Well.....Well....Well...

[*PhilHos*]

(06-27-2018, 12:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Honestly, I see most of those discussions as distractions. The media likes to focus on them because they are good stories, but meanwhile there is plenty of policy that could be discussed that more prescient.

So true.

[GMDino]

(06-27-2018, 12:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Kudos to Bubba, He pretty much sees the situation in the OP in a rational, unbiased view:

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/bill-clinton-talks-sarah-huckabee-sanders-metoo-troubles-061147091.html

...then went on her government twitter page and blasted the place to 3 million followers.

So she tried.

anyway...

Quote:Clinton believes the Trump administration caused the partisan vitriol infesting our society, however. “A lot of poison has been poured down America’s throat since the 2016 campaign,” he said. ”It started by calling Mexicans rapists and murderers. … It’s hard to pour poison down other people’s throat and not have it bubble back up.”

While Clinton understands the sentiments behind the recent string of name calling, heckling, and refusal of service, he also believes, “Sooner or later people need to quit tearing each other down and start going to work.”

[Belsnickel]

(06-27-2018, 10:23 AM)WychesWarrior Wrote: As I said, soley representing an urban society is the same as solely representing a rural one.  You must have differing viewpoints.  

So, interestingly enough I just read something that pertains to our EC discussion. Hamilton wrote in Federalist 68 the reasoning behind the EC. In this writing he argues that the the EC's role is that of a gatekeeper. By making the election indirect it prevents the rise of a demagogue figure. The problem today lies in the fact that the EC election is no longer truly indirect. We do not vote for the electors as was intended and therefore the system is moot because it is much more of a direct election (and quite obviously isn't a gatekeeping measure). Hamilton and Madison were not expecting the rise of political parties which have, for the most part, done a good job of gatekeeping against candidates with more authoritarian leanings.

Just wanted to share as I was reading this.

[fredtoast]

(06-27-2018, 10:52 AM)bfine32 Wrote:  I acknowledge the right of both owners to refuse service as long as a protected class under the CRA is not violated

What if sexual orientation is a protected class under a state law?

[*PhilHos*]

(06-27-2018, 03:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What if sexual orientation is a protected class under a state law?

Fun hypothetical: what if a gay baker was asked to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist church that said "Happy Anniversary"? Can the baker refuse? If so, why? If not, why?

[fredtoast]

(06-27-2018, 03:27 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Fun hypothetical: what if a gay baker was asked to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist church that said "Happy Anniversary"? Can the baker refuse? If so, why? If not, why?

Take out the word "Westboro" and the baker could not refuse service.

He can refuse to provide service specifically to Westboro because they incite violence against homosexuals. That is different than just basic "religious beliefs".

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(06-27-2018, 02:49 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, interestingly enough I just read something that pertains to our EC discussion. Hamilton wrote in Federalist 68 the reasoning behind the EC. In this writing he argues that the the EC's role is that of a gatekeeper. By making the election indirect it prevents the rise of a demagogue figure. The problem today lies in the fact that the EC election is no longer truly indirect. We do not vote for the electors as was intended and therefore the system is moot because it is much more of a direct election (and quite obviously isn't a gatekeeping measure). Hamilton and Madison were not expecting the rise of political parties which have, for the most part, done a good job of gatekeeping against candidates with more authoritarian leanings.

Just wanted to share as I was reading this.

Very interesting.....thanks for sharing.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-27-2018, 03:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Take out the word "Westboro" and the baker could not refuse service.

He can refuse to provide service specifically to Westboro because they incite violence against homosexuals. That is different than just basic "religious beliefs".

I don't think they actually incite violence.  And oddly, Fred Phelps was a civil rights guy (for black people).  You'd think someone who hates that many people would be a natural racist.

[*PhilHos*]

(06-27-2018, 03:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Take out the word "Westboro" and the baker could not refuse service.

He can refuse to provide service specifically to Westboro because they incite violence against homosexuals. That is different than just basic "religious beliefs".

No they don't. Yes, they say inflammatory things, but they don't call for people to be violent to them. And the fact is that Westboro is a church. (Personally, I wish they wouldn't call themselves that as their message is about as far from Godly as one can get, but they're still a church.) And they say there hateful things becaus eof their religion. Ergo, refusing service to the church would be refusing service based on religion. And if the Christian baker must serve gays, then the gay baker must serve the Westboro Baptist fools.

(For the record, I don't think the Christian should be FORCED to serve gays, but, as a Christian, I think he should).

[*michaelsean*]

(06-27-2018, 04:05 PM)PhilHos Wrote: No they don't. Yes, they say inflammatory things, but they don't call for people to be violent to them. And the fact is that Westboro is a church. (Personally, I wish they call themselves that as their message is about as far from Godly as one can get, but they're still a church.) And they say there hateful things becaus eof their religion. Ergo, refusing service to the church would be refusing service based on religion. And if the Christian baker must serve gays, then the gay baker must serve the Westboro Baptist fools.

(For the record, I don't think the Christian should be FORCED to serve gays, but, as a Christian, I think he should).

My biggest problem with the baker, notwithstanding  legality, is his view on God.  And second his logic.  If God has declared that marriage is between a man and a woman, then whatever the gay people are doing, it's not a marriage therefore he is not participating in one.

[fredtoast]

(06-27-2018, 04:05 PM)PhilHos Wrote: No they don't. Yes, they say inflammatory things, but they don't call for people to be violent to them

Yes they do.  They praise the murder of homosexuals.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-27-2018, 04:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes they do.  They praise the murder of homosexuals.

That's not inciting.  I think they are very careful to walk a legal tightrope.

[Dill]

(06-27-2018, 12:27 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I never really understood why people would overlook both sides do something and/or say the other side is worse. I mean, I know the reasons why, but still, if something is bad and both sides do it, why then talk about the other side being worse? Why not just focus more on saying it's unacceptable no matter WHO does it?

That is a good question in today's political environment, where equivocation frequently obscures voter understanding.  At the level of the individual, one can agree that bad behavior is unacceptable no matter who does it, but still see a point in determining, at the group level, whether one side "does it more," because frequency of bad behavior in individuals may have something to do with party culture, how certain behaviors are legitimized by default of criticism or even actively encouraged.

Further, while there is sometimes a clear symmetry when comparing one individual from one party to one individual from another, that rarely holds at the party level.  If one party were to become progressively more uncivil and undemocratic, finding examples of uncivil and undemocratic behavior on "both sides" would do more to legitimize than reverse that negative trend.

I am proposing analysis first here, and blame later, if such is warranted: this is distinct from simply looking for opportunities to reverse blame outside of any analytic framework. A claim that one side really does it more should be an empirical claim which can be tested, and worth testing if people want to understand why one side does it more, assuming they do.

[fredtoast]

(06-27-2018, 04:35 PM)michaelsean Wrote: That's not inciting.  I think they are very careful to walk a legal tightrope.

For a Christian there is no bigger endorsement for an action than saying it is the work of God.  Christians are taught to follow God's will.

Remember that I said that the gay baker would have to provide the services to any other church that does not incite violence.  So no need to get worked up trying to defend Westboro.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-27-2018, 04:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: For a Christian there is no bigger endorsement for an action than saying it is the work of God.  Christians are taught to follow God's will.

Remember that I said that the gay baker would have to provide the services to any other church that does not incite violence.  So no need to get worked up trying to defend Westboro.

Sorry it's not inciting.  I'm not defending Westboro, I'm just stating a fact.  Or maybe you can show us where they have been charged with inciting violence.  I'm sure the authorities would like nothing better than to have a chance to shut them down. 

[*PhilHos*]

(06-27-2018, 04:16 PM)michaelsean Wrote: My biggest problem with the baker, notwithstanding  legality, is his view on God.  And second his logic.  If God has declared that marriage is between a man and a woman, then whatever the gay people are doing, it's not a marriage therefore he is not participating in one.

My thing is: so what if he bakes a cake for a gay couple to be used in a gay marriage? Does he think God's going to actually punish him for showing love and kindness to "sinners"?

[*PhilHos*]

(06-27-2018, 04:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes they do.  They praise the murder of homosexuals.

(06-27-2018, 04:35 PM)michaelsean Wrote: That's not inciting.  I think they are very careful to walk a legal tightrope.

Like I said, they espouse hate but they don't incite violence (except for the fact that they say intentionally hateful rhetoric)

[*PhilHos*]

(06-27-2018, 04:41 PM)Dill Wrote:
That is a good question in today's political environment, where equivocation frequently obscures voter understanding.  At the level of the individual, one can agree that bad behavior is unacceptable no matter who does it, but still see a point in determining, at the group level, whether one side "does it more," because frequency of bad behavior in individuals may have something to do with party culture, how certain behaviors are legitimized by default of criticism or even actively encouraged.

Further, while there is sometimes a clear symmetry when comparing one individual from one party to one individual from another, that rarely holds at the party level.  If one party were to become progressively more uncivil and undemocratic, finding examples of uncivil and undemocratic behavior on "both sides" would do more to legitimize than reverse that negative trend.

I am proposing analysis first here, and blame later, if such is warranted: this is distinct from simply looking for opportunities to reverse blame outside of any analytic framework. A claim that one side really does it more should be an empirical claim which can be tested, and worth testing if people want to understand why one side does it more, assuming they do.

At no point should we even care about which side does it more, let alone actually try to find out who does it more. What we SHOULD be doing is putting an end to bad behavior, not figuring out which side is worse.

The very fact that people try to figure out which side is worse is a huge part of the problem, IMO.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-27-2018, 04:52 PM)PhilHos Wrote: My thing is: so what if he bakes a cake for a gay couple to be used in a gay marriage? Does he think God's going to actually punish him for showing love and kindness to "sinners"?

Yeah the whole thing is backwards thinking, and it comes from being terrified of a vengeful God.  Once you get away from that fear, you can see how ridiculous it is.  

[*PhilHos*]

(06-27-2018, 04:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: For a Christian there is no bigger endorsement for an action than saying it is the work of God.  Christians are taught to follow God's will.

Remember that I said that the gay baker would have to provide the services to any other church that does not incite violence.  So no need to get worked up trying to defend Westboro.

Does it matter if they incite violence? They are a religion. To deny service to them because of their religion is unconstituional (assuming they're asking for a cake with a non-hateful message).