• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Liberals Can't Have Their Cake And Eat It To

MrWonka said:
Really? Cause that sounds like exactly what Trump does all the time. The difference is that I put forth a rational argument for why you should accept my conclusion rather than just say it's so. And for the record, you have yet to put forth any kind of rebuttal to my argument because you can't.
Click to expand...

Everyone who thinks they are right puts forth their idea of a rational argument for why someone should accept their conclusion. It makes sense in their head. There is no shortage of idiots who think this way, including Trump and others here on DP who shall remain nameless. As I said, anyone who thinks they are right most of the time is already partisan to begin with. It's also called arrogance and the left are about as arrogant as you can get.
 
HonestJoe said:
No.

If any group is thrown out because they’re wearing the hats, that would be legal (but not necessarily right).
If any group is thrown out because of their race or gender (including white males), that would be illegal.

The motive of the business is the key (one of the reasons such cases are difficult to sort out). If an establishment threw you out because they thought you were gay, they’d be guilty of discrimination even if they were mistaken.
Click to expand...

Oh come on. You know darn well if blacks were thrown out of an establishment for wearing MAGA hats, they would be suing for discrimination.
 
OscarLevant said:
Businesses are allowed to have dress codes. Remember the common "no shirt, no shoes, no service"?

In the case of MAGA hats, that business probably experienced too many bar fights because of such hats, and they are just trying to keep the peace in their establishment, which they have every right to do.


A business has the right to refuse service to anyone, as long as it is not based on race, creed, etc...
Click to expand...

But if it were women, blacks, or gays wearing the MAGA hats, it would be discrimination. Discrimination is anytime something doesn't go right for minorities.
 
Moderate Right said:
Everyone who thinks they are right puts forth their idea of a rational argument for why someone should accept their conclusion.
Click to expand...
You still haven't. All you have done so far is accuse me of liberal bias, but you have not even attempted to poke a hole in the arguments I put forth because you can't.
 
Moderate Right said:
Oh come on. You know darn well if blacks were thrown out of an establishment for wearing MAGA hats, they would be suing for discrimination.
Click to expand...
That's irrelevant to the point I was addressing. Everything I said is an accurate representation of the actual law in the USA.
 
Moderate Right said:
But if it were women, blacks, or gays wearing the MAGA hats, it would be discrimination. Discrimination is anytime something doesn't go right for minorities.
Click to expand...

You are sidestepping the argument
 
MrWonka said:
You still haven't. All you have done so far is accuse me of liberal bias, but you have not even attempted to poke a hole in the arguments I put forth because you can't.
Click to expand...

Because you are nothing but a rabid partisan who, no matter what, thinks he is right all the time. Only morons think they are right all the time. I will never be able to get past your partisan mind because that is all you know.
 
HonestJoe said:
That's irrelevant to the point I was addressing. Everything I said is an accurate representation of the actual law in the USA.
Click to expand...

Fact is if blacks were thrown out of an establishment for sporting MAGA hats, it would be discrimination. But, since it was white males, no discrimination. That's the liberal way.
 
Moderate Right said:
Because you are nothing but a rabid partisan
Click to expand...
False. I grew up in a conservative family. In 2000 I supported John McCain until he lost the primary. I ended up voting for Ralph Nader. Even as recently as 2006 I would have classified myself as a libertarian, not a liberal. I support the Democratic party because they are the only viable political party with a shred of decency and because I've seen first hand how evil the Republican party has become.

Moderate Right said:
I will never be able to get past your partisan mind because that is all you know.
Click to expand...

No, you won't try because you know you don't have an argument. I point for point decimated the so-called "good point" that was made in this pathetically idiotic article you posted, and you have nothing to say in your defense but pretend I'm the one who is biased when it is painfully obvious that it is you.

It is the Republican party that is suffering from rabid tribalism, and an inability to put the good of the country over their own party. Not me. My dream for the future is a country where the Republican party doesn't exist, and the two major parties are Democrats and Libertarians. Then I might have a difficult choice on my hands. But the Republican party might as well be the Nazi party or the Confederacy at this point.
 
Moderate Right said:
Very good points in the article.


http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...eir-cake-and-eat-it-too-in-supreme-court-case
Click to expand...

Seriously? You read the editorial and that's all you had to say about it? "Good points." ROTFL No amplification. No expounding on any of the legal theories applicable to the matter. No exposition of your own thoughts on the subject matter of the essay -- beyond "good points." No extrapolation of any of the ideas the writer expressed. Not even so much as a non-leading/-loaded rubric question or statement. No remarks about the implications of a broad or narrow constructionist reading the 1st. Just your own bald declaration that the writer made good points. Whoo hoo....so much for gravitas....


whoopdedoo.gif

Of course, Turley raised good points in his essay. He makes his living as a writer; it's his job, as is every other writer's, to make good points. Regardless of whether one agrees with an editorialist, plaintiff or defendant's argument, they all make good points. The question is how soundly/cogently supported are those points, not whether they are good. On that, your OP is silent.
 
This legal matter Turley discusses, while some have framed it as a Constitutional one, strikes me not as a 1st Amendment issue but as a matter of tort law.

To my mind:
  1. Masterpiece, as a retail bakery, has a standing offer to produce custom made cakes. AFAIK, they don't advertise any restrictions (actual or potential) on that offer. Were Masterpiece not a retail establishment, I might feel differently, but they are a retailer.
    • "Custom designs are his specialty: If you can think it up, Jack can make it into a cake! .... Select from one of our galleries or order a custom design. Call or come in. We look forward to serving you!" (Source)
  2. The deliverable Masterpiece provides to any client does not attest to the firm's approbation of whatever ideas, activities or images appearing on the cake. Indeed, the bakery's name isn't even on the deliverable; thus there's no basis for anyone thinking the baker is anything other than a tradesman carrying out an instruction as a matter of business, profit.
    • The cake is not a form of advertising for the baker. Where as a firm may sponsor a host of endeavors -- auto racing, regattas, other sporting events and/or teams, charity events, etc. -- whereby their name and resources (money, property or human) are evident, the same just isn't the case with a cake produced for a client. Indeed, for all the cakes I've ordered, not one of them has come in anything other than a plain container and never does the baker's name appear on the cake.

      box.jpg


      170618220346-americas-cup-team-new-zealand-speed-blur-exlarge-169.jpg
  3. In light of #2, whatever explicit or tacit expressions appearing on the deliverable are those of the client, not the service provider. Accordingly the expression that might otherwise make the matter Constitutional is that of the client, not the baker.

I think Phillips' claim is a bunch of BS.

Various writers are provided space to periodically produce a deliverable -- an essay -- on some topic of the writer's choosing. Those writers who have a contract to provide that deliverable are columnists and those who provide content on an ad hoc basis are op-ed writers. In each case, however, the views expressed are those of the writer, not the publisher and editors of the publication in which the piece appears. Indeed, that is the case with the editorial the OP-er links to in post #1. It states right below the title, "THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL."

The cakes Phillips would make, and whatever editorial imagery or language they may express, for any client are no different. Phillips should have just made the damn cake and gone on with his life and business.
 
Last edited:
FreedomFromAll said:
Try searching: Civil rights/discrimination laws.
Click to expand...
Yes, I was accounting for that. My point was that the default is that businesses can refuse anyone and then those laws add specific exemptions or conditions on top of that. I was responding to the question of why it was legal to throw out people wearing MAGA hats when the question needs to be why would it be illegal. It's legal unless a specific act of illegal discrimination can be demonstrated (which hasn't been in that example).
 
My worry is that it is too easy to claim someone is being kicked out for speech when it's really something else. Also, given that speech is the most important right to the fabric of society, it is better to overprotect it than underprotect it. My proposed solution to this is that any business can deny any product or service for any reason (race, religion, speech, etc.) as long as there is a business willing to provide that same product/service (or one similar enough) in the area. So, for instance, a Christian cake shop would be able to deny baking a wedding cake for a gay couple as long as there is a business willing to bake a wedding cake within a reasonable area. If there isn't, the Christian cake shop would be forced to make an accommodation.

I see my proposal as a win-win, because people will be encouraged to get their products/services from those who want to provide them, but nobody is left without a place to get that product/service from. The downfall is that this would be a very subjective law as to what constitutes "similar" as well as what constitutes being within range. Still, I think this is a fairly good solution that seeks to be a win-win, even if compromising slightly. What do you guys think of my idea?
 
MrWonka said:
False. I grew up in a conservative family. In 2000 I supported John McCain until he lost the primary. I ended up voting for Ralph Nader. Even as recently as 2006 I would have classified myself as a libertarian, not a liberal. I support the Democratic party because they are the only viable political party with a shred of decency and because I've seen first hand how evil the Republican party has become.



No, you won't try because you know you don't have an argument. I point for point decimated the so-called "good point" that was made in this pathetically idiotic article you posted, and you have nothing to say in your defense but pretend I'm the one who is biased when it is painfully obvious that it is you.

It is the Republican party that is suffering from rabid tribalism, and an inability to put the good of the country over their own party. Not me. My dream for the future is a country where the Republican party doesn't exist, and the two major parties are Democrats and Libertarians. Then I might have a difficult choice on my hands. But the Republican party might as well be the Nazi party or the Confederacy at this point.
Click to expand...

Your posting on here shows you to be nothing but a rabid partisan.
 
Xelor said:
Seriously? You read the editorial and that's all you had to say about it? "Good points." ROTFL No amplification. No expounding on any of the legal theories applicable to the matter. No exposition of your own thoughts on the subject matter of the essay -- beyond "good points." No extrapolation of any of the ideas the writer expressed. Not even so much as a non-leading/-loaded rubric question or statement. No remarks about the implications of a broad or narrow constructionist reading the 1st. Just your own bald declaration that the writer made good points. Whoo hoo....so much for gravitas....


whoopdedoo.gif

Of course, Turley raised good points in his essay. He makes his living as a writer; it's his job, as is every other writer's, to make good points. Regardless of whether one agrees with an editorialist, plaintiff or defendant's argument, they all make good points. The question is how soundly/cogently supported are those points, not whether they are good. On that, your OP is silent.
Click to expand...

In other words, you can't rebut anything in the editorial.
 
Somerville said:
. . . and your comments show that you are apparently unable to respond in any rational manner to those you see as political opponents.
Click to expand...

Let me know when you guys post something rational. So far all I see is rabid partisanship. I can't debate rabid partisanship.
 
Moderate Right said:
Let me know when you guys post something rational. So far all I see is rabid partisanship. I can't debate rabid partisanship.
Click to expand...

You know what's rabid partisanship? Six straight years of telling us we weren't going to believe what Trump's "top people" were finding about Obama's real birth certificate?
 
Moderate Right said:
Your posting on here shows you to be nothing but a rabid partisan.
Click to expand...

Believing the world to be round doesn't make you biased in favor of a round planet it means you're intelligent enough to recognize the truth. Believing that 2+2=4, not 5 doesn't make you biased in favor of the number 4, it means you have a basic understanding of how math works. At this point, there is only one political party in America you can support if you want to consider yourself a decent and intelligent human being. I live in a world of facts, data, math, and evidence. It's not my fault it all points to the same inescapable conclusion or that you're too obtuse to recognize it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom