Supreme Court rejects affirmative action at colleges as unconstitutional

[Schadrach]

Yup, that's the one. The one holding hands with Joe "totally not a Dixiecrat, the Senator from Bank of America" Biden. Who would later go on to speak on Byrd's behalf when he finally did the rest of us the favor of finally shuffling off this mortal coil. He was only the third politician whose death I actively celebrated, after Strom Thurmond and Reagan. Fuck him.

I mean, there was a lot that was pretty bad about Byrd, but he did a lot of good for his state. Specifically as a politician representing the interests of his state and the people thereof he mostly actually did pretty well, though he failed or bargained on basically every other issue and position.

No, the entire argument here is that wanting to deny service to a couple because they're gay is not the same thing as wanting to deny service to a couple because of specifics of the requested service.

No, the entire argument is about whether or not you can be compelled to engage in speech you oppose because you engage in other speech you do not oppose for other clients. Whether we're talking about the cake case or the website one, the line is drawn specifically at the point where the 1st Amendment and the question of if anti-discrimination laws can compel speech becomes relevant.

 

[Asita]

No, the entire argument is about whether or not you can be compelled to engage in speech you oppose because you engage in other speech you do not oppose for other clients. Whether we're talking about the cake case or the website one, the line is drawn specifically at the point where the 1st Amendment and the question of if anti-discrimination laws can compel speech becomes relevant.

Except that is not the case at all. That's just the spin you're latching onto.

Once you cut out the bullshit and window dressing, the facts of the case are quite simple: A business provider presented the case that they wanted to be able to refuse to provide their service to specific types of people. This case was not contingent on any "speech they opposed", as they had received no such request and in fact their argument was not contingent on any other details. The only variable in their position was the demographic of their fictitious client as gay rather than straight, which they argue de-facto means that providing their service to such a client would violate their beliefs regardless of what the client might ask for.

The argument would not be any different if the variable was changed to "I don't want to serve black couples" rather than "I don't want to serve gay couples".

 

[Silvanus]

No, the entire argument is about whether or not you can be compelled to engage in speech you oppose because you engage in other speech you do not oppose for other clients. Whether we're talking about the cake case or the website one, the line is drawn specifically at the point where the 1st Amendment and the question of if anti-discrimination laws can compel speech becomes relevant.

No, not "other speech", as if its a different message/request they're making altogether in substance. Literally the same request from straight people would be accepted. The only difference is in the demographic characteristics of the people it's for. You keep glossing over that fact.

 

[tstorm823]

Literally the same request from straight people would be accepted.

It's not literally the same request. The characteristics of people can make a request not literally the same. If a 20 year old asks a guide to take them up a dangerous mountain, and a 90 year old asks the same guide to take them up the same mountain, it's not the same request because of who is asking. If a black man tries to buy a pinata that looks like him, it's not the same request as if a white guy asks for a pinata that looks like that black guy. The person making a request impacts what the request is in many ways. I know you think "a marriage is a marriage, whatever", but a gay couple cannot participate in the millennia old tradition of binding together families through the creation of shared blood relatives. No matter how much they may want to, no matter how much they may love and support one another, a gay couple cannot do the act that consummates the marriage. It's not the same request.

 

[Elijin]

It's not literally the same request. The characteristics of people can make a request not literally the same. If a 20 year old asks a guide to take them up a dangerous mountain, and a 90 year old asks the same guide to take them up the same mountain, it's not the same request because of who is asking. If a black man tries to buy a pinata that looks like him, it's not the same request as if a white guy asks for a pinata that looks like that black guy. The person making a request impacts what the request is in many ways. I know you think "a marriage is a marriage, whatever", but a gay couple cannot participate in the millennia old tradition of binding together families through the creation of shared blood relatives. No matter how much they may want to, no matter how much they may love and support one another, a gay couple cannot do the act that consummates the marriage. It's not the same request.

Haven't you already been shit on multiple times for trying the "marriage is only for those who can bare children" around here?

Yawn.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Well, here we go: test case for rolling back more discrimination protections

 

[Gordon_4]

It's not literally the same request. The characteristics of people can make a request not literally the same. If a 20 year old asks a guide to take them up a dangerous mountain, and a 90 year old asks the same guide to take them up the same mountain, it's not the same request because of who is asking. If a black man tries to buy a pinata that looks like him, it's not the same request as if a white guy asks for a pinata that looks like that black guy. The person making a request impacts what the request is in many ways. I know you think "a marriage is a marriage, whatever", but a gay couple cannot participate in the millennia old tradition of binding together families through the creation of shared blood relatives. No matter how much they may want to, no matter how much they may love and support one another, a gay couple cannot do the act that consummates the marriage. It's not the same request.

Blood is not thicker than water, and it’s old purpose was to secure property: a necessity in the rough and tumble ancient times, much less so in the days of legally enforceable contracts.

As for the act of consummating the marriage - which until now I was under the impression meant the wedding night shag - I think you and yours would do better to concern yourselves more with those that did and should not have, rather than those who would like to but cannot.

 

[Trunkage]

It's not literally the same request. The characteristics of people can make a request not literally the same. If a 20 year old asks a guide to take them up a dangerous mountain, and a 90 year old asks the same guide to take them up the same mountain, it's not the same request because of who is asking. If a black man tries to buy a pinata that looks like him, it's not the same request as if a white guy asks for a pinata that looks like that black guy. The person making a request impacts what the request is in many ways. I know you think "a marriage is a marriage, whatever", but a gay couple cannot participate in the millennia old tradition of binding together families through the creation of shared blood relatives. No matter how much they may want to, no matter how much they may love and support one another, a gay couple cannot do the act that consummates the marriage. It's not the same request.

When did the word consummating turn into child bearing?

Also, why are we using historical and old laws? Ones that aren't relevant to marriage?

 

[Silvanus]

It's not literally the same request. The characteristics of people can make a request not literally the same. If a 20 year old asks a guide to take them up a dangerous mountain, and a 90 year old asks the same guide to take them up the same mountain, it's not the same request because of who is asking. If a black man tries to buy a pinata that looks like him, it's not the same request as if a white guy asks for a pinata that looks like that black guy. The person making a request impacts what the request is in many ways. I know you think "a marriage is a marriage, whatever", but a gay couple cannot participate in the millennia old tradition of binding together families through the creation of shared blood relatives. No matter how much they may want to, no matter how much they may love and support one another, a gay couple cannot do the act that consummates the marriage. It's not the same request.

As much as you may wish it to be, "the creation of shared blood relatives" is neither definitive nor necessary for a marriage. There's no reason society at large should be forced to abide by your narrow, archaic notion of marriage, because it has no standing in law.

Your position involves the addition of a requirement that has no legal standing and is entirely dependent on a cultural understanding you have that isn't universal. Your argument has exactly as much standing as if you had said it was an old tradition of your religion that only people of a certain race could marry others, and that the act that defines a marriage for your sect is the creation of kids of a certain race.

 

[tstorm823]

Haven't you already been shit on multiple times for trying the "marriage is only for those who can bare children" around here?

If the majority here disagrees with me, that's generally a good sign.

As for the act of consummating the marriage - which until now I was under the impression meant the wedding night shag -

It is, but that is an action that generally comes with a particular consequence.

Also, why are we using historical and old laws? Ones that aren't relevant to marriage?

There's no reason society at large should be forced to abide by your narrow, archaic notion of marriage, because it has no standing in law.

If ever you see a conservative claim that you're trying to destroy our traditions, I want you to think of this moment. I know the redefinition of marriage didn't start with gay marriage, it goes at least back to John Calvin. But you are content to establish new meanings for words, and then effectively ban anyone who abides by the older use of the word from participation in society. You want every person to accept your understanding of marriage before they're allowed to sell a cake. You're not being forced to abide by any definition of marriage, you are wanting to force others to abide by yours, for the same reason John Calvin pushed for the public, civil registration of marriages: to politically disempower those who disagreed with his theology. Too many people were doing things the old Catholic way, and he needed the force of the civil authorities to stop them.

 

[Silvanus]

If ever you see a conservative claim that you're trying to destroy our traditions, I want you to think of this moment. I know the redefinition of marriage didn't start with gay marriage, it goes at least back to John Calvin. But you are content to establish new meanings for words, and then effectively ban anyone who abides by the older use of the word from participation in society.

No, stop this inane little tirade right there. Because nobody is forcing you to abide by my understanding, nobody is "effectively banning you from society"-- what complete bollocks. You're free to practice your understanding.

What we're requesting is that you don't force everyone else to abide by it. You're wanting to enshrine legal protections for your specific understanding of marriage, above and beyond the legally recognised understanding. To allow that specific understanding to override the constitutional right to equal treatment. Answer me: why is this materially different from some random religious sect arguing that their definition of marriage only allows for people of a certain race?

And for what it's worth, no, your particular ancient creator myth did not invent marriage, and has no particular moral claim to it as a concept.

 

[Trunkage]

If ever you see a conservative claim that you're trying to destroy our traditions, I want you to think of this moment. I know the redefinition of marriage didn't start with gay marriage, it goes at least back to John Calvin. But you are content to establish new meanings for words, and then effectively ban anyone who abides by the older use of the word from participation in society. You want every person to accept your understanding of marriage before they're allowed to sell a cake. You're not being forced to abide by any definition of marriage, you are wanting to force others to abide by yours, for the same reason John Calvin pushed for the public, civil registration of marriages: to politically disempower those who disagreed with his theology. Too many people were doing things the old Catholic way, and he needed the force of the civil authorities to stop them.

If you ever want to see conservatives faking the destruction of traditions, I want you to think of this moment. No one is stopping you from having YOUR marriage. You can do whatever you want, as long as it's consensual. What you are doing is pretending that YOUR tradition was everyone else's.

It does not mean your definition of marriage is the actual definition of marriage. It never has been, and it never will be. Marriage is not Christian. It existed before Christians or even Jews existed. Christain co-opted marriage. I.e. They interrupted the concept of marriage to suit themselves. You are fine making your own version of marriage, but, for the love of God, don't pretend that it's THE version. It may be traditional to you, but it's not traditional to most people.

You can have your 'tradition'. That does not mean it's ours. Nor will marriage stay the same as it is today. It's not the same as what John Calvin proposed. Nor has the Catholic church ever had the same understanding of what a marriage is each century. Catholics changed it all the time to suit their needs, for example, to gain political power

Lastly, I don't want discrimination. If you think that homosexuals getting married destroys the sanctity of marriage, that's a you problem

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

If ever you see a conservative claim that you're trying to destroy our traditions, I want you to think of this moment.

...the Christian tradition of designing wedding websites? Is this like the newly found Christian prohibition of masks and vaccines?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Nothing. It's just not what you think it is. Which isn't surprising
Sure. There's value in the student body and resulting professional class having the same demographic mix as the general population. That's why the Supreme Court *didn't* ban it for military academies. You can see this value when looking at, say, black people being able to talk to black doctors to avoid the racism in the medical field. More black engineers might end up helping prevent obvious flaws like motion sensors not being able to pick up darker skin tones, etc

Then what is it?

Ok, so you're for a racist policy then? Can you stick to any principle? Racism is always bad. Why not just say it's fine to be racist against some group because then as a whole, the entire population ends up being better off? That is why utilitarianism isn't a good moral theory and you can even wind up with slavery being "good".

I mean, too bad? A test will always have biased. Be especially wary of those people who say 'x world view shouldn't be present in a class' because that just means they are putting their world view in instead (exception like getting rid of anything actually hateful or something actually pornographic is acceptable.)

This does not have to be intentional, we are humans. We have biases. People tested if the SATs had biases and found out that it did. And I'm pretty sure that they haven't found out what specifically is biased yet because this happened in the last three years. Unintentional bias is generally way harder to find than intentional

Like, taking your example of sports, there are plenty of other subject areas that require knowledge that isn't related to maths or English (or whatever you are testing). Financial data set or even how to read a receipt. There are a bunch of science concepts that can go over students' heads. Statistical analysis can be confusing. You could even be topical and add something about Minecraft or Fortnite or even just any computer game and that fails to reach certain children. You could use something historical that certain children don't know about


Affirmative action is fine as long as it is raising children being disadvantaged in the system. Five problems
1) Those advantaged by the system are not happy that their mediocre child misses out. So they punish someone else - Asians. This is not a problem of Affirmative Action. It is a problem of the system. Affirmative Action does not fix it
2) I see what Harvard et al were doing. White people got to count clubs that benefit only white people and boost their scores. Other people should be able to do that too. They made the incorrect decision. Don't boost non-White clubs. Get rid of all the club bonus people get
3) This leads to the last problem. Affirmative Action can be abused. That doesn't mean you should get rid of it. EVERYTHING about the university entrance scheme
4) Affirmative Action affected a couple of percentages. Legacy Admission is a quarter to 30%. They, like normal, targeted the weaker group. Legacy Admissions are going to stay
5) Even if you got rid of Legacy Admissions, I would point you back to Number 1. Those with advantaged positions will just find a new rule that advantages them. Because they literally have access to that power

Getting rid of Affirmative Action will help no one, especially Asian students. It's helping the rich and powerful

Test bias is not why minorities are having trouble doing well on tests. There will always be bias in testing or anything, you ain't going to remove it. I'm willing to bet most of the bias in testing merely comes from the fact of schools having different levels of funding vs it actually being racist. Just because say black people do worse on some random thing doesn't mean that thing is racist. It would be like saying hockey is racist against black people because there's more white players or vice verse for basketball.

Again, you're looking at the results of a policy and saying it's OK. Affirmative action is just a straight-up racist policy on a pure principle level and there's no way to argue it isn't.

Honest question. Not trying to trick you or anything. Have you worked in a workplace? Because...

They get fired if they don't. Probably what will more likely happen is that they quit. That's why SAG exists, to try and stop this from happening. Sometimes they get fired anyway

Firing them is supported by both Dems and Republicans. If they don't do the job requested of them, they should be fired. This is normal

(This doesn't mean I agree. It's just how American Capitalism works. Workers don't have rights)

Gay marriage is not like Hitler. If you think it's like Hitler, that a you problem and the ACTUAL reason why anti-discrimination laws exist.

Discrimination is when you have a biased against a group of people and ban them from participating in society. Usually, this bias is unfounded. In other words, it's like canceling but worse

Hitler did a bunch of crimes, some of the worst in history. He is not a group. He is a single person. He has been proven to have organized these crimes. He is not being targeted because he is a German. Or because he's Caucasian. Or Christian. He is being discriminated against because he did crimes. You are allowed to discriminate against Hitler

Show me where all gay people did crimes (that weren't made up by religious institutions).

There are gay people who did specific crimes. And the punishment should be metered out based on the crimes, not because they are gay. That doesn't mean all gay people are criminals. We don't pretend all Germans are criminals because Hitler existed. That's not how this works. That's not how ANY of this works. I don't like religious institutions because they generally have brought death and destruction where they go. That does NOT mean I get to discriminate against any of them until they do crimes. Because that how this works. And most Christians are nice

I'll put these together because they are similar
No, you can't force anyone who doesn't have something on their menu. That's also not the problem. It's because they do not like homosexuals. If you said, 'It's not on the menu' that fine. You can even still be a bigot if that is your desire. If you said, 'It's not on the menu because gays are bad.' That's discrimination

If there's a contract with the actor/actress about certain stipulations about the role, then it's a breach of contract if either side change those stipulations. Like if the actor/actress said they'll do a nude scene and sign the contract, them later declining to do so would be breach of contract. Same thing if there was no nudity beforehand, and then the director/producers added it in afterward, it would be a breach on their end then. Sure, you can always fire the actor/actress if they decline a change that the director/producer think is necessary, but the actor/actress will still get compensation for the breach of contract. Whereas if the actor/actress declines something in the contract after signing, then they don't get compensation. Now switch out nudity with kissing someone of the same sex. It's not discriminatory for an actor/actress to decline kissing someone of the same sex because they aren't comfortable with that or they feel like they couldn't convincingly act out the scene.

Thus, it's not about gay marriage being like Hitler or not. If someone wanted a marijuana leaf on a cake, you can decline to do so regardless if it's legal or illegal in your state (it doesn't have to be a crime or something). You can't make artists do something they don't want to do. I'm sure the cake place had templates to choose from and obviously you could ask for a custom cake. They don't have to make the custom cake if they don't want to regardless of what it is. I would agree that just writing something on the cake isn't "art" so declining to write something like "congrats on your gender transition" would be discriminatory.

 

[Silvanus]

If someone wanted a marijuana leaf on a cake, you can decline to do so regardless if it's legal or illegal in your state (it doesn't have to be a crime or something). You can't make artists do something they don't want to do. I'm sure the cake place had templates to choose from and obviously you could ask for a custom cake. They don't have to make the custom cake if they don't want to regardless of what it is.

Except, of course, we know the baker/ Web designer are fine with the message, just provided its for a different kind of person. Their sticking point isn't the message itself; its the characteristics of the person it's for.

So, the marijuana leaf on a cake isn't a good analogy, because in that circumstance they would be against promoting drugs whoever asked. A better analogy would be if the baker was perfectly fine making birthday cakes, but refused if the person requesting it was black, because the baker has a weird religious objection to black people celebrating birthdays. Same message, but they seek to deny it to some people and not others.

 

[Ag3ma]

I've got an idea.

At a certain level, marriage is just a word. Those religious types that want can simply use or create a different word to describe their deity-blessed form, and then use that different word in their religious texts and ceremonies. That leaves everyone to marry equally under the law, but the religious can have their own special, privileged term for their version of it.

 

[tstorm823]

You're free to practice your understanding.

So long as I don't want to bake cakes or build websites, or interact with society in any meaningful way, sure. I can practice my understanding, until I own a business and then I have to follow other people's definitions or you sue me.

What we're requesting is that you don't force everyone else to abide by it. You're wanting to enshrine legal protections for your specific understanding of marriage, above and beyond the legally recognised understanding.

No, I'm not. If you want to withhold services you don't want to provide, go ahead. If you're a printer who doesn't like circumcision, you don't have to print invitations for a briss. That's fine by me.

Answer me: why is this materially different from some random religious sect arguing that their definition of marriage only allows for people of a certain race?

Because there isn't consequential difference between couples of different races. There are consequential physical differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

Same reason why we can segregate the sexes sometimes, but it's a protected class in others: in situations where there are meaningful physical differences, not just bigotry, distinguishing between groups, you can rightfully discriminate between them.

Lastly, I don't want discrimination. If you think that homosexuals getting married destroys the sanctity of marriage, that's a you problem

You're trying to turn this on me, but you're defending the idea that nobody can sell wedding cakes if they have a different understanding of marriage than you.

I've got an idea.

At a certain level, marriage is just a word. Those religious types that want can simply use or create a different word to describe their deity-blessed form, and then use that different word in their religious texts and ceremonies. That leaves everyone to marry equally under the law, but the religious can have their own special, privileged term for their version of it.

That's lovely, but marriage is the special Christian word. Derived from the same latin as matrimony, etymologically formed around the idea of becoming a mother. If you want to resurrect pre-Christian terms and use those, fire away. I'm sure they exist somewhere. If you want to make your own word for a loving committed partnership, that's fine too. You're otherwise practicing the erasure of Christian culture that you all simultaneously want and deny is happening.

 

[Ag3ma]

That's lovely, but marriage is the special Christian word. Derived from the same latin as matrimony

I hate to break it to you but Latin predates Christianity, and Roman marriage was secular.

Secondly, marriage derives from the Latin "maritus", which is the word for "husband". "Matrimony" is the word you're looking for that stems from the same root as mother.

Marriage is the general English word for an act which occurs in similar-ish form across thousands of cultures all over the world and throughout time, the majority of which are not Christian and forms of which (as above) predate Christianity. It makes sense that it retains this general use. Christianity has no inherent right to it and it is absurd to think it should. This is what secularism is about, you don't get to impose religious diktat on everyone else.

 

[Schadrach]

To allow that specific understanding to override the constitutional right to equal treatment.

...as opposed to allowing anti-discrimination laws to compel speech, overriding the 1st Amendment.

At a certain level, marriage is just a word. Those religious types that want can simply use or create a different word to describe their deity-blessed form, and then use that different word in their religious texts and ceremonies. That leaves everyone to marry equally under the law, but the religious can have their own special, privileged term for their version of it.

Literally the "civil union" argument but with marriage as the "legal" word rather than the religious one.

No, I'm not. If you want to withhold services you don't want to provide, go ahead. If you're a printer who doesn't like circumcision, you don't have to print invitations for a briss. That's fine by me.

That's actually a better example of what I'm getting at. The argument would be that refusing to create a cake/website/whatever for a bris when you do them for other events is discriminatory, because you're only going to have a bris if you're a Jew.

Or to put it another way, do you think the person refusing to engage in whatever kind of speech for a gay wedding would still refuse to do it if a straight woman working for the gay couple as a wedding planner asked instead? What about if a gay wedding planner was placing an order for straight clients? Or a closeted gay guy was marrying his beard?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Then what is it?

Cake Shop ruling only said that the State of Colorado was acting in a discriminatory way, it pushed the actual decisions down the road. Until now, specifically

Ok, so you're for a racist policy then? Can you stick to any principle? Racism is always bad. Why not just say it's fine to be racist against some group because then as a whole, the entire population ends up being better off? That is why utilitarianism isn't a good moral theory and you can even wind up with slavery being "good".

You should probably read the words I wrote instead of building a slip-and-slide on the side of the nearest slope