That's not remotely true. If you take issue with Catholic marriage and don't want to make a wedding website for Catholics, go ahead and turn down the request. Why should you be obligated to participate in something you take issue with?
Yes.
Supreme Court rejects affirmative action at colleges as unconstitutional
- Thread starter gorfias
- Start date
You want to know why America supports diversity. I will give you a hint it's not because they believe in being nice, and morality. it's because American elites are generally well-versed in history and know that throughout history people that aren't born in the empire have fought for it through a spectrum of ways ranging from unintended indirect support to full-blown loyal service. The so-called realists, and so-called history experts on the right who don't see these, and believe in race realism, and national isolationism are idiots or grifters trying to get influence, money, or power.
It's a fact that most if not all elites in other countries are better at high skill-oriented tasks of maintaining said empire better than even your average local in an empire like the current day US hegemony. That is because they are more often times than not better fed, better educated, and more pragmatic than most people here in the US. I would argue this has been true for all of American history even at the times of the founding fathers when American citizens were on average more educated than most countries in the world. The Americans, and I would argue the Anglo world does not have a monopoly on capable people, and the American elites know this. Diversity of cultures and race is a prerequisite to maintain empiredom because it allows for diversity of though to flourish better than in more homogeneous countries. Look at countries that have try to become an empire without diversity like Japan two times (1980s and 1930-1945), Germany multiple times. The country that does the best at it will be in charge.
The problem I have with America, and it’s an observation that is not related to me, is that it does not take the logical extension of that, and take in more capable people. There are capable people in sweat shops in Southeast Asia, and in the mines in the Congo than your average American is by a mile, and their talent is being wasted, and there are people that are not sorted well in America like many influents who could easily be media people than the older generation for example, but their talents in wasted in scamming people to buy overpriced trinkets. The next large enough empire that sees this weakness that capitalizes it somehow, and is willing to accept diversity will be America’s downfall.
It's a fact that most if not all elites in other countries are better at high skill-oriented tasks of maintaining said empire better than even your average local in an empire like the current day US hegemony. That is because they are more often times than not better fed, better educated, and more pragmatic than most people here in the US. I would argue this has been true for all of American history even at the times of the founding fathers when American citizens were on average more educated than most countries in the world. The Americans, and I would argue the Anglo world does not have a monopoly on capable people, and the American elites know this. Diversity of cultures and race is a prerequisite to maintain empiredom because it allows for diversity of though to flourish better than in more homogeneous countries. Look at countries that have try to become an empire without diversity like Japan two times (1980s and 1930-1945), Germany multiple times. The country that does the best at it will be in charge.
The problem I have with America, and it’s an observation that is not related to me, is that it does not take the logical extension of that, and take in more capable people. There are capable people in sweat shops in Southeast Asia, and in the mines in the Congo than your average American is by a mile, and their talent is being wasted, and there are people that are not sorted well in America like many influents who could easily be media people than the older generation for example, but their talents in wasted in scamming people to buy overpriced trinkets. The next large enough empire that sees this weakness that capitalizes it somehow, and is willing to accept diversity will be America’s downfall.
Because I am not a bigot
I don't not dislike anyone enough to do that
Edit: I feel like its really important to remind you that an Australian Christian school principal last year tried to ban LBGT students from their school
The school PARENTS AS A COMMUNITY were cranky with him discriminating against LBGT and he was fired
This is how is should be. Christians aren't against LBGT. A small subset of Christians are. Most are in America.
Last edited:
Well, sure, but when it's come to the likes of Richard Spencer, which president did he support? I'll give you a hint, it rhymes with rump.
There's a second sentence there - here I'll restate it for you
I'm not interested in hating someone enough that I need to ban them from my shop for existing
Is that circular logic?
Who did the heroes at MSNBC vote for? Which group do you think has more influence in our society?
Tucker Carlson: Open race hate forms much of MSNBC's substance | Fox News Video
Fox News host Tucker Carlson calls out MSNBC for broadcasting open race hate on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight.'
www.foxnews.com
In isolation, I agree with you - generalizing about any group based on inherent traits is wrong, period. And you're right, something like MSNBC would have more influence than the KKK.Who did the heroes at MSNBC vote for? Which group do you think has more influence in our society?
Tucker Carlson: Open race hate forms much of MSNBC's substance | Fox News Video
Fox News host Tucker Carlson calls out MSNBC for broadcasting open race hate on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight.'
However, watching those clips, what are they often reacting to? Well, among other things, right-wing terrorism is the dominant source of terrorism in the US (stated in one of the clips, which are figures backed up by the FBI). I've seen footage of right-wing militias carrying rifles, and I don't know what's more terrifying - that this is happening in a first world country, or that America is so apathetic to it it's normalized. And for all the insanities of the woke left (or regressive left, or illberal left, or what have you), they weren't the ones at Charlotsville. They weren't the ones there on January 6. Trump, among everything else, has done everything from spread "the Big Lie," to take classified documents on his estate, who's engaged in sexual harassment, who's demonized immigrants, etc.
The KKK barely even exists anymore, true. And while voting for Trump doesn't make you a racist ipso facto, white supremacists would be the ones voting for him. If people like Richard Spencer are endorsing Trump, that should, at the least, cause a few eyebrows to be raised.
Also, on the subject of the Rwandan Genocide, thing is, based on everything I've read, I could honestly see the US falling into civil strife, but it's very unlikely to go the same way, more like lots of small-scale conflict spread across the country - more like the Troubles in Ireland. And I don't say that with any glee, my cousin and her family lives in the US, I've got American co-workers at work, I don't get chutzpah from this, but what's happening in the US is concerning, and as concerning as stuff like the MSNBC clips are, the far-right is more concerning. They're the ones with the guns and the intent to use them.
I guarantee there are things you would refuse to do. If someone requests a swastika cake, do you make it for them?
I think you'll find the things we'd refuse to do largely have the hate speech laws firmly in our corner.
Why would you refuse a Buddhist their good fortune cake?
Is a swastika part of their genetics? Because discrimination is based on something they are born with. You know, something like skin colour or hair colour or sexual orientation. Is fascism a genetic trait now?
Why would this be relevant? Making a wedding cake with two people of the same sex on top is in not in any shape or form on the same level as a swastika. There is a different mechanism that at play
Any company can ban swastikas already because that's not covered in free speech. Otherwise, Twitter would be forced to allow to swastikas on their platform. And then probably be sued for deformation because those that use swastikas make unfounded claims. I'd point to Fox News and Tucker Carlson to show whats if you lie all the time. Billions of dollars in fines. Nobody is interested in that nonsense.
I'm going to point out that that's talking about Free Speech. Wedding Cakes are discrimination. It's a different mechanism
So, it's a false equivalency. Now, mind you, the Supreme Court are Christian Nationalists so making laws that benefits Christians and punishes everyone else is their MO. So, dont be suprised that this ruling sticks around for 30 years until someone realises that it breaks the law and reverses, just like many over poor Supreme Court rulings
That what Tstorm has already stated in this thread, homosexual cakes are hate speech to Christians
Is a marriage part of your genetics. (Setting aside that sexuality is not genetic in the first place, we don't even need to have that argument.)
I wouldn't put just writing something on a cake as counting as a speech issue nor would I put having 2 groom or bride figurines on a cake as a speech issue either. Also, the cake guy stopped making any wedding cakes whatsoever.
Or you can not even have government recognize marriage as a thing at all. Then, if you don't like that Christians don't consider same-sex couples being able to marry, then you can make your own religion where same-sex couples can marry. The only reason marriage rights were even a thing was because of the government recognizing marriage and it being a equal opportunity issue.
Ah, I'm still fine with the new ruling at least in spirit. I'm not sure the exact specifics of the marriage website case as I would consider making a website falls under it being a service like say plumbing unless it was over making custom graphics. Just putting pictures on the website to me is a service and not falling under art. Politicians/judges don't really understand anything tech related usually.
You still haven't answered if you can stick to the principle that racism is bad because you're still not saying affirmative action is a racist policy.
So you agree that 'free speech' is not a legitimate reason to allow them to discriminate in the services they provide?
The Web designer does not object to marriage. They objected to the characteristics of the people who (supposedly) asked.
Last edited:
If it is for art purposes, but that only comes up in like 0.000000001% in business dealings. I've never contracted someone to do anything artistic for example. The amount of times it comes up in someone's life is a handful of times if that.
Right, so in the cases we're actually talking about-- wedding cakes and wedding websites-- you don't consider 'free speech' to be sufficient grounds to deny service to gay people?