2016 Election Thread

[DaveW]

"One true marriage" in itself is discrimination since you are basically saying homosexual couples marriages don't "count" that is discrimination plain and simple, so no, they shouldn't have to bake that nonsense.

 

An apt comparison would be a gay couple asking a straight baker to make a cake that says: "God Hates All Hetrosexuals"

[DaveW]

I almost left that example out because I figured someone would pick it up and run with it. Should have known better. Noticed you conveniently ignored all other parts of the arguments and questions. Speaking of red herrings.

dude, you were the one who made the analogy, not me. So don't get salty when someone responds to it.

[USMCTwin]

In this country, if you advertise a service, you have to be willing to provide it to anyone who request the service and is willing to pay the price you request. With catering, it is best to un-tie the catering from the actual bakery as a separate entity where you advertise specifically to the groups you are willing to serve. If you don't specify a certain group that you are selling your services to in your business model, you need to be willing to serve all, so yes, the homosexual baker would need to bake a cake for Westboro that says "God Hates Fags" if the bakery hasn't explicitly stated that it will not work with someone who is anti-homosexual. That's the basics on the whole issue. There really shouldn't be a slippery slope on either side, just some paperwork and intentional advertising. That intentional advertising very well may cost them business, but that's what would legally protect them.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/denvers-azucar-bakery-wins-right-to-refuse-to-make-anti-gay-cake

 

That kind of consistency would be nice, but unfortunately does not exist.

[USMCTwin]

 

dude, you were the one who made the analogy, not me. So don't get salty when someone responds to it.

 

Sure, but when you remove something from it's context you surely realize it loses/alters meaning. You proved that quite well.

[biggentleben]

 

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/denvers-azucar-bakery-wins-right-to-refuse-to-make-anti-gay-cake

That kind of consistency would be nice, but unfortunately does not exist.

 

You're not comparing apples to apples there, though. The baker didn't deny him due to a belief. She denied him due to the rhetoric of the decorating he wanted done, and it was determined that the baker would have denied similar hate rhetoric to anyone who asked. That part is within their right if it is applied to all groups evenly.

[USMCTwin]

 

You're not comparing apples to apples there, though. The baker didn't deny him due to a belief. She denied him due to the rhetoric of the decorating he wanted done, and it was determined that the baker would have denied similar hate rhetoric to anyone who asked. That part is within their right if it is applied to all groups evenly.

 

You serious boss? This is literally what we just said that you thought they should have to do on the grounds that they decorate cakes for other customers. 

[Mike Sixel]

Not really. For example, magazines can refuse to take ads that are filled with hate speech......it is not the same thing at all.

[TheLeviathan]

 

You serious boss? This is literally what we just said that you thought they should have to do on the grounds that they decorate cakes for other customers. 

 

Refusing all hate speech isn't the same as refusing a narrow selection of weddings.

 

The analogous situation would be if a cake maker decided to deny all weddings.  All or nothing decisions are more defensible, then selecting certain people to exclude.

[USMCTwin]

 

Refusing all hate speech isn't the same as refusing a narrow selection of weddings.

 

The analogous situation would be if a cake maker decided to deny all weddings.  All or nothing decisions are more defensible, then selecting certain people to exclude.

 

I guess. If we want to label The Bible hate speech.

[biggentleben]

 

You serious boss? This is literally what we just said that you thought they should have to do on the grounds that they decorate cakes for other customers. 

 

As Levi just said, it's an entirely different thing when you make the same decision to any group. If you want to have specific rules for a specific group, you need to have it in legal documentation and in your advertising. Choosing not to be open on Tuesdays is not against any one group, and it would not be eligible in a civil rights case. Chick-Fil-A has actually had cases attempted more than once to force them open on Sundays, which is ridiculous, and they never make it anywhere because they're unable to be founded as it's simply not a civil rights issue when you make the same decision across all groups.

[biggentleben]

 

I guess. If we want to label The Bible hate speech.

 

Seriously?! The imagery and comments wanted on the Bibles were what the objections were, not the Bible cakes themselves. She offered to make the cakes and let the guy add his own hate speech, even, but she just refused to add his imagery and verbage to them.

 

And don't come with the Bible verse quotes. The verses he requested are oft used by anti-homosexual crowd completely out of context and out of translation. Ignorance of the meaning of the words you're using does not equal a lack of hate intended.

[USMCTwin]

 

Seriously?! The imagery and comments wanted on the Bibles were what the objections were, not the Bible cakes themselves. She offered to make the cakes and let the guy add his own hate speech, even, but she just refused to add his imagery and verbage to them.

 

And don't come with the Bible verse quotes. The verses he requested are oft used by anti-homosexual crowd completely out of context and out of translation. Ignorance of the meaning of the words you're using does not equal a lack of hate intended.

 

So if the Christian baker refused to put two women on top of his cake and refused to write their names, but offered them icing to do it themselves that would be fine? Just trying to figure out where we are moving these goalposts.

[biggentleben]

 

So if the Christian baker refused to put two women on top of his cake and refused to write their names, but offered them icing to do it themselves that would be fine? Just trying to figure out where we are moving these goalposts.

 

Legally, absolutely. That couple could go on social media and blast the bakery if the bakery hadn't explicitly stated that they won't make a cake for a homosexual couple, and that could be very bad for their business, but there really couldn't be legal ramifications. It's not a matter of moving goalposts at all.

[USMCTwin]

 

Legally, absolutely. That couple could go on social media and blast the bakery if the bakery hadn't explicitly stated that they won't make a cake for a homosexual couple, and that could be very bad for their business, but there really couldn't be legal ramifications. It's not a matter of moving goalposts at all.

 

Maybe I just don't quite understand the legality of the cases (very much a possibility), but I just have a hard time believing we wouldn't have the exact same outcome because of a nuance.  However, you could be right and I would at least appreciate the consistency if that was the case.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I guess. If we want to label The Bible hate speech.

 

given that not every christian religion agrees with your interpretation of that verse.......that contextual use might be. Not sure, really. I don't know that I would say that it is, but I can see where some would disagree. That's a pretty edge case, isn't it? Not at all like refusing to serve an entire class of people (that probably make up 5-7% of the population).

[USMCTwin]

 

given that not every christian religion agrees with your interpretation of that verse.......that contextual use might be. Not sure, really. I don't know that I would say that it is, but I can see where some would disagree. That's a pretty edge case, isn't it? Not at all like refusing to serve an entire class of people (that probably make up 5-7% of the population).

 

Again though. The baker had served the couple numerous times. He only refused to take part in a ceremony he disagreed with on religious/moral grounds.

 

I also don't agree that just because it is an edge case it is somehow less important. Otherwise we are left trying to figure out what percentage of the population has to be affected by this before we care, which seems arbitrary at best.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Again though. The baker had served the couple numerous times. He only refused to take part in a ceremony he disagreed with on religious/moral grounds.

 

I also don't agree that just because it is an edge case it is somehow less important. Otherwise we are left trying to figure out what percentage of the population has to be affected by this before we care, which seems arbitrary at best.

 

Another logical fallacy, maybe. Are you saying we shouldn't fix things, because we can't fix all things? That's one of the great tricks in life.

 

I think your idea of making all the stuff, but giving them the stuff to finish the cake is a good compromise for all involved. But, it does potentially create issues I am not considering right now. It's why laws aren't usually nuanced, and incidents on the edge tend to make us question good laws that are only "bad" a tiny, tiny, percent of the time.

[Craig Arko]

This brings back fond memories.

 

http://youtu.be/5jEVCX-d4Zk

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

But the higher power gets to choose that we only eat if we work?

While simultaneously not offering us work.

 

I don't have the answers - far from it - but there are troubling trends arising that capitalism (probably) can't fix because capitalism has no interest in fixing it (namely, there will be more humans and fewer jobs going forward).

 

What do we do when there are huge numbers of unemployed and underemployed? Again, I don't have the answers but refusing to acknowledge this is the path society is going down is going to lead to potentially catastrophic results. It may not yet be time to start blazing a path toward this societal structure but it needs to be on our radar.

 

Capitalism worked for a long time. It will probably continue to work for awhile longer, particularly in a restricted state. But ultimately, it will cease to serve society's needs and new options need to be explored.

[USMCTwin]

 

Another logical fallacy, maybe. Are you saying we shouldn't fix things, because we can't fix all things? That's one of the great tricks in life.

 

I think your idea of making all the stuff, but giving them the stuff to finish the cake is a good compromise for all involved. But, it does potentially create issues I am not considering right now. It's why laws aren't usually nuanced, and incidents on the edge tend to make us question good laws that are only "bad" a tiny, tiny, percent of the time.

 

Fair enough. Thanks for engaging with me on this. I know full well when I venture to this side of the board I'm not likely to agree with much and likewise I'm not likely to make many friends posting my opinions and thoughts. I do appreciate engaging other sides of the arguments and I don't normally have that in my life, but it's always a pretty good bet I can find that here.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Fair enough. Thanks for engaging with me on this. I know full well when I venture to this side of the board I'm not likely to agree with much and likewise I'm not likely to make many friends posting my opinions and thoughts. I do appreciate engaging other sides of the arguments and I don't normally have that in my life, but it's always a pretty good bet I can find that here.

 

I find you perfectly reasonable, when we talk, and don't assume bad things in each other's words. so, I'm glad your here to keep brock, me, and other from typing "ya, I agree" over an over. We can't learn and grow if we don't explore.

 

So, ya, we totally agree on that last part of your post for sure.

[Mike Sixel]

 

While simultaneously not offering us work.

 

I don't have the answers - far from it - but there are troubling trends arising that capitalism (probably) can't fix because capitalism has no interest in fixing it (namely, there will be more humans and fewer jobs going forward).

 

What do we do when there are huge numbers of unemployed and underemployed? Again, I don't have the answers but refusing to acknowledge this is the path society is going down is going to lead to potentially catastrophic results. It may not yet be time to start blazing a path toward this societal structure but it needs to be on our radar.

 

Capitalism worked for a long time. It will probably continue to work for awhile longer, particularly in a restricted state. But ultimately, it will cease to serve society's needs and new options need to be explored.

 

Every baby gets x percent of stock or something like that......we all just live off the value robots produce. 

 

It's one reason I have my 18 and almost 20 year old in the stock market now.....

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Every baby gets x percent of stock or something like that......we all just live off the value robots produce. 

 

It's one reason I have my 18 and almost 20 year old in the stock market now.....

It's an interesting solution and not *entirely* unlike a minimum income policy.

 

Institution of some variety of minimum income is inevitable. I don't think now is the time to implement some form of that policy but I expect to see it gain traction in my lifetime and certainly your kids' lifetimes.

 

Technology is going to continue snowballing, swallowing up jobs along the way. For every two middle class jobs consumed, we'll be lucky if one of those jobs is replaced in another sector (eg. designing and fixing the machines). Those replacement jobs will be high paying for the select few that acquire them but much of society will be left in the cold.

 

This is Foxconn's iPhone 6 assembly line in 2014:

http://www.3g.co.uk/g_phones/large/iphone-6-entering-mass-production-1.jpg

 

This is Xiaomi's Mi 4i assembly line in 2016:

[Craig Arko]

As Brock so ably states, this is going to be a real sticky wicket. Technology is turning economics on its backside.

[Mike Sixel]

 

blah, blah, blah quote

 

 

This is Xiaomi's Mi 4i assembly line in 2016:

 

 

Well, as you may recall, back some dozens of pages I suggested we just eliminate all subsidies, and everyone get a check every year into an account from the time they are born. That money can only be used for healthcare and education the first 18 years......and the money is invested in index funds until you are 18, at which point you get control (though probably not of all of the money). 

 

It's not a fully formed thought, but it would be much cheaper to administer than all the stuff we do now.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Well, as you may recall, back some dozens of pages I suggested we just eliminate all subsidies, and everyone get a check every year into an account from the time they are born. That money can only be used for healthcare and education the first 18 years......and the money is invested in index funds until you are 18, at which point you get control (though probably not of all of the money). 

 

It's not a fully formed thought, but it would be much cheaper to administer than all the stuff we do now.

An interesting blend of capitalism and forward-thinking socialism. It may be the best path forward.

[TheLeviathan]

That's an interesting thought Mike, but I could see a lot of resistance to it across the political spectrum. It's such a fundamental reshaping of incentive and work...I'm not sure we are ready for it.

[Mike Sixel]

 

That's an interesting thought Mike, but I could see a lot of resistance to it across the political spectrum. It's such a fundamental reshaping of incentive and work...I'm not sure we are ready for it.

 

start now, eliminate medicaid, medicare, and farm subsidies (to name a few, but do it to all subsidies). Do it while we are all still working, as a start. That's where the idea germinated for me over 30 years ago.....eliminate subsidies, give everyone money for healthcare and education. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

start now, eliminate medicaid, medicare, and farm subsidies (to name a few, but do it to all subsidies). Do it while we are all still working, as a start. That's where the idea germinated for me over 30 years ago.....eliminate subsidies, give everyone money for healthcare and education. 

 

I'm certainly not opposed to the idea.  It answers part of the problem (the market's inability to correct itself any longer), but how do you incentivize people to do the tasks that still need to be done?  Are there graduated rates of compensation if you are, say, a doctor vs. a mechanic?  

 

Perhaps I'm taking this idea too far into hypotheticals, but I'm curious.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I'm certainly not opposed to the idea.  It answers part of the problem (the market's inability to correct itself any longer), but how do you incentivize people to do the tasks that still need to be done?  Are there graduated rates of compensation if you are, say, a doctor vs. a mechanic?  

 

Perhaps I'm taking this idea too far into hypotheticals, but I'm curious.

People will always want more than the basics can provide. there will always be enough people that want to work for more of something (satisfaction, money, pride, recognition).

 

I am not yet ready to envision a world of so much plenty that no one works......also, my proposal is much more about funding what should be rights (healthcare and education), than about funding everything.

 

If the market keeps going up at average rates, people would have A LOT of money in those accounts by the time they are 18. 

 

It is not a perfect idea, but I like it better than our current systems. We NEED to unbuckle employment and healthcare, to make our people risk takers and mobile (if they want to be either).