4 ms·

False equivalency. Demonetizing videos that make homophobic attacks on public figures (the "conservative" content in question) is not "the other side of the co

False equivalency. Demonetizing videos that make homophobic attacks on public figures (the "conservative" content in question) is not "the other side of the coin" to being positive about LGBTQ issues.

mieseratte 7y ago
False equivalency? Yours is a non-existent equivalency.
- whateveracct 7y ago
  No it's not? It's an equivalency core to modern American politics. Marriage equality on the left vs denying business to gay couples on the right.
  - mieseratte 7y ago
    > denying business to gay couples on the right. There's no denying of business, there's just illiberal progressives seeking to force individuals speech and expression to be only what they deem socially acecptable. If some Christian baker doesn't wish to create a bespoke cake, that's within his right. Your desire to control others expression is far more toxic than someone's "right" to a bespoke desert.
    - phailhaus 7y ago
      For you to be consistent, you have to also defend the baker's right to refuse business to a black couple who requests a "bespoke cake". Do you agree with that?
      - mieseratte 7y ago
        > For you to be consistent, you have to also defend the baker's right to refuse business to a black couple who requests a "bespoke cake". Entirely depends on the content of the cake, if a black couple comes along and asks for a cake with, say, Satan licking a giant black dick[0] on it the baker might reasonably demur. It isn't about refusing a couple based on their immutable attributes, it is about the content of the cake they requested. You don't have a right to force someone to create something they do not wish to create. [0] - https://www.newsweek.com/colorado-baker-protagonist-satan-dildo-cake-other-bakeries-wouldnt-create-1077250 https://www.newsweek.com/colorado-baker-protagonist-satan-di...
        phailhaus 7y ago
        Let's be clear, that was not the request. The baker refused to bake the cake because it was for a gay wedding, and such a cake would "promote gay marriage". There are still many people out there who do not "believe" in interracial marriage. Do you support a baker refusing to make a cake for an interracial couple? Do they have the right to refuse business solely based on the race of their customers?
        mieseratte 7y ago
        > Let's be clear, that is not the request. Yes, it was the request. They wanted a custom cake celebrating a gay wedding, which was precluded by the baker's sincere religious belief. If you read TFA I linked to, you would have read this as well as all the other insane requests refused, and that the baker was willing to sell otherwise made cakes. This is a well litigated, well reported case and you have twice now insisted material elements of the case did not happen. This is not about refusing someone based on their immutable attributes, but their requested content. Stop asking rhetorical questions regarding racism.
        whateveracct 7y ago
        Sincere religious belief isn't a bulletproof defense on these matters though.
        mieseratte 7y ago
        It is as relates to compelling someone to create custom content on your behalf, to express your views. I can't use a religious belief to refuse a rote service, but I can to refuse bespoke work that expresses your views. This case was never about refusing service to LGBT couples, it was about refusing bespoke work. To paint it as anything else, and in defense of your argument that "Conservatives are anti-LGBT" because of this case is wrong and nothing short of propaganda.
        whateveracct 7y ago
    - SeanBoocock 7y ago
      The baker's business exists at the pleasure of the government that ratified its charter and as such is subject to rules around how they can run it. Some of those rules include how the business can filter potential customers. Sexual orientation is recognized as a protected class. Part of the baker's business is creating and selling wedding cakes. It is reasonable then to require that the baker, in their capacity of selling wedding cakes, to do so indiscriminately with respect to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or any other protected class _regardless_ of their religious beliefs. The supreme court opinion on this case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...) did not rule on the merits so it is an open question as to the legal standing of that.
      - mieseratte 7y ago
        Yes, and the baker was willing to sell them a cake. He was not willing to create a bespoke cake. This isn't about refusing service, but refusing compelled speech. As I've expressed over and over, this isn't about refusing to conduct business.
        reggintoggaf 7y ago
        Baker was willing to sell them a bespoke cake as well, he only refused to make a homosex themed cake.
  - WilliamEdward 7y ago
    While i think it is morally reprehensible to deny business to someone because of their sexuality, forcing someone to work for any reason is essentially just as bad. It's no different than forcing an employee to work overtime when no legal contract is in place. If it were a doctor it would be different, but it's a non-essential baked item. They don't want to work. Do not make them work. Let their business die and find another bakery.
manfredo 7y ago
Perhaps, but if the criteria for "homophobic attacks" expands to include views that the majority of conservatives hold, then banning "homophobic attacks" just becomes a rebranded way of banning conservatives.
- whateveracct 7y ago
  Fair, but on the flip side: If the majority of conservatives hold (and try to post) homophobic views, then it seems that banning the majority of them is the right thing to do.
  - f1refly 7y ago
    No, that's not the right thing to do. You'd be suppressing a great amount of people, whose opinions have to be reckoned with. Just because you think they hold the "wrong" opinion doesn't mean they actually do. It just differs from yours and you have to accept that (and can obviously try to convince them of your position). They have to live with your opinion as well, so that's just fair.

mieseratte 7y ago

False equivalency? Yours is a non-existent equivalency.

whateveracct 7y ago
No it's not? It's an equivalency core to modern American politics. Marriage equality on the left vs denying business to gay couples on the right.
- mieseratte 7y ago
  > denying business to gay couples on the right. There's no denying of business, there's just illiberal progressives seeking to force individuals speech and expression to be only what they deem socially acecptable. If some Christian baker doesn't wish to create a bespoke cake, that's within his right. Your desire to control others expression is far more toxic than someone's "right" to a bespoke desert.
  - phailhaus 7y ago
    For you to be consistent, you have to also defend the baker's right to refuse business to a black couple who requests a "bespoke cake". Do you agree with that?
    - mieseratte 7y ago
      > For you to be consistent, you have to also defend the baker's right to refuse business to a black couple who requests a "bespoke cake". Entirely depends on the content of the cake, if a black couple comes along and asks for a cake with, say, Satan licking a giant black dick[0] on it the baker might reasonably demur. It isn't about refusing a couple based on their immutable attributes, it is about the content of the cake they requested. You don't have a right to force someone to create something they do not wish to create. [0] - https://www.newsweek.com/colorado-baker-protagonist-satan-dildo-cake-other-bakeries-wouldnt-create-1077250 https://www.newsweek.com/colorado-baker-protagonist-satan-di...
      - phailhaus 7y ago
        Let's be clear, that was not the request. The baker refused to bake the cake because it was for a gay wedding, and such a cake would "promote gay marriage". There are still many people out there who do not "believe" in interracial marriage. Do you support a baker refusing to make a cake for an interracial couple? Do they have the right to refuse business solely based on the race of their customers?
        mieseratte 7y ago
        > Let's be clear, that is not the request. Yes, it was the request. They wanted a custom cake celebrating a gay wedding, which was precluded by the baker's sincere religious belief. If you read TFA I linked to, you would have read this as well as all the other insane requests refused, and that the baker was willing to sell otherwise made cakes. This is a well litigated, well reported case and you have twice now insisted material elements of the case did not happen. This is not about refusing someone based on their immutable attributes, but their requested content. Stop asking rhetorical questions regarding racism.
        whateveracct 7y ago
        Sincere religious belief isn't a bulletproof defense on these matters though.
        mieseratte 7y ago
        It is as relates to compelling someone to create custom content on your behalf, to express your views. I can't use a religious belief to refuse a rote service, but I can to refuse bespoke work that expresses your views. This case was never about refusing service to LGBT couples, it was about refusing bespoke work. To paint it as anything else, and in defense of your argument that "Conservatives are anti-LGBT" because of this case is wrong and nothing short of propaganda.
        whateveracct 7y ago
  - SeanBoocock 7y ago
    The baker's business exists at the pleasure of the government that ratified its charter and as such is subject to rules around how they can run it. Some of those rules include how the business can filter potential customers. Sexual orientation is recognized as a protected class. Part of the baker's business is creating and selling wedding cakes. It is reasonable then to require that the baker, in their capacity of selling wedding cakes, to do so indiscriminately with respect to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or any other protected class _regardless_ of their religious beliefs. The supreme court opinion on this case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...) did not rule on the merits so it is an open question as to the legal standing of that.
    - mieseratte 7y ago
      Yes, and the baker was willing to sell them a cake. He was not willing to create a bespoke cake. This isn't about refusing service, but refusing compelled speech. As I've expressed over and over, this isn't about refusing to conduct business.
      - reggintoggaf 7y ago
        Baker was willing to sell them a bespoke cake as well, he only refused to make a homosex themed cake.
- WilliamEdward 7y ago
  While i think it is morally reprehensible to deny business to someone because of their sexuality, forcing someone to work for any reason is essentially just as bad. It's no different than forcing an employee to work overtime when no legal contract is in place. If it were a doctor it would be different, but it's a non-essential baked item. They don't want to work. Do not make them work. Let their business die and find another bakery.

manfredo 7y ago

Perhaps, but if the criteria for "homophobic attacks" expands to include views that the majority of conservatives hold, then banning "homophobic attacks" just becomes a rebranded way of banning conservatives.

whateveracct 7y ago
Fair, but on the flip side: If the majority of conservatives hold (and try to post) homophobic views, then it seems that banning the majority of them is the right thing to do.
- f1refly 7y ago
  No, that's not the right thing to do. You'd be suppressing a great amount of people, whose opinions have to be reckoned with. Just because you think they hold the "wrong" opinion doesn't mean they actually do. It just differs from yours and you have to accept that (and can obviously try to convince them of your position). They have to live with your opinion as well, so that's just fair.