Trump is the one burning our government to the ground
Really? How has he done this? What parts of the government are now burned to the ground? Be specific.
But from day one, these fuckers have declared war.
Really? Actual war? War on who? Be specific instead of waving your hands around, hyperventilating, and being deliberately vague in hopes nobody will call you on it.
One look at the proposed cabinet shows that 100% - these people were not selected for expertise, they were selected because they have deep-seated antipathy and aggression towards the very government agencies they're supposed to oversee.
Be specific, with examples. For example, how does the designated Secretary of Defense exhibit "deep seated antipathy" towards the military? Specifically. How does the designated Secretary of State exhibit "deep seated antipathy" towards the State Department? Specifically. Since you're making sweeping statements about the entire cabinet, you must have lots of examples of the history of "aggression" you have in mind, and explanations about why each new designee's ideas about their prospective department is based on antipathy and wanting to "burn it to the ground." So, yes, specific examples, please - at least one for each new cabinet members, since you're talking about all of them.
There is no "working with" someone who has publicly declared themselves your enemy.
Which designated cabinet secretary has publicly declared their prospective department to be their enemy? For each one, provide the name and public declaration in which they said the department was their enemy.
I'd thank you in advance for the work you'll have to do, but because you obviously have all of this information at your fingertips so you could come to such specific conclusions about the entire cabinet, I'm sure you'll have it all ready to copy and paste. Let me guess, it will all be links to HuffPo and NYT opinion pieces, right? Yeah.
Asking for specifics on vague FUD is marked troll. Yea...
lol, I see. You give yourself some wiggle room in your wording to say "I am not one of those conspiritards". I am not going to defend anyone's actions but my own and from what I can tell with your last two posts; you are looking for conspiracies that conform to your notion of biased reality. The best conspiracies are the ones with grains of truth sprinkled throughout.
I don't think the US is immune from nazi escapades but I am optimistic that the checks and balances, separation of power, and the prescient fear of tyranny built into our system of government will make such escapades difficult to say the least. Crying wolf over and over again does more to enable tyrannic escapades than a populist like Trump because when that shit hits the fan, no one will listen to you. Case in point. Trump. Romney was sexist because 'binders of women'. Anyone who didn't' vote for Obama is racist. Anyone who didn't vote Clinton is sexist. Trump is a nazi with brown-shirts. If you wonder why people don't listen to news, there are a few safe bets.
Stop conjecturing "might" and "when" to get the conspirtard high with wording to avoid the conspirtard nuttery.
But in doing so, they will show they have integrity, and take their jobs seriously. That is what these agencies are supposed to do - they're not supposed to be partisan tools for the current ruing party; they're supposed to be an impartial apparatus that does a job mandated by Congress to the best of their abilities.
Sure, they will have integrity but their job is to do what POTUS says that isn't illegal. They're not supposed to be a partisan tool but everything is partisan these days. The point of my previous comment was that this is part of the spoils that the victor is entitled to. The DoE management actions, while laudable, would be doing the exact opposite of their job and mandate if they fight a President Trump on his direction.
Their job is to enforce the law as directed by POTUS. Their mandates are Executive Orders from POTUS unless specifically directed by Congress.
There are things more important than a paycheck. And I'd consider not supporting a totalitarian regime with a flagrant disregard for reality one of those things.
It is not a totalitarian regime and you know it. Stop with the hyperbole for god-sakes. Keep crying wolf when a wolf does come no one listens to you, case in point; Trump. Or was Romney a sexist because "binders full of women". Or are Average Americans that voted Obama in twice now racist because immigration is an issue that needs addressing and has been for a long time. Or is the only reason to not vote for Clinton is because sexism. FFS, when shit does hit the fan with a draconian government no one is going to listen to you because of this kind of shit that is spewed out that has no basis in reality. Case in point; mother fucking Trump. No one listens to media about the stupid shit he does because they have been crying wolf and telling half truths for too damn long. Only an idiot would continue listening to that kind of shit. The only people that still listen to the old media are the people that agree already with them.
The POTUS is in charge of the Executive bureaucracies. That is not totalitarian to have the head of a branch of government in control of the staff of that branch.
part of that includes doing what is asked of them by the President as long as it doesn't mean betraying their mandate.
To be clear, mandates are given by POTUS in the form of Executive Orders to direct the federal bureaucracies in how they will uphold the law passed by Congress. So long as the law is upheld anything the POTUS instructs the bureaucracies to do is not "betraying their mandate" because he is in charge of that branch of government. Even if there is an ideological purge (which this sounds like, hope not) as is the "victor goes the spoils" that has been around since the founding.
There is no legal precedent to stop the POTUS from re-staffing the entire Executive branch (specifically the bureaucracies). If there is one, I would like to see it. Technically, if these managers disobeyed a President Trump they would be "betraying their mandate" because their "mandate" is to do what POTUS says unless that is illegal.
It just means that the leader leadership/management will replace more staffers. "To the victors go the spoils" has been around since Andrew Jackson At the time, the new POTUS would replace most if not all of the executive staff with their choice since the government was small enough. As the government grew permanent staff became more common and the new POTUS tended to pick only the new leadership.
I applaud what the DoE management is doing but it just means that if the new administration pushes they will replace more staff than originally intended they have that authority.
To put it differently, if you rebelled against what your boss tells you how long do you think you will be around to keep saying "no"?
Let's clear things out real quick because there are 3 instances being discussed.
1) Oregon where I have limited knowledge of the case that (will take your word for), there was rudeness and a harassment campaign after the denial of service.
2) Colorado where a gay couple was denied a wedding cake from a baker whose policy was to deny service of cakes that "celebrated gay marriage".
3) Colorado where a Christian customer was denied a specialty cake because the baker thought the bible quotes were "offensive hate speech".
With 1, I would say rudeness is not illegal but could have spiraled out of control into an illegal act (and continued). West Borrow Baptists might be rude and ass holes but nothing they do is illegal (that I know of). It sounds like a number of laws were broken; denial of service to protected class and continued harassment. While it sounds bad, for the original comparison it was specifically about the denial of service. The actions that may have resulted in that act or after are not relevant to the original comparison about a private business controlling their use policy without government intervention. It sucks to the couple and the baker sounds like an ass but it doesn't relate to the precedent where there government intervenes in private business to ensure public accommodations without discrimination. For this case, the motivations of why the baker denied service isn't as important as the fact that the government steps in to say: "Your personal beliefs do not matter. Be impartial because law.".
With 2 and 3 it is about denial of service of a specialty cake to two different protected classes where one class is protected by the courts and the other was thrown out. I think there is blatant hypocrisy in these two cases.
"They are destroying our 'democracy' with their conspiracy theories... When the 'Make America Great Again Neighborhood Block Councils' are formed'...
u wot m8? Accidentally spilled that kool-aid into your cup, didn't notice, and decided to take the 'holier than though' approach while dying from heavy exposure to irony, eh?
That's cool, I mean, I don't mind if you condemn conspiritards while being a conspiritard... just makes me kind of baffled really. Like seeing a unicorn; something rare and beautiful that I thought was made up until someone stapled a rainbow colored toilet-paper roll to its head. Then I knew the truth.
Your post is still there, intact, and without edits. Even if every moderator trolled your posts to -2 would not change the fact your post will be there, intact, and without edits for anyone curious enough to look. There is a difference between an employee doing this without procedure and oversight that is unknown to users compared to a user moderation system that does not delete or change posts./. moderation isn't perfect but it doesn't change what you post. I don't get how that type of moderation (it isn't bullying by any measure of the definition) is anywhere near comparable to what reddit (Huffman) did.
I would mod you troll to for using "bullies" to describe/. moderation too because that is bullshit and you know it.
Unless you re-interpret 'drain swamp' as in 'get Democrats out' then Mission Accomplished with banner and all. Err, soon to be Mission Accomplished. I guess that banner will never get its day in the sun when the sun actually shines. We may have to pull an Old-Yeller on that banner if the EC votes in someone else. Poor thing can't handle all these missions accomplished without accomplishing anything.
*Note, I know what Trump said and what he meant by 'drain the swamp'.
They wanted to do the same thing the gay couple did. Get a specialty cake. The customer wanted the baker to do something that was against their own personal beliefs in both instances. Putting specific quotes is a specialty cake just like a wedding cake is a specialty.. The Colorado baker was fine with giving them a different cake, just not a wedding cake for a gay wedding. It wasn't about them being gay, they could have gotten a different cake. It was about them getting a cake celebrating a gay marriage that was against the bakers religious belief. Just like the baker that denied the specialty cake because of their belief that the religious text is 'offensive hate speech'.
"You're perfectly free to be gay. Nothing about that compels you to ask for a specific cake. You're perfectly free to run a public business, and there are restrictions that apply, including not refusing a customer specifically because he or she is a member of a protected class. And, as a gay couple, you have no right to demand that other people do things according to your sexual orientation. "
FTFY. Rules for thee not for me, religion is a protected class but it is not treated as such. In Oregon, it sounds like service was denied specifically because the couple being gay. But in the Colorado case, it wasn't because they were willing to sell a different cake. Just not a wedding cake for a gay wedding.
Can you deny someone public accommodations based on their religion? That is the point of it. It isn't only about a recognized religious church being discriminated against in business affairs or government services.
Sure, but all your saying is that they choose their identity which is the point. It doesn't matter that a protected class is a choice or not what matters is that you cannot discriminate on that classification. You cannot deny someone service based on race just like you can't deny service based on religion.
To your post: "It's a choice, and is not an excuse for not following the law.". It is a federal law prohibiting discrimination on religious grounds.
The funny thing with regards to these protected classes (even state level defined classes, i.e. sexual orientation), is that if you use the right language you can discriminate whoever you want because those laws are much more about intent than action. For example: a cake with bible quotes is 'offensive hate speech', you can deny service. A cake for a gay wedding; 'they are liberal'. Ideology is not a protected class you can deny service.
Eh, not really because the main point was what the CRA covered which is religion.
That last bit was a gab about leftist ideology in academia. If gender is a social construct, why would it matter what the doctor "assigns" if you decide you are a different gender at a later time? Gender-fluid is about someone choosing their gender. It is a conscience choice someone makes based on their feelings of gender identity. If it is not a choice, then it is not a social construct because nothing society does can change your gender. Even if the doctor got it wrong by looking at your genitals and extrapolating that observation to gender.
When it is a public accommodation private business's loses rights in favor of public interest. Just like the baker with gay cakes. To quote the CO case: " No one is asking the [business owner] to change their belief.".
There is a public interest in ensuring all public forums of speech be impartial.
You should reread about the Civil Rights Act. It does protect religion from discrimination just like race. Sexual orientation (the baker thing) was set up via state law.
What is funny is the rhetoric about "gender is a social construct" i.e. a choice that you can make when you deconstruct your notions of cis-normatitivy. You choose your gender as much as you choose your race (Rachel Dolezal) these days so why would any other attribute that you choose to make your 'identity' any different?
who has the right to determine what is a religion and what isn't?
An old question that has been asked a lot, see tomb stones in Arlington Cemetery.
Is the baker charged for the actions after the denial of service, for the denial of service, or was the denial of service used to inform the extent of minimum sentencing the judge must issue because of anti-discrimination laws?
This. There is a difference between you saying something and enabling someone else to say something. To use the car analogy: There is a difference between driving a car and taking a bus. Similar activities on the same infrastructure with different responsibilities for each operator to ensure the public interests without discrimination.
What is frustrating is that when it comes to protected classes, if you use the right politikspeak you can bypass the intent of those laws. You cannot deny service to a couple for being gay but you can deny them for being liberal. You can deny a religious person service for their religious belief if you use the right words to describe your discrimination; i.e. their belief is 'offensive'. As opposed to the courts rejected version 'my religion informed my policy of wedding cakes' despite religion being a protected class under federal law.
Religion is a federally protected class. The cake with bible quotes was informed by their religion in the same way their policy was just like the wedding and the couples wedding. They were denied business because they wanted their religious belief expressed on a cake and the baker denied them on the basis of that belief.
as far as I know there are no protected classes based on politics.
This is part of the issue because if the Colorado couple had used the right politikespeak, denying business because couple assumed liberal, it would have been acceptable to deny the couple business but because they were honest in saying that their policy was influenced by their religion they are in violation of the law even though religion is a protected class. Why isn't religion afforded the same protections as sexual orientation when it is protected under federal law?
It wasn't because of their religion.
It was entirely because of their religious belief and religion. It is a religious belief founded from religious text. They were denied expressly because of the text and the morality that the text presents. The baker did not like the religious views of the christian customer and did not want to be complicit in those views by baking them the cake.
Yes, the law is blunt and in the Colorado case I don't see how it isn't hypocritical. The baker was forced to be complicit that was against their religious belief despite being a federally protected class. But as a customer was not given the same protections for their religious belief.
I am not saying what the Oregon baker did was right. I am not saying that the Colorado baker (in both instances) is right or wrong. But I don't understand how someone can be denied business for a purely religious belief when that is a federally protected class just like sexual orientation is a state protected class. When is a religious person protected from discrimination for public accommodations like a gay person?
anti-discrimination laws make it illegal for someone covered by such laws to refuse you service or employment based on your religion
His religion found gay marriage wrong and he didn't' want to act in a complicit manner counter to his religion but was forced by government; "No one is asking the baker to change their beliefs". The other baker felt that that religious belief is offensive and denied service to the religious because of a religious belief; Yet, "No one is asking the baker to change their beliefs." doesn't' apply.
From what I can tell in the Colorado case, the bakery was okay with baking other cakes, just not cakes that "celebrate a same-sex couple's wedding" because it was against their religious belief. A policy entirely informed by their religion. Why is the religious not able afforded the same protections as a gay couple?
A particular cake expressing a religious belief or a particular cake that celebrates a same-sex couple's wedding that is against the bakers religious belief. Religious belief informed the bakers policy of use. Religion is a protected class for public accommodations under federal law. Yet, it is not being treated the same as sexual orientation which is a protected class for public accommodations under state law.
The Colorado(I haven't read much about the Oregon issue) law and CCRD does not make that distinction that the courts decision applied to: "religious freedom is important, no one’s religious beliefs make it acceptable to break the law,". The state law that ignores religious discrimination to public accommodations and the CCRD does not handle cases about. In other words, the State through the CCRD ignores a federally protected class in regards to discrimination of public accommodations.
How is using a state law to ignore a federal law when both laws are about ending discrimination not hypocritical?
What do you think you're accomplishing by making it visible?
Putting on display for all those to see the stupidity that exists in the world. Is better to let the idiots speak to display their idiocy to everyone than to let the idiots fester in their own conspiratorial nut job bubble where they validate their own existence by their own retardation.
You believe those leftard satellites and liberal thermometers?
Satellites are a fiction. A conspiracy of the UN and NASA. Space doesn't exist and the earth is flat with a dome. How can you keep something above the flat earth without it falling down? Check mate "scientists".
Slashdot Mirror
Trump is the one burning our government to the ground
Really? How has he done this? What parts of the government are now burned to the ground? Be specific.
But from day one, these fuckers have declared war.
Really? Actual war? War on who? Be specific instead of waving your hands around, hyperventilating, and being deliberately vague in hopes nobody will call you on it.
One look at the proposed cabinet shows that 100% - these people were not selected for expertise, they were selected because they have deep-seated antipathy and aggression towards the very government agencies they're supposed to oversee.
Be specific, with examples. For example, how does the designated Secretary of Defense exhibit "deep seated antipathy" towards the military? Specifically. How does the designated Secretary of State exhibit "deep seated antipathy" towards the State Department? Specifically. Since you're making sweeping statements about the entire cabinet, you must have lots of examples of the history of "aggression" you have in mind, and explanations about why each new designee's ideas about their prospective department is based on antipathy and wanting to "burn it to the ground." So, yes, specific examples, please - at least one for each new cabinet members, since you're talking about all of them.
There is no "working with" someone who has publicly declared themselves your enemy.
Which designated cabinet secretary has publicly declared their prospective department to be their enemy? For each one, provide the name and public declaration in which they said the department was their enemy.
I'd thank you in advance for the work you'll have to do, but because you obviously have all of this information at your fingertips so you could come to such specific conclusions about the entire cabinet, I'm sure you'll have it all ready to copy and paste. Let me guess, it will all be links to HuffPo and NYT opinion pieces, right? Yeah.
Asking for specifics on vague FUD is marked troll. Yea...
Quoting for great justice.
lol, I see. You give yourself some wiggle room in your wording to say "I am not one of those conspiritards". I am not going to defend anyone's actions but my own and from what I can tell with your last two posts; you are looking for conspiracies that conform to your notion of biased reality. The best conspiracies are the ones with grains of truth sprinkled throughout.
I don't think the US is immune from nazi escapades but I am optimistic that the checks and balances, separation of power, and the prescient fear of tyranny built into our system of government will make such escapades difficult to say the least. Crying wolf over and over again does more to enable tyrannic escapades than a populist like Trump because when that shit hits the fan, no one will listen to you. Case in point. Trump. Romney was sexist because 'binders of women'. Anyone who didn't' vote for Obama is racist. Anyone who didn't vote Clinton is sexist. Trump is a nazi with brown-shirts. If you wonder why people don't listen to news, there are a few safe bets.
Stop conjecturing "might" and "when" to get the conspirtard high with wording to avoid the conspirtard nuttery.
But in doing so, they will show they have integrity, and take their jobs seriously. That is what these agencies are supposed to do - they're not supposed to be partisan tools for the current ruing party; they're supposed to be an impartial apparatus that does a job mandated by Congress to the best of their abilities.
Sure, they will have integrity but their job is to do what POTUS says that isn't illegal. They're not supposed to be a partisan tool but everything is partisan these days. The point of my previous comment was that this is part of the spoils that the victor is entitled to. The DoE management actions, while laudable, would be doing the exact opposite of their job and mandate if they fight a President Trump on his direction.
Their job is to enforce the law as directed by POTUS. Their mandates are Executive Orders from POTUS unless specifically directed by Congress.
There are things more important than a paycheck. And I'd consider not supporting a totalitarian regime with a flagrant disregard for reality one of those things.
It is not a totalitarian regime and you know it. Stop with the hyperbole for god-sakes. Keep crying wolf when a wolf does come no one listens to you, case in point; Trump. Or was Romney a sexist because "binders full of women". Or are Average Americans that voted Obama in twice now racist because immigration is an issue that needs addressing and has been for a long time. Or is the only reason to not vote for Clinton is because sexism. FFS, when shit does hit the fan with a draconian government no one is going to listen to you because of this kind of shit that is spewed out that has no basis in reality. Case in point; mother fucking Trump. No one listens to media about the stupid shit he does because they have been crying wolf and telling half truths for too damn long. Only an idiot would continue listening to that kind of shit. The only people that still listen to the old media are the people that agree already with them.
The POTUS is in charge of the Executive bureaucracies. That is not totalitarian to have the head of a branch of government in control of the staff of that branch.
part of that includes doing what is asked of them by the President as long as it doesn't mean betraying their mandate .
To be clear, mandates are given by POTUS in the form of Executive Orders to direct the federal bureaucracies in how they will uphold the law passed by Congress. So long as the law is upheld anything the POTUS instructs the bureaucracies to do is not "betraying their mandate" because he is in charge of that branch of government. Even if there is an ideological purge (which this sounds like, hope not) as is the "victor goes the spoils" that has been around since the founding.
There is no legal precedent to stop the POTUS from re-staffing the entire Executive branch (specifically the bureaucracies). If there is one, I would like to see it. Technically, if these managers disobeyed a President Trump they would be "betraying their mandate" because their "mandate" is to do what POTUS says unless that is illegal.
It just means that the leader leadership/management will replace more staffers. "To the victors go the spoils" has been around since Andrew Jackson At the time, the new POTUS would replace most if not all of the executive staff with their choice since the government was small enough. As the government grew permanent staff became more common and the new POTUS tended to pick only the new leadership.
I applaud what the DoE management is doing but it just means that if the new administration pushes they will replace more staff than originally intended they have that authority.
To put it differently, if you rebelled against what your boss tells you how long do you think you will be around to keep saying "no"?
Let's clear things out real quick because there are 3 instances being discussed.
1) Oregon where I have limited knowledge of the case that (will take your word for), there was rudeness and a harassment campaign after the denial of service.
2) Colorado where a gay couple was denied a wedding cake from a baker whose policy was to deny service of cakes that "celebrated gay marriage".
3) Colorado where a Christian customer was denied a specialty cake because the baker thought the bible quotes were "offensive hate speech".
With 1, I would say rudeness is not illegal but could have spiraled out of control into an illegal act (and continued). West Borrow Baptists might be rude and ass holes but nothing they do is illegal (that I know of). It sounds like a number of laws were broken; denial of service to protected class and continued harassment. While it sounds bad, for the original comparison it was specifically about the denial of service. The actions that may have resulted in that act or after are not relevant to the original comparison about a private business controlling their use policy without government intervention. It sucks to the couple and the baker sounds like an ass but it doesn't relate to the precedent where there government intervenes in private business to ensure public accommodations without discrimination. For this case, the motivations of why the baker denied service isn't as important as the fact that the government steps in to say: "Your personal beliefs do not matter. Be impartial because law.".
With 2 and 3 it is about denial of service of a specialty cake to two different protected classes where one class is protected by the courts and the other was thrown out. I think there is blatant hypocrisy in these two cases.
"They are destroying our 'democracy' with their conspiracy theories... When the 'Make America Great Again Neighborhood Block Councils' are formed'...
u wot m8? Accidentally spilled that kool-aid into your cup, didn't notice, and decided to take the 'holier than though' approach while dying from heavy exposure to irony, eh?
That's cool, I mean, I don't mind if you condemn conspiritards while being a conspiritard... just makes me kind of baffled really. Like seeing a unicorn; something rare and beautiful that I thought was made up until someone stapled a rainbow colored toilet-paper roll to its head. Then I knew the truth.
Yea, and Tony Hayward is sorry.
You can't even say anything or have a discussion without someone attempting to force you to find a source for every little thing you say.
Citation needed.
Your post is still there, intact, and without edits. Even if every moderator trolled your posts to -2 would not change the fact your post will be there, intact, and without edits for anyone curious enough to look. There is a difference between an employee doing this without procedure and oversight that is unknown to users compared to a user moderation system that does not delete or change posts. /. moderation isn't perfect but it doesn't change what you post. I don't get how that type of moderation (it isn't bullying by any measure of the definition) is anywhere near comparable to what reddit (Huffman) did.
I would mod you troll to for using "bullies" to describe /. moderation too because that is bullshit and you know it.
Unless you re-interpret 'drain swamp' as in 'get Democrats out' then Mission Accomplished with banner and all. Err, soon to be Mission Accomplished. I guess that banner will never get its day in the sun when the sun actually shines. We may have to pull an Old-Yeller on that banner if the EC votes in someone else. Poor thing can't handle all these missions accomplished without accomplishing anything.
*Note, I know what Trump said and what he meant by 'drain the swamp'.
They wanted to do the same thing the gay couple did. Get a specialty cake. The customer wanted the baker to do something that was against their own personal beliefs in both instances. Putting specific quotes is a specialty cake just like a wedding cake is a specialty.. The Colorado baker was fine with giving them a different cake, just not a wedding cake for a gay wedding. It wasn't about them being gay, they could have gotten a different cake. It was about them getting a cake celebrating a gay marriage that was against the bakers religious belief. Just like the baker that denied the specialty cake because of their belief that the religious text is 'offensive hate speech'.
"You're perfectly free to be gay. Nothing about that compels you to ask for a specific cake. You're perfectly free to run a public business, and there are restrictions that apply, including not refusing a customer specifically because he or she is a member of a protected class. And, as a gay couple, you have no right to demand that other people do things according to your sexual orientation. "
FTFY. Rules for thee not for me, religion is a protected class but it is not treated as such. In Oregon, it sounds like service was denied specifically because the couple being gay. But in the Colorado case, it wasn't because they were willing to sell a different cake. Just not a wedding cake for a gay wedding.
Can you deny someone public accommodations based on their religion? That is the point of it. It isn't only about a recognized religious church being discriminated against in business affairs or government services.
Sure, but all your saying is that they choose their identity which is the point. It doesn't matter that a protected class is a choice or not what matters is that you cannot discriminate on that classification. You cannot deny someone service based on race just like you can't deny service based on religion.
To your post: "It's a choice, and is not an excuse for not following the law.". It is a federal law prohibiting discrimination on religious grounds.
The funny thing with regards to these protected classes (even state level defined classes, i.e. sexual orientation), is that if you use the right language you can discriminate whoever you want because those laws are much more about intent than action. For example: a cake with bible quotes is 'offensive hate speech', you can deny service. A cake for a gay wedding; 'they are liberal'. Ideology is not a protected class you can deny service.
Eh, not really because the main point was what the CRA covered which is religion.
That last bit was a gab about leftist ideology in academia. If gender is a social construct, why would it matter what the doctor "assigns" if you decide you are a different gender at a later time? Gender-fluid is about someone choosing their gender. It is a conscience choice someone makes based on their feelings of gender identity. If it is not a choice, then it is not a social construct because nothing society does can change your gender. Even if the doctor got it wrong by looking at your genitals and extrapolating that observation to gender.
"Relative to what?"
Ron Jeremy of course. Don't forget, if you aren't paid to do something you aren't doing it right. Including pounding puss.
When it is a public accommodation private business's loses rights in favor of public interest. Just like the baker with gay cakes. To quote the CO case: " No one is asking the [business owner] to change their belief.".
There is a public interest in ensuring all public forums of speech be impartial.
You should reread about the Civil Rights Act. It does protect religion from discrimination just like race. Sexual orientation (the baker thing) was set up via state law.
What is funny is the rhetoric about "gender is a social construct" i.e. a choice that you can make when you deconstruct your notions of cis-normatitivy. You choose your gender as much as you choose your race (Rachel Dolezal) these days so why would any other attribute that you choose to make your 'identity' any different?
who has the right to determine what is a religion and what isn't?
An old question that has been asked a lot, see tomb stones in Arlington Cemetery.
Is the baker charged for the actions after the denial of service, for the denial of service, or was the denial of service used to inform the extent of minimum sentencing the judge must issue because of anti-discrimination laws?
This. There is a difference between you saying something and enabling someone else to say something. To use the car analogy: There is a difference between driving a car and taking a bus. Similar activities on the same infrastructure with different responsibilities for each operator to ensure the public interests without discrimination.
What is frustrating is that when it comes to protected classes, if you use the right politikspeak you can bypass the intent of those laws. You cannot deny service to a couple for being gay but you can deny them for being liberal. You can deny a religious person service for their religious belief if you use the right words to describe your discrimination; i.e. their belief is 'offensive'. As opposed to the courts rejected version 'my religion informed my policy of wedding cakes' despite religion being a protected class under federal law.
by reason of being in a protected class
Religion is a federally protected class. The cake with bible quotes was informed by their religion in the same way their policy was just like the wedding and the couples wedding. They were denied business because they wanted their religious belief expressed on a cake and the baker denied them on the basis of that belief.
as far as I know there are no protected classes based on politics.
This is part of the issue because if the Colorado couple had used the right politikespeak, denying business because couple assumed liberal, it would have been acceptable to deny the couple business but because they were honest in saying that their policy was influenced by their religion they are in violation of the law even though religion is a protected class. Why isn't religion afforded the same protections as sexual orientation when it is protected under federal law?
It wasn't because of their religion.
It was entirely because of their religious belief and religion. It is a religious belief founded from religious text. They were denied expressly because of the text and the morality that the text presents. The baker did not like the religious views of the christian customer and did not want to be complicit in those views by baking them the cake.
Yes, the law is blunt and in the Colorado case I don't see how it isn't hypocritical. The baker was forced to be complicit that was against their religious belief despite being a federally protected class. But as a customer was not given the same protections for their religious belief.
I am not saying what the Oregon baker did was right. I am not saying that the Colorado baker (in both instances) is right or wrong. But I don't understand how someone can be denied business for a purely religious belief when that is a federally protected class just like sexual orientation is a state protected class. When is a religious person protected from discrimination for public accommodations like a gay person?
anti-discrimination laws make it illegal for someone covered by such laws to refuse you service or employment based on your religion
His religion found gay marriage wrong and he didn't' want to act in a complicit manner counter to his religion but was forced by government; "No one is asking the baker to change their beliefs". The other baker felt that that religious belief is offensive and denied service to the religious because of a religious belief; Yet, "No one is asking the baker to change their beliefs." doesn't' apply.
From what I can tell in the Colorado case, the bakery was okay with baking other cakes, just not cakes that "celebrate a same-sex couple's wedding" because it was against their religious belief. A policy entirely informed by their religion. Why is the religious not able afforded the same protections as a gay couple?
read the summary
Hey! We don't' take kindly to your types around here. Why don't you just move along sir.
A particular cake expressing a religious belief or a particular cake that celebrates a same-sex couple's wedding that is against the bakers religious belief. Religious belief informed the bakers policy of use. Religion is a protected class for public accommodations under federal law. Yet, it is not being treated the same as sexual orientation which is a protected class for public accommodations under state law.
The Colorado(I haven't read much about the Oregon issue) law and CCRD does not make that distinction that the courts decision applied to: "religious freedom is important, no one’s religious beliefs make it acceptable to break the law,". The state law that ignores religious discrimination to public accommodations and the CCRD does not handle cases about. In other words, the State through the CCRD ignores a federally protected class in regards to discrimination of public accommodations.
How is using a state law to ignore a federal law when both laws are about ending discrimination not hypocritical?
What do you think you're accomplishing by making it visible?
Putting on display for all those to see the stupidity that exists in the world. Is better to let the idiots speak to display their idiocy to everyone than to let the idiots fester in their own conspiratorial nut job bubble where they validate their own existence by their own retardation.
Trump was in the white house a few weeks ago and he did shake Obama's hand. Coincidence? I think not.
You believe those leftard satellites and liberal thermometers?
Satellites are a fiction. A conspiracy of the UN and NASA. Space doesn't exist and the earth is flat with a dome. How can you keep something above the flat earth without it falling down? Check mate "scientists".
Some good laughs.