Respectful Politics Thread (Let's Just See)

[jvcarroll]

You are completely misunderstanding the ruling by the SCOTUS. They actually dodged the question and made no ruling regarding the baker's actual right to refuse to bake a cake for the gay couple. The ruling was more of a condemnation of Colorado's Civil Rights Commission and that they treated the baker's religious beliefs unfairly. From the written ruling:

The government “cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. In considering the baker’s case, the commission “was neither tolerant nor respectful of [baker Jack] Phillips’ religious beliefs.”​

and:

Yet even as Mr. Kennedy insisted that the law “must be applied in a manner that treats religion with neutral respect,” he also indicated that Colorado’s law itself was valid: “Colorado law can protect gay persons . . . in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public.”​

and:

Finally, Mr. Kennedy warned that the court could not, in the future, rule expansively in favor of a baker’s religious claims, “lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying ‘no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,’ something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons.”
​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1711f7a01011

You're right about a lot of this, but that's not quite it. Customizing regular ingredients, besides gay signage or particular decorations, isn't against any religion. Believing the cake itself to be gay or a gay message is absolutely childish and extremely prejudice. In time, this will be recognized. This is a child's argument. A baker is no more a participant in a same sex marriage than the people who make the paper the invitations are printed on. I understand the ruling. I was raised by a powerful, and conservative, attorney. And even he believes this to be folly. Again, signage is something someone can object to, but as long as LGBTQ people pay taxes for roads that lead to commercial businesses and all they ask for is a cake with the same sort of ingredients provided to straight people from a commercial establishment, they should have to provide it. Period. If people want to be picky or bigots, they need to go private. That's protected. Always. This ruling severely clouds that issue and it will be taken up again. This is not a loss as much as a rather weird postponement. Maybe that's the best thing for now that the conservatives stole a spot on SCOTUS when they threw an unprecedented tantrum and refused to even give Gorsuch a hearing.

 

[jvcarroll]

@D'Snowth and @jvcarroll - I'm sure you both will like this even if we don't see eye to eye on Hillary.

We doooooo!

 

[jvcarroll]

I work in customer service and have for over ten years. I have helped people of all kinds and the help I have provided has in no way condone or supported who they are or anything. I was kind to them, and no matter what tried not to judge them based on a quick interaction on a call or at a cash register. What your talking about is an independent business offering a service. That business should have the right to choose who they serve just so much as the customers do as well.

That is a lovely and very Jesus Christ way to think about things. I wish more people had that integrity.

 

[dwayne1115]

That is a lovely and very Jesus Christ way to think about things. I wish more people had that integrity.

It's easy to forget that when Jesus was on the Earth his ministry was on the poor dirty sickly outcast people. He accepted them regardless of their social stadus or how much money they had.

 

[CensoredAlso]

I am genuinely concerned about the children our genius government managed to lose track of. Plus the ones still being held in detention away from their families. This can't end well. We're going to be hearing stories about abuse and the officials that turned a blind eye. I wish there was something we could do. I suppose putting Democrats back in power is the obvious choice, but then again, Obama never did close Guantanamo Bay. And he is part of the reason the DACA kids were left hanging. It's hard to know who to trust at this point.

 

[jvcarroll]

You're right about a lot of this, but that's not quite it. Customizing regular ingredients, besides gay signage or particular decorations, isn't against any religion. Believing the cake itself to be gay or a gay message is absolutely childish and extremely prejudice. In time, this will be recognized. This is a child's argument. A baker is no more a participant in a same sex marriage than the people who make the paper the invitations are printed on. I understand the ruling. I was raised by a powerful, and conservative, attorney. And even he believes this to be folly. Again, signage is something someone can object to, but as long as LGBTQ people pay taxes for roads that lead to commercial businesses and all they ask for is a cake with the same sort of ingredients provided to straight people from a commercial establishment, they should have to provide it. Period. If people want to be picky or bigots, they need to go private. That's protected. Always. This ruling severely clouds that issue and it will be taken up again. This is not a loss as much as a rather weird postponement. Maybe that's the best thing for now that the conservatives stole a spot on SCOTUS when they threw an unprecedented tantrum and refused to even give Gorsuch a hearing.

You are completely misunderstanding the ruling by the SCOTUS. They actually dodged the question and made no ruling regarding the baker's actual right to refuse to bake a cake for the gay couple. The ruling was more of a condemnation of Colorado's Civil Rights Commission and that they treated the baker's religious beliefs unfairly. From the written ruling:

The government “cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. In considering the baker’s case, the commission “was neither tolerant nor respectful of [baker Jack] Phillips’ religious beliefs.”​

and:

Yet even as Mr. Kennedy insisted that the law “must be applied in a manner that treats religion with neutral respect,” he also indicated that Colorado’s law itself was valid: “Colorado law can protect gay persons . . . in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public.”​

and:

Finally, Mr. Kennedy warned that the court could not, in the future, rule expansively in favor of a baker’s religious claims, “lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying ‘no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,’ something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons.”
​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1711f7a01011

I mean Garland, not Gorsuch. I see what you're saying, but it is a very cloudy ruling and is still, however narrow, a perversion of religious freedom. The majority of justices may say anything they like about how contained this ruling is, but essentially it is inviting many future bites at the apple when this all should have been so simple. There was no time where the baker's religious liberties were being oppressed. No one stopped him from voicing his chosen scripture. No one stopped him from attending church. No one made him write a message on a cake or put two grooms or two brides on top of a cake. There is no America where he should have won a slice of anything, however small. This will be ruled on again in a wider fashion. I just hope we have a progressive in office and more fair-minded people on SCOTUS. We shall see.

 

[jvcarroll]

Teacher says school's transgender name policy goes against his religious beliefs

However one feels about trangender people, there is no religious belief about referring to people by a specific name over another one. This has gotten ridiculous. There's a big difference between being unPC and being a complete jerk. That's the thing, if someone's name is Catherine and she'd rather go by Cathy, we should oblige. It's doesn't matter. The thing, however, that makes this a win for me is that this is a discussion being had in Indiana where the bigoted teacher is actually going against school policy. School policy in Indiana is actually functioning as it should be. YAY THAT!!!! Whatever our beliefs, we should all strive to make people comfortable, whether that means names or pronouns. It's not that hard. And if someone doesn't get the memo about a particular person's preferred name of pronouns at the beginning of an interaction, that's not necessarily on them. Sometimes it's VERY difficult to know. But after a person does, that's on them. What I always learned is this - when in doubt, default to sweetness. Some people will never relent. Some people hold onto angry beliefs like this guy. But, even with bigots, we've got to start as sweetly as possible. Firm, but sweet. In our reality show culture, too many people have been taught that their opinion of the lives of others matters. It doesn't. It's the Kindergarten lesson - share, be kind, keep your hands to yourself and eyes on your own paper. It really is that simple.

 

[jvcarroll]

How to Beat Authoritarianism.

Sound like anything to y'all?​

 

[D'Snowth]

If WW2 were happening today, would Trump's America be an Axis Power, or neutral? I feel like if it was an Axis Power, we'd be pledging loyalty with Hitler's Germany - any Jews trying to flee Germany and come here would probably be captured, and Trump would extradite them back to Germany directly to Hitler himself. Otherwise, I could also see Trump's America being neutral to the point that he wouldn't want to pledge loyalty to either side but his own, and if he got us involved with the war, it'd be for his own benefit and profit.

 

[CensoredAlso]

If WW2 were happening today, would Trump's America be an Axis Power, or neutral? I feel like if it was an Axis Power, we'd be pledging loyalty with Hitler's Germany - any Jews trying to flee Germany and come here would probably be captured, and Trump would extradite them back to Germany directly to Hitler himself. Otherwise, I could also see Trump's America being neutral to the point that he wouldn't want to pledge loyalty to either side but his own, and if he got us involved with the war, it'd be for his own benefit and profit.

I think Trump would brag about going to meet Hitler...and then it would just kinda awkwardly peter out like it has so far with Kim. He might get along with Mussolini though.