they were discriminated against.

A foolish baker met two foolish homosexuals and lost.  All homosexuals may lose.

Because of cake.

Are you under the impression that this couple complained about a federal Constitutional violation and not a Colorado anti-discrimination law?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12073
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #955 on: February 08, 2018, 06:54:50 PM »
Not entirely clear to me that it was an illegal choice though.

Fortunately, we've already proven you don't know what the fuck you're talking about when it comes to legality . . .

Yes Stv because I incorrectly assume I can conduct business in America following the American laws I clearly don't know anything.  I should assume that the laws of Canada apply to me despite living, I don't know, four Canadas away from Canada.

Both links that I provided were US sources referring to US law and regulation.




I'm not saying the framers intended to enshrine bigoted behavior as a right, I'm saying the freedom to practice religion IS in there and the prohibition on discrimination against homosexuals IS NOT.

The founding fathers enshrined bigotry in the constitution when they agreed that black slaves deserved only three fifths the representation in congress.  That's why the 13th amendment had to come about.  Human rights have come a long way from the time that being gay was punishable by law, and owning a slave was legal.

PKFFW

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #956 on: February 08, 2018, 07:13:21 PM »
It really isn't, but reading is hard I know.
hhhmmm lets see......

1:  Cake is not important to you and you are arguing that people should have the right to discriminate against others because it is not important.
2:  You agree there is a line "somewhere" past which it is wrong to discriminate.
3:  It is reasonable to assume that where ever you believe that line should be, that point is important to you otherwise the line would not be there it would be somewhere else.

So how is it that you are not arguing that discrimination is ok if the product or service is not important to you but is not ok if the product or service is important to you?

Perhaps you could start by explaining where "the line is" past which it would be wrong to discriminate.  Then try to convince us that the point you have chosen is unimportant to you.

TheOldestYoungMan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 749
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #957 on: February 08, 2018, 08:03:52 PM »

Are you under the impression that this couple complained about a federal Constitutional violation and not a Colorado anti-discrimination law?

No, I am under the impression that this couple complained after being discriminated against while trying to buy cake.  I have no information regarding if they understood that it could potentially end up before SCOTUS, potentially ending de-facto protected status for homosexual individuals, but I suspect they didn't think that far ahead, or if they did, took for granted the outcome, which isn't certain.

TheOldestYoungMan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 749
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #958 on: February 08, 2018, 08:09:31 PM »
It really isn't, but reading is hard I know.
hhhmmm lets see......

1:  Cake is not important to you and you are arguing that people should have the right to discriminate against others because it is not important.
2:  You agree there is a line "somewhere" past which it is wrong to discriminate.
3:  It is reasonable to assume that where ever you believe that line should be, that point is important to you otherwise the line would not be there it would be somewhere else.

So how is it that you are not arguing that discrimination is ok if the product or service is not important to you but is not ok if the product or service is important to you?

Perhaps you could start by explaining where "the line is" past which it would be wrong to discriminate.  Then try to convince us that the point you have chosen is unimportant to you.

I really think you need to go back and read what I actually posted.  These are not at all my arguments.  These are not related to the assumptions upon which my arguments rest.  I don't really know how to respond, you're accusing me of arguing that purple is best when I was talking about thumbs. 

I'm not engaged in the argument you think I'm engaged in?  You're arguing against an argument that isn't being presented here?  There's a hypothetical stereotype you think applies to me, and you're wanting to have an argument with that person, but it isn't me, so I can't really help you.

Apologies friend.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4987
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #959 on: February 08, 2018, 08:12:09 PM »

Are you under the impression that this couple complained about a federal Constitutional violation and not a Colorado anti-discrimination law?

No, I am under the impression that this couple complained after being discriminated against while trying to buy cake.  I have no information regarding if they understood that it could potentially end up before SCOTUS, potentially ending de-facto protected status for homosexual individuals, but I suspect they didn't think that far ahead, or if they did, took for granted the outcome, which isn't certain.

One could easily argue that the baker, by taking this to SCOTUS, is potentially affirming a protected status for homosexual individuals.

Personally, I hope that's what happens because I'm really tired of the abuses that people get away with in the name of religion.

SwordGuy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4379
  • Location: Fayetteville, NC
    • Flipping Fayetteville
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #960 on: February 08, 2018, 08:15:45 PM »
It really isn't, but reading is hard I know.
hhhmmm lets see......

1:  Cake is not important to you and you are arguing that people should have the right to discriminate against others because it is not important.
2:  You agree there is a line "somewhere" past which it is wrong to discriminate.
3:  It is reasonable to assume that where ever you believe that line should be, that point is important to you otherwise the line would not be there it would be somewhere else.

So how is it that you are not arguing that discrimination is ok if the product or service is not important to you but is not ok if the product or service is important to you?

Perhaps you could start by explaining where "the line is" past which it would be wrong to discriminate.  Then try to convince us that the point you have chosen is unimportant to you.

Pretty much the gold standard among Trump-loving conservatives - if it doesn't affect me, it's ok.   Screw anyone else.

To quote one Trumpite from my workplace, when we were discussing his video self-confession of serial sexual harassment to women, 'Why should I care?  It's not like it's bad for the economy or something!"   

It took every bit of self-control I had not to reach for the nearest blunt instrument and put it to use on him and those sitting at the table with him, grinning like he had just earned the Nobel-prize in witticisms.   

TheOldestYoungMan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 749
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #961 on: February 08, 2018, 08:23:38 PM »
Both links that I provided were US sources referring to US law and regulation.


And yet none of them referenced laws that apply to me, rather, they reference the types of things that one might need to deal with.  Here's a place to start, if you don't see a requirement in there to get permission from the government to engage in business you can then start reviewing the various state constitutions.

http://constitutionus.com/

Quote
The founding fathers enshrined bigotry in the constitution when they agreed that black slaves deserved only three fifths the representation in congress.  That's why the 13th amendment had to come about.  Human rights have come a long way from the time that being gay was punishable by law, and owning a slave was legal.

Right but that particular brand isn't the issue we're dealing with here, try to keep up.  If you'd like to point out where, either in the U.S. constitution or in U.S. Federal Law homosexuals are referenced as a protected class that would be relevant.  To some discussion.  I guess.

The right to freedom of religious expression and religious practice is explicitly referenced.  There's no "case to be made" here, there's no reliance on it "being an old document."  It's true that in the past racism was similarly defended, but that was a weak ass defense, even back then.  The homosexual thing isn't as clear cut, unlike racism, it's clearly spelled out there in the bible.  You have be a bit of a jackass to to apply those bits to your faith and come up with "I am proscribed from selling to homosexuals" but there it is, you are protected by the first amendment.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make GS, but my point wasn't that they shouldn't be protected, it's that blacks are protected explicitly, religions are protected explicitly, homosexuals are not explicitly protected, and that in the U.S. you don't forfeit your individual rights just because you engage in commerce.

You seem to believe that the government requiring a permit somehow strips a person of their rights, in a way that doesn't make sense to me, but I'm not from Canada, I don't know how it works there.  Maybe you think rights come from the government, that they are derived from the government, I don't know.  But one day you'll figure it out, keep reading.

TheOldestYoungMan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 749
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #962 on: February 08, 2018, 08:28:44 PM »

One could easily argue that the baker, by taking this to SCOTUS, is potentially affirming a protected status for homosexual individuals.

Personally, I hope that's what happens because I'm really tired of the abuses that people get away with in the name of religion.

Yup, it could go either way, it likely will go one way or the other.  I won't enjoy seeing a massive blow to the freedom of religion.  I won't enjoy seeing a massive blow to gay rights either.  One or the other is coming, yay?

I don't think anyone is better off with this being how it goes down.

Whatever special snowflake life you've led that makes you think withholding of cake equals abuse, I hope you're grateful for it every day.

But when they come for you, the discrimination police, because you didn't say your prayers to the right protected classes, because you didn't produce whatever the cake of the day is, because it shouldn't be possible to compel that cake, you'll see what we're talking about.

When it's something you care about.  And not just religion.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4987
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #963 on: February 08, 2018, 08:49:45 PM »

One could easily argue that the baker, by taking this to SCOTUS, is potentially affirming a protected status for homosexual individuals.

Personally, I hope that's what happens because I'm really tired of the abuses that people get away with in the name of religion.

Yup, it could go either way, it likely will go one way or the other.  I won't enjoy seeing a massive blow to the freedom of religion.  I won't enjoy seeing a massive blow to gay rights either.  One or the other is coming, yay?

I don't think anyone is better off with this being how it goes down.

Whatever special snowflake life you've led that makes you think withholding of cake equals abuse, I hope you're grateful for it every day.

But when they come for you, the discrimination police, because you didn't say your prayers to the right protected classes, because you didn't produce whatever the cake of the day is, because it shouldn't be possible to compel that cake, you'll see what we're talking about.

When it's something you care about.  And not just religion.

As it seems your argument has devolved to the point where you have nothing left other than to call me a special snowflake, I suppose I should go find something more productive to do.

You seem like a very angry and bitter person. I hope your life improves.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3644
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #964 on: February 08, 2018, 08:57:18 PM »
So after 19 pages... did anyone regret voting Republican?  I'm sure reading the entirety of this thread is about as healthy as swimming in toxic sludge.

There were a few, yeah.

And Melania, by my guess.  Assuming she did, of course.

PKFFW

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #965 on: February 08, 2018, 08:57:31 PM »
I really think you need to go back and read what I actually posted.  These are not at all my arguments.  These are not related to the assumptions upon which my arguments rest.  I don't really know how to respond, you're accusing me of arguing that purple is best when I was talking about thumbs. 

I'm not engaged in the argument you think I'm engaged in?  You're arguing against an argument that isn't being presented here?  There's a hypothetical stereotype you think applies to me, and you're wanting to have an argument with that person, but it isn't me, so I can't really help you.

Apologies friend.
Well apologies if I've misunderstood.

Might I suggest that rather than repeating "it's fucking cake" and therefore not important and as such that discriminating about who to serve cake should be allowed because "it's fucking cake" and therefore not important whilst at the same time agreeing that discrimination should not be allowed on important things (where ever the line is drawn on what is or is not important enough to allow discrimination) you could perhaps try putting forward a coherent argument.

Because frankly that's all I see in your argument and I'm pretty sure that judging by many other respondents in this this recent part of the thread, I'm not alone in that view.

YttriumNitrate

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 362
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #966 on: February 09, 2018, 06:48:20 AM »
So after 19 pages... did anyone regret voting Republican?  I'm sure reading the entirety of this thread is about as healthy as swimming in toxic sludge.
I managed to skim through the first 10 pages (the trick is to ignore any post with a long quote) and there were was:

-one person who voted for Trump in the primary, and switched to Johnson for the general;
-a few people saying they knew someone that regretted their decision to vote Trump;
-a person that regretted their Bush vote; and
-a whole bunch that regretted the way their neighbors voted.

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1957
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #967 on: February 09, 2018, 07:20:48 AM »
So why on earth would you try and force the conversation before the Supreme Court that puts your protected class status in jeopardy?  That's fucking stupid.

In the Colorado case before the SC, the plaintiff is the bakery. They've lost, and lost, and lost again in the courts in Colorado. The Colorado SC declined to their appeal so they took it to the US SC.

Right now he cannot bake cakes for anyone and had to reduce his staff, so I guess I can understand in a twisted way. It's a little absurd on both sides, the couple could have moved along and chosen another baker, there's no shortage of them. The owner could have sold him a cake to be a centerpiece of a ceremony, which yes, is certainly art, showing off his skills and potentially gaining a lot of new business in the market. It wasn't handled well on either side.

Personally the issue is black and white for me, I would have baked the cake, and made it the most beautiful cake they have seen to increase my sales amount the gay community. Sometimes though I like to entertain the gray areas, and I think it's important to do so, no matter the subject matter.

The Couple did move along and choose another baker. They also reported him to the Colorado authorities, who are the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case. The couple DID NOT sue him, the state--which we expect to guard our civil rights--did.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12073
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #968 on: February 09, 2018, 07:39:28 AM »
Both links that I provided were US sources referring to US law and regulation.


And yet none of them referenced laws that apply to me, rather, they reference the types of things that one might need to deal with.  Here's a place to start, if you don't see a requirement in there to get permission from the government to engage in business you can then start reviewing the various state constitutions.

http://constitutionus.com/


You haven't told me which state you live in, but if you do so I can provide the exact set of laws and regulations the US government requires you to comply with to open a bakery.  Every state requires licensing and regulation to run a bakery (even a home bakery).  Despite your uninformed opinion, these laws would apply to you personally (as well as every other person in your state).



Quote
The founding fathers enshrined bigotry in the constitution when they agreed that black slaves deserved only three fifths the representation in congress.  That's why the 13th amendment had to come about.  Human rights have come a long way from the time that being gay was punishable by law, and owning a slave was legal.

Right but that particular brand isn't the issue we're dealing with here, try to keep up.  If you'd like to point out where, either in the U.S. constitution or in U.S. Federal Law homosexuals are referenced as a protected class that would be relevant.

There are plenty of protected classes not referenced in the constitution.  It was written in a time of discrimination, by men who openly discriminated.  Women, for example are not guaranteed equal rights.  Pointing to the constitution and saying that it doesn't explicitly define a particular protected class is therefore an uninformed argument.

What we were discussing was the case of two gay men who were protected under Colorado's senate bill 200 . . . which explicitly defines homosexuality as a protected class.  Please try to keep up by educating yourself about the topic you're discussing.



The homosexual thing isn't as clear cut, unlike racism, it's clearly spelled out there in the bible.

No it isn't.  It's not clearly spelled out in the bible at all (although various Christian sects have made that interpretation, it's simply that - a matter of interpretation).  Please try to keep up . . . maybe by first reading the material you're blithely claiming knowledge of.



I'm not sure what point you're trying to make GS, but my point wasn't that they shouldn't be protected, it's that blacks are protected explicitly, religions are protected explicitly, homosexuals are not explicitly protected, and that in the U.S. you don't forfeit your individual rights just because you engage in commerce.

Except that the gay couple was explicitly protected by senate bill 200 as previously mentioned.  Please try to keep up.

Nobody forfeited any rights.  Commerce occurs in the US at the behest of the government.  If you engage in criminal behvaiour while engaging in commerce, you will face fines, penalties, or lose the ability to continue to engage in that commerce.  Which is exactly what happened.



You seem to believe that the government requiring a permit somehow strips a person of their rights, in a way that doesn't make sense to me, but I'm not from Canada, I don't know how it works there.  Maybe you think rights come from the government, that they are derived from the government, I don't know.  But one day you'll figure it out, keep reading.

No, requiring a permit doesn't strip anyone of their rights.  You're obviously having trouble keeping up with the conversation.  No rights have been violated in the case under discussion (other than the rights of the gay couple, which were redressed by the courts).  Can you point to  any constitutional passage or federal/state law that guarantees a person who opens a business to be free from having to follow rule of law?  Because that appears to be what you're arguing.

Just Joe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2114
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #969 on: February 09, 2018, 08:08:52 AM »
So after 19 pages... did anyone regret voting Republican?  I'm sure reading the entirety of this thread is about as healthy as swimming in toxic sludge.

Done in small doses reading this thread shouldn't cause any long term mental health consequences.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2149
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #970 on: February 09, 2018, 08:46:12 AM »
I'm not making a legal argument here.  I'm saying that this whole situation is absurd.  It isn't a widespread long-term oppression that needs to be dealt with via Supreme Court rulings, and these guys are retarded for going there.

Homosexual couples just got the right to get married.  That is a huge win, and overturns centuries of precedent.  And you are correct, our constitution provides certain protections, specifically, in the first amendment, part of the bill of rights:

Uh ...



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances...

Free exercise of religion doesn't extend to infringing on the rights of others. They should've added a clause about freedom from religion too.

If the couple came in and tried to do the nasty on his shop floor, then sure, refuse service, otherwise shut up and take my money.

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 574
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #971 on: February 09, 2018, 09:17:51 AM »
We should remember that sexual orientation is not a federally protected class. It's perfectly legal to fire someone for being gay in, say, Alabama. However, in the cake case, California state law does include sexual orientation as a protected class.

The current SC case (from Colorado) could decide it for the nation. The DOMA majority ruling indicates that sexual orientation is/will be a new protected class. However, the recent evangelical surge could make the on-the-fence justices regret the DOMA decision.

I'm surprised the CA judge bought the "artist" legal strategy. As mentioned, it could really open discrimination by other occupations like architects and interior designers and hairdressers, etc.

The flip-side is that Kennedy is okay with certain religious carve-outs. I don't think he'll go with this one, though.

I'm not particularly concerned either way. I think compelling a bakery to bake a wedding cake is pretty detestable and an overstepping of anti-discrimination legislation, but it's not like the Gay Stormtroopers are going to start jack-booting down Main Street. A narrow ruling that allows closely held companies with religious beliefs to not engage in speech they disagree with is likewise not the Theocratic Army of Darkness tank-rolling down PA Avenue.

TheOldestYoungMan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 749
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #972 on: February 09, 2018, 09:20:54 AM »
As was mentioned, nobody is compelling the baker to bake anything he doesn't want to.  If he voluntarily chooses to run a bakery, he needs to follow certain ground rules regarding discrimination.  He's free to choose to do something else with his time.  He's free to treat all customers as equal.  If he discriminates against a few customers, then he gets in trouble.  But nobody is forcing him to do anything he doesn't want to.

He operates his business by permission and at the whim of the government.

I'm going back to your original argument here Stv, since you seem convinced that we're arguing about something other than what we were arguing about.

Let me take a slightly different tack.

That statement, that a business operates by permission and at the whim of the government, is not true.  Requiring a permit doesn't make it true.  Passing a law that businesses are required doesn't make it true.  And passing a law that violates the rights of the person engaged in business, doesn't in any way affect that person's ability to conduct business, in a just society.  If the society chooses to pursue a course of action interfering with that business by enforcing the law and interfering with the individual's protected rights, that's a problem.  Just like the separate but equal rulings and laws interfered with customer's rights, so to does the Colorado law interfere with the baker's rights.

If what you were saying were true, then the government would be free to disband any business for any reason.  That's what whim would mean.  That's what "needing government permission" would mean.

Name for me please the U.S. businesses that have been disbanded by the government on a whim.

Your argument that a person can be forced to close their doors for exercising a constitutionally protected right demonstrates a failure to understand the foundation of the U.S. legal system.  "Discrimination" that businesses are prohibited from engaging in requires an explicit definition, and in this case there's a disconnect between the federal law and the state law.  And when that happens, the federally protected rights win, which is what happened with separate but equal, and when separate but equal was overturned.

I do apologize for responding in kind to your rhetoric.  I try to ignore it, I engaged your bad attitude, sank to your level, and that was wrong of me.  I am sorry, I will try to do better in the future.  There have, as is typical when arguing with liberals, been quite a few accusations thrown my way by you and others.  You keep responding to arguments that I am not making, assuming I'm coming from a place of homophobia or, somehow, racism, which is bizarre given the context.  I've even been accused of being anti-cake, just because I mentioned I personally prefer brownies.  Which would be like accusing me of being anti-blonde just because I prefer bald. 

And you accuse me of being ignorant of the laws required to operate a business despite me actually operating two businesses in the U.S.  The repeated assertion on your part that I need government permission to do so, is again, absurd.  I have no piece of paper from the government authorizing me to do business, as none is required for the specific businesses I engage in.  There is no law that makes those businesses legal, as none is required.  This is a free society, there has to be specific legislation restricting or regulating a specific activity in order for even a permit to be required.  And the government has to issue the permit, it isn't at the whim of anything. 

If they fail to issue me a permit because I spoke out against the government, they've violated my freedom of speech.  If they likewise fail to issue a permit because I attend church, they've violated my freedom of religion, which is the same amendment as the freedom of speech.  If they close my business because I practice my religion, that's a violation.  And in order for us to get behind deciding that it isn't a violation, we have to discredit that religious belief, which isn't as trivial as has been represented by you and others in this argument. 

Good Christians shouldn't discriminate.  True.  Nowhere in the faith is that a part of it.  But good Christians shouldn't encourage sinful behavior.  That's crystal clear.  And in this specific context, we're talking about cake.  Not dinner.  Not the meal.  Cake.  Cake is the dessert at the end of the meal.  Cake is the reward, it's the part of the celebration.  A wedding cake is celebration.  And good Christians, while acknowledging we are all sinful and we all live in sin and we all need salvation and deserve compassion as we move towards a better understanding of what it is to walk with God, also do not celebrate sin.  A wedding cake for a homosexual couple is clearly a conflict for a religious baker.  You have to be so profoundly lacking in empathy and compassion to fail to understand that.  And I don't believe you to be that bad of a person.  I think you want to win an argument on the internet, or you think it's just cake and so doesn't matter.  And in this instance maybe you're right.  I don't know the baker, maybe he's never been to church and is just a bigot.  But somewhere out there is a deeply devout religious person working in the wedding industry.  And depending on how this shakes out, they're going to have their first amendment rights to freedom of worship stripped away, or homosexuals everywhere are going to lose their protections.

And I think that's a really shitty way for this have gone, and I don't think we should be celebrating either way.

You "know" who I am and can see through the "code," but your prejudgments, which is my broader point overall when I've engaged on this thread, are immaterial to attempting an actual conversation.  And charging off ignorant, pursuing a course of action, and allowing a course of action to proceed, when the outcome is uncertain and in all cases bad, is why good people abandon progressivism.

Victory was achieved, and you still think there's something to win.  And the victory lap can get you slapped down hard.  And even if it doesn't, all you've done is cement into legal precedent an assault on religious freedom, because religious conflict is always a good idea?

But no, nobody is going to regret voting for Trump, because this is what it is to engage with liberals, you don't agree with them 100% on everything: ignorant, racist, homophobic.

Trump's just an idiot, ya'all are somethin' else.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2018, 09:24:36 AM by TheOldestYoungMan »

TheOldestYoungMan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 749
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #973 on: February 09, 2018, 09:21:24 AM »
We should remember that sexual orientation is not a federally protected class. It's perfectly legal to fire someone for being gay in, say, Alabama. However, in the cake case, California state law does include sexual orientation as a protected class.

The current SC case (from Colorado) could decide it for the nation. The DOMA majority ruling indicates that sexual orientation is/will be a new protected class. However, the recent evangelical surge could make the on-the-fence justices regret the DOMA decision.

I'm surprised the CA judge bought the "artist" legal strategy. As mentioned, it could really open discrimination by other occupations like architects and interior designers and hairdressers, etc.

The flip-side is that Kennedy is okay with certain religious carve-outs. I don't think he'll go with this one, though.

I'm not particularly concerned either way. I think compelling a bakery to bake a wedding cake is pretty detestable and an overstepping of anti-discrimination legislation, but it's not like the Gay Stormtroopers are going to start jack-booting down Main Street. A narrow ruling that allows closely held companies with religious beliefs to not engage in speech they disagree with is likewise not the Theocratic Army of Darkness tank-rolling down PA Avenue.

^^^^Wish I had your brevity sir.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1705
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #974 on: February 09, 2018, 09:39:11 AM »
Good Christians shouldn't discriminate.  True.
Quote
But good Christians shouldn't encourage sinful behavior.

Man, must tough to be a "good Christian" these days with so much cognitive dissonance. Who wants cake?

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #975 on: February 09, 2018, 09:43:40 AM »
As was mentioned, nobody is compelling the baker to bake anything he doesn't want to.  If he voluntarily chooses to run a bakery, he needs to follow certain ground rules regarding discrimination.  He's free to choose to do something else with his time.  He's free to treat all customers as equal.  If he discriminates against a few customers, then he gets in trouble.  But nobody is forcing him to do anything he doesn't want to.

He operates his business by permission and at the whim of the government.

Good Christians shouldn't discriminate.  True.  Nowhere in the faith is that a part of it.  But good Christians shouldn't encourage sinful behavior.  That's crystal clear.  And in this specific context, we're talking about cake.  Not dinner.  Not the meal.  Cake.  Cake is the dessert at the end of the meal.  Cake is the reward, it's the part of the celebration.  A wedding cake is celebration.  And good Christians, while acknowledging we are all sinful and we all live in sin and we all need salvation and deserve compassion as we move towards a better understanding of what it is to walk with God, also do not celebrate sin.  A wedding cake for a homosexual couple is clearly a conflict for a religious baker.  You have to be so profoundly lacking in empathy and compassion to fail to understand that.  And I don't believe you to be that bad of a person.  I think you want to win an argument on the internet, or you think it's just cake and so doesn't matter.  And in this instance maybe you're right.  I don't know the baker, maybe he's never been to church and is just a bigot.  But somewhere out there is a deeply devout religious person working in the wedding industry.  And depending on how this shakes out, they're going to have their first amendment rights to freedom of worship stripped away, or homosexuals everywhere are going to lose their protections.


No, it's not. That may be your interpretation but if we're talking about the bible it is far from clear.

That cake doesn't matter has off and on been your primary argument. Other times your argument is that he shouldn't have to make the cake because it infringes upon his religious freedom. Which one is it? Because if it is the first, then there is a line at which a business should be compelled to go against their religion and that line is somewhere between cake and sandwiches. In fact, you have already agreed to this. If it is the second then a business can refuse service of anything that goes against their religion including lunch, dinner and cake.

^^^^Wish I had your brevity sir.

Don't we all.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7342
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #976 on: February 09, 2018, 10:06:44 AM »
If what you were saying were true, then the government would be free to disband any business for any reason. 

Setting aside your other arguments for a moment, I just wanted point out that the government can and routinely does disband businesses for "arbitrary" reasons.  If by "arbitrary" you mean that they are breaking a law.

Crack dealers operate an illegal business.  They do not require permission from the government to operate, but as soon as they break the law the government can shut them down.  If you call yourself a crack business but manage to avoid breaking any laws, you're in the clear.

The baker broke the law.  Government was kind enough to NOT shut him down, but I think that absolutely would have been an acceptable response to his illegal activity.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2018, 10:56:10 AM by sol »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12073
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #977 on: February 09, 2018, 10:45:39 AM »
As was mentioned, nobody is compelling the baker to bake anything he doesn't want to.  If he voluntarily chooses to run a bakery, he needs to follow certain ground rules regarding discrimination.  He's free to choose to do something else with his time.  He's free to treat all customers as equal.  If he discriminates against a few customers, then he gets in trouble.  But nobody is forcing him to do anything he doesn't want to.

He operates his business by permission and at the whim of the government.

That statement, that a business operates by permission and at the whim of the government, is not true.  Requiring a permit doesn't make it true.  Passing a law that businesses are required doesn't make it true.  And passing a law that violates the rights of the person engaged in business, doesn't in any way affect that person's ability to conduct business, in a just society.  If the society chooses to pursue a course of action interfering with that business by enforcing the law and interfering with the individual's protected rights, that's a problem.

If you attempt to operate an illegal home bakery (as you've mentioned an interest in), without food inspections or a license you will eventually be caught, fined, and shut down.  Please, don't take my word for it . . . feel free to operate your illegal bakery and find out what happens.  This occurs because your business exists at the whim of the government.

It's not unjust to shut down a place serving food that refuses to allow inspections from the health and safety office because this serves the public good.  Just as it's not unjust to shut down a place that refuses to follow state discrimination laws.



If what you were saying were true, then the government would be free to disband any business for any reason.  That's what whim would mean.  That's what "needing government permission" would mean.

In practice, no.  The government doesn't operate exempt from the law, they exist to make and enforce the law.  However in theory if a law was popular enough to pass and be enacted to disband all home small bakeries . . . then yep . . . the government would disband all of these businesses.  Because you need government permission to do things.



Name for me please the U.S. businesses that have been disbanded by the government on a whim.

As mentioned, the government doesn't do things on a whim.  They enact law.  So . . . bootleggers during prohibition., crack cocaine distributors, restaurants that have failed to meet health and safety code, construction companies that fail to comply with health and safety regulations, industrial plants that fail to comply with EPA regulation, unlicensed doctors, etc.  They all get shut down when the government (through the laws enacted) wills it.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #978 on: February 09, 2018, 01:30:29 PM »
I'm not making a legal argument here.  I'm saying that this whole situation is absurd.  It isn't a widespread long-term oppression that needs to be dealt with via Supreme Court rulings, and these guys are retarded for going there.

Homosexual couples just got the right to get married.  That is a huge win, and overturns centuries of precedent.  And you are correct, our constitution provides certain protections, specifically, in the first amendment, part of the bill of rights:

Uh ...



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances...

Free exercise of religion doesn't extend to infringing on the rights of others. They should've added a clause about freedom from religion too.

If the couple came in and tried to do the nasty on his shop floor, then sure, refuse service, otherwise shut up and take my money.
you don't have a right to have other people bake you a cake. The question is not whether the Colorado law infringes on free exercise, it clearly does. The question is whether the infringement is justifiable. And that will be decided by something analogous to Smith or whatever The controlling case law is.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7342
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #979 on: February 09, 2018, 03:21:59 PM »
you don't have a right to have other people bake you a cake.

No one is claiming a right to cake.

The state is claiming that a business does NOT have the right to refuse service to someone based on a religious objection to the kind of person it is.  A person can do that, a business cannot.  The law already says so.  The business broke the law, and it sounds like every lower court reminded them of that.

I could see them maybe having a case of they argued a religious objection to doing something objectionable, but in this case the baker literally refused them outright based solely on sexual orientation.  It didn't matter to him if the cake was going to say "marriage is between a man and a woman", he wasn't going to bake them any cake at all just because they were gay.  That's illegal discrimination.

PKFFW

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #980 on: February 09, 2018, 03:25:19 PM »
Still waiting for TheOldestYoungMan to define where "the line" is past which he agrees a business should not be allowed to discriminate based on their own personal religious beliefs and why he thinks the line should be at that point.

So far we've got it narrowed down to sitting at a lunch counter and having an actual meal but not including the desert portion.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3644
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #981 on: February 09, 2018, 05:10:42 PM »
The freedom to believe whatever religious creed one wants should be absolute.  But there can be no absolute right to take action in furtherance of that belief.   There are restrictions on what any of us can do in order to protect the rights of others.  In the case of religious belief, the right of religious freedom has to include the corollory that each of us is free from the religious beliefs of others, which means free from actions based on religious beliefs that infringe our rights.

The baker cannot refuse to make the cake not just because he would be discriminating against his gay customers, contrary to their rights to equal treatment in receiving economic services, but also because he is taking an action which imposes his religious beliefs on them.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
  • Age: 35
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #982 on: February 09, 2018, 05:49:51 PM »
but also because he is taking an action which imposes his religious beliefs on them.

It always amazes me that this very basic and obvious concept escapes the people defending this baker, Hobby Lobby, etc. Those entities are the ones violating people's rights by forcing their world view onto others. Not sure why that's so hard to understand.

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2357
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #983 on: February 10, 2018, 06:23:28 AM »
It is an interesting subject, in that it pits freedom from discrimination, against, freedom to practice one's religion (or freedom not to practice religion). They are both rights in the US. The US government has a line to tread, to balance those rights. We have a pretty open, liberal country.  We tried once to ban alcohol, that amendment got rescinded. Stores, websites, etc sell pornography, and Hollywood produces some really violent movies. Stores sell wedding cakes to people who had sex before marriage, and people on their 2nd or third marriages, or those who committed infidelity (see Trump. No one refused to sell him a wedding cake because he cheated on his prior wives). And I don't know what Jesus would say about the pro-gun culture we have.



 

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 574
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #984 on: February 10, 2018, 09:17:26 AM »
but also because he is taking an action which imposes his religious beliefs on them.

It always amazes me that this very basic and obvious concept escapes the people defending this baker, Hobby Lobby, etc. Those entities are the ones violating people's rights by forcing their world view onto others. Not sure why that's so hard to understand.

Because we don't agree that refusing economic service to someone is equivalent to forcing your worldview on someone. Forcing your view on someone means someone is knocking on your door Sunday morning and dragging you into a Church service.

There's also no "right to economic service" in the Constitution, and the federal government's ability to ban discrimination should be limited to businesses engaged in interstate commerce, which we think should be interpreted narrowly. Selling cakes to local weddings cannot reasonably be considered interstate commerce. States are free to set their own public accommodation laws, but more libertarian types are not going to agree with said laws because it's the government interfering with private business. That businesses cannot set up without the government's permission makes no more sense to libertarian-inclined individuals than requiring government permission to set up your own church, and are equally offensive.

More moderate libertarian types, like myself, or the guys at Marginal Revolution, or probably the guys at EconLog, can absolutely be horrified that blacks were treated as second-class citizens, and think this should be prevented even if those kinda fucks up parts of the Constitution. Blacks are a huge chunk of the population across a huge geographic area, and their treatment was really, really bad. Homosexuals in America are a substantially smaller portion and don't face anything like the discrimination blacks faced, outside of certain communities, and the inability to get a wedding cake is pretty small potatoes.

That we can only open businesses with the permission of government is, you know, realistically true. It's also realistically true that we only have the right to protest and the right to free speech and the right to attend our own churches because the government lets us. There's nothing stopping them from tank-rolling protestors and dropping nukes on particularly stubborn cities like San Francisco. History is full of governments mandating attendance in certain churches and closing up illegal churches. That doesn't change what WE think are inalienable human rights, the violation of which amounts to a violation of human dignity.

Obviously, arguments that it is Current Year aren't really convincing either.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 364
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #985 on: February 10, 2018, 10:21:36 AM »
but also because he is taking an action which imposes his religious beliefs on them.

It always amazes me that this very basic and obvious concept escapes the people defending this baker, Hobby Lobby, etc. Those entities are the ones violating people's rights by forcing their world view onto others. Not sure why that's so hard to understand.

Because we don't agree that refusing economic service to someone is equivalent to forcing your worldview on someone. Forcing your view on someone means someone is knocking on your door Sunday morning and dragging you into a Church service.

There's also no "right to economic service" in the Constitution, and the federal government's ability to ban discrimination should be limited to businesses engaged in interstate commerce, which we think should be interpreted narrowly. Selling cakes to local weddings cannot reasonably be considered interstate commerce. States are free to set their own public accommodation laws, but more libertarian types are not going to agree with said laws because it's the government interfering with private business. That businesses cannot set up without the government's permission makes no more sense to libertarian-inclined individuals than requiring government permission to set up your own church, and are equally offensive.

More moderate libertarian types, like myself, or the guys at Marginal Revolution, or probably the guys at EconLog, can absolutely be horrified that blacks were treated as second-class citizens, and think this should be prevented even if those kinda fucks up parts of the Constitution. Blacks are a huge chunk of the population across a huge geographic area, and their treatment was really, really bad. Homosexuals in America are a substantially smaller portion and don't face anything like the discrimination blacks faced, outside of certain communities, and the inability to get a wedding cake is pretty small potatoes.

That we can only open businesses with the permission of government is, you know, realistically true. It's also realistically true that we only have the right to protest and the right to free speech and the right to attend our own churches because the government lets us. There's nothing stopping them from tank-rolling protestors and dropping nukes on particularly stubborn cities like San Francisco. History is full of governments mandating attendance in certain churches and closing up illegal churches. That doesn't change what WE think are inalienable human rights, the violation of which amounts to a violation of human dignity.

Obviously, arguments that it is Current Year aren't really convincing either.

I'm really trying to understand the other side of this argument.  Maybe you can answer my questions from before?

So, I'm kind of on the fence about this topic and I've been meaning to ask a question of someone that takes your position.  Would it be okay, in your view, for me to start a business and then deny my services to someone because of their religion?  How about because of their age?  Or race/sex?  How far does this freedom of association go?  I just feel like if the guy who wouldn't bake a cake for a gay couple walked into my store and was turned away due to his religion he would probably not be okay with it.

Based on what you wrote though, it seems to me like your saying that those with a conservative/libertarian worldview think that anti-discrimination laws are some kind of necessary evil.  That they are not constitutionally sound, but that they are required for certain real-life scenarios that go beyond a certain tipping point like what happened with racial discrimination.  Am I understanding that correctly?

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4987
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #986 on: February 10, 2018, 11:24:17 AM »
but also because he is taking an action which imposes his religious beliefs on them.

It always amazes me that this very basic and obvious concept escapes the people defending this baker, Hobby Lobby, etc. Those entities are the ones violating people's rights by forcing their world view onto others. Not sure why that's so hard to understand.

Because we don't agree that refusing economic service to someone is equivalent to forcing your worldview on someone. Forcing your view on someone means someone is knocking on your door Sunday morning and dragging you into a Church service.

There's also no "right to economic service" in the Constitution, and the federal government's ability to ban discrimination should be limited to businesses engaged in interstate commerce, which we think should be interpreted narrowly. Selling cakes to local weddings cannot reasonably be considered interstate commerce. States are free to set their own public accommodation laws, but more libertarian types are not going to agree with said laws because it's the government interfering with private business. That businesses cannot set up without the government's permission makes no more sense to libertarian-inclined individuals than requiring government permission to set up your own church, and are equally offensive.

More moderate libertarian types, like myself, or the guys at Marginal Revolution, or probably the guys at EconLog, can absolutely be horrified that blacks were treated as second-class citizens, and think this should be prevented even if those kinda fucks up parts of the Constitution. Blacks are a huge chunk of the population across a huge geographic area, and their treatment was really, really bad. Homosexuals in America are a substantially smaller portion and don't face anything like the discrimination blacks faced, outside of certain communities, and the inability to get a wedding cake is pretty small potatoes.

That we can only open businesses with the permission of government is, you know, realistically true. It's also realistically true that we only have the right to protest and the right to free speech and the right to attend our own churches because the government lets us. There's nothing stopping them from tank-rolling protestors and dropping nukes on particularly stubborn cities like San Francisco. History is full of governments mandating attendance in certain churches and closing up illegal churches. That doesn't change what WE think are inalienable human rights, the violation of which amounts to a violation of human dignity.

Obviously, arguments that it is Current Year aren't really convincing either.

Which is exactly what Colorado has done in this case, yes?

Fireball

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 223
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #987 on: February 10, 2018, 11:39:18 AM »
see Trump. No one refused to sell him a wedding cake because he cheated on his prior wives).

This is the part about the baker's defense that I always had an issue with.  You previously committed adultery? You get a cake. This is your 2nd marriage? You get a cake. You just lied about something? You get a cake.  You guys had sex before marriage? You get a cake. Your gay? I must stand on my principles and no cake for you. Seems it's not all sin the baker hated. Just the one.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3644
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #988 on: February 10, 2018, 12:21:12 PM »
More moderate libertarian types, like myself, or the guys at Marginal Revolution, or probably the guys at EconLog, can absolutely be horrified that blacks were treated as second-class citizens, and think this should be prevented even if those kinda fucks up parts of the Constitution. Blacks are a huge chunk of the population across a huge geographic area, and their treatment was really, really bad. Homosexuals in America are a substantially smaller portion and don't face anything like the discrimination blacks faced, outside of certain communities, and the inability to get a wedding cake is pretty small potatoes.

This fascinates me. Only minorities who have achieved a certain numerical size deserve protection against discrimination?  Really?  What percentage of the population does a minority have to reach to be protected?

Also, lets not get into "the discrimination against me is worse than the discrimination against you", hmmm?   If the discriminatory treatment fails the legal standard (even for gays, even for cake) it becomes irrelevant that there is a different level of discrimination against someone else.  Assault is not legal just because it's not murder.

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1052
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #989 on: February 10, 2018, 01:33:41 PM »
Also, the argument that gays aren’t badly discriminated against is forgetting Matthew Shepard.  There are many societies (ours included) that KILL gay people for being gay.

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1235
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #990 on: February 10, 2018, 02:07:53 PM »
Also, the argument that gays aren’t badly discriminated against is forgetting Matthew Shepard.  There are many societies (ours included) that KILL gay people for being gay.

Yeah, gays face a lot of discrimination throughout the world and I just read that Bermuda recently outlawed gay marriage after it had been legal for a while. Things are going backward for gay rights right now and in a lot of places it's still a death sentence to be homosexual. I was horrified by the ISIS videos where they were hurling gays to their deaths off the top of buildings.

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 574
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #991 on: February 10, 2018, 03:57:25 PM »
but also because he is taking an action which imposes his religious beliefs on them.

It always amazes me that this very basic and obvious concept escapes the people defending this baker, Hobby Lobby, etc. Those entities are the ones violating people's rights by forcing their world view onto others. Not sure why that's so hard to understand.

Because we don't agree that refusing economic service to someone is equivalent to forcing your worldview on someone. Forcing your view on someone means someone is knocking on your door Sunday morning and dragging you into a Church service.

There's also no "right to economic service" in the Constitution, and the federal government's ability to ban discrimination should be limited to businesses engaged in interstate commerce, which we think should be interpreted narrowly. Selling cakes to local weddings cannot reasonably be considered interstate commerce. States are free to set their own public accommodation laws, but more libertarian types are not going to agree with said laws because it's the government interfering with private business. That businesses cannot set up without the government's permission makes no more sense to libertarian-inclined individuals than requiring government permission to set up your own church, and are equally offensive.

More moderate libertarian types, like myself, or the guys at Marginal Revolution, or probably the guys at EconLog, can absolutely be horrified that blacks were treated as second-class citizens, and think this should be prevented even if those kinda fucks up parts of the Constitution. Blacks are a huge chunk of the population across a huge geographic area, and their treatment was really, really bad. Homosexuals in America are a substantially smaller portion and don't face anything like the discrimination blacks faced, outside of certain communities, and the inability to get a wedding cake is pretty small potatoes.

That we can only open businesses with the permission of government is, you know, realistically true. It's also realistically true that we only have the right to protest and the right to free speech and the right to attend our own churches because the government lets us. There's nothing stopping them from tank-rolling protestors and dropping nukes on particularly stubborn cities like San Francisco. History is full of governments mandating attendance in certain churches and closing up illegal churches. That doesn't change what WE think are inalienable human rights, the violation of which amounts to a violation of human dignity.

Obviously, arguments that it is Current Year aren't really convincing either.

I'm really trying to understand the other side of this argument.  Maybe you can answer my questions from before?

So, I'm kind of on the fence about this topic and I've been meaning to ask a question of someone that takes your position.  Would it be okay, in your view, for me to start a business and then deny my services to someone because of their religion?  How about because of their age?  Or race/sex?  How far does this freedom of association go?  I just feel like if the guy who wouldn't bake a cake for a gay couple walked into my store and was turned away due to his religion he would probably not be okay with it.

Based on what you wrote though, it seems to me like your saying that those with a conservative/libertarian worldview think that anti-discrimination laws are some kind of necessary evil.  That they are not constitutionally sound, but that they are required for certain real-life scenarios that go beyond a certain tipping point like what happened with racial discrimination.  Am I understanding that correctly?

It depends on who you are talking to and what the specific issue is. People don't really think out the specifics of these situations until actual scenarios come up. In general, few conservatives are going to agree that you should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion, sex, race, or any of the traditional protected classes. Even at the time of the Civil Rights Act, the VAST majority of Republicans voted for the bill....Goldwater may have carried the GOP primary, but his support was damned weak and he ended up getting blown out practically everywhere.

Your hardcore Ron Swansons won't agree with that, because they are even further afield than Goldwater.

I'd say most of the people who think this out wouldn't think the Civil Rights Act is constitutionally unsound (except maybe Clarence Thomas), but that it opens up constitutionally murky waters. At the state level, I think most conservatives would be on board with banning discrimination of the traditional protected classes, because there is no question states have the ability to regulate such things. Again, your Ron Swanson types will disagree, but they are a substantial minority.

Your median conservative position would probably be like Indiana's religious freedom law or the recent Hobby Lobby case or the Amerindian peyote laws, which is that a US law cannot impose an undue burden on someone's religious practices, even if it is facially neutral and even if you are engaged in commerce. Blah blah strict scrutiny, etc.

Basically people just have a knee-jerk reaction that someone shouldn't be compelled to serve a gay wedding. I don't know the breakdown of the people who think companies should be allowed to fire gay workers, but it didn't raise the firestorm in the conservative press like the gay wedding cake did, so I assume they feel much, much less strongly about that.

Quote


This fascinates me. Only minorities who have achieved a certain numerical size deserve protection against discrimination?  Really?  What percentage of the population does a minority have to reach to be protected?

Also, lets not get into "the discrimination against me is worse than the discrimination against you", hmmm?   If the discriminatory treatment fails the legal standard (even for gays, even for cake) it becomes irrelevant that there is a different level of discrimination against someone else.  Assault is not legal just because it's not murder.
The argument is that the anti-discrimination laws are overly broad, so your second point is not really relevant.

As for the first, the Civil Rights Era was a really big deal. It involved huge contentious divisions, massive riots, marching the army into the South (again), and opening the door to all sorts of federal overexpansion. If you're going to go through all that, it has to be for a good reason.

Quote
Also, the argument that gays aren’t badly discriminated against is forgetting Matthew Shepard.  There are many societies (ours included) that KILL gay people for being gay.
Come on. Who is really saying we should be killing gay people? Westboro? Those guys should've given a short rope from a tall tree and left to swing until the sun went down.

Gays face some additional discrimination. The discrimination they face is NOTHING like blacks faced anywhere in the US in the 1960s, and especially nothing like the Jim Crow system. It was rightly considered one of the greatest moral failings about the US, and people really wanted it to be corrected. LGBTs aren't even the group with the most hate crimes against them today: Jews are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime#United_States

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3644
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #992 on: February 10, 2018, 05:38:56 PM »

This fascinates me. Only minorities who have achieved a certain numerical size deserve protection against discrimination?  Really?  What percentage of the population does a minority have to reach to be protected?

Also, lets not get into "the discrimination against me is worse than the discrimination against you", hmmm?   If the discriminatory treatment fails the legal standard (even for gays, even for cake) it becomes irrelevant that there is a different level of discrimination against someone else.  Assault is not legal just because it's not murder.
The argument is that the anti-discrimination laws are overly broad, so your second point is not really relevant.

As for the first, the Civil Rights Era was a really big deal. It involved huge contentious divisions, massive riots, marching the army into the South (again), and opening the door to all sorts of federal overexpansion. If you're going to go through all that, it has to be for a good reason.

You are trying to change your argument.  You quite clearly based your earlier argument that Blacks deserve protection against discrimination whereas gays don't on 1) the size of the minority and 2) the level of discrimination.  Here's your quote -

. Blacks are a huge chunk of the population across a huge geographic area, and their treatment was really, really bad. Homosexuals in America are a substantially smaller portion and don't face anything like the discrimination blacks faced, outside of certain communities, and the inability to get a wedding cake is pretty small potatoes.

You are now making the argument that "anti-discrimination laws are overly broad".  You appear to have abandoned the proposition that whether a minority deserves protection depends in principle on the size of that minority.  (This is good: would Blacks have not deserved protection if they were only 1% of the population?)  You also appear to have abandoned to a certain extent the notion that protection depends on the scale of the harm done, as you seem to be saying that protection does not differ depending on whether the harm is assault or murder.  Your remaining argument appears to be not one of principle (whether protecting against discrimination is a good thing or not) but that the backlash against providing that protection may mean that the harm caused is greater than the benefit.

Really?  You think that the chance of toddler tantrums by straight white people mean that non-white, non-straight people should not have the protection of the law against discrimination?  That's your argument?    Nothing to do with principle?  Nothing to do with what's right?  Just: the straight white people are going to unlawfully resist democratic laws enacted to protect historically and currrently oppressed people so lets not bother enacting those laws?

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 364
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #993 on: February 10, 2018, 05:55:45 PM »
but also because he is taking an action which imposes his religious beliefs on them.

It always amazes me that this very basic and obvious concept escapes the people defending this baker, Hobby Lobby, etc. Those entities are the ones violating people's rights by forcing their world view onto others. Not sure why that's so hard to understand.

Because we don't agree that refusing economic service to someone is equivalent to forcing your worldview on someone. Forcing your view on someone means someone is knocking on your door Sunday morning and dragging you into a Church service.

There's also no "right to economic service" in the Constitution, and the federal government's ability to ban discrimination should be limited to businesses engaged in interstate commerce, which we think should be interpreted narrowly. Selling cakes to local weddings cannot reasonably be considered interstate commerce. States are free to set their own public accommodation laws, but more libertarian types are not going to agree with said laws because it's the government interfering with private business. That businesses cannot set up without the government's permission makes no more sense to libertarian-inclined individuals than requiring government permission to set up your own church, and are equally offensive.

More moderate libertarian types, like myself, or the guys at Marginal Revolution, or probably the guys at EconLog, can absolutely be horrified that blacks were treated as second-class citizens, and think this should be prevented even if those kinda fucks up parts of the Constitution. Blacks are a huge chunk of the population across a huge geographic area, and their treatment was really, really bad. Homosexuals in America are a substantially smaller portion and don't face anything like the discrimination blacks faced, outside of certain communities, and the inability to get a wedding cake is pretty small potatoes.

That we can only open businesses with the permission of government is, you know, realistically true. It's also realistically true that we only have the right to protest and the right to free speech and the right to attend our own churches because the government lets us. There's nothing stopping them from tank-rolling protestors and dropping nukes on particularly stubborn cities like San Francisco. History is full of governments mandating attendance in certain churches and closing up illegal churches. That doesn't change what WE think are inalienable human rights, the violation of which amounts to a violation of human dignity.

Obviously, arguments that it is Current Year aren't really convincing either.

I'm really trying to understand the other side of this argument.  Maybe you can answer my questions from before?

So, I'm kind of on the fence about this topic and I've been meaning to ask a question of someone that takes your position.  Would it be okay, in your view, for me to start a business and then deny my services to someone because of their religion?  How about because of their age?  Or race/sex?  How far does this freedom of association go?  I just feel like if the guy who wouldn't bake a cake for a gay couple walked into my store and was turned away due to his religion he would probably not be okay with it.

Based on what you wrote though, it seems to me like your saying that those with a conservative/libertarian worldview think that anti-discrimination laws are some kind of necessary evil.  That they are not constitutionally sound, but that they are required for certain real-life scenarios that go beyond a certain tipping point like what happened with racial discrimination.  Am I understanding that correctly?

It depends on who you are talking to and what the specific issue is. People don't really think out the specifics of these situations until actual scenarios come up. In general, few conservatives are going to agree that you should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion, sex, race, or any of the traditional protected classes. Even at the time of the Civil Rights Act, the VAST majority of Republicans voted for the bill....Goldwater may have carried the GOP primary, but his support was damned weak and he ended up getting blown out practically everywhere.

Your hardcore Ron Swansons won't agree with that, because they are even further afield than Goldwater.

I'd say most of the people who think this out wouldn't think the Civil Rights Act is constitutionally unsound (except maybe Clarence Thomas), but that it opens up constitutionally murky waters. At the state level, I think most conservatives would be on board with banning discrimination of the traditional protected classes, because there is no question states have the ability to regulate such things. Again, your Ron Swanson types will disagree, but they are a substantial minority.

Your median conservative position would probably be like Indiana's religious freedom law or the recent Hobby Lobby case or the Amerindian peyote laws, which is that a US law cannot impose an undue burden on someone's religious practices, even if it is facially neutral and even if you are engaged in commerce. Blah blah strict scrutiny, etc.

Basically people just have a knee-jerk reaction that someone shouldn't be compelled to serve a gay wedding. I don't know the breakdown of the people who think companies should be allowed to fire gay workers, but it didn't raise the firestorm in the conservative press like the gay wedding cake did, so I assume they feel much, much less strongly about that.

Quote


This fascinates me. Only minorities who have achieved a certain numerical size deserve protection against discrimination?  Really?  What percentage of the population does a minority have to reach to be protected?

Also, lets not get into "the discrimination against me is worse than the discrimination against you", hmmm?   If the discriminatory treatment fails the legal standard (even for gays, even for cake) it becomes irrelevant that there is a different level of discrimination against someone else.  Assault is not legal just because it's not murder.
The argument is that the anti-discrimination laws are overly broad, so your second point is not really relevant.

As for the first, the Civil Rights Era was a really big deal. It involved huge contentious divisions, massive riots, marching the army into the South (again), and opening the door to all sorts of federal overexpansion. If you're going to go through all that, it has to be for a good reason.

Quote
Also, the argument that gays aren’t badly discriminated against is forgetting Matthew Shepard.  There are many societies (ours included) that KILL gay people for being gay.
Come on. Who is really saying we should be killing gay people? Westboro? Those guys should've given a short rope from a tall tree and left to swing until the sun went down.

Gays face some additional discrimination. The discrimination they face is NOTHING like blacks faced anywhere in the US in the 1960s, and especially nothing like the Jim Crow system. It was rightly considered one of the greatest moral failings about the US, and people really wanted it to be corrected. LGBTs aren't even the group with the most hate crimes against them today: Jews are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime#United_States

Well, that didn't clear it up much but thank you for trying!  It just seems like a terribly inconsistent thought pattern to me. If I'm going to consider it okay to compel a baker to make a Christian wedding cake through the use of force then I'm not sure why I would consider it wrong to compel a baker to make a gay wedding cake through the use of force.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2018, 06:15:15 PM by shenlong55 »

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3348
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #994 on: February 11, 2018, 07:51:20 AM »
but also because he is taking an action which imposes his religious beliefs on them.

It always amazes me that this very basic and obvious concept escapes the people defending this baker, Hobby Lobby, etc. Those entities are the ones violating people's rights by forcing their world view onto others. Not sure why that's so hard to understand.

Because we don't agree that refusing economic service to someone is equivalent to forcing your worldview on someone. Forcing your view on someone means someone is knocking on your door Sunday morning and dragging you into a Church service.

There's also no "right to economic service" in the Constitution, and the federal government's ability to ban discrimination should be limited to businesses engaged in interstate commerce, which we think should be interpreted narrowly. Selling cakes to local weddings cannot reasonably be considered interstate commerce. States are free to set their own public accommodation laws, but more libertarian types are not going to agree with said laws because it's the government interfering with private business. That businesses cannot set up without the government's permission makes no more sense to libertarian-inclined individuals than requiring government permission to set up your own church, and are equally offensive.

More moderate libertarian types, like myself, or the guys at Marginal Revolution, or probably the guys at EconLog, can absolutely be horrified that blacks were treated as second-class citizens, and think this should be prevented even if those kinda fucks up parts of the Constitution. Blacks are a huge chunk of the population across a huge geographic area, and their treatment was really, really bad. Homosexuals in America are a substantially smaller portion and don't face anything like the discrimination blacks faced, outside of certain communities, and the inability to get a wedding cake is pretty small potatoes.

That we can only open businesses with the permission of government is, you know, realistically true. It's also realistically true that we only have the right to protest and the right to free speech and the right to attend our own churches because the government lets us. There's nothing stopping them from tank-rolling protestors and dropping nukes on particularly stubborn cities like San Francisco. History is full of governments mandating attendance in certain churches and closing up illegal churches. That doesn't change what WE think are inalienable human rights, the violation of which amounts to a violation of human dignity.

Obviously, arguments that it is Current Year aren't really convincing either.

I'm really trying to understand the other side of this argument.  Maybe you can answer my questions from before?

So, I'm kind of on the fence about this topic and I've been meaning to ask a question of someone that takes your position.  Would it be okay, in your view, for me to start a business and then deny my services to someone because of their religion?  How about because of their age?  Or race/sex?  How far does this freedom of association go?  I just feel like if the guy who wouldn't bake a cake for a gay couple walked into my store and was turned away due to his religion he would probably not be okay with it.

Based on what you wrote though, it seems to me like your saying that those with a conservative/libertarian worldview think that anti-discrimination laws are some kind of necessary evil.  That they are not constitutionally sound, but that they are required for certain real-life scenarios that go beyond a certain tipping point like what happened with racial discrimination.  Am I understanding that correctly?

It depends on who you are talking to and what the specific issue is. People don't really think out the specifics of these situations until actual scenarios come up. In general, few conservatives are going to agree that you should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion, sex, race, or any of the traditional protected classes. Even at the time of the Civil Rights Act, the VAST majority of Republicans voted for the bill....Goldwater may have carried the GOP primary, but his support was damned weak and he ended up getting blown out practically everywhere.

Your hardcore Ron Swansons won't agree with that, because they are even further afield than Goldwater.

I'd say most of the people who think this out wouldn't think the Civil Rights Act is constitutionally unsound (except maybe Clarence Thomas), but that it opens up constitutionally murky waters. At the state level, I think most conservatives would be on board with banning discrimination of the traditional protected classes, because there is no question states have the ability to regulate such things. Again, your Ron Swanson types will disagree, but they are a substantial minority.

Your median conservative position would probably be like Indiana's religious freedom law or the recent Hobby Lobby case or the Amerindian peyote laws, which is that a US law cannot impose an undue burden on someone's religious practices, even if it is facially neutral and even if you are engaged in commerce. Blah blah strict scrutiny, etc.

Basically people just have a knee-jerk reaction that someone shouldn't be compelled to serve a gay wedding. I don't know the breakdown of the people who think companies should be allowed to fire gay workers, but it didn't raise the firestorm in the conservative press like the gay wedding cake did, so I assume they feel much, much less strongly about that.

Quote


This fascinates me. Only minorities who have achieved a certain numerical size deserve protection against discrimination?  Really?  What percentage of the population does a minority have to reach to be protected?

Also, lets not get into "the discrimination against me is worse than the discrimination against you", hmmm?   If the discriminatory treatment fails the legal standard (even for gays, even for cake) it becomes irrelevant that there is a different level of discrimination against someone else.  Assault is not legal just because it's not murder.
The argument is that the anti-discrimination laws are overly broad, so your second point is not really relevant.

As for the first, the Civil Rights Era was a really big deal. It involved huge contentious divisions, massive riots, marching the army into the South (again), and opening the door to all sorts of federal overexpansion. If you're going to go through all that, it has to be for a good reason.

Quote
Also, the argument that gays aren’t badly discriminated against is forgetting Matthew Shepard.  There are many societies (ours included) that KILL gay people for being gay.
Come on. Who is really saying we should be killing gay people? Westboro? Those guys should've given a short rope from a tall tree and left to swing until the sun went down.

Gays face some additional discrimination. The discrimination they face is NOTHING like blacks faced anywhere in the US in the 1960s, and especially nothing like the Jim Crow system. It was rightly considered one of the greatest moral failings about the US, and people really wanted it to be corrected. LGBTs aren't even the group with the most hate crimes against them today: Jews are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime#United_States

So, this dude’s totally okay, right? I mean, it’s just food. They can obviously just go somewhere else.

http://myfox8.com/2014/02/07/oklahoma-restaurant-owners-says-he-wont-serve-gay-or-black-customers/

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8699
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #995 on: February 11, 2018, 09:36:56 AM »
So, this dude’s totally okay, right? I mean, it’s just food. They can obviously just go somewhere else.

http://myfox8.com/2014/02/07/oklahoma-restaurant-owners-says-he-wont-serve-gay-or-black-customers/
Appears that was four years ago.  Any updates?

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3348
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #996 on: February 11, 2018, 09:48:39 AM »
So, this dude’s totally okay, right? I mean, it’s just food. They can obviously just go somewhere else.

http://myfox8.com/2014/02/07/oklahoma-restaurant-owners-says-he-wont-serve-gay-or-black-customers/
Appears that was four years ago.  Any updates?

My question was about whether this is okay. Because the arguments presented above by a few people suggest that it is.

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 802
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #997 on: February 11, 2018, 10:24:32 AM »
So after 19 pages... did anyone regret voting Republican?  I'm sure reading the entirety of this thread is about as healthy as swimming in toxic sludge.

There were a few, yeah.

Here was my response, click the blue link just above

And a very relevant post elsewhere:

As a progressive I HATE it when my own peers just throw the racist accusation out there during debates and arguments with people who disagree with them. It is usually just a sly, incredibly unfair assault on the person’s character masquerading as progressive enlightenment. A way to show off the progressive’s moral and intellectual superiority while also appearing oh so openminded. The accused cannot defend themselves in anyway without digging themselves deeper into the racist hole/argument. Not only is this a cop out in my opinion on the part of the progressive who is using a firebomb to shut down conversation, but if it is thrown by another white person, it is also a pathetic admission of how little that person understands racism and how it works (because they too are also racist to some extent). It's the pot calling the kettle black and then smugly patting themselves on the back about it. Not cool and totally not productive at all.

Thank you!  :)



I am not at all surprised at the strength of his vote.  Many middle class people are very angry about what has happened to them over the last 10 years.  The "last chance for America" pitch hits home.  And Hilary is widely hated. I was surprised at all the people I know that don't really care about character, they just want things "fixed."  They are voting for Trump, no matter what.

What really did happen to them over the last 10 years?  I have been extremely isolated from "real world" because I moved to Northern VA and Washington DC 15 years ago, and have had very little domestic travel in that time.  I haven't witnessed first hand any of the hardships that I read about in the news.  In 2008, there were still lines around the block waiting to get the latest iPhone and to get seated at restaurants and steak houses.  Today, there are lines of people every night waiting to get into the hottest $250/plate restaurants.  Every. Night. 

I've been witnessing vast amounts of wealth, massive spending, and rampant consumerism.  I know that I've isolated myself and I'm on a somewhat low-news diet, so can someone please tell me briefly, what is really happening out there to the average American who is doing the right things (not overspending, etc).  Is it my location alone that has allowed me to get through these tough times?  Or is it that I see a downturn and change my spending accordingly?  Even the people who claim to be affected, their gripes tend to be along the lines of "we're not gaining on our neighbors" rather than experiencing true hardship.  They still have cable, coffee, iphones, cars, etc.  But they may lose their houses because they won't compromise on the daily things. 

When you are removed from someone else's reality, you just lose perspective, and I think that has happened to me.

Getting back to the original topic by BlueHouse- in my area of Texas I have two very distinct views.

Some background:  My mom has a Master's in Accounting, my Dad has a Bachelor's in mathmatics.  My brother has his Master's and I am working on mine.  Everybody has Bachelor's degrees.  Because of this, I get to see into the world of the salary class.  My parents probably pull in 150-190k combined.  The recession definitely slowed things down for them (dad is in furniture business, mom is CPA for a medium privately-held corp) but things picked back up by 2010 or so- simply not to the extent of 2000-2008.  I also work in manufacturing for a metal building company.  I would say 75% of the people I work with are HS diploma holding, the other 25% are bachelor’s or beyond, about 55% white and 40% Hispanic.  This has given me a view into the wage class (that I am a part of) on a scale that I was not raised in and did not understand.  So there is where I am coming from.

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

The lump summary of the ‘mindset’ is that international trade has DESTROYED wage class jobs.  INCLUDING AGRICULTURE, MANUFACTURING AND RAW MATERIALS.  See this link for the rise in imported goods of all types: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.IMP.GNFS.ZS?end=2015&locations=US&start=1980.
Now compare this with the percentages that industry (IE the creation of things which is predominately higher paying wage class jobs) has shrunk.  http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NV.IND.TOTL.ZS?locations=US&view=chart

In other words, things were not going well for a while (1980 onward) but when 2008 hit, it was the stark event that overstressed the system.  The recession shut shit down.  A lot of it permanently.  So often I hear on this forum that it is because of “AI” or “automation of existing jobs” but I call bullshit.  There is no automation (yet) of welding together a column, putting up a building, cutting down a tree or the complete assembling of most products.  Lets be brutally honest here- what is being blamed on automation is actually the result of taking jobs that paid well in the US and moving them overseas where companies can pay half (or less) per 'widget'.  There is no “efficiency” or “automation” in that. 

Now this is possible because the US has shitty trade deals (Yes, they are in fact shitty) that were made so that the US could get its latest iCrap at a lower price.  Leftists are now concerned with a “Trade War” and “Nationalism” hurting the economy…  Anybody notice how the USA stocks fared against the foreign markets?  They were hurt (not really slammed) and we had semi-large gains.  With the financial savvy on this forum, that ought to explain to you that The Donald’s protectionist policies are actually going to be GREAT for American businesses and companies that no longer have to compete with illegal foreign activities (see: Chinese steel manufacturing subsidies).   

Take a look at Reebok, who is a solely domestic company.  They are EXCITED for their business opportunities since they now have access to a market that won’t have to compete with non-free trade foreign goods. 

As an example:  China’s focus is on keeping people employed.  They, as a society, have lowered their standard of living in order to subsidize higher employment than the market requires (Steel example here: http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-steelmakers-seek-antidumping-action-against-china-other-countries-1433353218, the steelmakers won this suit a few months ago and the US is now holding higher tariffs against Chinese steel).  As such, the goals of Chinese goods is not aligned with Reebok and they share the same market with differing goals (Reebok’s being profit/chinese being societal employment satisfaction).  This is one small example but it is exemplified on a much larger scale across those three sectors: Agricultural, Manufacturing and Raw Goods. 

Those three sectors represented 43.9% of the GPD in 1981 but 19% of the GDP in 2011HOW CAN THE LEFT (and the right for that matter) NOT UNDERSTAND HOW BIG A DEAL THAT ACTUALLY IS??? (Source with real numbers and not a lame article: http://www.bea.gov/industry/gdpbyind_data.htm)

Yes, their jobs are gone or leaving…  But instead of being replaced with automation, which would result in a neutral effect because it would mean fewer jobs with higher pay, they were outsourced and now automation looms on the horizon- without having the jobs be in the original communities.  As such, the “deplorables” see the left bragging about unemployment being at 5% and they scoff- because they know that number doesn’t reflect the timeouts and the people who gave up trying (See the level of labor force / population compared to the unemployment).  They see the GDP of their communities shrinking to nothing while being outsourced or sent overseas.  They see all the attention (and state-level spending) being directed at a few population centers in the state and not evenly. 

That is what “really did happen to them over the last 10 30 years?” and they are PISSED OFF about it.

In my opinion, albeit not that valuable, the best thing the left and the whole nation can do now is (1) get these jobs back by forcing companies to employ in our market in order to sell to our market before automation fully kicks in, (2) quit calling half the country “Deplorables” and “racists” and “bigots”, (3) Quit forcing ideals on people (dare I bring up the bakery incident?), And (4) please START LISTENING to those other side.  They are willing to listen to you (except for the 0.1% that is the noisiest) but after being neglected for so long they need to see that you are willing to reach out and listen to them.



TlDr:  Outsourcing and job loss is real.  Neither side of the political establishment was willing to address it.  Now we have Trump.



Edits:  fixed a misdirected source link.

The discussion has moved WAY past that though.  Been useless for 16-odd pages now.

Just Joe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2114
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #998 on: February 11, 2018, 03:18:18 PM »
see Trump. No one refused to sell him a wedding cake because he cheated on his prior wives).

This is the part about the baker's defense that I always had an issue with.  You previously committed adultery? You get a cake. This is your 2nd marriage? You get a cake. You just lied about something? You get a cake.  You guys had sex before marriage? You get a cake. Your gay? I must stand on my principles and no cake for you. Seems it's not all sin the baker hated. Just the one.

You hit the nail on the head for me. Also applies to many religious principles for me. A person can be all sorts "sinful" things in 2018 and still be a good, god fearing Christian but they better not be gay. -eyes rolling-

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3348
Re: Does Anyone Regret Voting Republican?
« Reply #999 on: February 11, 2018, 04:41:18 PM »
see Trump. No one refused to sell him a wedding cake because he cheated on his prior wives).

This is the part about the baker's defense that I always had an issue with.  You previously committed adultery? You get a cake. This is your 2nd marriage? You get a cake. You just lied about something? You get a cake.  You guys had sex before marriage? You get a cake. Your gay? I must stand on my principles and no cake for you. Seems it's not all sin the baker hated. Just the one.

You hit the nail on the head for me. Also applies to many religious principles for me. A person can be all sorts "sinful" things in 2018 and still be a good, god fearing Christian but they better not be gay. -eyes rolling-

Yeah. And you can deny people the basic ability to purchase your products in the name of your religion and believe that doing so actually makes you a good Christian, ignoring the fact that Jesus consorted with all sorts and extended fellowship to criminals and adulterers, with no strings attached.