Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Enforcing rights (Score 1) 101

This. There is a difference between you saying something and enabling someone else to say something. To use the car analogy: There is a difference between driving a car and taking a bus. Similar activities on the same infrastructure with different responsibilities for each operator to ensure the public interests without discrimination.

What is frustrating is that when it comes to protected classes, if you use the right politikspeak you can bypass the intent of those laws. You cannot deny service to a couple for being gay but you can deny them for being liberal. You can deny a religious person service for their religious belief if you use the right words to describe your discrimination; i.e. their belief is 'offensive'. As opposed to the courts rejected version 'my religion informed my policy of wedding cakes' despite religion being a protected class under federal law.

Comment Re:and tomorrow (Score 1) 256

by reason of being in a protected class

Religion is a federally protected class. The cake with bible quotes was informed by their religion in the same way their policy was just like the wedding and the couples wedding. They were denied business because they wanted their religious belief expressed on a cake and the baker denied them on the basis of that belief.

as far as I know there are no protected classes based on politics.

This is part of the issue because if the Colorado couple had used the right politikespeak, denying business because couple assumed liberal, it would have been acceptable to deny the couple business but because they were honest in saying that their policy was influenced by their religion they are in violation of the law even though religion is a protected class. Why isn't religion afforded the same protections as sexual orientation when it is protected under federal law?

It wasn't because of their religion.

It was entirely because of their religious belief and religion. It is a religious belief founded from religious text. They were denied expressly because of the text and the morality that the text presents. The baker did not like the religious views of the christian customer and did not want to be complicit in those views by baking them the cake.

Yes, the law is blunt and in the Colorado case I don't see how it isn't hypocritical. The baker was forced to be complicit that was against their religious belief despite being a federally protected class. But as a customer was not given the same protections for their religious belief.

I am not saying what the Oregon baker did was right. I am not saying that the Colorado baker (in both instances) is right or wrong. But I don't understand how someone can be denied business for a purely religious belief when that is a federally protected class just like sexual orientation is a state protected class. When is a religious person protected from discrimination for public accommodations like a gay person?

anti-discrimination laws make it illegal for someone covered by such laws to refuse you service or employment based on your religion

His religion found gay marriage wrong and he didn't' want to act in a complicit manner counter to his religion but was forced by government; "No one is asking the baker to change their beliefs". The other baker felt that that religious belief is offensive and denied service to the religious because of a religious belief; Yet, "No one is asking the baker to change their beliefs." doesn't' apply.

From what I can tell in the Colorado case, the bakery was okay with baking other cakes, just not cakes that "celebrate a same-sex couple's wedding" because it was against their religious belief. A policy entirely informed by their religion. Why is the religious not able afforded the same protections as a gay couple?

Comment Re:and tomorrow (Score 1) 256

A particular cake expressing a religious belief or a particular cake that celebrates a same-sex couple's wedding that is against the bakers religious belief. Religious belief informed the bakers policy of use. Religion is a protected class for public accommodations under federal law. Yet, it is not being treated the same as sexual orientation which is a protected class for public accommodations under state law.

The Colorado(I haven't read much about the Oregon issue) law and CCRD does not make that distinction that the courts decision applied to: "religious freedom is important, no one’s religious beliefs make it acceptable to break the law,". The state law that ignores religious discrimination to public accommodations and the CCRD does not handle cases about. In other words, the State through the CCRD ignores a federally protected class in regards to discrimination of public accommodations.

How is using a state law to ignore a federal law when both laws are about ending discrimination not hypocritical?

Comment Re: This is why we need Trump (Score 1) 276

What do you think you're accomplishing by making it visible?

Putting on display for all those to see the stupidity that exists in the world. Is better to let the idiots speak to display their idiocy to everyone than to let the idiots fester in their own conspiratorial nut job bubble where they validate their own existence by their own retardation.

Comment Re:Global Warming seems lesser since Trump (Score 1) 575

You believe those leftard satellites and liberal thermometers?

Satellites are a fiction. A conspiracy of the UN and NASA. Space doesn't exist and the earth is flat with a dome. How can you keep something above the flat earth without it falling down? Check mate "scientists".

Some good laughs.

Comment Re:Show of hands (Score 1) 256

It says that a baker can refuse to put what he considers hate speech on a cake

Isn't this kind of the point? Who defines hate speech and those that get to make that definition hold a disproportionate amount of influence on our elections if they control the space by which national dialogue occurs. Hate speech is not quoting a few bible versus with two X'ed out groomsmen.


The dispute began March 13, 2014 when Jack went to the bakery at 1886 S. Broadway and requested two cakes shaped like bibles. He asked that one cake have the image of two groomsmen holding hands in front of a cross with a red "X" over them. He asked that the cake be decorated with the biblical verses, "God hates sin. Psalm 45:7" and "Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:22", according to the Civil Rights Divisions' decision.

On the second bible-shaped cake, Jack also requested the image of the two groomsmen with the red "X". He wanted it decorated with the words "God loves sinners" and "While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Romans 5:8."

It might be offensive but it was offensive to the christian bakers belief to be complicit with a gay wedding.

Being a monopoly doesn't detract from precedent of the law that turns companies that have public convenience and necessity into impartial entities of public interest. Either the government should not get involved and allow for companies ability to discriminate because private or the government should get involved when it becomes necessary for the public that those entities be impartial. Freedom of speech is the foundation upon which our society was built on. If social media can influence our elections, 'fake news' is an issue, and much of the national dialogue occurs in social media then it becomes necessary for those companies to be impartial for the public good. That is a much better course of action than any Ministry of Truth.

Comment Re:Show of hands (Score 1) 256

Any business has to abide by some rules. We force companies to uphold various ideals and principles we hold as a nation and society. Landlines were seen as critical in a modern society for citizens to participate and telecommunication companies cannot deny service on political ideology. If social media companies are of the same criticality then they should have the same responsibility. If Obama and the Media are correct in 'Fake news' influencing the last election, doesn't that thrust those companies into the same critical stewardship position as telecommunications and bakers?

You can slap together a new social medium today if you like, and it will cost very little until you get acceptance.

Why didn't the couple use a different bakery? If all of the social media companies have the same 'hate speech' policies that can ban ideology and much of the national dialogue occurs in those networks, on top of subsidized infrastructure, what will that do to our elections and society that wouldn't happen if telecommunications did the same thing to landlines? There are only so many options and not everyone can Zuckerberg their way a new Facebook.

Comment Re:and tomorrow (Score 1) 256

There were a couple instances of this occurring; one in Oregon and one in Colorado that I know of.


If they had merely refused and accepted the small fine for not living up to the legal duties of a public business, we'd never have heard of the case.

I don't think so because in Colorado there is blatant hypocrisy in the enforcement of the law. Like anything there is more to it than just the headlines of course.

Comment Re:And is Steve wrong? (Score 1) 410

Or he was in a 3 way interview and messed up what he was trying to say and fumbled around the ideas in his head and didn't have time to expand.

If he is in a position to see that trend and can comment on it, if it is true I don't care how it seems. I want to know if it is true or not. If it's not true, lambaste away.

Comment Re:And is Steve wrong? (Score 1) 410

I don't know, honestly. That is something that I would like to know. Why these CEOs? Is there a trend of 'uncivic' behavior from Asian CEOs compared to other nationalities or races or CEOs in general? Is there any evidence to support that claim? I would rather see if the statement is true or not then have an emotional reaction from misrepresenting statements that are unfounded in reality.

Comment Re:And is Steve wrong? (Score 1) 410

Are those CEOs outsourcing citizen talent for foreign talent? Undermines civic society.
Are those CEOs taking advantage of H1B policies at the expense of citizens? Undermines civic society.
Are those CEOs using their citizen workforce to train their foreign replacements? Undermines civic society.
Are those CEOs lobbying for more of this advantage at the expense of citizens? Undermines civic society.

Should I go on? Whether he is correct in that '75% of CEOs from Asia/South Asia' is a matter of looking at their policies and seeing if they are not good for citizens. Has that been done? Is he in a position an informed statement? I don't know. Why don't you question the validity of the claim instead of misinterpreting what he says to fit your bias.

Slashdot Top Deals

Real Programmers don't write in FORTRAN. FORTRAN is for pipe stress freaks and crystallography weenies. FORTRAN is for wimp engineers who wear white socks.