like_that;1865786 wrote:The left seems to believe that it's a human right to force a business to provide their services. Let's see if there is any outcry from the left from this...

Well, except being a Trump supporter is not a protected class (even if it's questionable if sexual orientation is federally protected, but in many states it is).

.....so sexual orientation trumps religious freedom...

QuakerOats;1865801 wrote:.....so sexual orientation trumps religious freedom...

According to the law, yes. If you have a business that serves the public, you can't violate discrimination laws. What if a Baptist owner of a restaurant refused to sit and serve a Jewish couple - who's religion trumps who?

iclfan2;1865778 wrote:Google just fired a guy for saying that maybe their company isn't more diverse because women don't want to be in tech (which is actually backed by some facts). I don't get why he would speak up against progressive beliefs in a loony leftist company, but Google is insane for firing the employ for having an opinion. I get it's a free market to fire who you want, but censoring opinions because it doesn't align with your politics is not a good look, especially when they contend that they are for "equality" and "acceptance". The hypocritical left strikes again.

Google is now openly crossing off names from their political hit lists now, also.

Dr. Jordan Peterson was just recently locked out of his google account with no explanation. Now, for those of you who don't know, Peterson is what I call the Pronoun Professor. That is to say, he doesn't like/want/adhere to compelled speech and has been very vocal about it. He does not think that it is a government's "right" to enforce pronoun usage. So therefore, he has been fighting Canada's government over usage of pronouns.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/1/jordan-b-petersons-youtube-account-locked-during-b/

So, google owns youtube. Interestingly or intimidatingly enough, the same day that Peterson's google account was blocked was the same day that youtube rolled out some new updates to their TOS. Because he protests compelled speech, leftists in Canada's government consider that as "hate speech".

From youtube's blog (pay attention to the headline they've put this under):
https://youtube.googleblog.com/

[h=2]An update on our commitment to fight terror content online[/h]Tuesday, August 1, 2017
A little over a month ago, we told you about the four new steps we’re taking to combat terrorist content on YouTube: better detection and faster removal driven by machine learning, more experts to alert us to content that needs review, tougher standards for videos that are controversial but do not violate our policies, and more work in the counter-terrorism space.
Tougher standards: We’ll soon be applying tougher treatment to videos that aren’t illegal but have been flagged by users as potential violations of our policies on hate speech and violent extremism. If we find that these videos don’t violate our policies but contain controversial religious or supremacist content, they will be placed in a limited state. The videos will remain on YouTube behind an interstitial, won’t be recommended, won’t be monetized, and won’t have key features including comments, suggested videos, and likes.



What I find to be extremely unsettling with this is that - even though I'm not a youtube uploader, I subscribe to many youtube accounts that aren't in lockstep with Google's and/or the left's ideology; that means that many videos that are geared towards political content can easily just disappear. Sargon of Akkad, Dave Rubin, Rebel Media, Dr. Jordan Peterson, Tim Pool, etc. I don't think that The Young Turks will be affected or even need to worry lol!
Youtube's new practices are predatory. Plain and simple. Good luck criticizing Islamists, pronoun policy, migrant worker versus asylum seeking refugee immigrants, or any other leftist bulwarks.

Head spinning

CenterBHSFan;1865828 wrote: Youtube's new practices are predatory. Plain and simple. Good luck criticizing Islamists, pronoun policy, migrant worker versus asylum seeking refugee immigrants, or any other leftist bulwarks.

More like fascist - the new "free speech" of the left is whatever they agree with. And it's kind of scary when you look at the influence/power that Google and Facebook have. At least Twitter seems pretty fair and reasonable about it mod policies.

On the other hand, Youtube/Facebook policies make sense from a marketing perspective. I would guess their accounts are still dominated by millenials, and they are catering to the vocal, shaming SJW's of the bunch. What will be interesting to see is as those people grow older and start to understand how the world works, have kids of their own, start making some decent money, etc....their views and perspective start to change Youtube/Facebook (if it's still around) will probably follow.

gut;1865803 wrote:What if a Baptist owner of a restaurant refused to sit and serve a Jewish couple - who's religion trumps who?

I draw the line at being compelled to actively participate. Say the Baptist owner was compelled by law to serve the Jewish couple with a Kosher menu. Would that be ok? My daughter married last year and the photographer was very intimately involved in the ceremony. If they were atheists and told me look we are not comfortable participating in a Christian ceremony. I'd be like no problem bro. Thanks for your time. Zero offence. Zero desire to unleash sic'em type lawyers on them. Not that any would ever take the case.

gut;1865789 wrote:Well, except being a Trump supporter is not a protected class (even if it's questionable if sexual orientation is federally protected, but in many states it is).

LGTB is not a federally protected class, there are no federal laws. There are many states that do, but not on the federal level.

gut;1865803 wrote:According to the law, yes. If you have a business that serves the public, you can't violate discrimination laws. What if a Baptist owner of a restaurant refused to sit and serve a Jewish couple - who's religion trumps who?

Considering Baptists love Jews, this is a bad example.

A comparable example would be a Muslim Imam being forced to perform a Jewish wedding ceremony, or a Muslim baker being forced to bake a gay Jewish wedding cake.

jmog;1866050 wrote:LGTB is not a federally protected class, there are no federal laws. There are many states that do, but not on the federal level.

That's why I said it's questionable if sexual orientation is federally protected. If it went to SCOTUS and they look at precedent, the EEOC has long interpreted it falling under the category of sex. Not to mention other related cases.

jmog;1866051 wrote:Considering Baptists love Jews, this is a bad example.

A comparable example would be a Muslim Imam being forced to perform a Jewish wedding ceremony, or a Muslim baker being forced to bake a gay Jewish wedding cake.

The real point was you can't refuse service on the basis of something that is a protected class. No different than refusing service to an African American, or seating them somewhere "special". LGBT is not a federally protected class, although even the present SCOTUS would probably rule 5-4 that it is.

Refusing service to a Trump supporter is apples-to-oranges against not baking a cake for a gay wedding. Although it seems like we may be getting to a point where a person's political views need to be protected (but not sure we want to open that Pandora's box).

gut;1866056 wrote:The real point was you can't refuse service on the basis of something that is a protected class. No different than refusing service to an African American, or seating them somewhere "special". LGBT is not a federally protected class, although even the present SCOTUS would probably rule 5-4 that it is.

Refusing service to a Trump supporter is apples-to-oranges against not baking a cake for a gay wedding. Although it seems like we may be getting to a point where a person's political views need to be protected (but not sure we want to open that Pandora's box).

I don't think it's apples to oranges at all. A business should be able to serve whoever they choose plain and simple. There have been countless of recent examples of businesses choosing to "discriminate" for one reason or another, and the left has been silent, because that particular person(s) being discriminated against does not fit their agenda.

Don't try to preach to me this tolerance and inclusivity bullshit, when you turn a blind eye at reversed roles.

like_that;1866059 wrote:I don't think it's apples to oranges at all. A business should be able to serve whoever they choose plain and simple.

They can, but when it's a protected class the law is clear. You can't refuse to serve someone because they are black, Jewish, a woman, etc..

A Trump supporter is not a protected class. This might be ridiculous and outrageous, but it's clearly not illegal.

gut;1866060 wrote:They can, but when it's a protected class the law is clear. You can't refuse to serve someone because they are black, Jewish, a woman, etc..

A Trump supporter is not a protected class. This might be ridiculous and outrageous, but it's clearly not illegal.

I am not arguing about the legality (although I also disagree with it), I am poking fun at the logic/outrage and hypocrisy coming from it. I don't give a shit if the kid wasn't served, because the business has that right.

Do you think the left would turn a blind eye if a business turned down a planned parenthood supporter?

like_that;1866061 wrote: Do you think the left would turn a blind eye if a business turned down a planned parenthood supporter?

No, but I'm having an even better laugh imagining what would happen if someone turned down an Obama supporter.

gut;1866069 wrote:No, but I'm having an even better laugh imagining what would happen if someone turned down an Obama supporter.

My example purposely tried to keep any possible race implications out of it :RpS_lol:.

like_that;1866070 wrote:My example purposely tried to keep any possible race implications out of it :RpS_lol:.

Yeah, but your PP example would just have the left crying sexism - imagine the outrage over turning down a transgender lesbian for a pap-smear, that is physically completely unnecessary.

gut;1866056 wrote:The real point was you can't refuse service on the basis of something that is a protected class. No different than refusing service to an African American, or seating them somewhere "special". LGBT is not a federally protected class, although even the present SCOTUS would probably rule 5-4 that it is.

Refusing service to a Trump supporter is apples-to-oranges against not baking a cake for a gay wedding. Although it seems like we may be getting to a point where a person's political views need to be protected (but not sure we want to open that Pandora's box).

But until LGTB is a protected class we can't assume it is based on how SCOTUS may or may not vote.

It currently is not.

Also, allowing/serving someone at say a restaurant is vastly different than having to actively participate in a wedding that you don't agree with for religious reasons. Like the pastor, flower arrangements, cake decorating/delivery, etc.

both national cases (cake and flowers) the owner of the business stated that the gay couple could buy anything off the shelf in their store for their wedding. They did not want to actively have to design/participate in the ceremony with a special cake/flower arrangements/delivery.

They did not refuse service for being gay (matter of fact the flower shop had served the gay man for years, just did not want to create arrangements for his wedding), they refused to be a part of a same sex wedding.

jmog;1866084 wrote:But until LGTB is a protected class we can't assume it is based on how SCOTUS may or may not vote.

It's not really a hypothetical - there are state and federal precedents.

And service means service. You can't offer full service to one person and partial service to another - that's discrimination.

gut;1866103 wrote:It's not really a hypothetical - there are state and federal precedents.

And service means service. You can't offer full service to one person and partial service to another - that's discrimination.

Actually not true.

Let's say I am a wedding photographer that happens to be religious, doesn't matter Muslim, Jew, Christian, etc. I am deeply committed to my faith with includes certain morality codes/standards.

Let's say someone wants me to photograph their wedding, and they happen to be getting married at a nudist colony that is fully "open" sexually. So the wedding/reception is not only nude but some various forms of sexual acts happen at the reception.

These weddings exist, I am not making this up. Personally if that's how they want to live I have no problem with them. I do know that you can not and should not be able to force someone that holds a different religious morality standard to go photograph their wedding.

You can say that "nudists aren't covered by protected classes", but religious freedom when it comes to morality standards should matter if its nudity or homosexuality, especially since homosexuality is still not a protected class.

Most libertarians and conservatives draw the line at actively participating in the wedding. If you want to come to my "store" and buy something I 100% have to serve you. You should not be allowed to force me, by the "government gun", to have to come to your wedding that I object to for religious reasons and perform my service.



I am speaking in hypotheticals, myself I don't have a problem with same sex marriage as long as you are not allowed to force people to "work" the wedding who object to it.

jmog;1866254 wrote:Actually not true.

Yes, 100% true. That is how the EEOC has looked at it for years, and there are other examples and many laws in many states. It would be shocking if the SCOTUS were to rule sexual orientation is not a protected class.

The rest of your post really makes no sense. You cannot refuse service to someone on the basis of their race, religion, sex, etc. It has nothing to do with YOUR beliefs - if your business puts you in conflict with your beliefs, then find a new business. You serve the public and you cannot discriminate against protected classes. Your religion is not an excuse for doing so. The law is plainly simple and clear on this.

A Muslim cannot refuse to sit a Jewish person in their restaurant and claim religious reasons for doing so. You know this is 100% true.

gut;1866273 wrote:Yes, 100% true. That is how the EEOC has looked at it for years, and there are other examples and many laws in many states. It would be shocking if the SCOTUS were to rule sexual orientation is not a protected class.

The rest of your post really makes no sense. You cannot refuse service to someone on the basis of their race, religion, sex, etc. It has nothing to do with YOUR beliefs - if your business puts you in conflict with your beliefs, then find a new business. You serve the public and you cannot discriminate against protected classes. Your religion is not an excuse for doing so. The law is plainly simple and clear on this.

A Muslim cannot refuse to sit a Jewish person in their restaurant and claim religious reasons for doing so. You know this is 100% true.

I don't think you followed my post.

You can not discriminate based on race or sex, but you can refuse to be involved in a ceremony you disagree with.

You have to serve a homosexual, but don't have to perform at a same sex marriage. Those two things can be mutually exclusive.

If I own a restaurant that also has a catering service. I absolutely have to serve any homosexual that walks into my restaurant. I have to cater to them at any party they may want catered.

I do not have to cater a same sex marriage however.

So far you are incorrect.

Again, you also can't make or apply a law based on how you believe the SCOTUS would vote when it hasn't happened yet anyway.

jmog;1866287 wrote: I do not have to cater a same sex marriage however.

You absolutely do, if catering is a service to the public that you offer (in many states, and every state if it ever goes to the SCOTUS)

jmog;1866287 wrote: So far you are incorrect.

Not by a longshot

jmog;1866287 wrote:Again, you also can't make or apply a law based on how you believe the SCOTUS would vote when it hasn't happened yet anyway.

Fair enough. But a reasonable person might reasonably act in a way they expect the SCOTUS to rule within reason.

gosh a ruddies, Ohio license plates at Charlottesville, was that Quaker Oats or some other hater of progressives.

Mr. Fields and some of his progressive hating friends