US Democrats upset that the Supreme Court has voted, by majority, that racism isn't ok anymore

Grim5 said:
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
Click to expand...

How is that any different? You are creating spaces for minorities only. So you have more spaces overall but less for whites overall.

This isn't just about black people. Though because of US history with blacks it does mean that is is always front and centre of these things.

As I said before I think its time was done. It served an important role in the past but its hard to justify in 2023, not that the US doesn't still have major issues with race, I'm just not sure higher education is one of them.
 
To be honest I think it's somewhat fair that you shouldn't be able to perturb a business into doing something for you if they don't want to so long as they don't completely stop all business with a customer based on immutable characteristics.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't know about the bank situation would be interpreted, but potentially?

The other two yes. If a Christian asks you to create a website about dinosaurs being only 20,000 years old (that's a thing), and maybe even having Jesus riding a T-rex, I should have every right to tell them to take their dumbassery somewhere else. You can buy my cookie-cutter website, and change it yourself, but you can't force me to write or design things I don't agree with.

You say Christian extremists, but it seems to me that forcing someone else to write something that they don't like or agree with, against their freedom of speech, is the extreme action.
 
Longbow said:
I don't know about the bank situation would be interpreted, but potentially?

The other two yes. If a Christian asks you to create a website about dinosaurs being only 20,000 years old (that's a thing), and maybe even having Jesus riding a T-rex, I should have every right to tell them to take their dumbassery somewhere else. You can buy my cookie-cutter website, and change it yourself, but you can't force me to write or design things I don't agree with.

You say Christian extremists, but it seems to me that forcing someone else to write something that they don't like or agree with, against their freedom of speech, is the extreme action.
Click to expand...

You're asked to do a site for a mixed race couple. They would be fine to say no because they don't believe in mix raced marriage?

Its a minefield and sadly its only going to get worse going forward. How long before say venues refuse to serve people due to their sexuality, gender, race.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
You're asked to do a site for a mixed race couple. They would be fine to say no because they don't believe in mix raced marriage?

Its a minefield and sadly its only going to get worse going forward. How long before say venues refuse to serve people due to their sexuality, gender, race.
Click to expand...
Again you are failing to understand what the ruling is about, it's not about refusing someone based on whatever characteristics you wish to name, it's about the content of what they are asking someone to produce. It's not a hard concept to grasp and yet you are constantly failing to do so.
 
Last edited:
C Kent said:
Again you are failing to understand what the ruling is about, it's not about refusing someone based on whatever characteristics you wish to name, it's about the content of what they are asking someone to produce. It's not a hard concept to grasp and yet you are constantly failing to do so.
Click to expand...

I'm fully aware of the 1st amendment thanks and how its being used here. And it is being used to refuse services to someone they don't like/agree with. Writing 2 names of the same sex can be used by a myriad of companies as an excuse to not offer services to gay people now.

Obergefell will be back on the menu soon and that will be struck down as well. Religion is the majority on the SC now.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
I'm fully aware of the 1st amendment thanks and how its being used here. And it is being used to refuse services to someone they don't like/agree with. Writing 2 names of the same sex can be used by a myriad of companies as an excuse to not offer services to gay people now.

Obergefell will be back on the menu soon and that will be struck down as well. Religion is the majority on the SC now.
Click to expand...
Your posts on the matter disagree with the your 1st sentence, unless you are deliberately misrepresenting what actually happened with the ruling?

Tbh I think your stance can be summed up by the following " waa waa religion Christianity bad"

Edit: out of interest have you ever read the dissenting opinions on Obergefell v Hodges?
 
Last edited:
I’m very supportive of meritocracy in general but it’s undeniable that interviewers tend to favour people that look like them. That’s very much not a meritocracy. Policies like affirmative action maybe go too far but I think there needs to be some focus on that point above.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think because banks already offer joint bank accounts to business where you may have joint male or joint female signatures. And also because they offer joint accounts to heterosexual couples who are not married they would be bang to rights for discrimination because they are witholding a service they already offer on the basis of a protected characteristic.

If I go into a shop to buy something from a catalogue or the shelf they are "entreating to buy" if they then refused on the basis of a protected characteristic that is discrimination. But if I offer up a statement of request for a service they offer the are legitimately within their rights to decline to offer a service if the service itself rather than the customer goes agains their beliefs. So a gay man wants a cake for their 5 year old nephew that says "5 Today". Not doing it on the basis of the customer is discrimination. Same fella comes in but wants a cake saying "Sodomy is Ace" they can refuse to do work that endorses a belief they disagree with.

This seems fair to me. Would we want ethnic minority T-shirt shops to be forced to make pro neonazi merchandise? Or would we think it's fair they politely refuse.
 
Last edited:
One More Solo said:
I’m very supportive of meritocracy in general but it’s undeniable that interviewers tend to favour people that look like them.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard this statement before but it is so vague that there isn’t much you can draw from it.

How much more are they being favoured? A little bit, a lot a huge amount? If you could assign a numerical value it would be a lot more useful.

While the experiment was probably done with all things equal that’s not a reflection of the real world and people should remember there are ways to stack the odds in your favour regardless of skin colour.
 
PlacidCasual said:
I think because banks already offer joint bank accounts to business where you may have joint male or joint female signatures. And also because they offer joint accounts to heterosexual couples who are not married they would be bang to rights for discrimination because they are witholding a service they already offer on the basis of a protected characteristic.

If I go into a shop to buy something from a catalogue or the shelf they are "entreating to buy" if they then refused on the basis of a protected characteristic that is discrimination. But if I offer up a statement of request for a service they offer the are legitimately within their rights to decline to offer a service if the service itself rather than the customer goes agains their beliefs. So a gay man wants a cake for their 5 year old nephew that says "5 Today". Not doing it on the basis of the customer is discrimination. Same fella comes in but wants a cake saying "Sodomy is Ace" they can refuse to do work that endorses a belief they disagree with.

This seems fair to me. Would we want ethnic minority T-shirt shops to be forced to make pro neonazi merchandise? Or would we think it's fair they politely refuse.
Click to expand...

Is asking someone to print Nazi symbolism the same as Ben and Bob?

Why this even made it to the SC is bizarre, you need to have standing and no one had asked her make a gay website.
 
C Kent said:
I'm wondering if you are going to answer any of the numerous questions posed to you in this thread, or if you'll do your usual and run off and not answer them.
Click to expand...

FFS I don't just spend my whole day on this website. I have an actual life. I'll get around to answering what I want when I want thanks. You think I give a damn what some right winger on a tech website thinks of me? :cry: :cry:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom