The result of the government’s expansion into the subprime mortgage market was that by the time of the financial crisis, more than half of all mortgages in the United States were subprime or otherwise low-quality mortgages.
Most religions have no real, concrete mention of same-sex marriage in any of their texts. It's the hateful, bigoted, religious mfkers that try to make an argument out of 2,000 year old text to reinforce their ignorant world views.
That’s not the case. Homosexual relationships are regarded as sinful in both the Old and New Testaments. It is very concrete and impossible to miss.
This is an interesting one. I suspect I'm far more liberal that most of the folks here (Joe Biden is too centrist for me, for example), but I think there is some nuance and I really don't know where I'd draw the line.
I'd also note that what I'd like the law to be bears no resemblance to what the law is and I don't know enough about constitutional law to talk about that part, either.
However, let's assume you want to hire a wedding photographer for your same-sex wedding. I think the photographer would be well within his/her rights to say "Sorry, not comfortable with same-sex weddings", but I'm less happy with a cake decorating place with a store front refusing to decorate a cake. Less happy, but not unhappy. If a store refuses to sell a gay couple a pre-made cake, then I have zero sympathy.
For me (again, not the law, just my opinion) the fact that a service involves creative work is relevant (selling me groceries is not a creative act. Making a cake and decorating it is). The fact that the person providing the service goes to you instead of you just coming to them seems to make a difference (IOW, they show up at your wedding vs. you go to their store and buy something for your wedding). There's also a matter of competition. The more competition, the less I'm concerned about individual acts of discrimination.
I think I'm fine with a web designer refusing to do work for a gay couple. They are generally individual contractors and can refuse work on the grounds that they don't feel like it. Plus, there are eight bajillion web designers out there. It's no real hardship.
How closely does this line up with the actual law? Beats me.
This is an interesting one. I suspect I'm far more liberal that most of the folks here (Joe Biden is too centrist for me, for example), but I think there is some nuance and I really don't know where I'd draw the line.
I'd also note that what I'd like the law to be bears no resemblance to what the law is and I don't know enough about constitutional law to talk about that part, either.
However, let's assume you want to hire a wedding photographer for your same-sex wedding. I think the photographer would be well within his/her rights to say "Sorry, not comfortable with same-sex weddings", but I'm less happy with a cake decorating place with a store front refusing to decorate a cake. Less happy, but not unhappy. If a store refuses to sell a gay couple a pre-made cake, then I have zero sympathy.
For me (again, not the law, just my opinion) the fact that a service involves creative work is relevant (selling me groceries is not a creative act. Making a cake and decorating it is). The fact that the person providing the service goes to you instead of you just coming to them seems to make a difference (IOW, they show up at your wedding vs. you go to their store and buy something for your wedding). There's also a matter of competition. The more competition, the less I'm concerned about individual acts of discrimination.
I think I'm fine with a web designer refusing to do work for a gay couple. They are generally individual contractors and can refuse work on the grounds that they don't feel like it. Plus, there are eight bajillion web designers out there. It's no real hardship.
How closely does this line up with the actual law? Beats me.
That is the whole point. We don't really care about your personal preference.
This is an interesting one. I suspect I'm far more liberal that most of the folks here (Joe Biden is too centrist for me, for example), but I think there is some nuance and I really don't know where I'd draw the line.
I'd also note that what I'd like the law to be bears no resemblance to what the law is and I don't know enough about constitutional law to talk about that part, either.
However, let's assume you want to hire a wedding photographer for your same-sex wedding. I think the photographer would be well within his/her rights to say "Sorry, not comfortable with same-sex weddings", but I'm less happy with a cake decorating place with a store front refusing to decorate a cake. Less happy, but not unhappy. If a store refuses to sell a gay couple a pre-made cake, then I have zero sympathy.
For me (again, not the law, just my opinion) the fact that a service involves creative work is relevant (selling me groceries is not a creative act. Making a cake and decorating it is). The fact that the person providing the service goes to you instead of you just coming to them seems to make a difference (IOW, they show up at your wedding vs. you go to their store and buy something for your wedding). There's also a matter of competition. The more competition, the less I'm concerned about individual acts of discrimination.
I think I'm fine with a web designer refusing to do work for a gay couple. They are generally individual contractors and can refuse work on the grounds that they don't feel like it. Plus, there are eight bajillion web designers out there. It's no real hardship.
How closely does this line up with the actual law? Beats me.
That is the whole point. We don't really care about your personal preference.
Imagine being so far left that you think Joe Biden is "too centrist".
I think I'm fine with a web designer refusing to do work for a gay couple.
Not a gay couple. Any gay couples.
"Colorado is censoring and compelling my speech," said [Lorie] Smith, who identifies as evangelical. No, she is allowed to yell all she wants about gays.
The ACLU contends that the state’s anti-discrimination law merely requires businesses offer their services to everyone and does not curtail speech. Smith would be within her right to include a statement on her websites saying that she disagrees with same sex marriage.
Her solution is simple. She "designs" a statement on her website to discourage gays from asking her to quote a job. She simply says she is too busy and tells them to find someone else. But that seems too hard for someone demanding their 15-minutes of fame.
Lorie Smith claims Colorado's anti-discrimination law violates her right to free speech over same-sex marriages, which she maintains are antithetical to her Christian values
For more, go to http://louderwithcrowder.com!Will Muslim bakeries make a gay wedding cake? Surpriiiise!Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/scrowderLik...
Democrats want reparations, even though there's already been so much welfare and affirmative action. The average (non African or Caribbean) black person receives 780 thousand dollars over their lifetime in handouts, while whites pay 220 thousand dollars to support them and Asians pay even more.
I say that we cut welfare. Some groups have lower IQ than others (85 vs 100 or 106) and thus are worse off.
Government has no right to tell people how they run their private businesses. The same goes for the cake baker and even Covid lockdowns. Government has no right to step in and be a third party to an A B interaction
Perhaps.
But this would seem to imply that no regulations of any sort are permissible since all regulations have the government "step in and be a third party to an A B interaction."
Indeed, by your declaration, no law of any kind would be permissible since laws, by their nature, have the government "step in and be a third party to an A B interaction."
So, no regulations concerning minimum wage, workplace safety, auto safety, environmental quality, ... or, for that matter, murder (interaction between A and B).
Not sure that your notion really works.
Nope you’re on the right track. And took the words out of my mouth
The type of industry should really be irrelevant. If a company uses the public good to make money then they should honor that in public good by discriminating.
what bothers me is the arbitrary way “Christians” practice their faith . There’s also that stuff in the Bible that they should be against like eating shellfish or making loans. but they go out of their way to be jerks about it.
You are not free to pay below min wage or ignore osha or not pay for taxes. And I’m sure your the first one to go crying to the police is something happens to your business mr free market
It's a bad sign for your argument when deflections and insults are all you have. We're not talking about affirmative action. Try to focus.
"I don't think the government should be in the segregation business" is a nonsensical answer in this context. The question is not whether the government should be in the segregation business, but whether the government should prohibit private actors from engaging in the segregation business.
You want private businesses to be able to discriminate based on skin color. You seem to be averse to saying this bluntly for some reason. Why is that?
Your first comment:
"Conservatives are so desperate to go back to the good ol' days when businesses could put up signs that said "WHITES ONLY.""
You suggest all conservatives are racist and then clutch your pearls when you're insulted back.
I don't tell you you're stupid to insult you I tell you you're stupid because it's a fact.
The "conservatives" you're referring to weren't "conservatives" in the modern sense they were dyed in the wool Democrats. Racist to their very core. Just like you.
Affirmative action is racist. You support it. It's not deflection to point out that you proudly support racist policy while you prance around pretending you're not racist.
Why are you happy to cheer for government enforced racism that's mandatory but you pretend to be upset about voluntary racism?
Any non-imbecile understand that compulsory racism is much worse than voluntary racism.
Do I think private citizens should be able to choose who they do business with? Yes.
Do I think private citizens should discriminate based on race? No.
Open up a "whites only" cupcake shop and watch what happens. It will be protested and boycotted until it goes out of business.
Open up a "blacks only" cupcake shop and lily white morons like you will call it "brave and beautiful".
There’s this restaurant in Georgia that’s openly racist and it’s doing just fine. Look up Georgia Peach Oyster Bar. They’re doing just fine. Turns out, you just have to have enough racist people in the area and you’ll have no problem staying in business.
It’s a rare day when I agree with 2600 But he hit the mail on the head.
if a business refuses to sell to blacks people for example, it’s up to the community to take their money elsewhere and this business will suffer economically for their choice.
So if a bank refuses to lend money to someone who is black other mortgage customers will take their business elsewhere? Do you really think this would happen? And what if the rest of the community is supportive of a businees refusing to serve a particular minority, people of Arab descent, for example?
The feds likely have more say in Banking since most finance in the US is propped up by the feds. I am skeptical the same could be said about small retail business etc…
It’s worth letting the bulk of the economy be as intentionally laissez faire as possible… to do otherwise is a recipe for failure.
However, I concede that stuff like providers of of capital or basic municipal resources should not be allowed to discriminate.
