Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Pahu is robotic in his devotion to total nonsense.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Quizalufagus

1
Politics and Current Events / Re: in a 5-4 decision
The point is rather that we would be a very different situation if he had refused to sell completely unrelated products to somebody because of who they are. There's a big difference between refusing to do business with someone completely out of hatred for who they are, and refusing to do business with someone for the specific purposes of an event that you disagree with (even if that event implicated a person's identity).
2
Politics and Current Events / Re: in a 5-4 decision
It's a mischaracterization to say that the baker refused to make a cake for the couple because they're gay, though. He refused to make a cake for the occasion of a wedding between two people of the same sex. He didn't refuse to deal with them at all and offered to sell them other cakes. The discrimination was not against them as people but rather against the occasion.
3
Politics and Current Events / Re: in a 5-4 decision
Clearly my very-slightly-different-from-forum consensus viewpoint is beyond the pale and I should be banned for hate speech.
4
Politics and Current Events / Re: in a 5-4 decision
Do you hate every person who does something that you believe is wrong?
5
Politics and Current Events / Re: in a 5-4 decision
You think that the situations are analogous, and I don't for the reasons I've said.
I don't think you've really given reasons, though.

You could, perhaps, say that "the degree of horribleness matters" (as Testy puts it), but (a) that wouldn't break the analogy, and (b) you'd have your work cut out for you trying to explain why the magic threshold of horribleness (between "we should allow discrimination and "we shouldn't allow discrimination") just happens to fall somewhere between the two inexcusably high levels of horribleness in question here.
Fair point--I haven't really elaborated much on this because I was simply providing a counterpoint to a series of analogies that weren't really supported in the first place.

But in a little more detail: I think that the oppression of black people in the United States is different from other forms of oppression not because of degree of horribleness, but because of the nature of the oppression and the central role it's played in American society. The United States is a slave power built on the labor of a people forcibly imported to serve as an underclass, and black people have been continuously maintained as an underclass by both formal and informal modes of oppression that have often been aimed at exactly this goal. The remnants of this system of oppression (explicitly endorses by social and political powers at the highest levels) are with us today, and underwrite a staggering degree of inequality that the US will probably never be free of. Black people have been kept impoverished and powerless by concerted effort and explicit design and it probably won't go away with the way things are going. Crucially, this is not an ancillary aspect of American society. It is an important part of the fabric of America, and dominates the country's history.

The analogies are fine and apt and the burden is on you to explain why This Discrimination is Not Allowed but That Discrimination is Protected Religious Speech, which you notably avoided doing again. The logic underlying public accommodations laws and the classes they protect is the same and is already much broader than specifically black people. Do you reject all those other protected classes as well since they do not have the same history of oppression?
I think that I've articulated my rationale in quite a lot of detail tbf, but once more: Many of the reasons for enacting anti-discrimination laws don't obtain in the present case. The couple being discriminated against have lots of access to alternative bakers, the service they're trying to obtain is relatively unimportant (it is trivial compared to health care, housing, employment, and the like, for example), is in no way urgent. Moreover, while the couple faces oppression by virtue of their membership in a historically marginalized group of people, they live in a place and time where the support they enjoy from the community is ascendant and already significant (and possibly a hefty majority?). These factors attenuate the need for the government to protect them from prejudiced discrimination both because they can readily avoid it and because they are relatively well-equipped to protect themselves as compared to many historically-disadvantaged minorities. To my mind, these factors do not in any way obviate the need to impose anti-discrimination laws in their situation but do lessen their urgency and weight in the presence of legitimate competing interests.

And here there do seem to be legitimate competing interests, which while not compelling on their own are also serious enough that they shouldn't just be disregarded. The baker seems to have legitimate claim that it would do injury to his religious conscience to make a cake for the couple. This is completely sincere as far as I can tell, and it seems like a belief that is pretty well-grounded and mainstream in the baker's religion (however reprehensible you and I may find that belief to be). AFAIK it isn't not motivated by mere animus, but rather by genuine belief that his religion commands this. The baker's right to freely exercise his religion is also very serious--we should really consider what we're doing if we plan to infringe on this right.

In light of the fact that there are real and serious rights in conflict here, I think that we need to carefully balance them. I don't think that the right answer is clear, but I lean toward the baker because it seems that the situation has real stakes for him in a way that it doesn't for the couple. I guess that the couple must feel insulted and disappointed that the baker disapproves of their wedding and was legally allowed to turn down their request, but feeling insulted at this doesn't seem to me to be as serious an injury as being forced to do something that you believe is wrong. The letter seems like a pretty intimate violation of someone's rights, whereas we all deal with disapproval and hostility all the time (which is not to trivialize the special insult of this particular kind of hostility).

I don't think that the factors I outlined above normally exist in typical anti-discrimination cases.
Before trump I was a lot more willing to be tolerant of intolerance. We've gone down a slippery slope though where we're well into "fuck your religious excuses for bigotry. I'll put a fucking stick of dynamite in your cake shop you piece of shit" territory.
It's a stretch to call this intolerance or bigotry, though. This doesn't interfere with anyone living their lives and I haven't seen anything that suggests hatefulness on the part of the baker. The State acted in a prejudiced way but that was anti-Christian bias.
Wtf? Call it a sin and you're just putting lipstick on a pig. It's still hateful.

Eta:iow, it's not a stretch at all to call a hateful act hateful. It's an application of the correct word.
What hate? I have only seen evidence that the baker refused to do something because he believed his God demanded it, not that he had any feelings of hatred for gay people.
6
Politics and Current Events / Re: in a 5-4 decision
The State acted in a prejudiced way but that was anti-Christian bias.
:wat:
That's what the Supreme Court seems to have concluded anyway. See pp. 12-16 of the Court's opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf
7
Politics and Current Events / Re: in a 5-4 decision
You think that the situations are analogous, and I don't for the reasons I've said.
I don't think you've really given reasons, though.

You could, perhaps, say that "the degree of horribleness matters" (as Testy puts it), but (a) that wouldn't break the analogy, and (b) you'd have your work cut out for you trying to explain why the magic threshold of horribleness (between "we should allow discrimination and "we shouldn't allow discrimination") just happens to fall somewhere between the two inexcusably high levels of horribleness in question here.
Fair point--I haven't really elaborated much on this because I was simply providing a counterpoint to a series of analogies that weren't really supported in the first place.

But in a little more detail: I think that the oppression of black people in the United States is different from other forms of oppression not because of degree of horribleness, but because of the nature of the oppression and the central role it's played in American society. The United States is a slave power built on the labor of a people forcibly imported to serve as an underclass, and black people have been continuously maintained as an underclass by both formal and informal modes of oppression that have often been aimed at exactly this goal. The remnants of this system of oppression (explicitly endorses by social and political powers at the highest levels) are with us today, and underwrite a staggering degree of inequality that the US will probably never be free of. Black people have been kept impoverished and powerless by concerted effort and explicit design and it probably won't go away with the way things are going. Crucially, this is not an ancillary aspect of American society. It is an important part of the fabric of America, and dominates the country's history.

The analogies are fine and apt and the burden is on you to explain why This Discrimination is Not Allowed but That Discrimination is Protected Religious Speech, which you notably avoided doing again. The logic underlying public accommodations laws and the classes they protect is the same and is already much broader than specifically black people. Do you reject all those other protected classes as well since they do not have the same history of oppression?
I think that I've articulated my rationale in quite a lot of detail tbf, but once more: Many of the reasons for enacting anti-discrimination laws don't obtain in the present case. The couple being discriminated against have lots of access to alternative bakers, the service they're trying to obtain is relatively unimportant (it is trivial compared to health care, housing, employment, and the like, for example), is in no way urgent. Moreover, while the couple faces oppression by virtue of their membership in a historically marginalized group of people, they live in a place and time where the support they enjoy from the community is ascendant and already significant (and possibly a hefty majority?). These factors attenuate the need for the government to protect them from prejudiced discrimination both because they can readily avoid it and because they are relatively well-equipped to protect themselves as compared to many historically-disadvantaged minorities. To my mind, these factors do not in any way obviate the need to impose anti-discrimination laws in their situation but do lessen their urgency and weight in the presence of legitimate competing interests.

And here there do seem to be legitimate competing interests, which while not compelling on their own are also serious enough that they shouldn't just be disregarded. The baker seems to have legitimate claim that it would do injury to his religious conscience to make a cake for the couple. This is completely sincere as far as I can tell, and it seems like a belief that is pretty well-grounded and mainstream in the baker's religion (however reprehensible you and I may find that belief to be). AFAIK it isn't not motivated by mere animus, but rather by genuine belief that his religion commands this. The baker's right to freely exercise his religion is also very serious--we should really consider what we're doing if we plan to infringe on this right.

In light of the fact that there are real and serious rights in conflict here, I think that we need to carefully balance them. I don't think that the right answer is clear, but I lean toward the baker because it seems that the situation has real stakes for him in a way that it doesn't for the couple. I guess that the couple must feel insulted and disappointed that the baker disapproves of their wedding and was legally allowed to turn down their request, but feeling insulted at this doesn't seem to me to be as serious an injury as being forced to do something that you believe is wrong. The letter seems like a pretty intimate violation of someone's rights, whereas we all deal with disapproval and hostility all the time (which is not to trivialize the special insult of this particular kind of hostility).

I don't think that the factors I outlined above normally exist in typical anti-discrimination cases.
Before trump I was a lot more willing to be tolerant of intolerance. We've gone down a slippery slope though where we're well into "fuck your religious excuses for bigotry. I'll put a fucking stick of dynamite in your cake shop you piece of shit" territory.
It's a stretch to call this intolerance or bigotry, though. This doesn't interfere with anyone living their lives and I haven't seen anything that suggests hatefulness on the part of the baker. The State acted in a prejudiced way but that was anti-Christian bias.
8
Politics and Current Events / Re: in a 5-4 decision
You think that the situations are analogous, and I don't for the reasons I've said.
I don't think you've really given reasons, though.

You could, perhaps, say that "the degree of horribleness matters" (as Testy puts it), but (a) that wouldn't break the analogy, and (b) you'd have your work cut out for you trying to explain why the magic threshold of horribleness (between "we should allow discrimination and "we shouldn't allow discrimination") just happens to fall somewhere between the two inexcusably high levels of horribleness in question here.
Fair point--I haven't really elaborated much on this because I was simply providing a counterpoint to a series of analogies that weren't really supported in the first place.

But in a little more detail: I think that the oppression of black people in the United States is different from other forms of oppression not because of degree of horribleness, but because of the nature of the oppression and the central role it's played in American society. The United States is a slave power built on the labor of a people forcibly imported to serve as an underclass, and black people have been continuously maintained as an underclass by both formal and informal modes of oppression that have often been aimed at exactly this goal. The remnants of this system of oppression (explicitly endorses by social and political powers at the highest levels) are with us today, and underwrite a staggering degree of inequality that the US will probably never be free of. Black people have been kept impoverished and powerless by concerted effort and explicit design and it probably won't go away with the way things are going. Crucially, this is not an ancillary aspect of American society. It is an important part of the fabric of America, and dominates the country's history.

The analogies are fine and apt and the burden is on you to explain why This Discrimination is Not Allowed but That Discrimination is Protected Religious Speech, which you notably avoided doing again. The logic underlying public accommodations laws and the classes they protect is the same and is already much broader than specifically black people. Do you reject all those other protected classes as well since they do not have the same history of oppression?
I think that I've articulated my rationale in quite a lot of detail tbf, but once more: Many of the reasons for enacting anti-discrimination laws don't obtain in the present case. The couple being discriminated against have lots of access to alternative bakers, the service they're trying to obtain is relatively unimportant (it is trivial compared to health care, housing, employment, and the like, for example), is in no way urgent. Moreover, while the couple faces oppression by virtue of their membership in a historically marginalized group of people, they live in a place and time where the support they enjoy from the community is ascendant and already significant (and possibly a hefty majority?). These factors attenuate the need for the government to protect them from prejudiced discrimination both because they can readily avoid it and because they are relatively well-equipped to protect themselves as compared to many historically-disadvantaged minorities. To my mind, these factors do not in any way obviate the need to impose anti-discrimination laws in their situation but do lessen their urgency and weight in the presence of legitimate competing interests.

And here there do seem to be legitimate competing interests, which while not compelling on their own are also serious enough that they shouldn't just be disregarded. The baker seems to have legitimate claim that it would do injury to his religious conscience to make a cake for the couple. This is completely sincere as far as I can tell, and it seems like a belief that is pretty well-grounded and mainstream in the baker's religion (however reprehensible you and I may find that belief to be). AFAIK it isn't not motivated by mere animus, but rather by genuine belief that his religion commands this. The baker's right to freely exercise his religion is also very serious--we should really consider what we're doing if we plan to infringe on this right.

In light of the fact that there are real and serious rights in conflict here, I think that we need to carefully balance them. I don't think that the right answer is clear, but I lean toward the baker because it seems that the situation has real stakes for him in a way that it doesn't for the couple. I guess that the couple must feel insulted and disappointed that the baker disapproves of their wedding and was legally allowed to turn down their request, but feeling insulted at this doesn't seem to me to be as serious an injury as being forced to do something that you believe is wrong. The letter seems like a pretty intimate violation of someone's rights, whereas we all deal with disapproval and hostility all the time (which is not to trivialize the special insult of this particular kind of hostility).

I don't think that the factors I outlined above normally exist in typical anti-discrimination cases.
9
Politics and Current Events / Re: in a 5-4 decision
You think that the situations are analogous, and I don't for the reasons I've said.
I don't think you've really given reasons, though.

You could, perhaps, say that "the degree of horribleness matters" (as Testy puts it), but (a) that wouldn't break the analogy, and (b) you'd have your work cut out for you trying to explain why the magic threshold of horribleness (between "we should allow discrimination and "we shouldn't allow discrimination") just happens to fall somewhere between the two inexcusably high levels of horribleness in question here.
Fair point--I haven't really elaborated much on this because I was simply providing a counterpoint to a series of analogies that weren't really supported in the first place.

But in a little more detail: I think that the oppression of black people in the United States is different from other forms of oppression not because of degree of horribleness, but because of the nature of the oppression and the central role it's played in American society. The United States is a slave power built on the labor of a people forcibly imported to serve as an underclass, and black people have been continuously maintained as an underclass by both formal and informal modes of oppression that have often been aimed at exactly this goal. The remnants of this system of oppression (explicitly endorses by social and political powers at the highest levels) are with us today, and underwrite a staggering degree of inequality that the US will probably never be free of. Black people have been kept impoverished and powerless by concerted effort and explicit design and it probably won't go away with the way things are going. Crucially, this is not an ancillary aspect of American society. It is an important part of the fabric of America, and dominates the country's history.
10
Politics and Current Events / Re: in a 5-4 decision
I mean that I think you haven't thought your defense of your intuition through, and that that has led to contradictions, so that you cannot make a coherent theory.

For example: citing the discrimination against African Americans does strengthen the case that African Americans need protections against discrimination. But that doesn't affect the case you were making - the case you were making was that even in the face of necessary protections from discrimination, the rights of the owner can still prevail.
Can you elaborate more on this? In particular, what contradictions do you think are entailed by the views that I've expressed here (or are likely to be entailed)?

FWIW I don't think that I have cited the discrimination against African Americans other than to say that I don't think that's analogies to that situation are enlightening.
11
Politics and Current Events / Re: in a 5-4 decision
Perhaps just stone him, against a wall or something.

Or bring him to Lawrence, Texas

Or...shit I'm out of bad puns, how about just deny his partner medical care or survivors benefits or power of attorney or the ability to visit them while they're dying in the hospital or disinheritance from a bigoted family or complete neglect ranging to outright blame and glee during the peak of the AIDS epidemic or being made homeless like my now-brother-in-law was at the age of 19 in 20-fucking-12 by his shithead family who still refuses to reconcile with him.

God damn, quiz. You're just too fucking ignorant on this. My brother and his husband had to leave the state to get married because their state didn't recognize their marriage at the time. Less than 20 years ago, it was perfectly legal to criminalize being gay. Only a a couple decades before that homosexuality was treated as a mental illness.
You're writing this as if I've said anything to dismiss the reprehensible treatment of gay people in this country.

You have though, repeatedly. Just a couple of posts above you minimized their suffering in a game of oppression olympics,
I could just as well say that you've minimized slavery and American apartheid by making false analogies to the conditions (however bad) experienced by gay people, so I'm not sure it's worth us arguing over that. You think that the situations are analogous, and I don't for the reasons I've said.

Quote
and you've justified allowing bigots to illegally discriminate against them based on religious beliefs.
I'm not so sure whether it's illegal discrimination or protected by the First Amendment (and SCOTUS hasn't told us yet), but anyway "justified" erroneously suggests that I endorse the discrimination. I don't endorse it at all and if it were me I would have baked the cake. I'm not so sure that it should be illegal for the baker to disagree with my sentiments in circumstances like these.
12
Politics and Current Events / Re: in a 5-4 decision
Perhaps just stone him, against a wall or something.

Or bring him to Lawrence, Texas

Or...shit I'm out of bad puns, how about just deny his partner medical care or survivors benefits or power of attorney or the ability to visit them while they're dying in the hospital or disinheritance from a bigoted family or complete neglect ranging to outright blame and glee during the peak of the AIDS epidemic or being made homeless like my now-brother-in-law was at the age of 19 in 20-fucking-12 by his shithead family who still refuses to reconcile with him.

God damn, quiz. You're just too fucking ignorant on this. My brother and his husband had to leave the state to get married because their state didn't recognize their marriage at the time. Less than 20 years ago, it was perfectly legal to criminalize being gay. Only a a couple decades before that homosexuality was treated as a mental illness.
You're writing this as if I've said anything to dismiss the reprehensible treatment of gay people in this country. I haven't said anything like that though. The most I've said on this front is that I don't think that analogies to the treatment of black people in America are appropriate because of the uniquely horrible treatment of black people and the enormous role this oppression has played in American culture at large.
13
Politics and Current Events / Re: in a 5-4 decision
Quiz, to be honest, I'm not sure you have a coherent theory here.

I think there is a coherent case that can be made, but I don't think your posts can be made into one.
What do you mean? I'm not really offering anything so grandiose as a theory. I'm pointing out that the bakery situation presents a genuine conflict of different rights that need to be weighed against one another, and summarizing a few points that push my intuition to one side rather than the other.
14
Politics and Current Events / Re: in a 5-4 decision
@testy: Please step back for a moment and consider the fact that you're using imagery of violent sexual assault and dismemberment because someone disagrees with you about a nuance of anti-discrimination law. You, the guy who's always talking about the fundamental humanity of everyone. Why do you think that is?
15
Politics and Current Events / Re: in a 5-4 decision
The plaintiffs knew he would refuse and forced the issue, as is their right.
If true, that's a super dickish thing to do.
Yeah. Fuck Rosa Parks. Getting on that bus knowing they were going to make her sit in the back. 

Okay, this is a frustrating response whose spirit is played out constantly around here. You're a smart person and you're more than capable of critical engagement with this issue, but this is just an unthinking snarky throwaway reply. I don't believe for a second that you really think that this cake thing is actually analogous to a protest to a comprehensive and pervasive system of apartheid that followed hundreds of years of literal slavery. It's easier to glaze over and parrot a slogan from your political team (and my political team too, for that matter!) than it is to actually step back and engage with the issues, but it's also stupid. I'm sure that many of the readers of this post are once again replaying their rehearsed defenses of TR tribal snark in their heads, but we're better than this and it's just profoundly dumb.
16
Politics and Current Events / Re: in a 5-4 decision
Clergy, sure. The rest? No. You offer wedding photography, this is just another wedding. Deal with it or close up shop.
I think this obviously infringes on basic free speech and free exercise rights. People who are unambiguously artists shouldn't be compelled to use their talents to craft messages to which they're opposed, and I think it's pretty authoritarian to require them to do so.

Quote
For quiz: should these same people be allowed to refuse services for an interracial marriage if they have "heartfelt" religious objections to it?
I'm pretty inclined to suspect those religious objections as inauthentic compared to the one in this situation: Religious brands of racism seem to me like racism given a superficial religious facade rather than convictions that are derived from serious religious belief. But anyway, I don't think there are any useful analogies between the gay wedding situation and racial discrimination. America's history of slavery and apartheid makes racial oppression unlike other issues of social justice, and frankly I'm willing to accept a lot more extreme solutions to combat it.
17
Politics and Current Events / Re: in a 5-4 decision
For people itt who think that the baker should be legally required to make a cake for the gay couple: Should there be any exemptions to the anti-discrimination laws for professionals asked to work on the wedding in any capacity? What about photographers hired to take photos celebrating the couple's romance? Or calligraphers hired to write messages for the wedding? Or musicians asked to perform? Or even clergy asked to officiate?
18
Politics and Current Events / Re: in a 5-4 decision
The plaintiffs knew he would refuse and forced the issue, as is their right.
If true, that's a super dickish thing to do.
19
Politics and Current Events / Re: in a 5-4 decision
This whole thread is like a blast from the New Atheist past.
20
Politics and Current Events / Re: in a 5-4 decision
Actually, I can do that! If you don't want to follow public accommodations laws and instead be a "heartful" bigoted asshole, fuck you.  I view this baker and his "religious rights" no different than someone running the Ken's Kountry Kampground refusing to serve black people, or Ado's Bakery refusing to serve Jews out of their "heartfelt" beliefs.

Others' rights to freely engage in society and our economy without discrimination supersede those religious arguments. Again, the weight of history is overwhelmingly on the side of anti-discrimination laws and their necessity.

If your "basic human dignity" amounts to your hatred and rejection of others, fuck you. And no, we don't have to fall down some dumb "tolerance of the intolerant" spiral of stupidity.
If your argument is really that free exercise of religion is bad, then you're the bigot tbf.
21
Politics and Current Events / Re: in a 5-4 decision
The idea I think Quiz is proposing is that the harm done by discrimination happens because the person is excluded from the good or service. If someone else offers the same thing (or maybe similar enough), accordingly, then no harm is done.
No, there is definitely harm done. It's insulting and hurtful and probably inconvenient to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a couple because they're gay. But the baker is also harmed if you force him to bake the cake because it does real injury to his conscience. Someone is going to be harmed either way, and the question should be whose injury is more serious in light of all the other factors.
22
Politics and Current Events / Re: in a 5-4 decision
Colorado law doesn't allow bigot assholes to deny public accommodations based on, among other things, race, religion or sexuality.

Why should there be a "will you can go to someone else" exemption? How do you define that? Where is the cut off? Why does the baker in Denver get to deny whomever he wants but the baker in ruralfuck doesn't?

Why isn't it both simpler and more just to have a public accommodations law without these exemptions and to tell bigots to go pound sand?
Some people have sincere and heartfelt religious convictions, and it's fucked up to force them to act against those convictions unless it's necessary in order to protect competing rights that would be infringed to a greater extent. Often there are competing rights that should be given more weight (like in the case of a religious pharmacist refusing to provide birth control), and maybe you could make some argument for that in this case too. But you can't just waive the baker off as a bigot and dismiss his religious rights as if they have no weight at all. That's pretty much what the Colorado Civil Rights Commission did, and it's garbage that's really disrespectful to basic human dignity.
23
Politics and Current Events / Re: in a 5-4 decision
There is something that at least feels a bit contradictory to me: the argument that there are other places to go (and so no harm done) relies on the fungibility of the item in question, but that seems like it should deny the artistic value of the object.

This isn't a fully fleshed out argument, because it isn't exactly true as is. Still trying to see if it's at all meaningful.
Yeah, I was thinking about that too. I'm not sure that the "artistic" part of it really gets at the issue. It seems like the more relevant distinction is between someone who just provides stuff somehow (e.g., a convenience store clerk), and someone who actually puts themselves into being present and part of something. The thing that feels objectionable is being made to actually be part of something you disapprove of.
24
Politics and Current Events / Re: in a 5-4 decision
It's pretty cool that, even after all these years, TR still knows how to be intellectually-lazy in its own special way.
"Hi I have no idea what public accommodations law is or why it's clearly necessary, let me accuse others of being intellectually lazy"
Back up here for a sec. Is it really clearly necessary for public accommodations laws to operate in situations specifically like this (not just generally)? AFAIK this is a case where a single baker refused service (apparently out of sincere conviction?) in a context where there are numerous equally-good bakers who'd do the job. If he had been the only baker in town, I'd agree with you. If he had refused something more important or urgent than baking a cake (as in landmark public accommodations cases), I'd agree with you. But here? Whose rights are really put out more by an adverse decision here?

Of course, you might tell me that this case doesn't matter except that it could be used to weaken public accommodations laws generally. And I guess it could be stupidly used that way, but this is also just a slippery-slope argument. Anything less than absolutist adherence to the strictest laws may in fact amount to a weakening of those laws, but it doesn't mean that we're off the hook to actually think with some nuance.
What about the pharmacist who won't fill a birth control prescription?
Exactly the example I had in mind when I mentioned something more important or urgent.
25
Politics and Current Events / Re: in a 5-4 decision
It's pretty cool that, even after all these years, TR still knows how to be intellectually-lazy in its own special way.
"Hi I have no idea what public accommodations law is or why it's clearly necessary, let me accuse others of being intellectually lazy"
Back up here for a sec. Is it really clearly necessary for public accommodations laws to operate in situations specifically like this (not just generally)? AFAIK this is a case where a single baker refused service (apparently out of sincere conviction?) in a context where there are numerous equally-good bakers who'd do the job. If he had been the only baker in town, I'd agree with you. If he had refused something more important or urgent than baking a cake (as in landmark public accommodations cases), I'd agree with you. But here? Whose rights are really put out more by an adverse decision here?

Of course, you might tell me that this case doesn't matter except that it could be used to weaken public accommodations laws generally. And I guess it could be stupidly used that way, but this is also just a slippery-slope argument. Anything less than absolutist adherence to the strictest laws may in fact amount to a weakening of those laws, but it doesn't mean that we're off the hook to actually think with some nuance.

Can't that uppity black couple just go to the hotel down the street?

Due to the nature of hotels and traveling, very often they cannot (and it is much less reasonable to expect someone to do that after a long day, at any rate). And also hotels are a vastly more important service to one's life than wedding cakes. And also racial discrimination has poweful dimensions in American politics that discrimination against gay people does not. And also there are real differences in the seriousness of the competing rights in the two situations afaics.