Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 skyth wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I fear Hillary will try to erode the 1st, 2nd, and 5th amendments. And I feel she will be the most likely to succeed in doing so.

She's a progressive, so eroding the 2nd Amendment is part of her shtick, but what aspects of the 1st and 5th do you see her eroding? I'm curious, because she is more authoritarian than people might initially realize.

On the first, the right to object on the grounds of religion. See the bakery that refused to make a cake for the gay couple and got in trouble, when really you should have the right to deny service for any reason. If I am running a business there should be nothing which compels me to serve a particular customer. I fear Hillary would take this even further.

And that doesn't impinge on your freedom of religion at all. Freedom of religion does not mean the ability to punish someone who doesn't follow the tenets of your religion. You are allowed to have whatever religious beliefs you want. Your beliefs cannot impact anyone else.

Or in other words, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

Incorrect.

Its infringing on my religious freedom to be forced to participate in something which is morally repugnant to my religion.

By refusing to bake a gay couple a wedding cake, I am not preventing them from getting married or having a cake. They can go take their business elsewhere. I'm just refusing to participate in what I feel to be wrong, and I shouldn't be retaliated against for doing that. I am not forcing them to follow my religion, I'm just refusing to take their money.

Ummm...Fifth Amendment is the right to not be forced to incriminate yourself.

I don't trust Trump not to expand government privacy intrusions either (Or Cruz for that matter). Cruz would absolutely butcher the religious protections of the First amendment. Trump would butcher the speech part (He wants to roll back Libel laws so he can sue anyone who says anything he doesn't like about him).

Derp, I meant the 4th. Looked it up and somehow got the next number.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I fear Hillary will try to erode the 1st, 2nd, and 5th amendments. And I feel she will be the most likely to succeed in doing so.

She's a progressive, so eroding the 2nd Amendment is part of her shtick, but what aspects of the 1st and 5th do you see her eroding? I'm curious, because she is more authoritarian than people might initially realize.

On the first, the right to object on the grounds of religion. See the bakery that refused to make a cake for the gay couple and got in trouble, when really you should have the right to deny service for any reason. If I am running a business there should be nothing which compels me to serve a particular customer. I fear Hillary would take this even further.

And that doesn't impinge on your freedom of religion at all. Freedom of religion does not mean the ability to punish someone who doesn't follow the tenets of your religion. You are allowed to have whatever religious beliefs you want. Your beliefs cannot impact anyone else.

Or in other words, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

Incorrect.

Its infringing on my religious freedom to be forced to participate in something which is morally repugnant to my religion.

By refusing to bake a gay couple a wedding cake, I am not preventing them from getting married or having a cake. They can go take their business elsewhere. I'm just refusing to participate in what I feel to be wrong, and I shouldn't be retaliated against for doing that.

Sorry, but again, you have no right to force someone else to follow your religion. Being a public business means you can't pick and choose who you serve based on them not matching your religion.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
If I am running a business there should be nothing which compels me to serve a particular customer.

We've been down that road before. And people seriously need to read the laws of the land. You're not allowed to deny service in public accommodations based on sex. Federal law says it. Oregon Law says it. At this point most states have a public accommodations law. So no. They had no right to deny service. We've been down that road before. We already know where it goes.

My private business isn't a public accommodation. Especially when you are dealing with customized product.

Or do you think it would also be illegal for someone to refuse to make a cake for a KKK meeting that had racial slurs on it?

Edit: Ignore me...

 Grey Templar wrote:
They can go take their business elsewhere.

What if you're the only baker for 100 miles?

What if there are four other Bakers in town, but you all go to the same church and have identical feels on gay people?

What if you call all the other bakers up, and tell them not to serve the gay couple, or else more of them will come.

Now replace gay with black. Welcome to Mississippi 1960. I'd rather not return to that.

If it's a business that is open to the public then it IS a public accommodation.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
If I am running a business there should be nothing which compels me to serve a particular customer.

We've been down that road before. And people seriously need to read the laws of the land. You're not allowed to deny service in public accommodations based on sex. Federal law says it. Oregon Law says it. At this point most states have a public accommodations law. So no. They had no right to deny service. We've been down that road before. We already know where it goes.

My private business isn't a public accommodation.

Actually, it is.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations

 Grey Templar wrote:

My private business isn't a public accommodation. Especially when you are dealing with customized product.

Or do you think it would also be illegal for someone to refuse to make a cake for a KKK meeting that had racial slurs on it?

Apples and Oranges.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
They can go take their business elsewhere.

What if you're the only baker for 100 miles?

What if there are four other Bakers in town, but you all go to the same church and have identical feels on gay people?

What if you call all the other bakers up, and tell them not to serve the gay couple, or else more of them will come.

Now replace gay with black. Welcome to Mississippi 1960. I'd rather not return to that.

Unless you can show a real religious reason to refuse service to a black person wanting a custom cake then you are making a false equivalence.

As for other bakers and proximity, those details are irrelevant.

 Grey Templar wrote:


My private business isn't a public accommodation. Especially when you are dealing with customized product.

Yes it is;

(E) a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment;

Or do you think it would also be illegal for someone to refuse to make a cake for a KKK meeting that had racial slurs on it?

There's no law against making a cake with racial slurs far as I know, and it would be illegal to refuse to make a cake for the KKK far as I know (given the realities of life though, I wouldn't be surprised if it was something you could get away with). Americans are very happy to ignore the rights of people we don't like, and if society in general doesn't like them we generally go on ignoring them. That's why we have public accommodation laws in the first place.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
If I am running a business there should be nothing which compels me to serve a particular customer.

We've been down that road before. And people seriously need to read the laws of the land. You're not allowed to deny service in public accommodations based on sex. Federal law says it. Oregon Law says it. At this point most states have a public accommodations law. So no. They had no right to deny service. We've been down that road before. We already know where it goes.

My private business isn't a public accommodation.

Actually, it is.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations

Hmm fair enough.

I still think its wrong to force someone to do something which deeply violates their religious beliefs.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
They can go take their business elsewhere.

What if you're the only baker for 100 miles?

What if there are four other Bakers in town, but you all go to the same church and have identical feels on gay people?

What if you call all the other bakers up, and tell them not to serve the gay couple, or else more of them will come.

Now replace gay with black. Welcome to Mississippi 1960. I'd rather not return to that.

Unless you can show a real religious reason to refuse service to a black person wanting a custom cake then you are making a false equivalence.

As for other bakers and proximity, those details are irrelevant.

Not a false equivalent as people claimed during the 60's that they had religious reasons to discriminate against blacks.

I agree the the details are irrelevant, for other reasons

 skyth wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
They can go take their business elsewhere.

What if you're the only baker for 100 miles?

What if there are four other Bakers in town, but you all go to the same church and have identical feels on gay people?

What if you call all the other bakers up, and tell them not to serve the gay couple, or else more of them will come.

Now replace gay with black. Welcome to Mississippi 1960. I'd rather not return to that.

Unless you can show a real religious reason to refuse service to a black person wanting a custom cake then you are making a false equivalence.

As for other bakers and proximity, those details are irrelevant.

Not a false equivalent as people claimed during the 60's that they had religious reasons to discriminate against blacks.

I agree the the details are irrelevant, for other reasons

And those people didn't have a leg to stand on. Nowhere in the Bible does it say blacks are inferior or anything, it says the exact opposite actually.

Being gay on the other hand is a well documented affront against God.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


My private business isn't a public accommodation. Especially when you are dealing with customized product.

Yes it is;

(E) a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment;

Or do you think it would also be illegal for someone to refuse to make a cake for a KKK meeting that had racial slurs on it?

There's no law against making a cake with racial slurs far as I know, and it would be illegal to refuse to make a cake for the KKK far as I know (given the realities of life though, I wouldn't be surprised if it was something you could get away with). Americans are very happy to ignore the rights of people we don't like, and if society in general doesn't like them we generally go on ignoring them. That's why we have public accommodation laws in the first place.

Well, as long as you have legitimate reasoning, you often can refuse. In this instance, you wouldn't be able to refuse service to members of the KKK, bht would be able to refuse to put racial slurs on it. At least to my vauge understanding.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Unless you can show a real religious reason to refuse service to a black person wanting a custom cake then you are making a false equivalence.

That's not even remotely a false equivalence. It's the exact same thing. Discrimination is discrimination, whether it's based in religion, racism, nativism, sexism, or powdered wigism (no shirt, no shoes, NO WIG, no service!).

Besides. Llaws banning you from discriminating on people based on sexual orientation also (usually far as I know) ban you from discriminating on people based on race, creed, sex, disability, and national origin.

Someone heard God actual words to put them on bark with charcoal or wet clay tablet?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
They can go take their business elsewhere.

What if you're the only baker for 100 miles?

What if there are four other Bakers in town, but you all go to the same church and have identical feels on gay people?

What if you call all the other bakers up, and tell them not to serve the gay couple, or else more of them will come.

Now replace gay with black. Welcome to Mississippi 1960. I'd rather not return to that.

Unless you can show a real religious reason to refuse service to a black person wanting a custom cake then you are making a false equivalence.

As for other bakers and proximity, those details are irrelevant.

Not a false equivalent as people claimed during the 60's that they had religious reasons to discriminate against blacks.

I agree the the details are irrelevant, for other reasons

And those people didn't have a leg to stand on. Nowhere in the Bible does it say blacks are inferior or anything, it says the exact opposite actually.

Being gay on the other hand is a well documented affront against God.

Depends. It could also be talking about male on male rape, which was used to assert dominance and humiliate.

But that's beside the point, as religious beliefs are what you say they are. The law can't say "your religious beliefs are wrong", as there is no way to prove that they aren't your religious beliefs.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Unless you can show a real religious reason to refuse service to a black person wanting a custom cake then you are making a false equivalence.

Just because you might not believe it, doesn't mean the idea doesn't exist.

You're going to jump through mental hoops trying to defend the right to discriminate against people. Then people will get mad and start violating Rule #1. Then you'll make yourself look worse and worse as you get more desperate. People will start piling on and it will get ugly so we should just drop it now and move on.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
They can go take their business elsewhere.

What if you're the only baker for 100 miles?

What if there are four other Bakers in town, but you all go to the same church and have identical feels on gay people?

What if you call all the other bakers up, and tell them not to serve the gay couple, or else more of them will come.

Now replace gay with black. Welcome to Mississippi 1960. I'd rather not return to that.

Unless you can show a real religious reason to refuse service to a black person wanting a custom cake then you are making a false equivalence.

As for other bakers and proximity, those details are irrelevant.

Not a false equivalent as people claimed during the 60's that they had religious reasons to discriminate against blacks.

I agree the the details are irrelevant, for other reasons

And those people didn't have a leg to stand on. Nowhere in the Bible does it say blacks are inferior or anything, it says the exact opposite actually.

Being gay on the other hand is a well documented affront against God.

The joy of the Bible is that it is subjective. They don't need to point to a specific passage. The rule of religious belief is that if they believe it, it's their religion. They don't have to provide a source.

I believe that they claimed being black was the mark that God put on Caine. Regardless, being gay is not a well documented affront against God, it's just misreading passages and claiming that they mean what they person reading them wants them to say. I would say it is un-Christlike to exclude gays from being served.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
They can go take their business elsewhere.

What if you're the only baker for 100 miles?

What if there are four other Bakers in town, but you all go to the same church and have identical feels on gay people?

What if you call all the other bakers up, and tell them not to serve the gay couple, or else more of them will come.

Now replace gay with black. Welcome to Mississippi 1960. I'd rather not return to that.

Unless you can show a real religious reason to refuse service to a black person wanting a custom cake then you are making a false equivalence.

As for other bakers and proximity, those details are irrelevant.

Not a false equivalent as people claimed during the 60's that they had religious reasons to discriminate against blacks.

I agree the the details are irrelevant, for other reasons

And those people didn't have a leg to stand on. Nowhere in the Bible does it say blacks are inferior or anything, it says the exact opposite actually.

Being gay on the other hand is a well documented affront against God.

Well I sure hope they also choose to be consistant and also refuse service to Atheists, Pagans, Satanists, Buhdists, Sikhs, etc.
Also anyone who has ever sinned ever without seeking forgiveness, as all sinners are an affront to god.

If they aren't refusing service to all of them too, then it isn't for religious reasons but for that of personal bigotry.

 jasper76 wrote:
Oh good call. Painting needs some tiny, tiny sausage-link fingers.

While you're at it, can you fix his onion head part on his hair?? Every photograph has his hair pointing the other way

Well, getting historical about it, there were lots of ways people in the south used religion to justify racism, slavery, and Jim Crow. Being black was the mark of Caine. God separated the racism himself* Some associated the history of the Church with being 'white' as most Jews were identified as white, and Gentile as a word to this day continues to be used in a context that implies people from the Hellenic world, which is usually taken as implying white.

Religion was just part of it though. There was also ethnic culture. Economics. Politics. Power. It's so macabre, but Southern culture between the Civil War and desegregation is so freaking fascinating. Mind blowing and kind of disgusting, but so freaking fascinating (this is how people end up with dark senses of humor btw).

*I actually find this one kind of funny. Read a hilarious excerpt from a book written in response to Brown v Board talking about how "god put the whites here, and the blacks here, and the yellows here, and the reds here. Obviously he didn't want us living together!"

 Polonius wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I fear Hillary will try to erode the 1st, 2nd, and 5th amendments. And I feel she will be the most likely to succeed in doing so.

She's a progressive, so eroding the 2nd Amendment is part of her shtick, but what aspects of the 1st and 5th do you see her eroding? I'm curious, because she is more authoritarian than people might initially realize.

If she could, she'd have Citizens United overturned.

Now, before everyone jumps in and screams "BUT CORPORATION AIN'T PEOPLE!", please do research what Citizens United was truly about.

Does anyone think there would be public support for a two term limit for Senators and Congressmen?

 jasper76 wrote:
Does anyone think there would be public support for a two term limit for Senators and Congressmen?

I worry it would make "politics for sale" even worse as they scramble to ensure there is cushy jobs of private sector boards waiting for them after their terms are up.

That and the nature of Congressman is that having long serving people actually works out in a number of ways. You have people who've been sitting on committees for years. They (supposedly) can become extremely well versed in subjects their committees deal with, which is good when you're writing laws, managing funding, and dealing with professional experts. Functionally, things don't always work out that way, but that has little to do with terms and lack of limits, and more to do with political culture. The problems with Congress might actually be helped by lengthening terms and allowed recalls at the Federal level. I would hope such a change would lead to less campaigning (and thus less lobby influence) and more governing. Especially in the House.

Functionally, I don't think term limits actually solve many problems. Remember, we didn't have any prior to FDR, and the only reason we put up a presidential term limit is because of our historic distrust of executive power (founded and unfounded).

 feeder wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Does anyone think there would be public support for a two term limit for Senators and Congressmen?

I worry it would make "politics for sale" even worse as they scramble to ensure there is cushy jobs of private sector boards waiting for them after their terms are up.

It's tricky, because corruption and time in power go hand in hand. I kind of like the idea of having elder statesmen in the Senate, but I'm not sure the current system is really playing that idea out. I don't like the idea of unlimited terms, particularly in the House , but also in the Senate. I couldn't say what number of terms would work for me, maybe more than 2, but some kind of limit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I should say I also agree with the current 2 term limit on the POTUS.

 whembly wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I fear Hillary will try to erode the 1st, 2nd, and 5th amendments. And I feel she will be the most likely to succeed in doing so.

She's a progressive, so eroding the 2nd Amendment is part of her shtick, but what aspects of the 1st and 5th do you see her eroding? I'm curious, because she is more authoritarian than people might initially realize.

If she could, she'd have Citizens United overturned.

Now, before everyone jumps in and screams "BUT CORPORATION AIN'T PEOPLE!", please do research what Citizens United was truly about.

Whembly we have been over it, sure it wasn't about people. But it allowed for corporations to pour millions of dollars into the political election process.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/ted-cruzs-campaign-is-fueled-by-a-dominionist-vision-for-america-commentary/2016/02/04/86373158-cb6a-11e5-b9ab-26591104bb19_story.html

Nice little story about Cruz and (one of) the reasons he's very scary.

With all the talk of how much Clinton 'Lies', I wonder why people don't talk more about how much Trump or Cruz lie as well...

On reflection, the biggest problem that the US will face is who do they want to represent them on the world stage.
I don't think either candidate is ideal, but I think Trump would be embarrassing.
The man is likely to litter the international stage with gaffes and embarrassments, as he seems to just say what is on his mind at that particular moment.
He might be able to put the car salesman routine over the punters back home, but against serious international statesman and opponents, he's not likely to be anywhere near as succesful . Putin would love to have him as an opponent, he is almost a caricature of capitalism. I doubt he is as politically astute or capable as Putin, it seems that any face to face confrontation would likely to be very one sided.
In fact, if it wouldn't be so likely to endanger the stability of the international community, I would love to see them go head to head.