why ban the follower? just ban the conservative

because my account is small

if they ban the conservative they will have to be honest about it

if they ban me they just do it behind the scenes

and never admit it

see? people without a spine, folding to people who beat up random people on the street and call themselves good.

I just did a test and in fact I'm shadowbanned

Fun fact: i cant appeal the ban because it is a shadow ban so the system says my account is not banned or suspended

https://twitter.com/CNBCnow/status/1003641435751636992 today is a good day

yes, yes it is actually

this would have had implications for youtube, etc

they wouldn't have been able to discrimate someone's videos based on their view point

this would have had wide reaching implications actually

Aren't those people against this ruling technically in the wrong

A baker didn't make cake for a gay couple...
An ouraged person didn't make cake for a gay couple

So technically, everyone who didn't send a cake to that couple is complicit in the crime of chosing not to serve cake?

https://twitter.com/J_o_n_973/status/1003656410603933696

haha

wow the salt in this thread

poeople actually think that others should be compelled to do what they want

i believe that form of democracy is called "Mob rule"

On the one hand, freedom of contract is an absolute right... On the other hand, it's utterly incomprehensible (to me) as to why you, as a business owner, would reject the opportunity to make money over something as small as this...

@Dr.Wol i wonder if those people realize that direct democracy would be racist....as the "mob" in the US is very white.

@Somi because there might be a market for it

i.e. those who oppose same sex marriage

Personally i doubt they think SJWs aren't the majority

doesn't matter what you think. THEY think they are in the minority and that racists are somehow all over

but if they think that, they'd be against a democracy, cuz they'd get fucked MORE that way, as they can't even outvote

So maybe they're just retards 😛

i think they don't think very far beyond the first step in any process

oh absolutely

in fact, that is most everyone, period

its like that case of

Ban guns for normal people, only let police & military have guns

The government is fascist and oppressive

racist, communists, politicians, they all are very near sighted

Although on this issue, i can at least understand the problem they have. Or at least a few of them. Its not so much that 1 random bakery decided not to bake a cake, its that this precedent now will allow the hypothetical situation of lets say a random black family living in a southern city that is basically entirely racist. These people now are basically forced to move because they cannot even buy food for themselves where they live now. Only now expanded to like the whole south, or the whole USA.

Obviously, this has a few problems, like why would you want to live in a place where everyone hates your to start with? Do you really think black people won't be able to make their own alternatives? Do you really think the majority of people are that hateful or dislike money that much?

but i get that, for them, its not a situation where they could just go to the government and make go away.

so you can't tell them it won't happen

because anything without a government law preventing it can happen, regardless of its probability.

are you a leftist?

For me its a case of,

I don't like the idea of a proprietar discriminating like that,

But then again, If you know said person is scum, you can then just not go there in the first place, not like theres only 1 baker in a whole city,
On top of that, I rather know that people hate me, because then I can avoid them,

What do you think is going to happen to that cake if said person is FORCED to make it? People can be very nasty and spiteful.
The cake batter can be spat in,
Be made to taste off,

or god forbid, if a person is like that woman who made bread using the yeast from her vaginal yeast infection 😵
Imagine if someone did that out of spite

If someone discriminates like that, let them, they'll lose business, give them the noose to hang themselves with,
Same with "nazis", don't silence them, let them preach to the world their idiot views, so people will be put off and distance themselves

Capital is a direct form of democracy.

Anyone trying to regulate the flow of money is regulating a person's ability to choose what they support.

The leftists who are up in arms over the baker not baking the cake are the same that are up in arms over where the NRA spends money.

You can't have your cake and eat it too, so to speak.

thats cuz you see it differently than them

Either monetary flow is an endorsement or it isn't.

"Your rights end where my feelings begin" and all that you know?

@LotheronPrime i'd be leftists if i said i agreed with it, despite its many holes.

If they have the option to not buy from that baker, why is that baker obligated?

Feelings don't make it into this equation at all for me

cuz its not about the option, its about that the baker discriminates who it sells to

and Discrimination against a non CIS-white is one of SJW's deadly sins

It's principle.

@RyeNorth its not exactly a direct form of democracy as not everyone gets the same number of votes.

You earn your influence based on value added to the community

You lose influence as penalty for crimes.

yes, but it takes a community to then undo just one of your vote choices should you change stances.

its direct democracy until you have been voted all the power

in other words

lol https://twitter.com/lporiginalg/status/1003406759115948032?s=20

the only difference is that community can easily just vote you out

Capitalism doesn't end in straight dictatorship unless it's been undermined

If it has been, it moves towards corporatism

Which, incidentally, is what we're in early to mid stages of now.

#notrealcapitalism

"yay, they know karate"

mid stages? i'd say anything not in full blown socialism right now is in full blown cronyism

As long as corporations are able to influence laws to reduce competition, we need vigilance.

i love people who are like "corporations control the laws, **we need more laws**" like ummm hello, who did you just say makes those laws?

Like, today I found out that in Texas has a licensing process for AC technicians that requires you work for an already licensed company for four years.

That shit needs to get abolished

wut

Yup

Corporations control the laws, We need more laws to control corporations
Racists run the government, We need more laws to control the racists
The government is fascists, Only the government should control guns

etc etc

Texas, people, get on this.

Mmhmm

It's happening.

was this like trying to bring back trade jobs? like stupid trump and his tariffs?

"lets make this a law, that way they are forced to bring on apprentices"

That sort of thing means that if you want to open your own company,you're required to work for your competiton.

Throw in a non-compete and the protectionism is complete.

"oh wait, it only punishes competition? who would have guessed laws hurt competition"

Riiiiigh...?

Yeah, I'm not one of those that thinks more government fixes this.

Judges ruling against excessive, prohibitive licensing fixes this, maybe.

Abolitionist movements in state Congress fixes this.

People are too focused on employee rights, though,when there needs to be more focus on entrepreneurship

Otherwise we wind up all working for Wal Mart

what a fucking way to start up pride month

LMAO

https://twitter.com/BevHillsAntifa7/status/1003439804313264129

I didn't see this

repost? anyone know what happened?

antifa is dumb, more at 11

well yeah

all I know is gays are now being refused cakes

but violence again, its been a while

I know right? Gays need their cakes too

ty lex luthor

taking fourty cakes from the LGBT community

@LotheronPrime the weather is getting warm, just like tim predicted.

probably

I'm willing to bet if they walked in somewhere, bought a cake, and didn't make a big deal about it nobody would give a shit.

bingo

remember, it was basically because the bakery wouldn't deliver the cake and be part of the ceremony... they said they'd sell them a cake...

but that wasn't "good enough"

Heh

They also shouldn't be obligated to facilitate any special orders

is that really the case? i thought they cited that making the cake would make them part of the ceremony, which is why they refused. idk, maybe i didn't research enough. too much effort when the answer doesn't require knowing the reason of why

'One commissioner in particular, Justice Kennedy wrote, had crossed the line in saying that “freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust.”'

PFFFFFFFFT

OH

WOW

And be allowed to sell the bride and groom toppers in pairs.

YOU WON'T BAKE THESE FAGS A CAKE? LITERAL NAZI

Oh shit! Did he seriously call that baker the moral equivalent of a nazi?

well that's the direct quote from a state commissioner

it's not direct

but it's pretty evident

that's what they meant

"Phillips takes exceptional care with
each cake that he creates—sketching the design out on
paper, choosing the color scheme, creating the frosting and
decorations, baking and sculpting the cake, decorating it,
and delivering it to the wedding. Examples of his creations
can be seen on Masterpiece’s website."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

that pesky first amendment, with its freedom of religion.

lets just ban religion!

ah, so he wouldn't sell them the cake. he'd sell them A cake, but not a wedding cake.

yes

also “place of business engaged in any sales to the public"

.... so all businesses? how does a business sell to someone who is not the public?>

only to other businesses?

yes

there are those

Frankly, government should just be like 'does not compute' the moment wedding comes up

there's a nursery around the corner not open to the public

(trees)

but like, doesn't that mean the companies that supply the bakery could opt not to supply the bakery because the bakery sold to gay people?

yup

what is the point of this law? why specify public when that is basically everyone.

any company should be allowed to choose who they do business with

i know, but even the people who made the law didn't really do anyhting

Let's just abolish legal definition of marriage entirely.

^

i like that one

Whether gay people get married or not is the churches problem

fuck, its the couples problem

Govt should deal in unions.

who gives anyone else the authority to decide if you can call someone a husband or wife?

Everyone is entitled to one.

why is the government involved at all?

Instead of playing the one-upmanship game, find a new game.

get the government out of my bedroom.

oh shhhhhheeeeiiiiiiit https://twitter.com/Scott_Helme/status/1003671094111457280?s=20

no union, no marriage license, i get to decide who my partner is.

The tax benefits of what's currently called marriage are important

But they need to be separated from religious rite

correct

@RyeNorth but why does the state even offer those benefits?

Joint filing of taxes?

Legally defined shared households?

but why?

The right of the espoused to be considered family when it comes to hospital choices,and inheritance?

Those are impactful

And I'm just grazing the tip of it

what is the point of these? why require paying money to the government just for THEM to recognizing what YOU are already doing? Why are you not just telling them this is how it is?

why does the government have the power to just change that on you?

I mean...

"we no longer allow unions for your situation"

Marriage is an option.

why is that even an option?

I'm not proposing any radical changes other than secularizing a federal system

you are missing the point entirely. I get what they do, but why are you giving the government that power? Why are you not just writing these things down and the government is just forced to recognize it.

That opens the door to all kinds of fraud...

The government hands out the benefits associated with being married and as such they have the right to keep a record of who receives their benefits

Plus ive never heard of anyone being turned down when they asked for a marriage license

There is nothing to prevent you from just living with someone anyway

And common law marriage is a thing, too

But the legal establishment of these things protects the participants against fraud, among other things.

fraud of what? benefits they are giving out for really no reason?

why was marriage even made a government thing in the first place?

what do they get out of it/

They encourage people to have children would be my guess

The path of reasoning you're on with this seems like it's anarchal in nature.

then they have a lot of freeloaders if its for children

Encourage, not mandate

you could encourage people to have children by actually giving these bonuses for having children. not just living together.

that would have prevented the whole same sex marriage problem entirely

at least in terms of legal standing

@RyeNorth anarchal for wanting the government to stop a program that cause problems and solves nothing?

They do have provisions for that in welfare and in tax breaks

Marriage was supposed to promote stable two parent homes,yes

That's why joint filing and tax breaks for dependents are things

Supposed to, yet it bound two people for life without requiring a kid. Rather than just give them benefits while they have kids who are under whatever is considered the legal age.

And then they have had to patch it again and again and again because it sucked at it's job

still no farmlands? I thought it was out yesterday?

But the point is, if you DO think two people should be able to do as they please in that regard, that should not abolish benefits for the others.

Isnt that what the government should do? fix/change a system when it goes wrong?

yes, they should. And this system never really worked to start with, so they should redesign it from the ground up and start working towards that better system because it covers a bunch of crap that could be split up into different realms of responsibility.

Seems like its working if people are getting married and having kids

Different realms of responsibility?

Are we still talking about marriage or have we moved on?

that is a horrible metric for it working.

people have kids regardless of marriage, and people get married regardless of kids

meanwhile now need divorce laws, because we made it a legal status.

we need welfare, for people who have kids without marriage

then it covers things like joint filing, which has weird rules that could either save you on taxes or cost you on taxes

the parts where its related to taxes are handled by the IRS

is the IRS not the government?

i was not aware

Yea it is the government, i never said it wasnt

The section for welfare is handled by the HHS which is the portion of the government that distributes welfare. Single parents do get additional money as far as im aware.

Seems like a backwards incentive to me

It looks like fiddling with it makes it worse.

what is a backwards incentive?

Divorce laws werent instiuted for a long time because marriage was supposed to be until death. It wasnt until the 1920-40s when people started giving women the ability to divorce

@Blackhawk342 the fact they are laws is because marriage is a legal status

And as such

if it wasn't a legal status, there would be no need for a law removing that legal status

It's been something increasingly taken more and more lightly.

Did I say that it wasnt a legal status?

just give marriage back to the churches and rename all the current legal benefits to "codependent" instead of "married"
That way roommates can get it temporarily too

that would mean changing it to a temporary status, not something permanent.

You mean the same churches which seem to be the last bastions against same sex marriage?

Im not really in favor of that

not all churches were against it

and it would also not stop you from calling yourself married

You realize sometimes its men who divorce women right ?

the government, nor the church, nor anyone outside you and your partner, should get to make the call if you are married

Id rather not hand over any more power to religious organizations than absolutely necessary

Marriage was primarily a religious ceremony until like 1515 or so

what power would they have? @Blackhawk342

The government stole the idea

As youve been going on at length grenade, the power to marry people

last i checked, the church could not tell i couldn't call my gf my wife and say we are married.

only the government can

more than one religion has their own versions of marraige

But the option you put forward was that you can declare yourself married or not from year to year.

So now grenade, if you go back up through the chat and read you will find that aidanwr has proposed giving that power back to the church

Simply put, that's not something I can get behind.

Yeah Aidan is with me in that

@Blackhawk342 not the legal power, if you look back

don't know how it works for you guys, but where i live getting married by a religious organization has no legal meaning

Between the national socialists and the weebs

Marriage only moved under state juristiction because Henry VIII wanted to leave his wife for someone else and the Catholic church wouldn't grant a divorce

@RyeNorth abstract the legal benefits from the word, as there are too many unrelated benefits clumped together under there.

He literally made his own church so he could get a divorce and made himself its head yea

Yeah by "give marriage back to the church" I mean dissociate the word from the legal benefits and move said benefits onto a different word

Exactly that

Swallow that red pill

there is two pieces here: 1) the concept of devoting ones life to someone until the end of of your time here on earth 2) and a host of legal benefits that should not have to be attached to a the "until death do us part" aspect, and have nothing to do with the concept of devoting ones life to another.

It's the best approach I can see for simultaneously maintaining religious *and* LGBT liberties

and when both are combined, it causes a rats nest of bullshit that destroys the reason for either piece existing.

Do you think the government,in it's duties,should include essential tabloid details of everyone's love lifes?

I really dont want the government to know who im in love with no

also @RyeNorth outside perhaps mandated waiting periods, there really is nothing stopping someone from getting married then divorced, then remarried year after year. So your previous point about declaring yourself married or not year after year is already a reality