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 - More Than Mortal
Pages: 1 ... 141142143 144145 ... 502
4261
« on: July 09, 2015, 03:05:46 PM »
I would like to read more about that then.
I'll try and find a couple of papers. A lot of the literature is on labour market discrimination, so I'll have to wade through that.
4262
« on: July 09, 2015, 02:42:25 PM »
That aside, I don't trust the market to deal with this in an effective way, and I do believe that this should be considered discrimination and should be treated accordingly.
There's a fair bit of evidence for a kind-of Beckerian channel in the market which punishes discriminatory firms. Even if this specific bakery didn't go under as a result of not serving the couple, it's not as if the couple had faced any significant socioeconomic setback.
4263
« on: July 09, 2015, 02:11:54 PM »
4264
« on: July 09, 2015, 01:31:17 PM »
Nice.
I hope I get into the university I want >.> But it's touch and go at the minute.
4265
« on: July 09, 2015, 01:29:30 PM »
What the fuck's there to disagree with?
Now you're just being wilfully ignorant.
4266
« on: July 09, 2015, 01:19:00 PM »
But meta it's perfectly OK to force people to be complicit in a ceremony they don't agree with.
Why can't you understand this?
mashallah brother
4267
« on: July 09, 2015, 01:17:55 PM »
I was driving around with a couple of friends late at night a couple of days ago, and we saw loads of fucking foxes in the road. I didn't even know we had that many in my town.
4268
« on: July 09, 2015, 01:16:05 PM »
Contrary to popular belief, the Big Bang Theory doesn't actually use a laugh track. It's recorded in front of an audience.
4269
« on: July 09, 2015, 01:12:32 PM »
Well pedophiles aren't a protected class in Oregon or any other US state, so it's not really the same.
Why do you keep appealing to the law when it's patently clear that we're debating the merits of the law itself? It is the same. You would be refusing service to somebody on the basis of pre-determined biological traits because you don't want to support a specific ceremony.
4270
« on: July 09, 2015, 01:11:27 PM »
Over? Nah. There's still plenty left.
After briefly glancing over that list, the only two that really seem "oppressive" are the right to fire somebody on the grounds of their sexuality (and that's a fucking stretch) and gay conversion therapy.
4271
« on: July 09, 2015, 01:07:41 PM »
All I can side with is that the couple was within their legal right to sue the bakery for discrimination.
Obviously, but we're quite clearly debating the merits of the law here.
4272
« on: July 09, 2015, 01:05:24 PM »
Let me guess - "gays are executed in the middle east, so gays in the US should shut the fuck up"?
They should shut the fuck about not being baked a cake, yeah. It really would be no different to refusing to bake a cake for a paedophile conference, and I'm sure nobody would take issue with that.
4273
« on: July 09, 2015, 01:01:06 PM »
They're not being discriminated against.
Being denied a service because of a personal characteristic is literally the definition of discrimination.
And shutting down a business by forcing them to pay through the nose because they acted in accordance with a non-aggressive value isn't discriminatory?
4274
« on: July 09, 2015, 12:59:05 PM »
So having a 8:1 pushing 9:1 ratio of female clinpsys to male clinpsys is kind of fucking the balance up big time, so now universities have a nice little 'preference given to male applicants to meet shortfall' tag.
This is actually a rather interesting point. I'm usually opposed to all kinds of discriminatory rebalancing efforts, but to be honest I could see how it's justified in a profession like psychology.
4275
« on: July 09, 2015, 12:38:04 PM »
Would the case still have had the same outcome on the same grounds?
I don't know, and I don't really care. Would depend on the gay couple in the situation.
4276
« on: July 09, 2015, 12:35:59 PM »
How long till you buy a new friend?
Worst part was, that isn't even funny. OT: Yeah, a dude same age as me who used to go to my high school died about 18 months ago now. I wasn't close to him, but somebody I was close to was. That was odd. Sorry to hear it, man.
4277
« on: July 09, 2015, 12:29:06 PM »
Gays have gay weddings. Making the distinction between the customer and the ceremony is fucking stupid because without one you don't have the other.
This is mental gymnastics of Camnator-esque levels. It doesn't matter who is buying the cake, it was rejected because of the ceremony. The gay couple could send their straight couple friends to order the cake, and it still would've been rejected. I don't even think the distinction is worthwhile making in most conversations, but it is if you're going to insist on a distinction not existing at all. All you're doing is following pointless lines of reasoning so you can impose your own sociological views on the Christians in this scenario.
4278
« on: July 09, 2015, 12:15:18 PM »
and my point remains is that it was THEIR gay ceremony.
Yeah, so? That's not even a point; what relevance does it have to anything?
4279
« on: July 09, 2015, 12:03:46 PM »
Well if they were hosting a gay pride party or something, I would assume they would have been refused on the same grounds.
Duh. The point is that they weren't rejected because they were gay, they were rejected because they were looking for somebody to service a gay ceremony.
4280
« on: July 09, 2015, 11:57:58 AM »
If they weren't gay, they would not have been denied service.
 And if they were just hosting a party, they wouldn't have been refused. What exactly is your point?
4281
« on: July 09, 2015, 11:45:50 AM »
They aren't being Christians, they're being assholes.
Well, they are being Christian. There's nothing explicitly anti-Christian about refusing to service a gay ceremony. But, sure, let's say they're assholes; again, that has nothing to do with whether or not they should be allowed to refuse to provide such a service and says absolutely nothing about the kind of business practices they should follow.
4282
« on: July 09, 2015, 11:42:55 AM »
they should be sure they aren't endorsing any other unions of people who don't follow the word of Christ as strictly as they do.
I'm also fairly certain they'd adhere to the litany of phrases in the Bible about not judging one's fellow neighbour, and prying into somebody's sex life on the basis that they might be an adulterer would probably come off as rather judgemental. But this is such a stupid fucking argument to have; whether or not the bakers are morons, as I think they are, and whether or not they have hypocritical business practices as you think there's still no justification for violating their freedom to hold and abide by these values. I mean, come on man, for fuck's sake it's not a difficult idea to grasp. How the fuck would a bakery even determine if somebody was an adulterer? That's just a non-starter in terms of an argument; how do you even reach the conclusion that such a thing is feasible?
4283
« on: July 09, 2015, 11:33:52 AM »
If this was a straight couple, this wouldn't have been a problem in the slightest. . . . Who's denying that? That's the entire issue here. I wonder how many cakes this bakery provided to adulterers and the like, since that's also a no-no in the Christian faith. Right, because the bakery is going to be aware of who is an adulterer when they ask for a cake. That's a fucking specious analogy.
4284
« on: July 09, 2015, 11:31:58 AM »
You ought to be willing to sacrifice your own sanity for others
That only works in some atomistic conception of what is moral in certain situations. Society doesn't work like that. Me? I reckon I could push the fat guy, but I wouldn't expect anybody else to. Society simply couldn't function if expectations of self-sacrifice we regarded as factual ethical tenets. Not to mention there's a whole host of issues surrounding the idea inherent in your claim that you should sacrifice a future ability to perform ethical actions just so you can perform one substantial ethical action today.
4285
« on: July 09, 2015, 11:28:27 AM »
The underrepresentation of women in academic science is typically attributed, both in scientific literature and in the media, to sexist hiring. Here we report five hiring experiments in which faculty evaluated hypothetical female and male applicants, using systematically varied profiles disguising identical scholarship, for assistant professorships in biology, engineering, economics, and psychology. Contrary to prevailing assumptions, men and women faculty members from all four fields preferred female applicants 2:1 over identically qualified males with matching lifestyles (single, married, divorced), with the exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference. Comparing different lifestyles revealed that women preferred divorced mothers to married fathers and that men preferred mothers who took parental leaves to mothers who did not. Our findings, supported by real-world academic hiring data, suggest advantages for women launching academic science careers. That's pretty interesting. Also, based economists at it again: with the exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference.
4286
« on: July 09, 2015, 11:22:56 AM »
I don't see how providing a cake for the reception means you're participating in the wedding. It would be akin to asking a Muslim to, I don't know, be a keynote speaker at the opening of a pork slaughterhouse. It's the fact that the Christian owners of the bakery correctly perceive a conflict of interests; while they're not participating directly, they're still providing a service to a ceremony which they believe to be in contradiction to their faith. Is their faith wrong? I think so. Are their values stupid? Sure. But you don't change stupid values by violating their freedom to hold them. If you're at the point where you care what your customers do with your product that effects you in no way, perhaps you shouldn't be in that line of business. Maybe it's just because you're an atheist, but are the deeper theological and metaphysical points truly lost on you here?
4287
« on: July 09, 2015, 11:18:47 AM »
How can you be ethical to yourself? That makes... no sense.
This reminds me of the trolley problem. A lot of people wouldn't push the fat guy themselves, which is fine ,even if it results in a net positive lives saved. If pushing the fat man is going to traumatise you, give you PTSD and ensure you never sleep soundly again. . . You'd be justified in not pushing the guy.
4288
« on: July 09, 2015, 10:18:09 AM »
4289
« on: July 09, 2015, 09:41:51 AM »
Either corden is very good at faking being hurt by words, or that really wasn't scripted <.<
It wasn't.
4290
« on: July 09, 2015, 09:41:21 AM »
Lol.
Pages: 1 ... 141142143 144145 ... 502
|
Show Posts