Joe Biden Wins - Becomes 46th president of the United States

[mikefor20]

*Snip*

I don't agree with a lot of people. Saying something that is annoying to your brain isn't the kind of trolling that I would consider offensive. So, if you are going to say I am trolling, why don't you take the extra step and address "what" I have said and how "how" it is irrelevant, instead of just whining?



*Snip*

Good thing you cover all forms of trolling. You are talented!

You always want more explanations. I know this is complicated for you but everything is there. Read it.

*Snip*

 

[smf]

He's mocking the first amendment as "foolish."

I think some peoples interpretation of the first amendment is foolish, they are slaves to their interpretation of the constitution and take it to ridiculous extremes.

Most of what Trump & his supports say is not protected by the first amendment, because it's false.

The first amendment is to protect your right to point out what the government are doing, so they can't just say you're right but we're still going to silence you. It's not there to destabilize society with lies.

It's difficult when faced with a mass delusion like qanon, because they'll just say it's more proof that they are on the right side. But letting it run it's course is worse.

 

[brickmii82]

The bakers said no gays. Twitter said no hate speech.. yeah. So similar? No. I don't think so.



Censorship is shit. Redactions. Altering posts. Sounds very.... Trumpish.. kinda 1942.. farenheit 451... And landlords should be held accountable for their Tenants actions if it's obvious and in the open. Then complacency is accessory to the crime.



Sometimes I forget it's acne ridden, mountain dew addicted, virgin shut in children for the most part aound here. Probably shouldn't even have political threads here. Most of you were born during the GW administration...

They said they didn’t want to do something that violated their beliefs. Twitter doesn’t believe it’s the best idea to post violence inducing rhetoric so they banned him. In both situations service was denied due to enforcing terms of service.

 

[smf]

They said they didn’t want to do something that violated their beliefs.

But discrimination of people for their sexuality is illegal, people who murder aren't let off because of their religious beliefs. To me the whole bakery thing always seemed a little over the top, but then I'm not gay and facing discrimination.

If you want the law to protect you then you have to be a decent human being, rather than the scum that Trump is.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

The bakery case was nonsense. They weren´t denied the purchase of a cake but the creation of a specific cake that didn´t exist yet. I cannot force Nintendo to make better Mario remakes (even if they didn´t want to because I like women).

With regards to Twitter we have to remember the service is free. Unless you consider your data as a form of value.

 

[smf]

The thought of them kicking more good Christian people like Trump from Twitter is appalling.

Is Trump really Christian?

They weren´t denied the purchase of a cake but the creation of a specific cake that didn´t exist yet.

What if the nature of your business is making bespoke cakes? If I was baking cakes for a living then I'd write whatever the hell they paid me to. I'm pretty sure every time they write Happy Birthday [insert name] Love [insert name] on a cake they don't love the person they are paid to make the cake for.

I'd be surprised if they vetted straight couples before making them a wedding cake either.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

When you make bespoke cakes then that is the nature of your business though surely?

It´s McDonald´s business to make burgers but I can´t ask them to make a specific one.

 

[smf]

It´s McDonald´s business to make burgers but I can´t ask them to make a specific one.

McDonalds don't advertise making bespoke goods though, it's not the same.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

McDonalds don't make bespoke goods though, it's not the same.

My bad. I didn´t know the meaning of the word "bespoke". I thought it meant "said".
I don´t think there is a legal difference though (between companies that makes tailored goods and those that don´t).
Let´s say I have 500 cakes, 500 male figurines and 500 female figurines in stock. Can you, the customer, force me to use two male ones even if I need them for another cake? (or simply if I don´t want to)
Seems pretty extreme to me.

 

[smf]

I don´t think there is a legal difference though (between companies that makes tailored goods and those that don´t).

It would form part of their argument.

If you went into a mcdonalds and asked them for a bun in lgbtq rainbow colors and they refused because they can't dye the bread then it isn't discrimination.

If they started offering a bun dying service, but specifically refused to dye the bread in lgbtq colors then it would be discrimination.

You can't force them to start dying bread.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

And if I simply disliked the color combination? It was his mistake to state that it was about sexuality. In reality, people discriminate based on sex, race etc all the time. Most people just keep quiet about it.

 

[Foxi4]

It would form part of their argument.

If you went into a mcdonalds and asked them for a bun in lgbtq rainbow colors and they refused because they can't dye the bread then it isn't discrimination.

If they started offering a bun dying service, but specifically refused to dye the bread in lgbtq colors then it would be discrimination.

You can't force them to start dying bread.

Coincidentally, there was an identical, perfectly analogous case in the UK and the courts have ruled in favour of the baker.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-bakery-that-refused-to-make-gay-wedding-cake

To give some specifics, the UK supreme court has ruled that in accordance to Article 10 of the European Human Rights Convention a baker cannot be compelled to express an opinion that they do not agree with. A baker cannot refuse to sell goods based on sexual orientation or other innate characteristics of the customer, but can refuse to create a bespoke message on said cake.

"This court has held that nobody should be forced to have or express a political opinion in which he does not believe [...] the bakers could not refuse to supply their goods to Mr Lee because he was a gay man or supported gay marriage, but that is quite different from obliging them to supply a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed."

In other words, the court considered the message on the cake as a form of expression, and as such forcing the baker to write a message that goes against their beliefs would be classified as compelled speech.

 

[smf]

And if I simply disliked the color combination?

Why do you need to like the color combination? It's your job.

It was his mistake to state that it was about sexuality.

In part it was their belief that discrimination against gay people was right and proper that betrayed him.

But I don't think they could give any refusal that any reasonable person would accept in court anyway.

Coincidentally, there was an identical, perfectly analogous case in the UK and the courts have ruled in favour of the baker.

Specifically it was in Northern Ireland, I think it would have gone differently if the bakery was in England. They don't want to give them any excuse to start bombing again. I believe the court came to the wrong conclusion as there is no expectation that the baker believes anything they are paid to write on a cake. But refusing means that the gay person is excluded from having a cake.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

Why do you need to like the color combination? It's your job.

Can you force a prostitute to sleep with you (for money) even if she does not want to due to your race?
It´s her "job" after all.

Discrimation laws like these are well-meant but ultimately pointless.

 

[smf]

Can you force a prostitute to sleep with you (for money) even if she does not want to due to your race?

You can't force anyone to sleep with you for any reason, it's illegal.

Having sex with someone and writing words on a cake are different.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

You can't force anyone to sleep with you for any reason, it's illegal.

And you can´t force me to move my hands to create a cake I don´t want to make. Maybe my boss could make me (but he was his own boss, I think).

 

[Foxi4]

Specifically it was in Northern Ireland, I think it would have gone differently if the bakery was in England. They don't want to give them any excuse to start bombing again.

The crux of the issue is what's being refused. That bakery would've refused to write a pro-gay message regardless of whether the person requesting it was gay or straight, black or white, Christian or atheist, human or a space alien. In fact, most times they don't even have a way of knowing - last time I bought a cake nobody asked me about my preferences. The point of contention is the message, not the customer requesting said message. If I, as a straight man, went in there and requested that cake, I would be faced with the same refusal, but I would not be discriminated against based on my sexuality - the baker just doesn't support what I support. Personally I think these kinds of restrictions are stupid - the baker doing so is losing business they would've otherwise made, but it is well-within their rights to refuse service if they disagree with the message.

 

[smf]

And you can´t force me to move my hands to create a cake I don´t want to make. Maybe my boss could make me (but he was his own boss, I think).

Sure, I can't force you. But if your refusal is because of hatred of gays then it's discrimination and I can sue you.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

Sure, I can't force you. But if your refusal is because of hatred of gays then it's discrimination and I can sue you.

And if the prostitute doesn´t want to sleep with you because of your race. Can you sue her?
Both cases are a form of slavery (sexual vs otherwise).

 

[smf]

That bakery would've refused to write a pro-gay message regardless of whether the person requesting it was gay or straight, black or white, Christian or atheist human or a space alien. The point of contention is the message, not the customer requesting said message.

But it's likely a cake with a gay message on it is for a gay person.

Gay people deserve to be able to receive cakes with messages on them that they want

And if the prostitute doesn´t want to sleep with you because of your race. Can you sue her?

Well that is an interesting question, as soliciting prostitution was illegal in many places then I suspect you'd not succeed in a court case. But again I think having sex with someone is a more intimate act than making a cake, so I think the court case would fail as they would balance the rights of both parties.

You can of course sue anyone for anything you like.