Other Forums |OT| ♀ C O R E V A L U E S ♀ Sponsored By THQNordic

[VomKriege]

Aren't fucked up stories against the rules? Like what is there to discuss about this?

https://www.resetera.com/threads/15-yr-old-bronx-teen-dragged-out-of-store-stabbed-repeatedly.51010/#post-9610187

It's official, Trump presidency isn't too fucked up even for ERA. Checkmate.

[benjipwns]

The principle isn't "companies should be able to serve who they want", it's "people who didn't do anything wrong shouldn't be punished, people who have done something wrong should".

And yet ERA preemptively refuses to tolerate us Doxxer-Americans through no fault of our own, causing our very humanity to be questioned:

We have a zero-tolerance policy on hate speech, bullying, harassment and doxing. Any users found to be involved in this behaviour will be banned.

[tummyfat]

Look at this post I found on stormfront about Masterpiece Bakery

If this happened to a normal person, they would go home and reflect and have an epiphany because her kids are probably asking her why she was denied service, but this is not a normal human, so she will continue being the scum that she is.

[Cauliflower Of Love]

Aren't fucked up stories against the rules? Like what is there to discuss about this?

https://www.resetera.com/threads/15-yr-old-bronx-teen-dragged-out-of-store-stabbed-repeatedly.51010/#post-9610187

It's official, Trump presidency isn't too fucked up even for ERA. Checkmate.

That shit is ether.

I find this to be a particularly idiotic and pathetic question. If we can spend multiple pages discussing the death of some abusive rap star, why not keep that same energy with an innocent(?) 15 yr old kid?

I dunno. Fuck it lock the thread since it bothers yall so much.

[jorma]

Threads like that Sarah Huckabee thread are the absolute worst that GAF/RE have to offer.

People are so childish and over emotional and self righteous about it, the Nazi comparisons are so
fucking overblown and they dogpile anyone who says “Well that’s kind of a shitty thing for the restaurant to do” to oblivion. What a cesspool

maybe sarah should stop being a piece of shit.

Her job is to be a mouthpiece for a piece of shit

My issue has nothing to do with whether Sarah is a piece of shit or not, it is how inconsistent these people are on these issues. If it was a Christian baker refusing to make a gay wedding cake, they would respond to it differently. If that is the case, then surely they should object to this on principle?

You're conflating a sexual orientation with someone being a racist's voluntary functionary. The principle isn't "companies should be able to serve who they want", it's "people who didn't do anything wrong shouldn't be punished, people who have done something wrong should".

Private companies probably shouldn't be mandated to "punish people who do wrong".

[benjipwns]

So transphobia and racism gets you a one week ban (or three days or five days) usually. But...

User Banned (two weeks): History of bad faith arguments, moving goalposts, to defend a company.

That what I said... Epic choose the easy way to code just an account block instead to handle it in a proper way.

Said that the biggest issue with Crossplay for platform holders is the share of the revenue from purchase... that is thing that the developers/publishers will have to find a solution in the middle way where all platform holders get a share to make them accept Crossplay.

While they didn’t reach a consensus for all parts Crossplay won’t work in a business sense.

But that is another talk not related to the account block... that is on Epic side to fix the things.

[tummyfat]

I wish it was Ben Carson who was denied service so the forum would eat itself

[sphagnum]

Threads like that Sarah Huckabee thread are the absolute worst that GAF/RE have to offer.

People are so childish and over emotional and self righteous about it, the Nazi comparisons are so
fucking overblown and they dogpile anyone who says “Well that’s kind of a shitty thing for the restaurant to do” to oblivion. What a cesspool

maybe sarah should stop being a piece of shit.

Her job is to be a mouthpiece for a piece of shit

My issue has nothing to do with whether Sarah is a piece of shit or not, it is how inconsistent these people are on these issues. If it was a Christian baker refusing to make a gay wedding cake, they would respond to it differently. If that is the case, then surely they should object to this on principle?

You're conflating a sexual orientation with someone being a racist's voluntary functionary. The principle isn't "companies should be able to serve who they want", it's "people who didn't do anything wrong shouldn't be punished, people who have done something wrong should".

Private companies probably shouldn't be mandated to "punish people who do wrong".

Who mandated it?

[benjipwns]

also, this is fun:

User Warned: Personal attacks against another member (avatar shaming).

I will 100% be going with Xbox as my main platform over PlayStation next gen if Sony doesn't change.

Looking at you avatar that was the case this gen as well. Nothing lost, nothing gained.

[Cauliflower Of Love]

ben carson already denied service to having self respect.

The travesty that is happening in HUD is just as bad at the HHS things, and everything happening at the EPA, and every fucking thing.

[Leadbelly]

Threads like that Sarah Huckabee thread are the absolute worst that GAF/RE have to offer.

People are so childish and over emotional and self righteous about it, the Nazi comparisons are so
fucking overblown and they dogpile anyone who says “Well that’s kind of a shitty thing for the restaurant to do” to oblivion. What a cesspool

maybe sarah should stop being a piece of shit.

Her job is to be a mouthpiece for a piece of shit

My issue has nothing to do with whether Sarah is a piece of shit or not, it is how inconsistent these people are on these issues. If it was a Christian baker refusing to make a gay wedding cake, they would respond to it differently. If that is the case, then surely they should object to this on principle?

You're conflating a sexual orientation with someone being a racist's voluntary functionary. The principle isn't "companies should be able to serve who they want", it's "people who didn't do anything wrong shouldn't be punished, people who have done something wrong should".

Private companies probably shouldn't be mandated to "punish people who do wrong".

Especially when 'done wrong' means being the press secretary to an unpopular president, and nothing more.

[Nintex]

ben carson already denied service to having self respect.

The travesty that is happening in HUD is just as bad at the HHS things, and everything happening at the EPA, and every fucking thing.

I wonder how Rick Perry and the nukes are doing. 

[benjipwns]

hey, remember that time Robert Gibbs responded to a question about an American citizen, who was a minor, being assassinated on the President's orders without any form of due process by saying "I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father"

it's gonna be hard to top that one, i wish Sarah the best in making history

[sphagnum]

Threads like that Sarah Huckabee thread are the absolute worst that GAF/RE have to offer.

People are so childish and over emotional and self righteous about it, the Nazi comparisons are so
fucking overblown and they dogpile anyone who says “Well that’s kind of a shitty thing for the restaurant to do” to oblivion. What a cesspool

maybe sarah should stop being a piece of shit.

Her job is to be a mouthpiece for a piece of shit

My issue has nothing to do with whether Sarah is a piece of shit or not, it is how inconsistent these people are on these issues. If it was a Christian baker refusing to make a gay wedding cake, they would respond to it differently. If that is the case, then surely they should object to this on principle?

You're conflating a sexual orientation with someone being a racist's voluntary functionary. The principle isn't "companies should be able to serve who they want", it's "people who didn't do anything wrong shouldn't be punished, people who have done something wrong should".

Private companies probably shouldn't be mandated to "punish people who do wrong".

Especially when 'done wrong' means being the press secretary to an unpopular president, and nothing more.

Her job - which is voluntary - is to lie and spin PR for a monstrous idiot. She's not doing some noble work, trying to keep a department from imploding under his misrule. Toss her to the wolves - she has nobody to blame but herself.

[KarpalaJoe]

compare the weight of the moves, the impact they have. How the choreography works because they trained for months. The New Trilogy is shit in that regard.

The fact that you saw them when you were young still affect your judgement on it. Most of New Trilogy haters are Prequel Trilogy fans that grow with that version of Star Wars. You're just old 

MF.

It's even more true for Star Wars though. The people bitching about how the prequels are bad are 100% nostalgia biased. The reality is none of the Star Wars movies are good. They have their moments from time to time, but that's it.

I've watched the OG trilogy recently and it was embarassing. I'll never forget this scene :



The action, the acting, the writing, the dialogue, the cheeziness... It's worse than bad.

The whole Star Wars franchise can't hold a single candle to the true GOAT : the OG LOTR trilogy. 

[sphagnum]

Obi-Wan vs Maul in Rebels remains the best lightsaber duel

[benjipwns]

noticing a lot of posters without avatars on this page, how are we supposed to be avatar shaming properly?

[Cauliflower Of Love]

ben carson already denied service to having self respect.

The travesty that is happening in HUD is just as bad at the HHS things, and everything happening at the EPA, and every fucking thing.

I wonder how Rick Perry and the nukes are doing. 

I think he's distinguished mentally-challenged enough to

omg rick perry is head of the Department of Energy


jfc

[Coax]

I've watched the OG trilogy recently and it was embarassing. I'll never forget this scene :

The action, the acting, the writing, the dialogue, the cheeziness... It's worse than bad.

Tbf RotJ has no redeeming qualities. ESB is at least a decent flick and has the fewest changes over time of the three. There are far more rewarding films to watch but same could be said of most films.

[Leadbelly]

Her job - which is voluntary - is to lie and spin PR for a monstrous idiot. She's not doing some noble work, trying to keep a department from imploding under his misrule. Toss her to the wolves - she has nobody to blame but herself.

I am reminded of a case in Ireland where a baker refused to make a gay wedding cake. They didn't refuse to actually bake them a wedding cake, they refused to make a specifically gay wedding cake. It was the messaging of the cake they took issue with. They apologised and gave them the number of another cake shop that would do what they wanted.

I remember Patrick Stewart weighing in on this. He said something interesting which I agree with.


Now do you think any of these people on RE would be this nuanced on cases like this? And that's the thing, the issue is complex, and you have to think about it carefully and seriously.

The way I see it, if you think it is fine to refuse Sarah Sanders on some kind of moral grounds, then you have to carefully consider the point of view of others who you may disagree with. Otherwise it becomes merely arbitrary and without any real principle to it.

[BisMarckie]

[railGUN]

REE users still stealing content to syphon advertising money away from people who actually, you know, work, and into the pockets of anonymous forum owners.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/game-of-thrones-kit-harington-and-rose-leslie-marry-in-scotland.51041/

Funny, they copied and pasted the entire article, but skipped this part:

Since you’re here …
… we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever but advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. And unlike many news organisations, we haven’t put up a paywall – we want to keep our journalism as open as we can. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters – because it might well be your perspective, too.

[agrajag]

Sohagum, do you think it is a good practice for forum mods to ban members for things they've done outside of the forum?

[Nabbis]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/eroticising-and-sexualising-researcher-slams-ad-campaign-featuring-pregnant-12-year-old-girl.44803/

So now it's okay not to take a black woman's word on how that content is viewed as problematic? 

On a somewhat related note, do these dumbasses understand what type of shitstorm it would cause in Finland if a government financed media outlet would go against this woman in the current political climate? The only result is that it would seem racist.

[benjipwns]

REE users still stealing content to syphon advertising money away from people who actually, you know, work, and into the pockets of anonymous forum owners.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/game-of-thrones-kit-harington-and-rose-leslie-marry-in-scotland.51041/

Funny, they copied and pasted the entire article, but skipped this part:

Since you’re here …
… we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever but advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. And unlike many news organisations, we haven’t put up a paywall – we want to keep our journalism as open as we can. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters – because it might well be your perspective, too.

I'm afraid you're mistaken:

IV. Other Disallowed Content

Copyrighted material and piracy: Do not post copyrighted material such as magazine scans. This policy also applies to copying and pasting entire articles or reports for redistribution on ResetEra.

[nudemacusers]

Sohagum, do you think it is a good practice for forum mods to ban members for things they've done outside of the forum?

Is this the first step in the amirox resetera mod campaign?

[benjipwns]

Sohagum, do you think it is a good practice for forum mods to ban members for things they've done outside of the forum?

Is this the first step in the amirox resetera mod campaign?

none of the ResetERA mods and admins even knew his name

[Nintex]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/eroticising-and-sexualising-researcher-slams-ad-campaign-featuring-pregnant-12-year-old-girl.44803/

So now it's okay not to take a black woman's word on how that content is viewed as problematic? 

On a somewhat related note, do these dumbasses understand what type of shitstorm it would cause in Finland if a government financed media outlet would go against this woman in the current political climate? The only result is that it would seem racist.

I like how they have no problem with a pregnant 12 year old. Whatsoever. 

[sphagnum]

Her job - which is voluntary - is to lie and spin PR for a monstrous idiot. She's not doing some noble work, trying to keep a department from imploding under his misrule. Toss her to the wolves - she has nobody to blame but herself.

I am reminded of a case in Ireland where the baker refused to make a gay wedding cake. They didn't refuse to actually bake them a wedding cake, they refused to make a specifically gay wedding cake. It was the messaging of the cake they took issue with. They apologised and gave them the number of another cake shop that would do what they wanted.

I remember Patrick Stewart weighing in on this. He said something interesting which I agree with.


Now do you think any of these people on RE would be this nuanced on cases like this? And that's the thing, the issue is complex, and you have to think about it carefully and seriously.

The way I see it, if you think it is fine to refuse Sarah Sanders on some kind of moral grounds, then you have to carefully consider the point of view of others who you may disagree with. Otherwise it becomes merely arbitrary and without any real principle to it.

It's not complex. SHS is being judged based on her actions. That's it, the end. There's no sticky question about religious freedoms or whatever. If you must boil it down to some neutral principle, the equivalent would be a restaurant refusing to serve Obama because he pushed for the ACA or whatever.

Sohagum, do you think it is a good practice for forum mods to ban members for things they've done outside of the forum?

Depends on what they did.

[Nintex]

It's tricky really,

No it's not. It's as easy as not sticking your dick in a 12 year old and/or photographing or filming them. 

[benjipwns]

Sohagum, do you think it is a good practice for forum mods to ban members for things they've done outside of the forum?

Depends on what they did.

didn't vote in the 2016 election

[nudemacusers]

Sohagum, do you think it is a good practice for forum mods to ban members for things they've done outside of the forum?

Depends on what they did.

didn't vote in the 2016 election

Fairly confident nobody at reset skipped that one. Would be inconceivable.

[Nintex]

Even in this thread, RE members being happy with refusal of service given it is someone they don't like while calling people who refuse service for any reason to people "on their side" Nazis isn't even worth talking about. That's a given and expected.

As a public figure Sarah should know better not just to waddle in anywhere. Some actors and other politicians face the same thing.

However, with the kids there it's really weak of the restaurant owners to behave like this. 

Sohagum, do you think it is a good practice for forum mods to ban members for things they've done outside of the forum?

Depends on what they did.

didn't vote in the 2016 election

Fairly confident nobody at reset skipped that one. Would be inconceivable.

Shinobi speaks the incredible insider and information broker of the video game industry 628 was too busy promoting Mass Effect: Andromeda to go vote.
In fact, the GAF post-voting thread was full of people who said: "Meh, didn't vote, didn't think it would make a difference".

[Maiden Voyage]

https://twitter.com/bbccomedy/status/1010189882503950336

This is fucking awesome.

[Cauliflower Of Love]

Sohagum, do you think it is a good practice for forum mods to ban members for things they've done outside of the forum?

Depends on what they did.

didn't vote in the 2016 election

Fairly confident nobody at reset skipped that one. Would be inconceivable.

they were too busy gofunding adams fake adopted kids.

[railGUN]

I'm afraid you're mistaken:

IV. Other Disallowed Content

Copyrighted material and piracy: Do not post copyrighted material such as magazine scans. This policy also applies to copying and pasting entire articles or reports for redistribution on ResetEra.

They updated the thread to include a bunch of photos, all uncredited 

Top shelf moderation, REE!

[tummyfat]

Her job - which is voluntary - is to lie and spin PR for a monstrous idiot. She's not doing some noble work, trying to keep a department from imploding under his misrule. Toss her to the wolves - she has nobody to blame but herself.

I am reminded of a case in Ireland where the baker refused to make a gay wedding cake. They didn't refuse to actually bake them a wedding cake, they refused to make a specifically gay wedding cake. It was the messaging of the cake they took issue with. They apologised and gave them the number of another cake shop that would do what they wanted.

I remember Patrick Stewart weighing in on this. He said something interesting which I agree with.


Now do you think any of these people on RE would be this nuanced on cases like this? And that's the thing, the issue is complex, and you have to think about it carefully and seriously.

The way I see it, if you think it is fine to refuse Sarah Sanders on some kind of moral grounds, then you have to carefully consider the point of view of others who you may disagree with. Otherwise it becomes merely arbitrary and without any real principle to it.

It's not complex. SHS is being judged based on her actions. That's it, the end. There's no sticky question about religious freedoms or whatever. If you must boil it down to some neutral principle, the equivalent would be a restaurant refusing to serve Obama because he pushed for the ACA or whatever.

How about Obama for locking unaccompanied Guatemalan kids in cages if we're looking for a true 1:1? (Still not 1:1 because SHS is just a mouthpiece who no one will give a shit about once she resigns. See: Spicer, Scaramucci, et al)

No one gave a shit and if a restaurant used that to specifically deny him service, GAF/RE would have been on Obama's side and called the restaurant racist.

[Leadbelly]

It's not complex. SHS is being judged based on her actions. That's it, the end. There's no sticky question about religious freedoms or whatever. If you must boil it down to some neutral principle, the equivalent would be a restaurant refusing to serve Obama because he pushed for the ACA or whatever.

I'm not sure what difference this really makes. At first you are establishing that it is okay to refuse service on purely moral grounds. The restaurant is making a moral judgement by refusing her service. It is not something she has done in the restaurant, it is not her behaviour in the restaurant. The owner simply doesn't like her politics and has decided on moral grounds to refuse her service.

A Christian baker in Ireland refuses to make a specifically gay wedding cake. The gay couple were not refused service because of being gay, the baker didn't object to baking them cake. It was the wording they took issue with. Ultimately though it is a refusal of service (a specific type of service) purely on moral grounds.

You say there is no sticky question about religious freedom in this case. How about forget about the religious freedom aspect of it, and judge it purely on the grounds of civil liberties?

My point isn't really about whether or not you believe a business owner has the right to deny service in a case like this, it is about the inconsistency in the way specific cases are viewed.

[Nintex]

If I was the baker I would've baked the cake and changed the words to:

"This cake is gay af"

Knowing most gays are quite savage themselves they would've probably enjoyed it.

[Cauliflower Of Love]

It's not complex. SHS is being judged based on her actions. That's it, the end. There's no sticky question about religious freedoms or whatever. If you must boil it down to some neutral principle, the equivalent would be a restaurant refusing to serve Obama because he pushed for the ACA or whatever.

I'm not sure what difference this really makes. At first you are establishing that it is okay to refuse service on purely moral grounds. The restaurant is making a moral judgement by refusing her service. It is not something she has done in the restaurant, it is not her behaviour in the restaurant. The owner simply doesn't like her politics and has decided on moral grounds to refuse her service.

A Christian baker in Ireland refuses to make a specifically gay wedding cake. The gay couple were not refused service because of being gay, the baker didn't object to baking them cake. It was the wording they took issue with. Ultimately though it is a refusal of service (a specific type of service) purely on moral grounds.

You say there is no sticky question about religious freedom in this case. How about forget about the religious freedom aspect of it, and judge it purely on the grounds of civil liberties?

My point isn't really about whether or not you believe a business owner has the right to deny service in a case like this, it is about the inconsistency in the way specific cases are viewed.

Literally icing on the cake.

[sphagnum]

Her job - which is voluntary - is to lie and spin PR for a monstrous idiot. She's not doing some noble work, trying to keep a department from imploding under his misrule. Toss her to the wolves - she has nobody to blame but herself.

I am reminded of a case in Ireland where the baker refused to make a gay wedding cake. They didn't refuse to actually bake them a wedding cake, they refused to make a specifically gay wedding cake. It was the messaging of the cake they took issue with. They apologised and gave them the number of another cake shop that would do what they wanted.

I remember Patrick Stewart weighing in on this. He said something interesting which I agree with.


Now do you think any of these people on RE would be this nuanced on cases like this? And that's the thing, the issue is complex, and you have to think about it carefully and seriously.

The way I see it, if you think it is fine to refuse Sarah Sanders on some kind of moral grounds, then you have to carefully consider the point of view of others who you may disagree with. Otherwise it becomes merely arbitrary and without any real principle to it.

It's not complex. SHS is being judged based on her actions. That's it, the end. There's no sticky question about religious freedoms or whatever. If you must boil it down to some neutral principle, the equivalent would be a restaurant refusing to serve Obama because he pushed for the ACA or whatever.

How about Obama for locking unaccompanied Guatemalan kids in cages if we're looking for a true 1:1? (Still not 1:1 because SHS is just a mouthpiece who no one will give a shit about once she resigns. See: Spicer, Scaramucci, et al)

No one gave a shit and if a restaurant used that to specifically deny him service, GAF/RE would have been on Obama's side and called the restaurant racist.

I mean I'd be fine with Obama being denied whatever for all sorts of shit he did. I have no love for the American government. And I don't really care what liberals on Resetera would think about that situation since I'm not a liberal.

Back to the cake thing for a second, I think there was some confusion here because of my use of "should". When I say should, I'm not referring to legal punishments that the government must enact, I'm just saying should in the moral "ought" sense. I actually agree that bakers shouldn't be forced to make cakes with messages on them that they disagree with/find offensive regardless of how stupid or wrong they are. The gay couples trying to buy cakes shouldn't be treated that way, but legally it has to be allowed. What can't be allowed is bakers refusing to provide services to a gay person for being gay, just like a diner shouldn't be able to refuse service to a black patron.

If a black person wanted a cake that said Black Power but the baker refused to make it because they are stupid and think that's racist or something, they should be able to do that. But they shouldn't be able to bar a black person from getting a cake in general. You have the right to be treated equally, but the content of a particular service demand may not need to be fulfilled. So long as the baker can prove they have a genuine issue with the particular service and not the person requesting it, that's "fine". But realistically that baker is probably still a shit head who should be protested.

This differs from the SHS situation, which is that she is being refused service based on her actions, not based on her gender, race, religion, sexuality, or so forth.

[Cauliflower Of Love]

You make cakes for a living, shut the fuck up an bake one and put what they ask.

When you get home and your wife's boyfriend is fucking her in the ass, do you ask if he's gay cause he lets you eat that dick?

Same premise.

[HaughtyFrank]

All of this will be solved once we get those robot bakers going.

[Leadbelly]

Her job - which is voluntary - is to lie and spin PR for a monstrous idiot. She's not doing some noble work, trying to keep a department from imploding under his misrule. Toss her to the wolves - she has nobody to blame but herself.

I am reminded of a case in Ireland where the baker refused to make a gay wedding cake. They didn't refuse to actually bake them a wedding cake, they refused to make a specifically gay wedding cake. It was the messaging of the cake they took issue with. They apologised and gave them the number of another cake shop that would do what they wanted.

I remember Patrick Stewart weighing in on this. He said something interesting which I agree with.


Now do you think any of these people on RE would be this nuanced on cases like this? And that's the thing, the issue is complex, and you have to think about it carefully and seriously.

The way I see it, if you think it is fine to refuse Sarah Sanders on some kind of moral grounds, then you have to carefully consider the point of view of others who you may disagree with. Otherwise it becomes merely arbitrary and without any real principle to it.

It's not complex. SHS is being judged based on her actions. That's it, the end. There's no sticky question about religious freedoms or whatever. If you must boil it down to some neutral principle, the equivalent would be a restaurant refusing to serve Obama because he pushed for the ACA or whatever.

How about Obama for locking unaccompanied Guatemalan kids in cages if we're looking for a true 1:1? (Still not 1:1 because SHS is just a mouthpiece who no one will give a shit about once she resigns. See: Spicer, Scaramucci, et al)

No one gave a shit and if a restaurant used that to specifically deny him service, GAF/RE would have been on Obama's side and called the restaurant racist.

I mean I'd be fine with Obama being denied whatever for all sorts of shit he did. I have no love for the American government. And I don't really care what liberals on Resetera would think about that situation since I'm not a liberal.

Back to the cake thing for a second, I think there was some confusion here because of my use of "should". When I say should, I'm not referring to legal punishments that the government must enact, I'm just saying should in the moral "ought" sense. I actually agree that bakers shouldn't be forced to make cakes with messages on them that they disagree with/find offensive regardless of how stupid or wrong they are. The gay couples trying to buy cakes shouldn't be treated that way, but legally it has to be allowed. What can't be allowed is bakers refusing to provide services to a gay person for being gay, just like a diner shouldn't be able to refuse service to a black patron.

If a black person wanted a cake that said Black Power but the baker refused to make it because they are stupid and think that's racist or something, they should be able to do that. But they shouldn't be able to bar a black person from getting a cake in general. You have the right to be treated equally, but the content of a particular service demand may not need to be fulfilled. So long as the baker can prove they have a genuine issue with the particular service and not the person requesting it, that's "fine". But realistically that baker is probably still a shit head who should be protested.

This differs from the SHS situation, which is that she is being refused service based on her actions, not based on her gender, race, religion, sexuality, or so forth.

Okay. As I said, my original point was about consistency. If you believe it is okay to refuse the service of people you disagree with or don't like, then don't object to it when it happens to people you do.

[sphagnum]

Her job - which is voluntary - is to lie and spin PR for a monstrous idiot. She's not doing some noble work, trying to keep a department from imploding under his misrule. Toss her to the wolves - she has nobody to blame but herself.

I am reminded of a case in Ireland where the baker refused to make a gay wedding cake. They didn't refuse to actually bake them a wedding cake, they refused to make a specifically gay wedding cake. It was the messaging of the cake they took issue with. They apologised and gave them the number of another cake shop that would do what they wanted.

I remember Patrick Stewart weighing in on this. He said something interesting which I agree with.


Now do you think any of these people on RE would be this nuanced on cases like this? And that's the thing, the issue is complex, and you have to think about it carefully and seriously.

The way I see it, if you think it is fine to refuse Sarah Sanders on some kind of moral grounds, then you have to carefully consider the point of view of others who you may disagree with. Otherwise it becomes merely arbitrary and without any real principle to it.

It's not complex. SHS is being judged based on her actions. That's it, the end. There's no sticky question about religious freedoms or whatever. If you must boil it down to some neutral principle, the equivalent would be a restaurant refusing to serve Obama because he pushed for the ACA or whatever.

How about Obama for locking unaccompanied Guatemalan kids in cages if we're looking for a true 1:1? (Still not 1:1 because SHS is just a mouthpiece who no one will give a shit about once she resigns. See: Spicer, Scaramucci, et al)

No one gave a shit and if a restaurant used that to specifically deny him service, GAF/RE would have been on Obama's side and called the restaurant racist.

I mean I'd be fine with Obama being denied whatever for all sorts of shit he did. I have no love for the American government. And I don't really care what liberals on Resetera would think about that situation since I'm not a liberal.

Back to the cake thing for a second, I think there was some confusion here because of my use of "should". When I say should, I'm not referring to legal punishments that the government must enact, I'm just saying should in the moral "ought" sense. I actually agree that bakers shouldn't be forced to make cakes with messages on them that they disagree with/find offensive regardless of how stupid or wrong they are. The gay couples trying to buy cakes shouldn't be treated that way, but legally it has to be allowed. What can't be allowed is bakers refusing to provide services to a gay person for being gay, just like a diner shouldn't be able to refuse service to a black patron.

If a black person wanted a cake that said Black Power but the baker refused to make it because they are stupid and think that's racist or something, they should be able to do that. But they shouldn't be able to bar a black person from getting a cake in general. You have the right to be treated equally, but the content of a particular service demand may not need to be fulfilled. So long as the baker can prove they have a genuine issue with the particular service and not the person requesting it, that's "fine". But realistically that baker is probably still a shit head who should be protested.

This differs from the SHS situation, which is that she is being refused service based on her actions, not based on her gender, race, religion, sexuality, or so forth.

Okay. As I said, my original point was about consistency. If you believe it is okay to refuse the service of people you disagree with or don't like, then don't object to it when it happens to people you do.

I am being consistent. Gay cake cases and SHS are not properly comparable.

[Nola]

It's not complex. SHS is being judged based on her actions. That's it, the end. There's no sticky question about religious freedoms or whatever. If you must boil it down to some neutral principle, the equivalent would be a restaurant refusing to serve Obama because he pushed for the ACA or whatever.

I'm not sure what difference this really makes. At first you are establishing that it is okay to refuse service on purely moral grounds. The restaurant is making a moral judgement by refusing her service. It is not something she has done in the restaurant, it is not her behaviour in the restaurant. The owner simply doesn't like her politics and has decided on moral grounds to refuse her service.

A Christian baker in Ireland refuses to make a specifically gay wedding cake. The gay couple were not refused service because of being gay, the baker didn't object to baking them cake. It was the wording they took issue with. Ultimately though it is a refusal of service (a specific type of service) purely on moral grounds.

You say there is no sticky question about religious freedom in this case. How about forget about the religious freedom aspect of it, and judge it purely on the grounds of civil liberties?

My point isn't about whether you believe a business owner has the right to deny service in this case, it is about the inconsistency in the way specific cases are viewed.

We’ve established since the Civil Rights Act in America that an owners right to deny service is not universal. It’s pretty broad, but not unlimited. Which inherently imposes subjectivity on the process. You can not legally deny a person service based on race, gender, nationality, or religion. You can not argue your faith gives you the right to deny a black person aspects of your services, I think most would argue that sexuality deserves to be in that category as well. However, an owner could refuse to serve David Duke on moral grounds(as I personally witnessed in middle school  in New Orleans) same as a restaurant could theoretically refuse to serve Obama because they were against drone strike policy. Or in this case refuse service to Sanders because she is a deplorable monster propping up an administration that uses child internment as a leveraging tactic to pass draconian policy.

[agrajag]

You make cakes for a living, shut the fuck up an bake one and put what they ask.

When you get home and your wife's boyfriend is fucking her in the ass, do you ask if he's gay cause he lets you eat that dick?

Same premise.

You sell food for a living, shut the fuck up and serve your customers?

Same premise.

[benjipwns]

Sometimes I pay the postman $10 to let me rearrange everyone's mail. If I see anything that says "open immediately", "important notice", etc., I flip a coin twice, and if it's tails both times, I pocket the letter, read the contents at home, and shred it.

You enjoy reading fundraising letters/materials I see.

[Leadbelly]

It's not complex. SHS is being judged based on her actions. That's it, the end. There's no sticky question about religious freedoms or whatever. If you must boil it down to some neutral principle, the equivalent would be a restaurant refusing to serve Obama because he pushed for the ACA or whatever.

I'm not sure what difference this really makes. At first you are establishing that it is okay to refuse service on purely moral grounds. The restaurant is making a moral judgement by refusing her service. It is not something she has done in the restaurant, it is not her behaviour in the restaurant. The owner simply doesn't like her politics and has decided on moral grounds to refuse her service.

A Christian baker in Ireland refuses to make a specifically gay wedding cake. The gay couple were not refused service because of being gay, the baker didn't object to baking them cake. It was the wording they took issue with. Ultimately though it is a refusal of service (a specific type of service) purely on moral grounds.

You say there is no sticky question about religious freedom in this case. How about forget about the religious freedom aspect of it, and judge it purely on the grounds of civil liberties?

My point isn't about whether you believe a business owner has the right to deny service in this case, it is about the inconsistency in the way specific cases are viewed.

We’ve established since the Civil Rights Act in America that an owners right to deny service is not universal. It’s pretty broad, but not unlimited. Which inherently imposes subjectivity on the process. You can not legally deny a person service based on race, gender, nationality, or religion. You can not argue your faith gives you the right to deny a black person aspects of your services, I think most would argue that sexuality deserves to be in that category as well. However, an owner could refuse to serve David Duke on moral grounds(as I personally witnessed in middle school  in New Orleans) same as a restaurant could theoretically refuse to serve Obama because they were against drone strike policy. Or in this case refuse service to Sanders because she is a deplorable monster propping up an administration that uses child internment as a leveraging tactic to pass draconian policy.

Yeah. As I said, the issue is complex. It is why I chose a very specific case. I have no problem with people saying the restaurant was right in refusing service. It is when they are inconsistent in their reasoning that I have a problem. Something I think a number of people on RE are.

[Cauliflower Of Love]

You make cakes for a living, shut the fuck up an bake one and put what they ask.

When you get home and your wife's boyfriend is fucking her in the ass, do you ask if he's gay cause he lets you eat that dick?

Same premise.

You sell food for a living, shut the fuck up and serve your customers?

Same premise.

I don't sell food, i will not shut the fuck up.

[sphagnum]

Yawn. sphagnum, please regale us with a more interesting subject these hackneyed losers won't centrist-special fellow over, like the unbearable lightness of being enslaved by capitalism.

Hail J. Posadas

[agrajag]

 

[KarpalaJoe]

Yeah. As I said, the issue is complex. It is why I chose a very specific case. I have no problem with people saying the restaurant was right in refusing service. It is when they are inconsistent in their reasoning that I have a problem. Something I think a number of people on RE are.

Never, ever try to understand the logic behind resetera posters in those kind of threads. That's your mistake here.

[Cauliflower Of Love]

lead belly continues to be an amusing caricature.  I love it.

[TVC15]

The first Pirates of the Caribbean was so good... what the fuck happened? Every single film after that were shit shows.

Not to suggest had they stuck to the original plan it would have been any better, but Jack Sparrow (a pirate so brave on the seven seas) wasn't supposed to be the central character originally, after Depp dominated they basically threw out everything to focus entirely on Jack Sparrow (raven locks sway on the ocean breeze) when he might have not have been intended to be in the sequels all that much if at all.

I saw the Lonely Island perform the song with Michael Bolton earlier this month!

You don't have to lie to impress us we love you already

https://www.sfchronicle.com/music/article/The-Lonely-Island-feels-at-home-in-12962333.php

I also ran into meet Alaska, Jinkx, and Bianca after seeing their show. It was an awesome weekend.

[Tasty]

If I was the baker I would've baked the cake and changed the words to:

"This cake is gay af"

Knowing most gays are quite savage themselves they would've probably enjoyed it.

YOU are gay af

[jorma]

Threads like that Sarah Huckabee thread are the absolute worst that GAF/RE have to offer.

People are so childish and over emotional and self righteous about it, the Nazi comparisons are so
fucking overblown and they dogpile anyone who says “Well that’s kind of a shitty thing for the restaurant to do” to oblivion. What a cesspool

maybe sarah should stop being a piece of shit.

Her job is to be a mouthpiece for a piece of shit

My issue has nothing to do with whether Sarah is a piece of shit or not, it is how inconsistent these people are on these issues. If it was a Christian baker refusing to make a gay wedding cake, they would respond to it differently. If that is the case, then surely they should object to this on principle?

You're conflating a sexual orientation with someone being a racist's voluntary functionary. The principle isn't "companies should be able to serve who they want", it's "people who didn't do anything wrong shouldn't be punished, people who have done something wrong should".

Private companies probably shouldn't be mandated to "punish people who do wrong".

Who mandated it?

you did. How can you read what you wrote and not realise that you are giving them that mandate in your argument?

[sphagnum]

Threads like that Sarah Huckabee thread are the absolute worst that GAF/RE have to offer.

People are so childish and over emotional and self righteous about it, the Nazi comparisons are so
fucking overblown and they dogpile anyone who says “Well that’s kind of a shitty thing for the restaurant to do” to oblivion. What a cesspool

maybe sarah should stop being a piece of shit.

Her job is to be a mouthpiece for a piece of shit

My issue has nothing to do with whether Sarah is a piece of shit or not, it is how inconsistent these people are on these issues. If it was a Christian baker refusing to make a gay wedding cake, they would respond to it differently. If that is the case, then surely they should object to this on principle?

You're conflating a sexual orientation with someone being a racist's voluntary functionary. The principle isn't "companies should be able to serve who they want", it's "people who didn't do anything wrong shouldn't be punished, people who have done something wrong should".

Private companies probably shouldn't be mandated to "punish people who do wrong".

Who mandated it?

you did. How can you read what you wrote and not realise that you are giving them that mandate in your argument?

"Should" isnt an imperative.

[jorma]

Threads like that Sarah Huckabee thread are the absolute worst that GAF/RE have to offer.

People are so childish and over emotional and self righteous about it, the Nazi comparisons are so
fucking overblown and they dogpile anyone who says “Well that’s kind of a shitty thing for the restaurant to do” to oblivion. What a cesspool

maybe sarah should stop being a piece of shit.

Her job is to be a mouthpiece for a piece of shit

My issue has nothing to do with whether Sarah is a piece of shit or not, it is how inconsistent these people are on these issues. If it was a Christian baker refusing to make a gay wedding cake, they would respond to it differently. If that is the case, then surely they should object to this on principle?

You're conflating a sexual orientation with someone being a racist's voluntary functionary. The principle isn't "companies should be able to serve who they want", it's "people who didn't do anything wrong shouldn't be punished, people who have done something wrong should".

Private companies probably shouldn't be mandated to "punish people who do wrong".

Who mandated it?

you did. How can you read what you wrote and not realise that you are giving them that mandate in your argument?

"Should" isnt an imperative.

[Cauliflower Of Love]

I know that sarah is a piece of shit.

She got a job for a reason.

You're not this adamant about your job unless