To be fair, the pharmacy could simply not stock said pill under current laws.
We'll imagine they belong to some hypothetical branch of Christianity that looks past the contraception thing but blows up the out of wedlock thing up by 10,000%. Kind of like how "love thy neighbour" gets looked past and some other fringe belief is seized upon as fundamental dogma from which all else springs.
MUCH better examples of clear discrimination out there that get ignored.
Sure. Like how the Boston Red Sox wouldn't allow a black guy on their team until 19-fucking-59, a full 12 years after Jackie Robinson broke the colour barrier. They also sucked ass because of a limited talent pool. Affirmative action quotas are the definition of discrimination, but that's about employer-employee things, not client-customer ones. There are also plenty of bars back where I grew up that you simply did not go into if you were white, unless you were surrounded by three or four of your closest black friends to vouch.
Edited By Malcolm on 1430274945
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Affirmative action quotas are the definition of discrimination, but that's about employer-employee things, not client-customer ones. There are also plenty of bars back where I grew up that you simply did not go into if you were white, unless you were surrounded by three or four of your closest black friends to vouch.
AA is king of the hill for discrimination. Hell, it's sanctioned by the very government that passes laws to fight discrimination!
We could discuss this subject for pages upon pages, but I don't want to derail this thread.
So is everyone watching Daredevil yet? It's fucking awesome and you should be or you're a loser and I wouldn't bake you a cake if I was a baker.
Edited By Leisher on 1430276290
"Happy slaves are the worst enemies of freedom." - Marie Von Ebner
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
Leisher wrote:So is everyone watching Daredevil yet? It's fucking awesome and you should be or you're a loser and I wouldn't bake you a cake if I was a baker.
edit - ha, never mind.
Edited By GORDON on 1430276892
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
He also asked Bonauto whether “a minister who is authorized by the State to conduct marriage can decline to marry two men.” Bonauto said that the First Amendment would protect such ministers, although she did not explain why the First Amendment would do so, given that the lawyer for the Obama administration, Verrilli, would later openly admit that religious institutions could see their non-profit status revoked, and religious business owners in various states have already been fined for failing to serve same-sex weddings. And as Scalia pointed out, a Constitutional requirement to recognize same-sex marriage would only strengthen such acts against religious Americans.
Personally, I think that'd be the best things for the churches. Hey churches... the government isn't giving you tax exempt status to help you. They're doing it to control you. Pay your taxes and start getting heavily involved in politics where religious matters are concerned. Run ads against politicians that you disagree with spiritually. They've been using your tax exempt status to extend the "separation between church and state" out of the capital and into your building. Tear it down and feel free to go after them.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
There is no church, anywhere, that will give up the tax exempt thing willingly because, at the end of the day, everyone worships the same god -- the Almighty Dollar. I can't even think of a time when tax exemption was given then taken away. The idea is that it's generally given to charitable organizations on the premise that they promote the good of society. If the IRS thinks your religion is encouraging violation of civil rights, I suppose they could yank it.
...a minister who is authorized by the State to conduct marriage can decline to marry two men.
Sure they can. The minister has an impact on the service, and unlike a baker, is directly fucking participating. Also, getting authorized by a state to conduct a marriage is shit that can be done online now. You can literally go to a fucking website and get creds.
Later on, Kennedy explicitly rejected a linkage between marriage and child-bearing and child-rearing...
Valid. Marriage != sex != children. You can have any one without the other two.
Justice Samuel Alito then took over the questioning and asked whether Bonauto believed that all marriage statutes were designed to “demean gay people.” Bonauto essentially answered yes to the question.
That's stupid.
Alito followed up by asking whether for thousands of years, all cultures that endorsed traditional marriage were “operating independently based solely on irrational stereotypes or prejudice?” Bonauto answered again in the affirmative.
Stupider.
Alito asked Bonauto why, then, ancient Greece approved homosexuality but still did not endorse same-sex marriage. She claimed ignorance. Alito then asked why same-sex marriage should be endorsed but not incest or polygamy; she answered that polygamy would lead to family disruption (a particularly weak argument, given the nature of multiple divorce in America today), and coercion (another weak argument, since coercion is already illegal). He asked the same question in another guise to Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who similarly failed to answer it.
It seems the pro-gay marriage folk have simply sent up the two most clueless motherfuckers they could find.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stepped in to irrationally demean the institution of marriage, calling it a historically “dominant and a subordinate relationship,” then stating that modern society had made marriage “egalitarian,” and that egalitarian marriage would encompass homosexual couples.
The hell?
Justice Antonin Scalia asked Bonauto whether she could name “a single other society until the Netherlands in 2001” that “permitted same-sex marriage.” She admitted she could not...
Just because she's hopeless at history doesn't mean that shit was unprecedented.
All argued that the institution of marriage is specifically designed only to grant dignity, and that it is discriminatory not to grant dignity to homosexual couples...
The first half is bullshit. The second part about denying them dignity isn't too far off. "Dignity" isn't the right word, though.
Edited By Malcolm on 1430328242
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Malcolm wrote:Valid. Marriage != sex != children. You can have any one without the other two.
I agree. This is, however, the basis for incest laws. Not sure what this would do to those.
Those laws are probably ancient, written before modern chemical or surgical sterilization methods. If a brother and sister feel like fucking each other, then I'd better not have to deal with their retarded offspring in the future. Incest should have nothing to do with marriage.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
I know of first cousins who have married and have children. The first two are fine. The third kid has medical issues. Not sure if it's because of the family relations or not.
It's interesting to see how the rest of the family doesn't really discuss their original relationship.
"Happy slaves are the worst enemies of freedom." - Marie Von Ebner
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
Not sure if it's because of the family relations or not.
Inbreeding's not a guarantee of genetic defects, it does raise the odds a fuckload. Several royal lines died out to prove this point.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
I'd read the article, but the retard website won't show me the whole thing, so fuck it. Your comment is completely off in the analogy. To the dude that baked it, it's just another cake. To the chick cutting it, it's a vital cog in a plan. However, I believe have we records of marriages without cakes. Women obsess over their weddings for years before having them. If there's so much as a cloud out of place, shit will hit the fan.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Malcolm wrote:Your comment is completely off in the analogy. To the dude that baked it, it's just another cake.
A LOT of work goes into a wedding cake. And under a deadline. Sometimes two full days of work. To the dude that baked it (or more accurately, the one that decorated it) it is NOT just another cake. No more than The Last Supper was just another mural for Da Vinci.
Though to be honest, this one looked like it was more of an assembly line deal, so in this particular instance you might be right. But generally speaking, these things are a labor of love for the artist (and they ARE artists).
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
Malcolm wrote:Your comment is completely off in the analogy. To the dude that baked it, it's just another cake.
A LOT of work goes into a wedding cake. And under a deadline. Sometimes two full days of work. To the dude that baked it (or more accurately, the one that decorated it) it is NOT just another cake. No more than The Last Supper was just another mural for Da Vinci.
Though to be honest, this one looked like it was more of an assembly line deal, so in this particular instance you might be right. But generally speaking, these things are a labor of love for the artist (and they ARE artists).
Not the fucker that baked that cake.
It may have value to the creator as a bit of art or fluffy sugar, and sure, that's sort of why the buyers want it, but it's not the same. They see it as one of the centerpieces of a time-sensitive dealie that's taken months to plan. By no means a legal requirement, but if people want the bare minimum, they go to a courthouse, not a baker. The wedding party has decided they want their shit in exquisite condition that day.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
GORDON wrote:But it's just a cake. It doesn't have anything to do with marriage and that's why no one should have a problem with baking one for a gay marriage.
Sorry, I'll stop. Probably already ran TPR off.
If I ever fuck up and get married, I won't give a fuck about the cake. I'm in the minority. How many of you old men would've had a colossal disaster on your wedding day if your cake had been slightly off?
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."