Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/01 23:14:07
Subject: Re:GenCon threatens to leave Indiana
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
d-usa wrote:Mr Smith doesn't have to bake the cake, Smith Bakery should bear the legal liability for providing the service free of discrimination. If that means that Smith Bakery has to subcontract the cake or hire a day laborer to bake the cake is a problem for the Bakery so solve IMO.
So basically, if Smith wants to bake in this country, he has to check his rights at the door? Your tyrannical stance is kind of why we have those rights dude, along with all this jurisprudence trying to find a balance.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/01 23:14:31
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/01 23:15:53
Subject: Re:GenCon threatens to leave Indiana
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Manchu wrote:So basically, if Smith wants to bake in this country, he has to check his rights at the door? Your tyrannical stance is kind of why we have those rights dude, along with all this jurisprudence trying to find a balance.
He doesn't have to check his rights at the door, he just doesn't get to start a business and then demand special privileges because god said so. You might as well complain that poor Mr. Smith has to check his rights at the door when he has the obligation to follow health and safety laws in his baking. The simple fact is that businesses are held to different standards than individuals, and if you don't like it then you don't start a business.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/01 23:16:38
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/01 23:18:08
Subject: GenCon threatens to leave Indiana
|
 |
Steadfast Grey Hunter
Greater Portland Petting Zoo
|
EDIT: Crap, wrong button. Damn my fingers and these little buttons.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/01 23:19:14
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/01 23:18:19
Subject: Re:GenCon threatens to leave Indiana
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Peregrine wrote: Manchu wrote:So basically, if Smith wants to bake in this country, he has to check his rights at the door? Your tyrannical stance is kind of why we have those rights dude, along with all this jurisprudence trying to find a balance.
He doesn't have to check his rights at the door, he just doesn't get to start a business and then demand special privileges because god said so. You might as well complain that poor Mr. Smith has to check his rights at the door when he has the obligation to follow health and safety laws in his baking. The simple fact is that businesses are held to different standards than individuals, and if you don't like it then you don't start a business.
Just spitballing here but let's say mr. smith gets to legally discriminate against gays. How would one go about doing that?
|
Do you play 30k? It'd be a lot cooler if you did. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/01 23:18:57
Subject: Re:GenCon threatens to leave Indiana
|
 |
Kid_Kyoto
|
Manchu wrote: d-usa wrote:Mr Smith doesn't have to bake the cake, Smith Bakery should bear the legal liability for providing the service free of discrimination. If that means that Smith Bakery has to subcontract the cake or hire a day laborer to bake the cake is a problem for the Bakery so solve IMO.
So basically, if Smith wants to bake in this country, he has to check his rights at the door? Your tyrannical stance is kind of why we have those rights dude, along with all this jurisprudence trying to find a balance.
Is Smith baking a cake, or is he completing a work for hire for Smith Bakery?
That might not matter much, but what suppose that Ms. Doe also works for Smith Bakery, and that her religion prohibits her making a "gay cake", but "Smith Bakery's religion" doesn't. Now suppose she is coerced into making said cake.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/01 23:20:18
Subject: Re:GenCon threatens to leave Indiana
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
Since when is religious freedom a "special privilege" in the USA? daedalus wrote:That might not matter much, but what suppose that Ms. Doe also works for Smith Bakery, and that her religion prohibits her making a "gay cake", but "Smith Bakery's religion" doesn't. Now suppose she is coerced into making said cake.
Ms. Doe may very well have a case, depending on the fact pattern.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/04/01 23:22:43
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/01 23:22:49
Subject: Re:GenCon threatens to leave Indiana
|
 |
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions
|
Peregrine wrote:He doesn't have to check his rights at the door, he just doesn't get to start a business and then demand special privileges because god said so. You might as well complain that poor Mr. Smith has to check his rights at the door when he has the obligation to follow health and safety laws in his baking.
Should halal and kosher butchers not be allowed to operate given their religiously determined practices for slaughtering animals?
Peregrine wrote:The simple fact is that businesses are held to different standards than individuals, and if you don't like it then you don't start a business.
The simple fact is that, respectfully, the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/01 23:24:05
Subject: Re:GenCon threatens to leave Indiana
|
 |
Steadfast Grey Hunter
Greater Portland Petting Zoo
|
Crablezworth wrote: Peregrine wrote: Manchu wrote:So basically, if Smith wants to bake in this country, he has to check his rights at the door? Your tyrannical stance is kind of why we have those rights dude, along with all this jurisprudence trying to find a balance.
He doesn't have to check his rights at the door, he just doesn't get to start a business and then demand special privileges because god said so. You might as well complain that poor Mr. Smith has to check his rights at the door when he has the obligation to follow health and safety laws in his baking. The simple fact is that businesses are held to different standards than individuals, and if you don't like it then you don't start a business.
Just spitballing here but let's say mr. smith gets to legally discriminate against gays. How would one go about doing that?
Illegally, probably, or in the privacy of Mr. Smith's urine soaked Jackass Cave.
EDIT: Though, I suppose, that depends on the angle. Mr. Smith would be up gak creek without a paddle if he wanted discriminate against an individual solely in the basis of said individuals sexual orientation, but he would be able to refuse to provide goods specifically for events which his religion prohibits him from participating or assisting in.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/01 23:31:30
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/01 23:24:16
Subject: Re:GenCon threatens to leave Indiana
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
Crablezworth wrote:Just spitballing here but let's say mr. smith gets to legally discriminate against gays. How would one go about doing that?
Someone comes into Smith Bakery and orders a cake for a gay wedding and Smith says he won't do it because gay weddings are contrary to his religious values. That's the discrimination we're talking about.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/01 23:29:54
Subject: GenCon threatens to leave Indiana
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
skyth wrote:See...I still don't see how that was a burden on their religion as no one was forcing thwm to use the drugs...The argument was that someone else was able to use them. That is where I draw the line. That is why I have no respect for these kind of religious freedom arguments...The argumemt id that someone else is not following the tenets of their religion.
The religious objection in Hobby Lobby's case wasn't the use of the drugs it was being required to provide them. The Greens' religious convictions made them opposed to abortion and they believed that their conscience would be burdened if they participated in what they believed to be abortions by funding the purchase of drugs they considered abortificants. The requirement by the ACA to provide drugs whose use was opposed by their religious beliefs was the conflict that had to resolved under the auspices of the federal RFRA.
|
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/01 23:30:16
Subject: Re:GenCon threatens to leave Indiana
|
 |
Wise Ethereal with Bodyguard
Catskills in NYS
|
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Peregrine wrote:He doesn't have to check his rights at the door, he just doesn't get to start a business and then demand special privileges because god said so. You might as well complain that poor Mr. Smith has to check his rights at the door when he has the obligation to follow health and safety laws in his baking.
Should halal and kosher butchers not be allowed to operate given their religiously determined practices for slaughtering animals? Peregrine wrote:The simple fact is that businesses are held to different standards than individuals, and if you don't like it then you don't start a business.
The simple fact is that, respectfully, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. Just to point out, the supreme court disagreeing with you doesn't mean you are wrong , it only means that at least half of those 9(?) people disagree with you. Supreme court decisions do get overturned, or even have constitutional amendments written that overrule them. The supreme court thinks that money is speech, does that make me wrong in saying money is not speech? No it doesn't, because it is my opinion and interpretation, versus their's. It has nothing to do with facts.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/04/01 23:30:58
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote:Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote:Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens BaronIveagh wrote:Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/01 23:32:06
Subject: Re:GenCon threatens to leave Indiana
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Manchu wrote: Crablezworth wrote:Just spitballing here but let's say mr. smith gets to legally discriminate against gays. How would one go about doing that?
Someone comes into Smith Bakery and orders a cake for a gay wedding and Smith says he won't do it because gay weddings are contrary to his religious values. That's the discrimination we're talking about.
What law does the refusal to bake the cake violate? If there is no compelling force that mandates that the cake be made then there is no dispute to be resolved under a RFRA law.
|
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/01 23:32:13
Subject: Re:GenCon threatens to leave Indiana
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Manchu wrote: d-usa wrote:Mr Smith doesn't have to bake the cake, Smith Bakery should bear the legal liability for providing the service free of discrimination. If that means that Smith Bakery has to subcontract the cake or hire a day laborer to bake the cake is a problem for the Bakery so solve IMO.
So basically, if Smith wants to bake in this country, he has to check his rights at the door? Your tyrannical stance is kind of why we have those rights dude, along with all this jurisprudence trying to find a balance.
No.
If Mr. Smith the sole proprietor doesn't want to bake a cake then he shouldn't have to bake a cake.
If Mr. Smith the employee doesn't want to bake a cake then he shouldn't have to bake a cake.
If Smith Bakery wants to exist as a separate legal structure taking advantage of the laws protecting Mr. Smith from the public then Smith Bakery should be required to abide by the laws protecting the public from Mr. Smith.
If Smith Bakery fails to successfully defend itself under this law, who is responsible for the verdict: Mr. Smith or Smith Bakery?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/01 23:32:34
Subject: Re:GenCon threatens to leave Indiana
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
Co'tor Shas wrote:Just to point out, the supreme court disagreeing with you doesn't mean you are wrong
Except with respect to what the law of the land means.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/01 23:33:32
Subject: Re:GenCon threatens to leave Indiana
|
 |
Wise Ethereal with Bodyguard
Catskills in NYS
|
Manchu wrote: Co'tor Shas wrote:Just to point out, the supreme court disagreeing with you doesn't mean you are wrong
Except with respect to what the law of the land means.
Yes, but I was talking in a moral sense.
|
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote:Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote:Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens BaronIveagh wrote:Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/01 23:34:43
Subject: Re:GenCon threatens to leave Indiana
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Co'tor Shas wrote: Dreadclaw69 wrote: Peregrine wrote:He doesn't have to check his rights at the door, he just doesn't get to start a business and then demand special privileges because god said so. You might as well complain that poor Mr. Smith has to check his rights at the door when he has the obligation to follow health and safety laws in his baking.
Should halal and kosher butchers not be allowed to operate given their religiously determined practices for slaughtering animals?
Peregrine wrote:The simple fact is that businesses are held to different standards than individuals, and if you don't like it then you don't start a business.
The simple fact is that, respectfully, the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Just to point out, the supreme court disagreeing with you doesn't mean you are wrong , it only means that at least half of those 9(?) people disagree with you. Supreme court decisions do get overturned, or even have constitutional amendments written that overrule them. The supreme court thinks that money is speech, does that make me wrong in saying money is not speech? No it doesn't, because it is my opinion and interpretation, versus their's. It has nothing to do with facts.
If you take the dispute to court the Supreme Court's precedent counts for a lot more than your opinions. If court rulings carry no more weight than any individual's personal opinion then the courts have no authority and we do not live under the rule of law.
|
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/01 23:34:45
Subject: Re:GenCon threatens to leave Indiana
|
 |
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions
|
Co'tor Shas wrote:Just to point out, the supreme court disagreeing with you doesn't mean you are wrong , it only means that at least half of those 9(?) people disagree with you. Supreme court decisions do get overturned, or even have constitutional amendments written to overrule them. The supreme court thinks that money is speech, does that make me wrong in saying money is not speech? No it doesn't, because it is my opinion and interpretation, versus their's. It has nothing to do with facts.
I am discussing the legality of the situation, not the morality. Decisions can get overturned, but the fact of the matter is that we rely on what the law currently is, not what it may become. So factually it is everything to do with it, especially as their ruling is law. Even if the case law is overturned the Indiana legislation is clear on what constitutes a person (Section 7).
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/01 23:35:48
Subject: Re:GenCon threatens to leave Indiana
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
d-usa wrote:If Smith Bakery wants to exist as a separate legal structure taking advantage of the laws protecting Mr. Smith from the public then Smith Bakery should be required to abide by the laws protecting the public from Mr. Smith.
The public does not have a constitutional right to hold liabilities against Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith, however, does have a constitutional right to religious freedom.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/01 23:37:03
Subject: Re:GenCon threatens to leave Indiana
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Manchu wrote:Since when is religious freedom a "special privilege" in the USA?
It isn't, but that's not the privilege Smith wants. Smith is free to believe whatever he likes, attend (or not attend) whatever church he wants, etc, in his private life. The special privilege is the ability to ignore laws that apply to businesses because he doesn't want to follow them.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:Should halal and kosher butchers not be allowed to operate given their religiously determined practices for slaughtering animals?
How do those practices violate the law?
The simple fact is that, respectfully, the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
That doesn't make them right.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/01 23:37:46
Subject: Re:GenCon threatens to leave Indiana
|
 |
Wise Ethereal with Bodyguard
Catskills in NYS
|
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Co'tor Shas wrote:Just to point out, the supreme court disagreeing with you doesn't mean you are wrong , it only means that at least half of those 9(?) people disagree with you. Supreme court decisions do get overturned, or even have constitutional amendments written to overrule them. The supreme court thinks that money is speech, does that make me wrong in saying money is not speech? No it doesn't, because it is my opinion and interpretation, versus their's. It has nothing to do with facts.
I am discussing the legality of the situation, not the morality. Decisions can get overturned, but the fact of the matter is that we rely on what the law currently is, not what it may become. So factually it is everything to do with it, especially as their ruling is law. Even if the case law is overturned the Indiana legislation is clear on what constitutes a person (Section 7).
I realize that, but (although it might just be me) it seemed a bit like you going "supreme court disagrees with you, thus everything you say is wrong." Probably just me misinterpreting what people say though.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/01 23:38:11
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote:Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote:Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens BaronIveagh wrote:Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/01 23:37:57
Subject: GenCon threatens to leave Indiana
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Prestor Jon wrote: skyth wrote:See...I still don't see how that was a burden on their religion as no one was forcing thwm to use the drugs...The argument was that someone else was able to use them. That is where I draw the line. That is why I have no respect for these kind of religious freedom arguments...The argumemt id that someone else is not following the tenets of their religion.
The religious objection in Hobby Lobby's case wasn't the use of the drugs it was being required to provide them. The Greens' religious convictions made them opposed to abortion and they believed that their conscience would be burdened if they participated in what they believed to be abortions by funding the purchase of drugs they considered abortificants. The requirement by the ACA to provide drugs whose use was opposed by their religious beliefs was the conflict that had to resolved under the auspices of the federal RFRA.
They weren't being forced to provide them. They didn't have to go hand them out. There was no financial difference between the insurance covering them or trying to stop other people from getging them as far as the insurance goes. The entire thrust was to make access more difficult for other people.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/01 23:39:24
Subject: Re:GenCon threatens to leave Indiana
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
Prospectively, an amended version of the CRA or existing and prospective state anti-discrimination laws.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/01 23:40:21
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/01 23:41:38
Subject: Re:GenCon threatens to leave Indiana
|
 |
Thane of Dol Guldur
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/04/01/arkansas-governor-to-discuss-religious-liberty-bill/
The Governor of Arkansas rejected his legislature's similar bill, want a revision, and is apparently considering an executive order to prevent discrimination in the state workplace.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/01 23:42:57
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/01 23:41:58
Subject: GenCon threatens to leave Indiana
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
cincydooley wrote: MrDwhitey wrote:That they say stuff like "they choose to be homosexual" is hilarious.
You've read some research that perhaps I haven't?
While I agree that it's most likely genetic somehow, I'm fairly certain there's no concrete evidence proving that, correct?
And likely there will never be any 'concrete' evidence of it for the same reason there isn't any 'concrete' evidence of evolution...It doesn't fit certain groups' narritives if it isn't a choice.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/01 23:42:33
Subject: Re:GenCon threatens to leave Indiana
|
 |
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions
|
I never claimed that their practices violated the law. They have special accommodations built into the law to accommodate their religious practices, something you protested against ("he just doesn't get to start a business and then demand special privileges because god said so")
In the legal sense it absolutely does. And that is very important when discussing the law.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/01 23:42:35
Subject: Re:GenCon threatens to leave Indiana
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
Peregrine wrote:Smith is free to believe whatever he likes, attend (or not attend) whatever church he wants, etc, in his private life.
Religion is not a hobby to be pursued in one's free time. It does not distinguish between "public" and "private" life. It is not merely a personal opinion that can be silently held. If those things were true, there would be no need for freedom of religion in the first place.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/01 23:44:12
Subject: GenCon threatens to leave Indiana
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
If my wife and I are fond of middle eastern cuisine and hire a Muslim owned and operated restaurant to cater our wedding (falafel and shawarma for everyone). Then before the wedding we decide that we'd also like them to make a pig picking since we'll have lots of southern relatives and friends attending. Do we have the right to compel the Muslim owned restaurant (let's say the owner is the head chef) to cook a pig for us even though they object to it on religious grounds?
That level of imposition on their religious values would allow them to use the shield of an RFRA to allow their refusal but only if there is a legitimate compelling force that gives my wife and I a legal right to force them to cook for us. Do we have that right? If so what law grants us that right?
|
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/01 23:44:13
Subject: GenCon threatens to leave Indiana
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Prestor Jon wrote:The religious objection in Hobby Lobby's case wasn't the use of the drugs it was being required to provide them. The Greens' religious convictions made them opposed to abortion and they believed that their conscience would be burdened if they participated in what they believed to be abortions by funding the purchase of drugs they considered abortificants. The requirement by the ACA to provide drugs whose use was opposed by their religious beliefs was the conflict that had to resolved under the auspices of the federal RFRA.
And it was a terrible ruling for multiple reasons:
1) Hobby Lobby wasn't providing the drugs, they were providing an insurance policy that an employee, without any involvement by Hobby Lobby, could use in their private life to buy certain drugs.
2) Acting like Hobby Lobby, a major retail chain, is the equivalent of a small family shop was just absurd.
3) The whole "it's abortion" argument was just plain stupid and had nothing to do with the facts of the situation.
And let's not pretend that this was a clear and objective ruling with no political or religious influence. It was a 5-4 decision along predictable liberal/conservative lines that just happened to line up with mainstream Christian doctrine. Does anyone really think that if it had been an obscure minority religion making a claim that didn't fit neatly into conservative Christian ideology and politics that the outcome would have been the same?
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/01 23:44:45
Subject: Re:GenCon threatens to leave Indiana
|
 |
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions
|
Co'tor Shas wrote:I realize that, but (although it might just be me) it seemed a bit like you going "supreme court disagrees with you, thus everything you say is wrong." Probably just me misinterpreting what people say though.
I apologize if I gave that impression. What I was attempting to do was show that the opinion that businesses cannot have a religious character is a point unsupported by current laws.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/01 23:45:17
Subject: Re:GenCon threatens to leave Indiana
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Manchu wrote:Religion is not a hobby to be pursued in one's free time. It does not distinguish between "public" and "private" life. It is not merely a personal opinion that can be silently held. If those things were true, there would be no need for freedom of religion in the first place.
By "private life" I mean Mr. Smith's life as Mr. Smith. That is separate from Mr. Smith's obligations as an employee and/or owner of Smith Bakery.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
|