Sign in to follow this  
Dog

From wedding cakes to genital waxing

Recommended Posts

On 5/29/2018 at 8:51 PM, Bent Sailor said:

I know it's trolling, but to put that line of twaddle to rest - I 100% support the right of anyone for any reason to refuse to rip hair out of genitals they've never waxed before. If right-wing Republican Christians wish never to touch a ball sack, they have my unswerving support to continue not touching people's ball sacks.

For completeness, if those right-wing Republican Christians wish never to touch a vagina, they too have my unswerving support to continue never touching a vagina. I also wish them all the best at their next Incel get together because whining about that is sure to keep their chances of ever touching one at infinitesimal levels.

Not trolling at all. Now we know where you stand on “identitifing as a female.”  For what it’s worth, I agree with you. If the dude still has all all the assorted bits, he’s a dude. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Monkey said:

Not trolling at all. Now we know where you stand on “identitifing as a female.”  For what it’s worth, I agree with you. If the dude still has all all the assorted bits, he’s a dude. 

My post said nothing about "identifying as female". It simply pointed out the obvious - waxing a scrotum (regardless of gender identity) is different than waxing a vulva (regardless of gender identity). I don't agree with you assertion about what makes a dude a dude. 

You know this. You're trolling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

My post said nothing about "identifying as female". It simply pointed out the obvious - waxing a scrotum (regardless of gender identity) is different than waxing a vulva (regardless of gender identity). I don't agree with you assertion about what makes a dude a dude. 

You know this. You're trolling. 

Ball sacks and vulva are very different but by US must be treated the same.  If you are going to wax you must wax them all.   It’s  2018 -  no one should see people differently - we are all equal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rok Dog said:

Ball sacks and vulva are very different but by US must be treated the same.  If you are going to wax you must wax them all.   It’s  2018 -  no one should see people differently - we are all equal.

Actually, no they don't. People must be treated the same regardless of gender. Combined with other decisions made by the courts, gender is not determined by genitalia and therefore that decision doesn't apply to such. Neither the Constitution nor SCOTUS has stated that genitalia must be treated the same under the law.

Easiest thing to do to prove me wrong - find a case showing it. We both know there isn't one, but have fun digging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rok Dog said:

Ball sacks and vulva are very different but by US must be treated the same.  If you are going to wax you must wax them all.   It’s  2018 -  no one should see people differently - we are all equal.

Some, like yourself, are cursed with false equivalency disease. Like Ebola, but worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to wedding cakes - a loss for both sides of the debate today with SCOTUS siding with the bakers, not because they decided one way or the other on whether religious objections can override laws on discrimination, but because one member of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was shown to be openly hostile to religion in their comments about the case. No-one got the final decision they wanted on the matter. 

So all the butt hurt Dabnis clones in this thread lose their favourite case of what they saw as overreach and the court leaves completely undecided whether discrimination based in religion is allowed or not. Those the right-wingers imagine are trying to flash transgender dicks at them in the name of equality don't get a decision letting them know where the constitutional limits on discrimination lie either. The SCOTUS bench punted this down the road hoping not to deal with it, but both sides are going to continue pushing this until they sack up and come down on one side or the other. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Sack up”??

ka-boom tish :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

“Sack up”??

ka-boom tish :lol:

Yes. I did make it a little obvious but anything more subtle than bikies raping loved ones seems to go over your head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Back to wedding cakes - a loss for both sides of the debate today with SCOTUS siding with the bakers, not because they decided one way or the other on whether religious objections can override laws on discrimination, but because one member of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was shown to be openly hostile to religion in their comments about the case. No-one got the final decision they wanted on the matter. 

So all the butt hurt Dabnis clones in this thread lose their favourite case of what they saw as overreach and the court leaves completely undecided whether discrimination based in religion is allowed or not. Those the right-wingers imagine are trying to flash transgender dicks at them in the name of equality don't get a decision letting them know where the constitutional limits on discrimination lie either. The SCOTUS bench punted this down the road hoping not to deal with it, but both sides are going to continue pushing this until they sack up and come down on one side or the other. 

 

Ultimately, I think they're going to end up in an 'Amish' detente or what they did with 'contentious objectors' during the Vietnam War.

There will be exceptions for religious objection but the barrier is liable to be quite high and the scope will be quite limited.  In the baker case, the issue was artistic license.  The plantiffs didn't just want an off the shelf cake - they wanted a new cake and wanted him to create something for them.  I can't see that applying to much beyond art.  Building a house?  Yea, that ain't art - build the house.  Tatooing?   Probably have the same exception.  Want a copy?  Sure.  Make something 'new'?  Uh.. As I said earlier, I'm not sure why anyone would want someone to design something for them when the artist doesn't want to anyway.  That seems like a recipe for disaster.

Even the Hobby Lobby case was really narrow when you get into the weeds and it's not like there have been a mass stampede by businesses into that gap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though the Court punted on the main issue of free expression, some Justices did not.

Thomas and Gorsuch think compelling the baker to make a cake is compelling expression of the desired message.

Ginsburg and Sotomayor basically say, "Message? What message?"

Quote

For Dale Carpenter's and my view of the matter, which is closer to Justice Ginsburg's than to Justice Thomas's—and under which photographers, wedding singers, and the like would win, but bakers, limousine drivers, and the like would lose—see our amicus brief; for an especially interesting contrary view, see Prof. Michael McConnell's post.

I don't think I'd open my negotiations for a wedding cake with, "What you do is basically like driving a car and not expressive, right?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Though the Court punted on the main issue of free expression, some Justices did not.

Thomas and Gorsuch think compelling the baker to make a cake is compelling expression of the desired message.

Ginsburg and Sotomayor basically say, "Message? What message?"

I don't think I'd open my negotiations for a wedding cake with, "What you do is basically like driving a car and not expressive, right?"

I would put asking someone you've pissed off or actively dislikes you to prepare food for you or wax your nut sack in the same category of stupidity.

It would not end up as happily as you might like.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Saorsa said:

I would put asking someone you've pissed off or actively dislikes you to prepare food for you or wax your nut sack in the same category of stupidity.

It would not end up as happily as you might like.

 

You think a Geiger Counter might come in handy if one is marrying gayfully & eating cake bought for political and religious reasons from a certain bakery?

:o

No collusion!  Fake news!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A win for common sense.

Gorsuch was one of the few things that trump has gotten right.  Thats got to absolutely piss off the haters something fierce.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2018 at 2:27 PM, Steam Flyer said:

Except that nobody except fringe righties trying to make libby-rulls look bad ever said any such thing.

Any person can claim they want to be "identified" as a man or woman..... not quite the same thing as male or female, and it certainly doesn't make a penis the same thing as a vagina.

How many rules /  laws, including the laws of physics, are absolutely applied to extreme in absolutely all cases?

-DSK

 

Except the plaintiff has said

"She never once asked for a leg wax [from] us," Mad Wax manager, president, and CEO Jason Carruthers told PJ Media. "She said, 'Women have penises and women have balls and if your staff is not comfortable then they can look for another job.' That is clearly referring to a brazilian wax, which involves the genitals."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Back to wedding cakes - a loss for both sides of the debate today with SCOTUS siding with the bakers, not because they decided one way or the other on whether religious objections can override laws on discrimination, but because one member of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was shown to be openly hostile to religion in their comments about the case. No-one got the final decision they wanted on the matter. 

So all the butt hurt Dabnis clones in this thread lose their favourite case of what they saw as overreach and the court leaves completely undecided whether discrimination based in religion is allowed or not. Those the right-wingers imagine are trying to flash transgender dicks at them in the name of equality don't get a decision letting them know where the constitutional limits on discrimination lie either. The SCOTUS bench punted this down the road hoping not to deal with it, but both sides are going to continue pushing this until they sack up and come down on one side or the other. 

 

There was over reach and the court did decide. The over reach was in the hostility toward religion, that was the entire point of the case. The religion of the baker was being held hostage by the protected class of the couple.

And to clear somethings up, the baker did not refuse to sell them a cake. They refused to decorate it in the manner the gay couple wanted. Now I am not sure what those decorations are, but this is a baker that won't even decorate a cake with halloween decorations so they obviously don't sell just any cake to just any buyer, except this one couple. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cmilliken said:

Ultimately, I think they're going to end up in an 'Amish' detente or what they did with 'contentious objectors' during the Vietnam War.

There will be exceptions for religious objection but the barrier is liable to be quite high and the scope will be quite limited.  In the baker case, the issue was artistic license.  The plantiffs didn't just want an off the shelf cake - they wanted a new cake and wanted him to create something for them.  I can't see that applying to much beyond art.  Building a house?  Yea, that ain't art - build the house.  Tatooing?   Probably have the same exception.  Want a copy?  Sure.  Make something 'new'?  Uh.. As I said earlier, I'm not sure why anyone would want someone to design something for them when the artist doesn't want to anyway.  That seems like a recipe for disaster.

Even the Hobby Lobby case was really narrow when you get into the weeds and it's not like there have been a mass stampede by businesses into that gap. 

Yep.  Despite the attempts at spin.  It was a huge win for the baker.  7-2 is decisive.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Gouvernail said:

7:2 >>> this thread is moot

 

girl with dick can wax him/her self 

Yeah, just as soon as Canada starts abiding by the US Supreme Court decisions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TMSAIL said:

Yep.  Despite the attempts at spin.  It was a huge win for the baker.  7-2 is decisive.  

Something to like for everyone on the bake a cake case.

Religious nutters will like that "THIS" baker doesn't have to make "THIS" Cake.

1st amendment nutters will like that THIS case can't be applied to any other cases - as it was a ruling on the PROCESS used, not the law.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raz'r said:

Something to like for everyone on the bake cake.

Religious nutters will like that "THIS" baker doesn't have to make "THIS" Cake.

1st amendment nutters will like that THIS case can't be applied to any other cases - as it was a ruling on the PROCESS used, not the law.

Who do you expect will be complaining about the ruling and who will be celebrating?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chinabald said:

Yeah, just as soon as Canada starts abiding by the US Supreme Court decisions. 

WTF are you talking about?

As a separate question, you think all countries in the world should hew to American judicial decisions? I got news for you, snowflake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TMSAIL said:

Who do you expect will be complaining about the ruling and who will be celebrating?

"Both" sides could complain, "both" sides can celebrate. Or you could look at it and say it was a punt. Which is what it was.  I think there's a little to love or hate in it, for anyone.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raz'r said:

"Both" sides could complain, "both" sides can celebrate. Or you could look at it and say it was a punt. Which is what it was.  I think there's a little to love or hate in it, for anyone.

Did you see the baker leaving the court. He looked like he loved it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

WTF are you talking about?

As a separate question, you think all countries in the world should hew to American judicial decisions? I got news for you, snowflake.

I was obviously responding to the post that I quoted. I apologize for not using the sarcasm font as it seemed pretty damn obvious that it was sarcasm.

As for what I think about what all the other countries in the world should or shouldn't do? For the most part they should mind their own business and so should the US. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Dog said:

Did you see the baker leaving the court. He looked like he loved it.

Well, he won didn’t he? Why wouldn’t he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chinabald said:

There was over reach and the court did decide. The over reach was in the hostility toward religion, that was the entire point of the case. The religion of the baker was being held hostage by the protected class of the couple.

And to clear somethings up, the baker did not refuse to sell them a cake. They refused to decorate it in the manner the gay couple wanted. Now I am not sure what those decorations are, but this is a baker that won't even decorate a cake with halloween decorations so they obviously don't sell just any cake to just any buyer, except this one couple. 

 

I think that's (bolded, above) the conclusion that the majority opinion was specifically trying to avoid. The only way religion entered at all, was that the lower court ruling was tainted by one of the commissioners' openly expressed hostility to religion.

Righties should be happy about one thing, though...... they are safe from having some mincing faggot decide "I''m gonna stick it in some Trump-voters face today, go to a wedding-cake store and force them to bake me a cake with a giant penis doing gay sex on it." Which is of course what they are afraid of.

The question of whether a baker (or any business) can refuse to sell an item based on prejudice against gays, this decision does lean in that direction but it's certainly not the full-throated (pardon the pun) endorsement of DIE FAGGOTS DIE that the righties wanted.

-DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chinabald said:

There was over reach and the court did decide. The over reach was in the hostility toward religion, that was the entire point of the case. The religion of the baker was being held hostage by the protected class of the couple.

And to clear somethings up, the baker did not refuse to sell them a cake. They refused to decorate it in the manner the gay couple wanted. Now I am not sure what those decorations are, but this is a baker that won't even decorate a cake with halloween decorations so they obviously don't sell just any cake to just any buyer, except this one couple. 

Sort of like the way the bikini-waxer didn't refuse just this one tranny customer, the bikini-waxer just does not do penises or ball sacks

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

I think that's (bolded, above) the conclusion that the majority opinion was specifically trying to avoid. The only way religion entered at all, was that the lower court ruling was tainted by one of the commissioners' openly expressed hostility to religion.

Righties should be happy about one thing, though...... they are safe from having some mincing faggot decide "I''m gonna stick it in some Trump-voters face today, go to a wedding-cake store and force them to bake me a cake with a giant penis doing gay sex on it." Which is of course what they are afraid of.

The question of whether a baker (or any business) can refuse to sell an item based on prejudice against gays, this decision does lean in that direction but it's certainly not the full-throated (pardon the pun) endorsement of DIE FAGGOTS DIE that the righties wanted.

-DSK

Yeah, its all about dicks on a cake, you saw through it all. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Sort of like the way the bikini-waxer didn't refuse just this one tranny customer, the bikini-waxer just does not do penises or ball sacks

-DSK

Parts is parts.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My most pressing concern in all of this is:  Are they still gaining on us???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, chinabald said:

There was over reach and the court did decide. The over reach was in the hostility toward religion, that was the entire point of the case. The religion of the baker was being held hostage by the protected class of the couple.

Actually, that is not the decision rendered by the court. SCOTUS very narrowly decided that the one member of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission who expressed hostility to religion in their comments fucked it up. they expressly and explicitly did not make a ruling on whether the baker was being held hostage by the protected class of people (and whether or not that was legal), but used the comments of one person in the government department to rule that in this case and this case alone, the government hadn't been non-discriminatory towards those of religion.

In other words, if the baker starts baking wedding cakes tomorrow for the public, a gay couple walks into his shop asking for him to bake the cake for them, and he refuses - the same guy could be fronting up to SCOTUS in a few years time as long as the Colorado Civil Rights Commission keeps that one guy that fucked it up this time out of the case. SCOTUS kicked the can down the road and made a very narrow, case specific ruling that cannot really be applied to anything else. It's already known that government employees bringing their religion (or disdain for religion) into the equation will render their decisions unsupportable by law. SCOTUS broke no new ground here. The question of whether bakers have to bake wedding cakes for gay couples is still unanswered.

 

Edit: I noticed Razr has already correctly pointed this out. Apologies.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TMSAIL said:

Yep.  Despite the attempts at spin.  It was a huge win for the baker.  7-2 is decisive.  

For this baker - no debate about it. He won his case on a point of process. He'll be happy, as long as he doesn't go back to baking wedding cakes.

For those trying to hitch their opposition to public accomodation of gays onto his case, it's a loss. SCOTUS made a decisive ruling against the comments of one person in the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. They'll be reprimanded and going forward they'll be more careful with their language. The next case before them where a baker (or florist) tries to refuse service based on a person's sexuality will not have that explicitly anti-religion commentary spoiling it and will likely be presented to SCOTUS for the same reasons this one was - because they've yet to rule on the underlying issue.

Anyone spinning this as a victory for anyone BUT the baker himself is deluding themselves. Likely because they haven't read the decision and are relying on op-eds to feed them their opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

The question of whether a baker (or any business) can refuse to sell an item based on prejudice against gays, this decision does lean in that direction but it's certainly not the full-throated (pardon the pun) endorsement of DIE FAGGOTS DIE that the righties wanted.

-DSK

Umm, not my take. The question was, could someone *force* a vendor to *make* something said vendor didn't want to make, such item not currently existing.

I think the answer is no. Or it should be. Buy a cake off the rack, sure. Insist it be cut/carved/decorated as the wannabe customer demands, no.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Umm, not my take. The question was, could someone *force* a vendor to *make* something said vendor didn't want to make, such item not currently existing.

I think the answer is no. Or it should be. Buy a cake off the rack, sure. Insist it be cut/carved/decorated as the wannabe customer demands, no.

FKT

Yep.  I get where some are hanging their hat on a narrow ruling, but that narrow ruling was decisive 7-2.  Reading the opinion. If it was not punted I see a 6-3 or 5-4 decision ruling exactly what you wrote above. 

I worked at a bakery.  This guy completely involved himself in making a cake that clearly symbolized marriage  as he views it.   

That is where the freedom of religion will come in when a similar case gets before SCOTUS 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, TMSAIL said:

Yep.  I get where some are hanging their hat on a narrow ruling, but that narrow ruling was decisive 7-2.  Reading the opinion. If it was not punted I see a 6-3 or 5-4 decision ruling exactly what you wrote above. 

I worked at a bakery.  This guy completely involved himself in making a cake that clearly symbolized marriage  as he views it.   

That is where the freedom of religion will come in when a similar case gets before SCOTUS 

 

So freedom of religion means you get to be a bigot. All right then. Great religion you’ve got there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, TMSAIL said:

Yep.  I get where some are hanging their hat on a narrow ruling, but that narrow ruling was decisive 7-2.

Yup. As people have pointed out, that baker won decisively on a point of process. The issue of whether he would have one on a point of law was not decided. That issue remains undecided and will remain so until another case is put before SCOTUS that they cannot tap-dance away from. Which will happen. Neither side of this issue is going to let it lie as it is - there is political outrage (and hence donations/votes to be collected) from this. Another case will present itself (forced or otherwise), processed by the government in a squeaky clean fashion leaving no excuse for the bench to kick the can down the road again.

 

29 minutes ago, TMSAIL said:

Reading the opinion. If it was not punted I see a 6-3 or 5-4 decision ruling exactly what you wrote above. 

Reading the ruling I see that it could have gone 5-4 either way. As one expects from a politically controversial decision by SCOTUS. That political controversy being why they punted.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

The question of whether a baker (or any business) can refuse to sell an item based on prejudice against gays,

The request was to create, not just sell, an item.

The couple could have bought any cake off the shelf. They wanted an expressive creation specific to their relationship.

I agree with this guy, who said it's similar to wanting a custom dress instead of one off the rack.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

For this baker - no debate about it. He won his case on a point of process. He'll be happy, as long as he doesn't go back to baking wedding cakes.

For those trying to hitch their opposition to public accomodation of gays onto his case, it's a loss. SCOTUS made a decisive ruling against the comments of one person in the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. They'll be reprimanded and going forward they'll be more careful with their language. The next case before them where a baker (or florist) tries to refuse service based on a person's sexuality will not have that explicitly anti-religion commentary spoiling it and will likely be presented to SCOTUS for the same reasons this one was - because they've yet to rule on the underlying issue.

Anyone spinning this as a victory for anyone BUT the baker himself is deluding themselves. Likely because they haven't read the decision and are relying on op-eds to feed them their opinion.

As usual you are wrong here.  The ruling was not only because the commission member fucked up in being openly hostile to religion - although that certainly didn't help.

The central takeaway here is that BOTH the religious freedom 1st Amendment rights as well as the right to public accommodation must be respected and a balance achieved.  Essentially what Kennedy said in his ruling is that if the baker refused to sell any cakes to gays, he would be in hot water.  But because it was a custom cake with the bakers art involved, its much more nuanced and in that case the gay couple does not have absolute rights.  The baker even said they would and have sold cakes and other goods off the shelf to gays and they are welcome in the store.  He just refused to do a custom cake that meant he would have to put specific messages on it that he disagreed with.  THAT is the crux of the issue that your Jewish deli ham sandwich analogy fails at making.  

Quote

The case seemed to set up a direct clash between Phillips' religious and free speech rights, and the enforcement of Colorado's law. But Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court majority on Monday, threaded the needle far more narrowly. Kennedy said it is "unexceptional" that Colorado law "can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions that are offered to other members of the public," but at the same time, "the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion."https://www.npr.org/2018/06/04/605003519/supreme-court-decides-in-favor-of-baker-over-same-sex-couple-in-cake-shop-case

The analogy used was that the state cannot make a member of the clergy perform a gay wedding even though he or she performs the same service for hetero couples.  

Kennedy basically said that all such future cases would likely need to be decided on a case by case basis on the merits and specific circumstances rather than having a one-size fits all ruling. I tend to agree with him.  To that point, that is the REAL loss for the liberal side that anything gay is absolutely protected.  Its not.  As always, it depends.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

As usual you are wrong here.  The ruling was not only because the commission member fucked up in being openly hostile to religion - although that certainly didn't help.

As usual, you are talking out your ass. Read the decision. Whilst it talks about a variety of issues, it is explicit in stating that the reason it was setting aside the order was the hostility shown by the commission member. It states that multiple times. Then again, no-one expected you to actually take the time to read the decision before pontificating about it.

The central takeaway is that the government will need to be, as it was before, squeaky clean in how it conducts itself in regards to discrimination cases. It is just as illegal for the government to discriminate against religion as it is for people to discriminate based on religion.

Another case will decide how far one can use their religion as the basis for discrimination in regards to public accomodation. This case did not set precedent because someone went overboard in their comments about the baker's religion. Which allowed the bench to avoid setting any precedent by narrowly ruling as they did on a matter of process rather than as a matter of law. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

As usual, you are talking out your ass. Read the decision. Whilst it talks about a variety of issues, it is explicit in stating that the reason it was setting aside the order was the hostility shown by the commission member. It states that multiple times. Then again, no-one expected you to actually take the time to read the decision before pontificating about it.

The central takeaway is that the government will need to be, as it was before, squeaky clean in how it conducts itself in regards to discrimination cases. It is just as illegal for the government to discriminate against religion as it is for people to discriminate based on religion.

Another case will decide how far one can use their religion as the basis for discrimination in regards to public accomodation. This case did not set precedent because someone went overboard in their comments about the baker's religion. Which allowed the bench to avoid setting any precedent by narrowly ruling as they did on a matter of process rather than as a matter of law. 

Sigh.  Never mind what Kennedy actually said that I posted above.  Only your interpretation of what he said is all that matters to you.  Keep shaking that bone bently.  Good boy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Anyone spinning this as a victory for anyone BUT the baker himself is deluding themselves. Likely because they haven't read the decision and are relying on op-eds to feed them their opinion.

It should be regarded as a victory for individuals.  There are a lot of businesses which are primarily individual efforts even if they are open to the public and have employees.

Most of those supporting weddings are like that.  The preparation and services are very much a personal transaction individualized for a specific client.  Nobody gets Olan Mills to do their wedding photos, you don't pick up your wedding cake at Publix, your local florist may deliver orders for Tele-Flora but that's not how you get your wedding flowers.

There is a boundary there that moves from commercial transaction to personal service.  Where the state is used to force one individual to serve another it is a violation of liberty.  When the object is a wedding cake the magnitude of sacrifice is too high.

Perhaps old George said it best in the Letter of Transmittal.

Quote

Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be preserved; and, on the present occasion, this difficulty was increased by a difference among the several States as to their situation, extent, habits, and particular interests.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 the debate on the cake issue should rise above liberal/conservative into the realm of common sense.I'll let others argue which side ignores it more often, (though I am mostly liberal ,myself). Custom cake building, (like custom boat building) is a creative act. Suppose a client comes into a boat builders office and asked him to build a boat that is IN THE BOAT BUILDERS OPINION so severely over-canvassed and under ballasted as to be unsafe or maybe just so butt-ugly that the builder doesn't want his name associated with it. Does the client have the right to stamp his foot and yell and scream "you made a boat for my neighbor now you MUST make this PARTICULAR boat for me"----no he does not--or at least the boat builder should not be FORCED to build it. After all, the client came to the boat builder, not the other way around. Just as a Nazi propaganda artist should not be forced to paint a glowing Star of David or a Jewish artist be forced to build a giant Iron swastika--(or put ham in a sandwich).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, edward mason said:

 the debate on the cake issue should rise above liberal/conservative into the realm of common sense.I'll let others argue which side ignores it more often, (though I am mostly liberal ,myself). Custom cake building, (like custom boat building) is a creative act. Suppose a client comes into a boat builders office and asked him to build a boat that is IN THE BOAT BUILDERS OPINION so severely over-canvassed and under ballasted as to be unsafe or maybe just so butt-ugly that the builder doesn't want his name associated with it. Does the client have the right to stamp his foot and yell and scream "you made a boat for my neighbor now you MUST make this PARTICULAR boat for me"----no he does not--or at least the boat builder should not be FORCED to build it. After all, the client came to the boat builder, not the other way around. Just as a Nazi propaganda artist should not be forced to paint a glowing Star of David or a Jewish artist be forced to build a giant Iron swastika--(or put ham in a sandwich).

Forcing Nazis to paint a Star of David would really be going too far.  

 

50 years ago today:

d-day1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sol Rosenberg said:

Forcing Nazis to paint a Star of David would really be going too far.  

 

50 years ago today:

d-day1.jpg

I think your time frame is off.  74 years.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TMSAIL said:

I think your time frame is off.  74 years.  

yep.  I was thinking of RFK, which was 50 yesterday.  But my point was...fuck Nazis.  They are not fine people.  They should be forced to bake Star of David cakes and eat them, wallow in them, have them beaten into their fucking faces.  Our parents and grandparents literally fought a war to liberate the world from those fascist cocksuckers, so the least they can do is bake a goddamn cake.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

yep.  I was thinking of RFK, which was 50 yesterday.  But my point was...fuck Nazis.  They are not fine people.  They should be forced to bake Star of David cakes and eat them, wallow in them, have them beaten into their fucking faces.  Our parents and grandparents literally fought a war to liberate the world from those fascist cocksuckers, so the least they can do is bake a goddamn cake.  

No they are not fine people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I used the Nazi example---I was trying to Illustrate that the principle of not forcing artists to create something that is inately against their principals is universal and not dependent on the quality of either the artist or the art. By the way,even though the majority of Nazis would classify themselves as Christians, There is NO evidence that the self- described Christian baker is a Nazi--just homophobic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Sigh.  Never mind what Kennedy actually said that I posted above.  Only your interpretation of what he said is all that matters to you.  Keep shaking that bone bently.  Good boy.

No-one is saying that Kennedy didn't say what you said. I am simply pointing out the explicit reasons given for setting aside the lower courts' order. Judges talk about a lot of things, but what sets precedent in a case is the reasons they give for their decision. In the decision written by Kennedy, he explicitly points to the commentary and conduct of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the hostility of a member of said commission in the process for dealing with this case. 

Which is why legal experts are stating, as I have, that "by focusing on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s failure to provide the “neutral and respectful” adjudication of Phillips’ religious claims that the free exercise clause requires, the court left open broader questions of compelled speech and free exercise"*. But keep pretending I'm the one ignoring the interpretation of experts in favour of what I want to believe then feel free to go fuck yourself.

 

* Elizabeth A. Clark - Associate Director of the International Center for Law and Religion Studies at Brigham Young University

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Saorsa said:

It should be regarded as a victory for individuals.  There are a lot of businesses which are primarily individual efforts even if they are open to the public and have employees.

As it set no precedent, I can only see it as a victory for the individual baker himself as it was won on a matter of process specific to his case. Which is why legal experts on both sides of the issue are pointing out that SCOTUS ducked the legal issues they had hoped would be decided by it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2018 at 7:15 AM, Sol Rosenberg said:

There really is nothing like a shorn scrotum... it’s breathtaking... I highly suggest you try it. 

As he stands there with razor in hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

As it set no precedent, I can only see it as a victory for the individual baker himself as it was won on a matter of process specific to his case. Which is why legal experts on both sides of the issue are pointing out that SCOTUS ducked the legal issues they had hoped would be decided by it.

 

 

All SCOTUS decisions set a precedent.  This case will be cited in arguments for a long, long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So bents.... back to the topic at hand.  You claimed in the ball sack wax session that religion and gender doesn't enter into the equation if someone offers a service or product as long as everyone gets the same service or product, right?  So if a muzzy woman waxes women's legs, she would have to wax a dude's leg too, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

All SCOTUS decisions set a precedent.  This case will be cited in arguments for a long, long time.

Actually, no they don't. I know you guys don't like getting corrected by a foreigner on how your legal system works; so pretend I didn't point out the obvious and go ask a yankee lawyer who can correct you without the butt hurt. Here's a hint - if SCOTUS simply reaffirms previous standards (such as in this case regarding matters of process), the precedent was already set before the decision. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

So bents.... back to the topic at hand.  You claimed in the ball sack wax session that religion and gender doesn't enter into the equation if someone offers a service or product as long as everyone gets the same service or product, right?  So if a muzzy woman waxes women's legs, she would have to wax a dude's leg too, right?

As I've already stated, multiple times, the studio has to offer the same services to all. Just as a specific Kentucky clerk doesn't have to personally offer same-sex marriage licenses as long as her office provides them, the Muslim waxer doesn't have to wax a dude's legs as long as the studio continues to do so. It specifically hires an employee for that task, so they're covered.

Nice try though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

I've already stated the studio has to offer the same services to all (public accomodation applies to businesses, not individuals). Just as a specific Kentucky clerk doesn't have to personally offer same-sex marriage licenses as long as her office provides them, the Muslim waxer doesn't have to wax a dude's legs as long as the studio continues to do so. It specifically hires an employee for that task, so they're covered.

Nice try though.

So a church has to hire someone to perform gay weddings if the rest of the clergy won't do it themselves?

And I disagree with you that there is anywhere in any law that says a business must hire someone to perform a job if others cannot.  If there is, please point out the law or precedent that says that.  Maybe in pusstralia.  But if a husband and wife baker ran a small shop and they were the only employees - there is no way the gov't can compel them to hire another employee just so they can accommodate gay wedding cakes.

What if the muzzy woman was in business for herself and she was both owner and the sole employee?  Are you telling me she would be compelled to hire another waxer just for the odd event that a dude wanted his legs waxed???  

If that were the case - the case before SCOTUS would have been about forcing them to hire that extra person.  But it was not nor did that ever once come up in any ruling.  AS usual you are totally full of shit.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

All SCOTUS decisions set a precedent.  This case will be cited in arguments for a long, long time.

Agreed. This new (and partisan IMHO) business of trying to hand down a decision that is intended to NOT be a precedent is not going to work out the way they intended

-DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Agreed. This new (and partisan IMHO) business of trying to hand down a decision that is intended to NOT be a precedent is not going to work out the way they intended

-DSK

The vote was 7-2.  How is that partisan?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Agreed. This new (and partisan IMHO) business of trying to hand down a decision that is intended to NOT be a precedent is not going to work out the way they intended

-DSK

You said a mouthful, Steamers - and the very real possibility that things might not work out as intended, (and quoting SOL, IIRC) think about the worst way that your most rabid opponents might wield a change that you propose if they were in power, and then decide whether or not you think it's still a good idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Agreed. This new (and partisan IMHO) business of trying to hand down a decision that is intended to NOT be a precedent is not going to work out the way they intended

-DSK

The vote was 7-2.  How is that partisan?

-This- vote split is not what I was saying "is partisan." What I said, perhaps not clearly enough, is that the idea that the Supremes can give a decision that stands on it's own and NOT used as precedent, is primarily motivated by protecting partisan interests.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

So a church has to hire someone to perform gay weddings if the rest of the clergy won't do it themselves?

Churches are not businesses. Public accomodation laws that apply to businesses do not apply to them. Religious organisations have been getting exemptions from the rules applied to the rest of us for centuries. The law continues to do so here.

 

Quote

And I disagree with you that there is anywhere in any law that says a business must hire someone to perform a job if others cannot.  If there is, please point out the law or precedent that says that.  Maybe in pusstralia.  But if a husband and wife baker ran a small shop and they were the only employees - there is no way the gov't can compel them to hire another employee just so they can accommodate gay wedding cakes.

I didn't say that a business must hire anyone. I am saying that because the waxing studio in this case hires a person to wax guys' legs, they are covered should a guy walk in and demand one. Public accomodation requires that a business does not discriminate on who they sell their goods & services to. It does not proscribe how they do that, only that the discrimination not occur. You are, once again, trying to read something into what I wrote that's not there to manufacture an argument you can win.

 

Quote

What if the muzzy woman was in business for herself and she was both owner and the sole employee?  Are you telling me she would be compelled to hire another waxer just for the odd event that a dude wanted his legs waxed???

As I've already said, if a business refuses to offer someone the exact same good/service they offer others based purely on gender, they are culpable under the law and can be sued for it. If a sole employee/proprietor of a self run business refuses to wax a guy's legs based purely on his gender - they are just as culpable as they refused him because he was black or Christian. Neither me nor the law states how they decide to provide services equally to all protected classes, only that they are prohibited by law to offer the leg waxes to just one.

 

Quote

If that were the case - the case before SCOTUS would have been about forcing them to hire that extra person.  But it was not nor did that ever once come up in any ruling.  AS usual you are totally full of shit.  

Congratulations, you managed to beat down a strawman of your own making. Again. You are positively amazing arguing against the imaginary. Give yourself a pat on the back and get back to me when you feel like discussing what I actually said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Refusing to sell someone something off the shelf is a lot more discriminatory than refusing to create something special. Suppose you are a song writer that happens to despise the big orange asshole who is the current POTUS and you are approached by the Trump organization to write a song "in praise of the greatest president in history, Donald J Trump". Do you actually believe you should be forced to write the song? Now if the song had already been written and you were just working in the record store and refused to sell the record to some misguided, confused trump supporter THEN you might justly be called a small-minded bigoted P.O.S. No creative person should be forced to create something that is against their principals--- not even a "christian" baker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2018 at 10:49 AM, Steam Flyer said:

-This- vote split is not what I was saying "is partisan." What I said, perhaps not clearly enough, is that the idea that the Supremes can give a decision that stands on it's own and NOT used as precedent, is primarily motivated by protecting partisan interests.

-DSK

They can?  As the ultimate arbiters of law in the US that doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, edward mason said:

Refusing to sell someone something off the shelf is a lot more discriminatory than refusing to create something special. Suppose you are a song writer that happens to despise the big orange asshole who is the current POTUS and you are approached by the Trump organization to write a song "in praise of the greatest president in history, Donald J Trump". Do you actually believe you should be forced to write the song? Now if the song had already been written and you were just working in the record store and refused to sell the record to some misguided, confused trump supporter THEN you might justly be called a small-minded bigoted P.O.S. No creative person should be forced to create something that is against their principals--- not even a "christian" baker.

They don’t care.  It’s all about attacking religion. Especially Christians. 

Many a liberal artist has objected to right wing candidates using their music of course they lose everytine as long as a campaign bought the ascap license they are good to go. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually believe it would have been more "christian" if the baker had created the cake for the gay couple---I just dont believe he should be penalized if he does not. You cant legislate morality---anyones morality (thank god). Penalizing the baker for not baking the cake would be just as bad as forcing everyone to adhere to the bakers (or anyone else's) religion. Everyone has a right to adhere to their own code of conduct. -- unless you want to  live in a theocracy !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, edward mason said:

I actually believe it would have been more "christian" if the baker had created the cake for the gay couple---I just dont believe he should be penalized if he does not. You cant legislate morality---anyones morality (thank god). Penalizing the baker for not baking the cake would be just as bad as forcing everyone to adhere to the bakers (or anyone else's) religion. Everyone has a right to adhere to their own code of conduct. -- unless you want to  live in a theocracy !

Yes. They said that in the fifties too about serving black people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2018 at 3:19 AM, Bent Sailor said:

Give yourself a pat on the back and get back to me when you feel like discussing what I actually said. 

Ok, here you go.  You actually DID say this.

On 6/7/2018 at 4:51 PM, Bent Sailor said:

the Muslim waxer doesn't have to wax a dude's legs as long as the studio continues to do so. It specifically hires an employee for that task, so they're covered.

You said in your earlier threads that if the muzzy woman does leg waxes on women, she must do them on men because a leg wax is a leg wax and is no different that doing a leg wax on a woman.  You later then said that the shop can get around this if they hire someone else to do a guy's leg waxes.  In the event that the muzzy woman is the sole proprietor of her business and does women's leg waxes but not mens' because of religious beliefs - you clearly said earlier that she would be in hot water OR she would have to (i.e. be forced to) hire someone to do dude leg waxing.  Now in the light of the new SCOTUS ruling, what new argument are you going to adopt and lie that you didn't say this other stuff before?

I can't wait to see you tap dance out of this one.  Ready, set, GO!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I can't wait to see you tap dance out of this one.  Ready, set, GO!

Yeah, whatever. Where's that flogging a dead horse GIF when you need it.....

Look, my personal take, I'm of the opinion that if it involves hands-on type personal services, the seller/providor has the right to refuse to provide for any reason or no reason at all. Your religion says you don't touch the bodies of the opposite sex, fine. I've no problem with it, that's IMO quantitatively different from selling a cake or even making a cake.

Gonna be a lot of fun when a man goes to a brothel, asks for a woman and gets a person with male genitalia that happens to identify as  a woman. Which side of the argument do you want to take?

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TMSAIL said:

They don’t care.  It’s all about attacking religion. Especially Christians. 

Many a liberal artist has objected to right wing candidates using their music of course they lose everytine as long as a campaign bought the ascap license they are good to go. 

What utter snd complete bullshit!!

Nobody is attacking religion.  “You can’t cram your religion up the asses of others”is quite different from “Your religion is a huge pile of steaming shit.”

As for liberals and this discussion, liberals are the open minded folks who consider various options. 

Your suggestion liberals are taking sides on any issue simply demonstrates your ignorance 

 

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, edward mason said:

Refusing to sell someone something off the shelf is a lot more discriminatory than refusing to create something special. Suppose you are a song writer that happens to despise the big orange asshole who is the current POTUS and you are approached by the Trump organization to write a song "in praise of the greatest president in history, Donald J Trump". Do you actually believe you should be forced to write the song? Now if the song had already been written and you were just working in the record store and refused to sell the record to some misguided, confused trump supporter THEN you might justly be called a small-minded bigoted P.O.S. No creative person should be forced to create something that is against their principals--- not even a "christian" baker.

Or you just write the song according to your own interpretation

  

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gouvernail said:

What utter snd complete bullshit!!

Nobody is attacking religion.  “You can’t cram your religion up the asses of others”is quite different from “Your religion is a huge pile of steaming shit.”

As for liberals and this discussion, liberals are the open minded folks who consider various options. 

Your suggestion liberals are taking sides on any issue simply demonstrates your ignorance 

 

Speaking of utter and complete bullshit.....

Any issue that has the letters L G B T Q or POC in it is automatically by default "their side".  If it combines all that alphabet soup together - it is most definitely their side, irregardless of what the issue is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bent Sailor wrote 

7 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Yes. They said that in the fifties too about serving black people. 

Imho--its not the same thing---  That's what I was getting at when I stated 

 

13 hours ago, edward mason said:

Refusing to sell someone something off the shelf is a lot more discriminatory than refusing to create something special. Suppose you are a song writer that happens to despise the big orange asshole who is the current POTUS and you are approached by the Trump organization to write a song "in praise of the greatest president in history, Donald J Trump". Do you actually believe you should be forced to write the song? Now if the song had already been written and you were just working in the record store and refused to sell the record to some misguided, confused trump supporter THEN you might justly be called a small-minded bigoted P.O.S. No creative person should be forced to create something that is against their principals--- not even a "christian" baker.

You don't have to create anything special to serve a black person----refusing to serve a black person a dish that's already on the menu is reprehensible---refusing to create an entirely new "soul food" menu is an exercise of personal freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Ok, here you go.  You actually DID say this.

You said in your earlier threads that if the muzzy woman does leg waxes on women, she must do them on men because a leg wax is a leg wax and is no different that doing a leg wax on a woman.  You later then said that the shop can get around this if they hire someone else to do a guy's leg waxes.  In the event that the muzzy woman is the sole proprietor of her business and does women's leg waxes but not mens' because of religious beliefs - you clearly said earlier that she would be in hot water OR she would have to (i.e. be forced to) hire someone to do dude leg waxing.  Now in the light of the new SCOTUS ruling, what new argument are you going to adopt and lie that you didn't say this other stuff before?

 I can't wait to see you tap dance out of this one.  Ready, set, GO!

God you're a tedious little prick. I'm beginning to believe you're trying to redeem Tom by replacing him. 

First of all, the "new SCOTUS ruling" changes nothing. It simply reaffirmed that the US state governments cannot be discriminatory towards business based on religion and disagreed with the assessment of the lower courts that such had not occurred. They made their decision on a point of process based on a disagreement of fact in that one specific case. It has no affect whatsoever on this waxing case, both because it set no legal precedent and because the case in question is not under SCOTUS jurisdiction. 

Secondly, as I have repeatedly stated, if the Muslim woman was the proprietor and sole employee of her business, she would be legally required to offer guys the same service as she offers women should the men request it. Neither the law nor I specify how she goes about handling that. In the case of the studio in Canada, they are covered because they've hired someone who has no problems with waxing men. In your imaginary case, perhaps the Muslim woman prays to Allah for forgiveness and does it herself, perhaps she hires someone to do it for her, perhaps she keeps her business secret from the men so she is never confronted with the situation, or perhaps she decides she can no longer offer the leg waxing service when she realises she's in deep shit should she refuse a guy. Neither I nor the law care how she goes about fulfilling her requirement of non-discriminatory public accomodation as long as she continues not to discriminate. 

So no, the Muslim woman doesn't have to hire someone else in order to not get into trouble. She has a variety of options open to her in order to abide by the law. One of those options is to hire someone but neither I nor the law have ever stated she has to choose that one particular option. 

Now, seriously, do fuck off. This stalker thing of yours where you try to get under my skin by twisting everything I say got old before you took a personal shot at my wife. You're clearly not interested in anything but being a petty trolling shit-stain at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

God you're a tedious little prick. I'm beginning to believe you're trying to redeem Tom by replacing him. 

First of all, the "new SCOTUS ruling" changes nothing. It simply reaffirmed that the US state governments cannot be discriminatory towards business based on religion and disagreed with the assessment of the lower courts that such had not occurred. They made their decision on a point of process based on a disagreement of fact in that one specific case. It has no affect whatsoever on this waxing case, both because it set no legal precedent and because the case in question is not under SCOTUS jurisdiction. 

Secondly, as I have repeatedly stated, if the Muslim woman was the proprietor and sole employee of her business, she would be legally required to offer guys the same service as she offers women should the men request it. Neither the law nor I specify how she goes about handling that. In the case of the studio in Canada, they are covered because they've hired someone who has no problems with waxing men. In your imaginary case, perhaps the Muslim woman prays to Allah for forgiveness and does it herself, perhaps she hires someone to do it for her, perhaps she keeps her business secret from the men so she is never confronted with the situation, or perhaps she decides she can no longer offer the leg waxing service when she realises she's in deep shit should she refuse a guy. Neither I nor the law care how she goes about fulfilling her requirement of non-discriminatory public accomodation as long as she continues not to discriminate. 

So no, the Muslim woman doesn't have to hire someone else in order to not get into trouble. She has a variety of options open to her in order to abide by the law. One of those options is to hire someone but neither I nor the law have ever stated she has to choose that one particular option. 

Now, seriously, do fuck off. This stalker thing of yours where you try to get under my skin by twisting everything I say got old before you took a personal shot at my wife. You're clearly not interested in anything but being a petty trolling shit-stain at this point.

So, as long as they don't mention religion they can discriminate against the religious.

Got it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Saorsa said:

So, as long as they don't mention religion they can discriminate against the religious.

Got it.

I suggest a "remedial reading" class. It would prevent you making stupid statements like the above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Secondly, as I have repeatedly stated, if the Muslim woman was the proprietor and sole employee of her business, she would be legally required to offer guys the same service as she offers women should the men request it. Neither the law nor I specify how she goes about handling that. In the case of the studio in Canada, they are covered because they've hired someone who has no problems with waxing men. In your imaginary case, perhaps the Muslim woman prays to Allah for forgiveness and does it herself, perhaps she hires someone to do it for her, perhaps she keeps her business secret from the men so she is never confronted with the situation, or perhaps she decides she can no longer offer the leg waxing service when she realises she's in deep shit should she refuse a guy. Neither I nor the law care how she goes about fulfilling her requirement of non-discriminatory public accomodation as long as she continues not to discriminate. 

Nope, you're simply wrong on this.  The new SCOTUS ruling, if this were to take place in the US, now says that situation is not so clear anymore.  The muzzy woman would NOT necessarily have to offer a leg wax to guys just because she offers the same to women.  Kennedy's ruling was clear on that, that it would be looked at on a case by case basis and a compromise found to both treat the woman's religion with dignity while also trying to accommodate the customer's wishes.  I believe (IMHO) that Kennedy's ruling would likely favor the Muzzy woman far more than some guy wanting a leg wax.  The muzzy woman would have to violate her religious principles while the guy could go to the next salon and get a fucking leg wax where they didn't have a problem with it - that a far easier accommodation that telling a muzzy she has to touch a guy who is not her relative.  THAT is the outcome of the SCOTUS ruling.  Your B&W statement that she's legally required to offer the same service above is now no longer applicable.  It now depends.  You are wrong as of a few days ago and you can beat that drum all you want, but it won't change the fact that Kennedy and the SCOTUS have ruled that bents down't know shit about US constitutional law.  As evadent.  

tiny20dog2011.jpg

good boy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites