USU78 Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 (edited) 54 minutes ago, Gray said: Snipsies 36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Snipsies 36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Until such time as the court issues a more definitively ruling, I am entitled to express my opinion on these issue based on my understanding of constitutional and First Amendment principles. Even after the Supreme Court makes a ruling, i don’t have to genuflect to it, just accept it as the rule of law. For example, I fervently disagree with the Dred Scott decision, a Supreme Court ruling of the 1800s that today is axiomatically condemned as an affront to human rights. As for Smac’s comments, he has apologized repeatedly for “intemperate” remarks. Even so, after reviewing the video just now at your behest, I don’t see them as alll that unwarranted. The woman who brazenly jumped the fence even with a substantial police presence appeared to me she was egging the mob on to do the same and to overrun the temple grounds in a torches-and-pitchforks mentality. And incidentally, you don’t get to minimize this thing by telling us to watch it with the sound turned down. The spewing of noisy, hate-tinged slogans is part of the essence of these things. The last thing the participants would want is to be silenced. The point, in part, is to intimidate the objects of their hatred into capitulation. And I stand by my characterization of it as desecration of a sacred space. I kept pondering over how such a thing would be viewed were it to transpire at a prominent Catholic cathedral or shrine or Jewish synagoguge. This is why I wanna be like you when I grow up. You entirely ignore the "Kristalnacht" bait even though it plainly is a Godwin's Law violation which ought to shut down the thread because of the outrageousness of the poster's hyperbole. Edited June 12, 2018 by USU78 Techie problem
Scott Lloyd Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 22 minutes ago, smac97 said: When people like you add a caveat like "within reason," people like me get nervous. Free Speech doesn't work that way. There are a very few exceptions to the protections of the Free Speech claus. Speaking "'within reason,' as that phrase is subjectively and arbitrarily defined by Gray" is not one of them. I am not speaking of "food" generally (nor is Mr. Phillips, who will sell anything to anybody except themed cakes that contravene his religious beliefs (which he will not sell to anybody). This issue is not about "food," any more than Cohen v. California was about clothing. The issue is about artistic speech, which is plainly within the parameters of the First Amendment. See, e.g., Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557, 569 (1995) (painting, music and poetry are "unquestionably shielded" by First Amendment); Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 790 (1989) ("Music, as a form of expression and communication, is protected under the First Amendment"); Schad v. Mount Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 65 (1981) ("Entertainment, as well as political and ideological speech, is protected: motion pictures, programs broadcast by radio and television, and live entertainment, such as musical and dramatic works, fall within the First Amendment's guarantee"); Burstyn v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 501 (1952) ("[M]otion pictures are a significant medium for the communication of ideas. They may affect public attitudes and behavior in a variety of ways, ranging from direct espousal of a political or social doctrine to the subtle shaping of thought which characterizes all artistic expression."). Nevertheless, I think we will have to wait and see whether custom-designed "themed" wedding cakes fall within the parameters of "artistic speech." I think they do. Thanks, -Smac I immediately had the same thought as you when I read the “within reason” phrase. Whose “reason” prevails when it’s a question of violating First Amendment freedoms? 1
Calm Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, Gray said: Do you think that's somehow better? "I won't sell something if a black person is going to use it, but if a black person wants to pick up something for a white person, that's just fine". That would be the equivalent in racial terms. I am not arguing for right and wrong, but accuracy and again you imply he wouldn’t have sold anything for a gay man while it is not selling one thing. I don’t agree with him, but I do not see that as a reason to misrepresent him. Edited June 12, 2018 by Calm 2
Scott Lloyd Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, california boy said: The whole back and forth on this thread comes down to those who think the bakers right to free speech and freedom of religion are being violated. Those on the other side are claiming that religion does not trump the law and can not be an excuse to break the public accommodation laws. We are going to argue this until the Supreme Court ACTUALLY RULES on this issue. But they haven't yet ruled. So both sides are just giving their opinion on what they think the law should be. If it was an easy issue, then the Supreme Court had every opportunity to make a ruling about these issues when they passed down their verdict on the baker. Instead they ruled very narrowly on just the specific unfair treatment of the Colorado Board. So you don't really have the support of the Constitution behind you quite yet. But do you know what does have the support of the Constitution behind it? The right to protest. Scott, you and SMAC have vilified those exercising that right protesting in front of the LA temple over and over again. SMAC has used numerous opportunities to post that video, even on a thread about medical marijuana. Here is some of the inflammatory language he used and which you agreed with him about in that post. 1. So this is how things like Kristallnacht happened 2. I wonder what that mob would have done. 3. ominously declared 4. barely-contained and hate-filled riots at the gates 5. His enjoyment of a video of a near riot at an LDS temple was disturbing 6. To me, it looks like a barely-constrained riot. 7. Mob intimidation against a religious minority 8. publicly issue ominous warnings about "consequences" should a religious minority 9. he "like{s}" a video showing a near riot outside their sacred temple. 10. Ungly, anti-democratic witch hunt{s}" and "blacklists. 11. California Boy issued veiled threats about "consequences You are now adding that the sidewalk in front of the temple is sacred space. I am going to ask you and anyone else who feels this way about the protest to do a very simple thing. Watch the protest again. This time turn the sound off. (obviously you don't like or agree with what is being chanted). Now look at it closely. And tell me the difference between this protest and the hundreds of others that the Mormons supporting Prop 8 did on the corners of the streets of California. What is the most egregious action you see happening during this protest that would cause you to agree with the inflammatory language that SMAC used in his post. Tell us what you actually see, Here is the video. If you see nothing other than the usual waving of signs then I would propose that both sides tone down the inflammatory language. And until the Supreme Court actually rules on this issue, I would suggest that those claiming that it is a constitutional right for a baker to not bake a cake for a gay wedding add to their assertions that it is just their opinion on how they think the Constitution should be interpreted. THAT HAS YET TO BE DETERMINED. There is a law that has been challenged in the Supreme Court and has been ruled upon as being constitutional. The Civil Rights Act. Until that gets appealed, it is still the law of the land. And their is a law that has been challenged in the Supreme Court and has been ruled upon and that is the right to protest. 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Until such time as the court issues a more definitive ruling, I am entitled to express my opinion on these issue based on my understanding of constitutional and First Amendment principles. Even after the Supreme Court makes a ruling, i don’t have to genuflect to it, just accept it as the rule of law. For example, I fervently disagree with the Dred Scott decision, a Supreme Court ruling of the 1800s that today is axiomatically condemned as an affront to human rights. As for Smac’s comments, he has apologized repeatedly for “intemperate” remarks. Even so, after reviewing the video just now at your behest, I don’t see them as alll that unwarranted. The woman who brazenly jumped the fence even with a substantial police presence appeared to me she was egging the mob on to do the same and to overrun the temple grounds in a torches-and-pitchforks frenzy. And incidentally, you don’t get to minimize this thing by telling us to watch it with the sound turned down. The spewing of noisy, hate-tinged slogans is part of the essence of these things. The last thing the participants would want is to be silenced. The point, in part, is to intimidate the objects of their hatred into capitulation. And I stand by my characterization of it as desecration of a sacred space. I kept pondering over how such a thing would be viewed were it to transpire at a prominent Catholic cathedral or shrine or Jewish synagoguge. Incidentally, all I’ve really done on this up to now is to give “like” points to Smac’s posts. In going after me for that, aren’t you essentially doing something comparable to what Smac did when he expressed displeasure about you saying you “liked” the behavior of the mob in the video? Edited June 12, 2018 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Gray said: According to the quote, it's about the people. If I were to decline to sell wedding cakes for Mormon weddings, but tried to claim it was just the event I objected to, and was not trying to discriminate against Mormons, the sophistry of that argument would be immediately apparent. Even if I were to offer Mormon customers a bread roll or pretzel instead. It wouldn’t be “sophistry” in that instance either, provided you were sincere in your opposition to Mormon weddings (say, you objected to the Church’s theology about the eternity of the marriage covenant, for instance) and provided you were sincere in your willlingness to sell anything else in your store to a Mormon that did not have anything to do with Mormon weddings. As a Mormon, I would not object to the attitude of a baker under such circumstances. I certainly wouldn’t claim victimhood or try to sue him out of business. Edited June 12, 2018 by Scott Lloyd 1
kllindley Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 1 hour ago, Gray said: Did you mean to say that gay activists are pushing for equal rights? If not you've misrepresented what I understand. You stated that it's okay to discriminate against people who are not a protected class, i.e. on political grounds. That means that classifying sexual orientation as a protected class gives them additional protections not granted to other individuals. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Gray said: Because he's treating them like second class citizens. By that same logic, he's treating my hypothetical poor, aggrieved, Goth-and-Occult loving Halloween celebrator for whom he refuses to make a custom Halloween-themed cake as a second-class citizen as well. (Or, as I and others have been saying in this thread repeatedly, perhaps Mr. Phillips' refusal in both cases really is a principled stand which is about the event and not about the potential patron(s).) Edited June 12, 2018 by Kenngo1969 2
USU78 Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 16 minutes ago, kllindley said: You stated that it's okay to discriminate against people who are not a protected class, i.e. on political grounds. That means that classifying sexual orientation as a protected class gives them additional protections not granted to other individuals. Classification as "protected class" is indeed a political act. Discrimination on other grounds because of the absence of a political act of reclassification is, to be kind, unethical.
california boy Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Until such time as the court issues a more definitive ruling, I am entitled to express my opinion on these issue based on my understanding of constitutional and First Amendment principles. Even after the Supreme Court makes a ruling, i don’t have to genuflect to it, just accept it as the rule of law. For example, I fervently disagree with the Dred Scott decision, a Supreme Court ruling of the 1800s that today is axiomatically condemned as an affront to human rights. This is a discussion board. Of course we expect you to give your opinion. But often people are claiming that the Constitution says what is actually their interpretation of the Constitution, not what it actually says. Opinions are expected here. But asserting that something is actually in the Constitution is problematic and confuses the issue. We will have to wait and see whose opinion the Supreme Court believes to be correct. 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: As for Smac’s comments, he has apologized repeatedly for “intemperate” remarks. Even so, after reviewing the video just now at your behest, I don’t see them as alll that unwarranted. The woman who brazenly jumped the fence even with a substantial police presence appeared to me she was egging the mob on to do the same and to overrun the temple grounds in a torches-and-pitchforks frenzy. Really? ONE woman out of about a thousand protesters jumps the fence and you agree that warrants these comments? And did you notice that when the open the gate to let her out, there is no "rushing of the near riot mob to overrun the temple grounds in a torches-sand-pitchforks frenzy"? And that is the most brazen activity that justifies his and yours characterization of the protest? I think. you are BOTH being unreasonable in your inflamed assessment. 1. So this is how things like Kristallnacht happened 2. I wonder what that mob would have done. 3. ominously declared 4. barely-contained and hate-filled riots at the gates 5. His enjoyment of a video of a near riot at an LDS temple was disturbing 6. To me, it looks like a barely-constrained riot. 7. Mob intimidation against a religious minority 8. publicly issue ominous warnings about "consequences" should a religious minority 9. he "like{s}" a video showing a near riot outside their sacred temple. 10. Ungly, anti-democratic witch hunt{s}" and "blacklists. 11. California Boy issued veiled threats about "consequences SMAC did apologize, but never retracted what he said nor did he say what he was apologizing for. Maybe you can tell me what you think the apology was for. 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: And incidentally, you don’t get to minimize this thing by telling us to watch it with the sound turned down. The spewing of noisy, hate-tinged slogans is part of the essence of these things. The last thing the participants would want is to be silenced. The point, in part, is to intimidate the objects of their hatred into capitulation. When a religion campaigns to take away someone's civil rights, some think chanting "Shame on You" is entirely justified. I hope that never happens to you. 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: And I stand by my characterization of it as desecration of a sacred space. I kept pondering over how such a thing would be viewed were it to transpire at a prominent Catholic cathedral or shrine or Jewish synagoguge.
smac97 Posted June 12, 2018 Author Posted June 12, 2018 3 minutes ago, california boy said: This is a discussion board. Of course we expect you to give your opinion. But often people are claiming that the Constitution says what is actually their interpretation of the Constitution, not what it actually says. Opinions are expected here. But asserting that something is actually in the Constitution is problematic and confuses the issue. We will have to wait and see whose opinion the Supreme Court believes to be correct. Really? ONE woman out of about a thousand protesters jumps the fence and you agree that warrants these comments? And did you notice that when the open the gate to let her out, there is no "rushing of the near riot mob to overrun the temple grounds in a torches-sand-pitchforks frenzy"? And that is the most brazen activity that justifies his and yours characterization of the protest? I think. you are BOTH being unreasonable in your inflamed assessment. 1. So this is how things like Kristallnacht happened 2. I wonder what that mob would have done. 3. ominously declared 4. barely-contained and hate-filled riots at the gates 5. His enjoyment of a video of a near riot at an LDS temple was disturbing 6. To me, it looks like a barely-constrained riot. 7. Mob intimidation against a religious minority 8. publicly issue ominous warnings about "consequences" should a religious minority 9. he "like{s}" a video showing a near riot outside their sacred temple. 10. Ungly, anti-democratic witch hunt{s}" and "blacklists. 11. California Boy issued veiled threats about "consequences SMAC did apologize, but never retracted what he said nor did he say what he was apologizing for. Maybe you can tell me what you think the apology was for. When a religion campaigns to take away someone's civil rights, some think chanting "Shame on You" is entirely justified. I hope that never happens to you. I have repeatedly apologized for my intemperate remarks. All of them. I do so again here. Thanks, -Smac 2
Ahab Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 9 minutes ago, USU78 said: Classification as "protected class" is indeed a political act. Discrimination on other grounds because of the absence of a political act of reclassification is, to be kind, unethical. Ah, but what is discrimination? Or what is wrong with being discriminating? I love all sinners but hate all sins, whoever does the sinning. Is that bad, IYO?
Scott Lloyd Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 (edited) 44 minutes ago, smac97 said: I have repeatedly apologized for my intemperate remarks. All of them. I do so again here. Thanks, -Smac I think what he’s really calling for is for you to grovel. I don’t believe you have to do that. Incidentally, his rhetoric ginned up someone else who called you “disgusting.” That person is now complaining on another board about having her posting privilege suspended for 17 days for abusiveness. No contrition there. Edited June 12, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
USU78 Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 15 minutes ago, Ahab said: Ah, but what is discrimination? Or what is wrong with being discriminating? I love all sinners but hate all sins, whoever does the sinning. Is that bad, IYO? Nope. And, yes, I very much see the tautological thinking endemic in the politics of our time.
USU78 Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I think what he’s really calling for is for you to grovel. Yup. 'Cause that's what bullies do.
california boy Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 48 minutes ago, kllindley said: You stated that it's okay to discriminate against people who are not a protected class, i.e. on political grounds. That means that classifying sexual orientation as a protected class gives them additional protections not granted to other individuals. OK this might be the most hilarious post in the entire thread. Without religion being a protected class, then this thread would not even exist. Religion can be a protected class, but anyone else is asking for "extra rights".
california boy Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 28 minutes ago, smac97 said: I have repeatedly apologized for my intemperate remarks. All of them. I do so again here. Thanks, -Smac So are you retracting your intemperate remarks?
smac97 Posted June 12, 2018 Author Posted June 12, 2018 4 minutes ago, california boy said: So are you retracting your intemperate remarks? I had thought that would be a given. Yes. -Smac 1
kllindley Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 13 minutes ago, california boy said: OK this might be the most hilarious post in the entire thread. Without religion being a protected class, then this thread would not even exist. Religion can be a protected class, but anyone else is asking for "extra rights". Seriously? Are we intentionally muddying the waters or is it just that difficult to keep the facts straight? I don't want religion to be a protected class. The idea of protected class started with the Civil Rights movement. For 150 years before that, the right to religious expression had been established and protected by the Bill of Rights. The case at hand has nothing at all to do with religion as a protected class in anti-discrimination law. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 49 minutes ago, california boy said: This is a discussion board. Of course we expect you to give your opinion. But often people are claiming that the Constitution says what is actually their interpretation of the Constitution, not what it actually says. Opinions are expected here. But asserting that something is actually in the Constitution is problematic and confuses the issue. We will have to wait and see whose opinion the Supreme Court believes to be correct. Really? ONE woman out of about a thousand protesters jumps the fence and you agree that warrants these comments? And did you notice that when the open the gate to let her out, there is no "rushing of the near riot mob to overrun the temple grounds in a torches-sand-pitchforks frenzy"? And that is the most brazen activity that justifies his and yours characterization of the protest? I think. you are BOTH being unreasonable in your inflamed assessment. 1. So this is how things like Kristallnacht happened 2. I wonder what that mob would have done. 3. ominously declared 4. barely-contained and hate-filled riots at the gates 5. His enjoyment of a video of a near riot at an LDS temple was disturbing 6. To me, it looks like a barely-constrained riot. 7. Mob intimidation against a religious minority 8. publicly issue ominous warnings about "consequences" should a religious minority 9. he "like{s}" a video showing a near riot outside their sacred temple. 10. Ungly, anti-democratic witch hunt{s}" and "blacklists. 11. California Boy issued veiled threats about "consequences SMAC did apologize, but never retracted what he said nor did he say what he was apologizing for. Maybe you can tell me what you think the apology was for. When a religion campaigns to take away someone's civil rights, some think chanting "Shame on You" is entirely justified. I hope that never happens to you. Smac’s apology is his business. The fact that the members of the mob didn’t storm the gate in the face of a formidable police presence just means they are more prudent than the woman, not necessarily that they have good will. 2
Ahab Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 (edited) 26 minutes ago, california boy said: OK this might be the most hilarious post in the entire thread. Without religion being a protected class, then this thread would not even exist. Religion can be a protected class, but anyone else is asking for "extra rights". I think the lesson to be gleaned here is that if anyone wants to be protected they should either seek to be a member of a protected class or seek to protect a class or category of people. Back in the old days when I was growing up people thought of homosexual sexual relations as if it was a bad thing, something people should not do and should not approve of, just as stealing and killing are things people should not do and should not approve of. But now in our day it is considered to be an okay thing to do, if you want to do it, or if other people want to do it, and we now try to protect people who do it and consider them to be members of their own protected class. Politics, I guess. Anyone who wants to have their actions condoned or at least protected by society can appeal to become members of a protected class set apart for people who do what they do, or are what they are. Edited June 12, 2018 by Ahab
california boy Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 22 minutes ago, smac97 said: I had thought that would be a given. Yes. -Smac Thank you. I appreciate that and I fully accept your apology
smac97 Posted June 12, 2018 Author Posted June 12, 2018 30 minutes ago, california boy said: OK this might be the most hilarious post in the entire thread. Without religion being a protected class, then this thread would not even exist. Religion can be a protected class, but anyone else is asking for "extra rights". Freedom of Religion is so important that it has not one, but two clauses devoted to it: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." So we have the "Free Exercise Clause" and the "Establishment Clause," with the former placing constraints on governmental intervention in religious belief and practice, and the former placing constraints on both the government and religious groups in terms of "establishing" a state religion (the widely-quoted "separation of church and state" concept is not in the text of the Constitution, but is nevertheless "a philosophic and jurisprudential concept for defining political distance in the relationship between religious organizations and the nation state"). Further, religious affiliation constitutes a "protected class" within the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (along with race and national origin). The complete list of federally-recognized "protected classes" is here, and includes the following: Quote Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964 Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964 National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964 Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964 The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission interprets 'sex' to include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity[2] Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing Disability status – Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act Individual states can and do create other classes for protection under state law. U.S. Presidents have also issued executive orders which prohibit consideration of particular attributes in employment decisions of the United States government and its contractors. These have included Executive Order 11246 (1965), Executive Order 11478 (1969), Executive Order 13087 (1998), Executive Order 13279 (2003), and Executive Order 13672 (2014). There is no constitutional provision regarding sexual orientation, let alone sexual orientation as a protected class. I think sexual orientation as a protected class is, to an extent, a good and necessary idea. While prejudice against homosexuals is receding at a very fast rate, it still exists in various substantial ways. That said, the designation of sexual orientation as a protected class should not override the constitutional rights of others. Thanks, -Smac 2
Anijen Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Until such time as the court issues a more definitive ruling, I am entitled to express my opinion on these issue based on my understanding of constitutional and First Amendment principles. Even after the Supreme Court makes a ruling, i don’t have to genuflect to it, just accept it as the rule of law. For example, I fervently disagree with the Dred Scott decision, a Supreme Court ruling of the 1800s that today is axiomatically condemned as an affront to human rights. As for Smac’s comments, he has apologized repeatedly for “intemperate” remarks. Even so, after reviewing the video just now at your behest, I don’t see them as alll that unwarranted. The woman who brazenly jumped the fence even with a substantial police presence appeared to me she was egging the mob on to do the same and to overrun the temple grounds in a torches-and-pitchforks frenzy. And incidentally, you don’t get to minimize this thing by telling us to watch it with the sound turned down. The spewing of noisy, hate-tinged slogans is part of the essence of these things. The last thing the participants would want is to be silenced. The point, in part, is to intimidate the objects of their hatred into capitulation. And I stand by my characterization of it as desecration of a sacred space. I kept pondering over how such a thing would be viewed were it to transpire at a prominent Catholic cathedral or shrine or Jewish synagoguge. Scott, the above was your excellent response to california boy's post from the previous page. I just wanted to add my opinion that when SCOTUS did not address issue of the religious clauses of the First Amendment, it does not mean that the lack of ruling on those issues is still open to interpretation (like many think). What we have here is an example of Judicial Restraint. Judicial restraint (here, silence in a case with multiple issues and only one issue was ruled upon) as we have here, does not mean its open to further interpretation, (although all cases are technically open to further interpretation). The most prevalent meaning of judicial restraint means that they did not have to rule on that particular issue because the issue has a self authenticating answer already. Here, in the Masterpiece decision SCOTUS did not have to bring into existence a further detailed opinion on the matter (the religious clauses of the First Amendment). In other words, it allows the opinion of the Court to stand because the Court upholds all acts and laws of Congress and legislatures unless they oppose the Constitution. Because the bakers right to abstain from compelled speech and his right not to go against his religious convictions are already upheld by the First Amendment, the Supreme Court Justices were not obligated to address that particular issue (not saying they will not in the future). Thanks for your contributions, I really enjoy them. Anijen 1
california boy Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 7 minutes ago, Ahab said: I think the lesson to be gleaned here is that if anyone wants to be protected they should either seek to be a member of a protected class or seek to protect a class or category of people. Back in the old days when I was growing up people thought of homosexual sexual relations as if it was a bad thing, something people should not do and should not approve of, just as stealing and killing are things people should not do and should not approve of. But now in our day it is considered to be an okay thing to do, if you want to do it, or if other people want to do it, and we now try to protect people who do it and consider them to be members of their own protected class. Politics, I guess. Anyone who wants to have their actions condoned or at least protected by society can appeal to become members of a protected class set apart for people who do what they do, or are what they are. There is usually s lot more that goes into determining if a minority group should be in a protected class. Are people getting fired from their jobs, denied housing, getting their brains kicked in, even murdered simply because they are a member of a minority group?
Ahab Posted June 12, 2018 Posted June 12, 2018 4 minutes ago, california boy said: There is usually s lot more that goes into determining if a minority group should be in a protected class. Are people getting fired from their jobs, denied housing, getting their brains kicked in, even murdered simply because they are a member of a minority group? Thieves, yes. People who kill or murder other people, yes too. Maybe they just need to do some more political work to get themselves treated as a protected class. Thieves would likely have much easier time. I can't imagine people agreeing that murderers should be a protected class. I mean, that would be really bad if people considered that to be something they should condone, or protect those who do. And we could easily treat thieves kindly by just giving them more than they ask of us. Turning the other cheek, kind of thing. Jesus did say that if someone steals our coats we should offer them our cloaks too. Giving them the shirt off our backs, so to speak.
Recommended Posts