4 ms·

Because the bakers are discriminating against certain people doing the same behaviors as other people, but content hosts are discriminating against certain cont

Because the bakers are discriminating against certain people doing the same behaviors as other people, but content hosts are discriminating against certain content, regardless of who does it. We don't allow Google to censor homosexual content, and we allow bakers to ban gun cakes.

conanbatt 9y ago
I think its a useless difference. The baker could say hey doesnt want to bake cakes for "a type of wedding", not against "gay people that wed". The declared intent is irrelevant.
- GW150914 9y ago
  Hardly. A baker is free to say they won’t bake a giant swastika cake, or a massive ejaculating penis cake. They’re allowed to pick and choose what they’ll bake, but not who they bake for. If a straight couple wants an ejaculating penis cake, and that offends the baker they don’t have to make it, but they can’t ban the straight couple for being straight. If a guy couple wants a typical wedding cake saying, “Jane and Jill 4 Ever” on it, that’s not something they can reasonably refuse. If Jane and Jill want a swastika cake, they’re shit out of luck.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    Wasn’t the case about a gay wedding cake? That makes disentangling the what and for whom very difficult.
    - GW150914 9y ago
      It wasn’t an unusual or offensive cake, so it really doesn’t. It’s not as though the couple asked for a cake, but “make it extra gay!”
    - madeofpalk 9y ago
      Would "A. Baker" refuse to bake a non-homosexual wedding cake for a homosexual wedding (whatever that is)?
    - teawrecks 9y ago
      It was a normal cake. The "for whom" was the only differentiating factor.
      - Natsu 9y ago
        There's been more than one case, actually, so it really depends which case you're talking about.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    If you refuse service to a neo-nazi, can you get sued and fined?
    - throwawayjava 9y ago
      > can you get sued and fined? Generally not. I found this blog post pretty helpful: https://takecareblog.com/blog/neo-nazis-wedding-cakes-and-compelled-speech https://takecareblog.com/blog/neo-nazis-wedding-cakes-and-co... (Nit: anyone can be sued/fined for anything. The question is whether the plaintiff/gov't will win the resulting lawsuit.)
      - conanbatt 9y ago
        It was a rhetorical question, for the self-righteous proposition above.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  > The baker could say hey doesnt want to bake cakes for "a type of wedding", not against "gay people that wed". The declared intent is irrelevant. The courts are endowed with common sense; e.g., you can find many examples of courts rejecting various attempts at "literally equivalent to <insert protected class> but I never said <insert protected class!>".
  - Natsu 9y ago
    Yes, but then you end up with a mind-reading exercise, where someone's opinion of your intent matters more than what you actually did or did not do. Your example is obvious enough, sure, but you will surely hit some where many reasonable people strongly disagree after enough such cases. This is bad because we're all biased in various ways and knowing about that bias actually tends to make it worse among the people who don't realize that simply knowing your biases doesn't make you immune to them, leading them to overconfidence.
    - throwawayjava 9y ago
      > Yes, but then you end up with a mind-reading exercise, where someone's opinion of your intent matters more than what you actually did or did not do A sound, centuries-old concept that pre-dates the modern justice system. (Also, in most cases, you're wrong. Intent does not matter more. Which is why actions, not opinions, constitute the illegal activity. You can hate gay people as long as you make them their cakes. You can freely express Nazi ideologies as long as you don't plow your car into people. You can hate your wife as long as you don't murder her. You can hate your boss as long as you don't burn down the office building. Etc.) > but you will surely hit some where many reasonable people strongly disagree after enough such cases. Certainly. SCOTUS often passes down tests, but they can be very open-ended and sometimes even depend upon cultural context (e.g., Tinker). Also, those tests are sometimes updated as new cases are presented and the boundaries drawn by the previous test are judged insufficient (again, e.g., Tinker). > This is bad because we're all biased in various ways and knowing about that bias actually tends to make it worse among the people who don't realize that simply knowing your biases doesn't make you immune to them, leading them to overconfidence. How so? Judges understand that the law is full of grey area. When controversial issues of constitutional law come up, they often spend a great time deliberating. This is one reason why it's imperative to have a high-quality and independent judiciary. Our judges are not perfect, and some are even quite fallible. But this sort of self-assuredness in the outcome of dicey constitutional law cases is far more common from people off the bench than people on the bench. Even on the problem at hand, it's pretty obvious that both of the "no grey area" positions are ridiculously untenable. For the general case, what's your proposed solution? A system of laws with no grey area? I conjecture that this problem is even harder than AI-strong. Way harder. We're just barely learning how to write bug-free device drivers in a formal language. What makes you so confident that we could solve all the problems of politics and philosophy, in a completely unambiguous way, in an informal language?
otakucode 9y ago
We definitely do allow Google to censor homosexual content. LGBTQ videos and any video coming anywhere near issues that affect those communities were among the very first videos to be censored. Prior to the fictional 'adpocalypse', YouTube wasn't so heavy handed with it, but their Blogger platform always has been.

conanbatt 9y ago

I think its a useless difference. The baker could say hey doesnt want to bake cakes for "a type of wedding", not against "gay people that wed". The declared intent is irrelevant.

GW150914 9y ago
Hardly. A baker is free to say they won’t bake a giant swastika cake, or a massive ejaculating penis cake. They’re allowed to pick and choose what they’ll bake, but not who they bake for. If a straight couple wants an ejaculating penis cake, and that offends the baker they don’t have to make it, but they can’t ban the straight couple for being straight. If a guy couple wants a typical wedding cake saying, “Jane and Jill 4 Ever” on it, that’s not something they can reasonably refuse. If Jane and Jill want a swastika cake, they’re shit out of luck.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  Wasn’t the case about a gay wedding cake? That makes disentangling the what and for whom very difficult.
  - GW150914 9y ago
    It wasn’t an unusual or offensive cake, so it really doesn’t. It’s not as though the couple asked for a cake, but “make it extra gay!”
  - madeofpalk 9y ago
    Would "A. Baker" refuse to bake a non-homosexual wedding cake for a homosexual wedding (whatever that is)?
  - teawrecks 9y ago
    It was a normal cake. The "for whom" was the only differentiating factor.
    - Natsu 9y ago
      There's been more than one case, actually, so it really depends which case you're talking about.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  If you refuse service to a neo-nazi, can you get sued and fined?
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    > can you get sued and fined? Generally not. I found this blog post pretty helpful: https://takecareblog.com/blog/neo-nazis-wedding-cakes-and-compelled-speech https://takecareblog.com/blog/neo-nazis-wedding-cakes-and-co... (Nit: anyone can be sued/fined for anything. The question is whether the plaintiff/gov't will win the resulting lawsuit.)
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      It was a rhetorical question, for the self-righteous proposition above.
throwawayjava 9y ago
> The baker could say hey doesnt want to bake cakes for "a type of wedding", not against "gay people that wed". The declared intent is irrelevant. The courts are endowed with common sense; e.g., you can find many examples of courts rejecting various attempts at "literally equivalent to <insert protected class> but I never said <insert protected class!>".
- Natsu 9y ago
  Yes, but then you end up with a mind-reading exercise, where someone's opinion of your intent matters more than what you actually did or did not do. Your example is obvious enough, sure, but you will surely hit some where many reasonable people strongly disagree after enough such cases. This is bad because we're all biased in various ways and knowing about that bias actually tends to make it worse among the people who don't realize that simply knowing your biases doesn't make you immune to them, leading them to overconfidence.
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    > Yes, but then you end up with a mind-reading exercise, where someone's opinion of your intent matters more than what you actually did or did not do A sound, centuries-old concept that pre-dates the modern justice system. (Also, in most cases, you're wrong. Intent does not matter more. Which is why actions, not opinions, constitute the illegal activity. You can hate gay people as long as you make them their cakes. You can freely express Nazi ideologies as long as you don't plow your car into people. You can hate your wife as long as you don't murder her. You can hate your boss as long as you don't burn down the office building. Etc.) > but you will surely hit some where many reasonable people strongly disagree after enough such cases. Certainly. SCOTUS often passes down tests, but they can be very open-ended and sometimes even depend upon cultural context (e.g., Tinker). Also, those tests are sometimes updated as new cases are presented and the boundaries drawn by the previous test are judged insufficient (again, e.g., Tinker). > This is bad because we're all biased in various ways and knowing about that bias actually tends to make it worse among the people who don't realize that simply knowing your biases doesn't make you immune to them, leading them to overconfidence. How so? Judges understand that the law is full of grey area. When controversial issues of constitutional law come up, they often spend a great time deliberating. This is one reason why it's imperative to have a high-quality and independent judiciary. Our judges are not perfect, and some are even quite fallible. But this sort of self-assuredness in the outcome of dicey constitutional law cases is far more common from people off the bench than people on the bench. Even on the problem at hand, it's pretty obvious that both of the "no grey area" positions are ridiculously untenable. For the general case, what's your proposed solution? A system of laws with no grey area? I conjecture that this problem is even harder than AI-strong. Way harder. We're just barely learning how to write bug-free device drivers in a formal language. What makes you so confident that we could solve all the problems of politics and philosophy, in a completely unambiguous way, in an informal language?

otakucode 9y ago

We definitely do allow Google to censor homosexual content. LGBTQ videos and any video coming anywhere near issues that affect those communities were among the very first videos to be censored. Prior to the fictional 'adpocalypse', YouTube wasn't so heavy handed with it, but their Blogger platform always has been.