SCOTUS says federal law protects LGBTQ workers from discrimination

[turtlespeed 212]

1 minute ago, mistercwood said:

This is your laziest troll in quite some time. You HAVE to know what the first amendment actually is, right?

Absolutely - I highlighted below the pertinent word.

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition.

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, jakee said:

a) I didn't know the first amendment gave anyone the right to skydive.

b) Your question doesn't make sense. You're either ignorant of the constitution or you're just stirring shit. If either of the two Joes banned Mark from their property because of the things he says they would not be denying his first amendment rights. The first stops the government from limiting his speech, it doesn't stop anyone else from responding to it however they choose, and it doesn't absolve anyone from the consequences of what they say.

Funny how you guys on the right are only about personal responsibility when it suits you.

You're 100% dead on target.

[Phil1111 910]

9 minutes ago, markharju said:

I gotta tell ya - Milo Yiannopoulos is so fabulous he makes me wish I was that way...almost

This guy?

Ultra-conservative writer Milo Yiannopoulos will no longer speak at a US conservative conference and his book deal has been cancelled after videos surfaced in which he appeared to condone paedophilia.

The footage showed him discussing the merits of gay relationships between adults and boys as young as 13.

Edited June 16, 2020 by Phil1111

[jakee 1,254]

1 minute ago, markharju said:

If they did so, they wouldn't be denying me my rights; rather, they would be exercising *their* rights to free association, and refuse service to someone whom they personally find abhorrent. Sort of like a certain baker in Colorado.

But they would be denying service to you based on your hate, and the baker was denying service based on his own hate. Twisted bigotry isn't a protected class.

[turtlespeed 212]

3 minutes ago, markharju said:

Jakee is 100% correct. If they did so, they wouldn't be denying me my rights; rather, they would be exercising *their* rights to free association, and refuse service to someone whom they personally find abhorrent. Sort of like a certain baker in Colorado.

Well except that whole word "Expression" you are free to express your views.

[mistercwood 287]

2 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Absolutely - I highlighted below the pertinent word.

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition.

 

You're soooo close to getting it...

[jakee 1,254]

4 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Absolutely - I highlighted below the pertinent word.

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition.

If we give you best out of three do you think you'd be able to find a word that is in the actual amendment?

 

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

3 minutes ago, markharju said:

Jakee is 100% correct. If they did so, they wouldn't be denying me my rights; rather, they would be exercising *their* rights to free association, and refuse service to someone whom they personally find abhorrent. Sort of like a certain baker in Colorado.

Again, nope.

Discriminating against a group because of their sexual orientation is just that. Discrimination. 

Refusing service to an individual who routinely uses hateful and bigoted speech is not discrimination.

It's refusal based on your choice of words and/or actions. 
 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

This guy?

Ultra-conservative writer Milo Yiannopoulos will no longer speak at a US conservative conference and his book deal has been cancelled after videos surfaced in which he appeared to condone paedophilia.

The footage showed him discussing the merits of gay relationships between adults and boys as young as 13.

Yeah, he made a stupid remark and ended up playing the victim card and groveling. He definitely pissed me off, among many others. He was hugely entertaining while he lasted.

[jakee 1,254]

3 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Well except that whole word "Expression" you are free to express your views.

And other people can make decisions on how to treat you based on the views you express. How many people's freedom would you deny just to make sure your far right friends do not have to accept any consequences for their speech?

[turtlespeed 212]

 

2 minutes ago, jakee said:

And other people can make decisions on how to treat you based on the views you express. How many people's freedom would you deny just to make sure your far right friends do not have to accept any consequences for their speech?

So, you are OK with denying people service based on their beliefs?

Thanks for clarifying.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, jakee said:

But they would be denying service to you based on your hate, and the baker was denying service based on his own hate. Twisted bigotry isn't a protected class.

That's the difference..."protected class", like they're rhinos or mountain gorillas and can't take care of themselves. One hate is okay, the other isn't.

[turtlespeed 212]

8 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

You're soooo close to getting it...

Well, I took some liberty and let the assumption be that Joe was acting like congress, and making his own laws if he could.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

6 minutes ago, markharju said:

That's the difference..."protected class", like they're rhinos or mountain gorillas and can't take care of themselves. One hate is okay, the other isn't.

No. You keep trying to twist this. Kind of like your belief that the "CHAZ" is comparable to Mogadishu. 
And like that, you're completely wrong.

Discrimination against groups is against the law.
Groups like religion, race, sexual orientation, age, that stuff.
In case you aren't aware of it, those sorts of groups have become 'protected' because of a history of hatred and discrimination against them.

Hating people who exhibit bigoted behavior is not illegal.

If you choose to act in a hateful manner, or speak that way, there may be consequences.

Those consequences apply to the action.

If you hate blacks and keep your mouth shut, you can eat all the soul food on Maxwell St that you want.

[jakee 1,254]

13 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

So, you are OK with denying people service based on their beliefs?

Thanks for clarifying.

So you want to force people to associate with abhorrent bigots. Thanks for clarifying. I didn't realise you so vehemently disagreed with the laws and constitution of your own country.

 

[jakee 1,254]

17 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Well, I took some liberty and let the assumption be that Joe was acting like congress, and making his own laws if he could.

Which is a really strange thing to do, since you know he isn't and you know he couldn't. Even stranger that you've continued to defend the post even after being told several times that it made no sense.

But hey, Mark's on the right being criticized by people you think are on the left, so you've just got to dig your heels in and stay the course no matter what.

[jakee 1,254]

22 minutes ago, markharju said:

That's the difference..."protected class", like they're rhinos or mountain gorillas and can't take care of themselves. One hate is okay, the other isn't.

You can give that one up too. The 'you must tolerate intolerance' argument is facile.

[turtlespeed 212]

22 minutes ago, jakee said:

So you want to force people to associate with abhorrent bigots. Thanks for clarifying. I didn't realise you so vehemently disagreed with the laws and constitution of your own country.

 

OK - so you have reversed your opinion on the Baker in Colorado.  Thanks for clarifying.

[turtlespeed 212]

19 minutes ago, jakee said:

Which is a really strange thing to do, since you know he isn't and you know he couldn't.

That isn't to say that he wouldn't, which is where I was going with it.

[jakee 1,254]

Just now, turtlespeed said:

OK - so you have reversed your opinion on the Baker in Colorado.  Thanks for clarifying.

Not at all. I agree with the law that that he can't refuse service to protected classes. I also agree with the law that he can refuse service to people being hateful. Thanks for clarifying that you disagree, and feel that he should be forced to serve everyone, no matter what. 

[jakee 1,254]

12 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

That isn't to say that he wouldn't, which is where I was going with it.

What an absurd assumption to make. Again, the lengths you'll go to in order to defend anyone on the right for any reason are quite remarkable.

 

If anyone you thought of as being leftist had accused any conservative of wanting to pass laws against free speech because they wouldn't serve someone in their place of business you'd have had a conniption. I wonder if you have the class to retract this one. I assume not.

[phantomII 36]

I really envy you for your POTUS.
Who else, than this philosopher turned genius, could have found the best words to comment this supreme court decision.

"But they’ve ruled and we live with their decision."

[kallend 1,623]

14 hours ago, markharju said:

Of children being hypersexualized by perverts. Simple enough.

 

OK, but this thread isn't about Republican politicians.

[Guest]

I apologize to everyone for last night. Not out of fear of reprisal, such as having my account suspended or anything like that, but because it's the right thing to do. And not for my hotheaded opinions, but because I broke a dz.com rule by posting material in this thread which by agreement was inappropriate for the forums. No one's twisting my arm to admit this - it went too far. I suppose we wouldn't be human if we didn't have some strong opinions about where our world is headed, and in my zeal to push buttons I overreached. I'm not going to grovel, but I do admit I was wrong in breaking the rule. In 19 years on dz.com I never broke the rule...I won't do it again -mh

Edited June 16, 2020 by Guest

[JoeWeber 2,297]

7 minutes ago, markharju said:

I apologize to everyone for last night. Not out of fear of reprisal, such as having my account suspended or anything like that, but because it's the right thing to do. And not for my hotheaded opinions, but because I broke a dz.com rule by posting material in this thread which by agreement was inappropriate for the forums. No one's twisting my arm to admit this - it went too far. I suppose we wouldn't be human if we didn't have some strong opinions about where our world is headed, and in my zeal to push buttons I overreached. I'm not going to grovel, but I do admit I was wrong in breaking the rule. In 19 years on dz.com I never broke the rule...I won't do it again -mh

Same speech any 12 year old gives his Mom to avoid another ass whipping. You are still who you are.