Strange how the 'gays' never try to force Muslims to go against their religion isn't it.
US Democrats upset that the Supreme Court has voted, by majority, that racism isn't ok anymore
- Thread starter Caracus2k
- Start date
The people who subscribe, adhere and enforce this affirmative action garbage are the most sanctimonious ******* you will ever meet, the sad, hilarious thing being is they're ticking a box they don't really care about anyways, so for whom are they exactly doing this for I wonder? drones... I mentally note them as deficient and move on with my life.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
You must have missed the discourse around the last world cup.
Suspended
I don't think gay people were asking Muslims to do anything other than...you know, let them exist and not be killed.
I think there are legal challenges to abortion laws in some states from Jewish individuals.
I think I heard the Church of Satan was also looking to challenge abortion laws on religious grounds.
Suspended
and yet I'd bet you'd be all over it if the sides were reversed
Soldato
AA assumes there is an active level of racist discrimination. But I would have thought that if there was then Asian people wouldnt be doing exceptionally well (better than white people).
Some of the comments in the media at this decision seems to have racist undertones itself, as though without this help Black people won't be able to get in to these higher education places.
Another problem with AA is it's then assumed any Black person who is in higher education got there only because of AA and not because of their own talent.
Some of the comments in the media at this decision seems to have racist undertones itself, as though without this help Black people won't be able to get in to these higher education places.
Another problem with AA is it's then assumed any Black person who is in higher education got there only because of AA and not because of their own talent.
Soldato
Silly decision because we all know you have to fight fire with fire so obviously you fight racism with racism!
Soldato
Yeah the SC has never had its approval ratings so low. Its is legislating from the bench and is making rulings in line with the Federalist Society and fundamentalist Christians beliefs.
Soldato
I wouldn't agree with any discrimination. A business owned by Muslims shouldn't be able to discriminate against someone just because they are gay. Do you think a business should be able to turn down the business of someone because of their political beliefs? Or the colour of their skin, their religion, their sex? Where do you draw the line?
Last edited:
Soldato
How typical of Americans to argue and complain about such as matter. I liken this to when there is a mass shooting and policaions on the left and right debate on how to tweak gun controls rather then actually address the main issue that people have rights to assault rifle type weapons. In this case the government should concentrate on improving schools and encouraging fathers to take an active role in their children devlopement then their wouldn't be any need for so called positive discrimination.
Why is refusing someone's business discrimination? That person is perfectly free to find a business to cater to their needs. That's like asking a vegan company to cater to someone who wants meat or a halal meat company to adhere to non halal methods.
Last edited:
Soldato
Because the woman in this case said she didn't want to make a website for a gays. What if every business in your town doesn't want to let you buy their services because you are gay?
So if Coutts turned down Farage's business because of his political beliefs that would be fine? (I don't believe that is what they did)
No it isn't. You aren't asking them to make something they don't already offer, she doesn't want to not make websites, she just doesn't want to make them for gay people.
US ruling all seemed a bit similar to the scandinavian court ruling that burning the Koran was OK, or the cricket report raising the stake on the previous one with accusations & remedial action for race/sex/class discrimination, both delegitimising racism
She doesn't want to make websites that eludes to homosexuality. It's not because they are gay, it's because the content she would be making would be gay.
The whole point of the decision is that the state cannot compel you to write/create something you don't want to. They can buy something off the shelf, but you cannot force them to write "Dave & Brian" on it, or have a the graphics of two men on a website.
It's called historical equality, whereby they design affirmative action policies to actively make life harder for races who are in general better off and make life easier for races who are generally worse off
I don't agree with this type of economics.
I don't believe we should ever take opportunities away from people to give to others, we should create new opportunities for new people. So instead of taking University spaces away from white people to give to black people, give the University-funding to create extra spaces and then give those spaces to black people - this way no one is disadvantaged.
By engaging in affirmative action as it is done these days, the government actively harms people for what their forefathers did and that's not fair, you don't need to bring someone down to lift someone else up
Last edited:
No she just doesn't want to produce a website that has gay imagery (essentially), not that the customer is gay. If a gay man came to her and wanted a 'normal' website she would have no issue with producing that.
Well for one we don't have a 1st amendment in the UK so what's protected in the US is entirely different from what we have. But to spin to a similar situation that did actually happen in the US, I assume you were against Kanye West having his bank accounts closed by JP Morgan?
As above, she isn't 'discriminating' because potential customers are gay, she just doesnt want to produce something that has homosexual content - 2 entirely different things. It was the same for the Christian baker and the couple of gay dudes that deliberately targeted him to make a cake with imagery that went against his beliefs.
Last edited:
Soldato
So a bank could turn down a gay person for a joint bank account as they don't want to write both their names on their cheque books or a business account if their business had anything to do with LGBTQ?
What about an atheist not wanting to make a website for a religious person because they don't want to write Jesus or other religious characters?
Or for someone of another race that mentions their race in the website?
Its just another move from the Christian extremists in the US and sadly there are now such people on the SC. It has nothing to do with the constitution it is just about their religious beliefs.