Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[AlabamAlum]

Okay. Out going to Champy's. I blame CGVT.

Fuckin CGVT....

[iam416]

Kaepernick?s feelings are pretty clear, and he is the face of the protest. Others may choose to kneel for a variety of different reasons, but the poster boy?s motives were pretty clear.

More distressing is AA?s shameless self-aggrandizement. Very Al Sharpton of him.

[Kapture1]

Kaepture only loves America if others can see him standing for a live performance of the anthem. Sad, really. Any recording or transmission of the live performance completely negates his love of America. Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!

code says all those present

[froot loops]

The poster boy has been effectively blacklisted and will.never draw another dime from the NFL, I'd say the threat has been extinguished. On top of that his protest did nothing, see the Sterling Brown video. Kaepernick will be the face for years to gin up the outrage and you won't even need to see him like Emanuel Goldstein.

[WingsFan]

I cant wait to see White Boy Rick

[AlabamAlum]

code says all those present

You only honor the heroes when some code written by a democrat tells you to?? Well, do what you want, Stalin, but I refuse to let some liberal limit me on my love of the good ol' U.S. of fucking A.

[AlabamAlum]

I find the cake baker arguments more interesting. Does race being a protected class trump the baker's "artistic" freedom?

In other words, if the baker had refused to put cake topper figurines of a black hetero couple on the cake because his personal religion doesn't think blacks should get married, does the protected class override his artistic freedom?

The reason for asking is I heard someone on the radio say that once sexual orientation is a protected class, the baker would've been compelled to make the cake. I wasn't aware that was the case. Or I guess I should say, was that guy correct?

[Da Geezer]

LOL, does Kapture's chart show what he thinks it shows? No Southern Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act. And Northern Democrats voted for it at a higher clip than Northern Republicans in both Houses of Congress. Am I missing something?

Yup. Your "no southern Republicans..." is true but misleading because there were so few southern Rs in the Congress. 152-96 (61%) was the Dem vote in favor, 138-34 (80%) the R vote in favor. This was before the Democrat wave of 1964.

[CGVT]

How was the chicken?

[iam416]

AA

Personally, I think the cases that created compelled service are best viewed in their historical setting. I could go into the reasoning and legal arguments, but the bottom line was there was systemic refusal to serve - there were no options. In this case, and in your hypothetical, the market is very much at play. And not only that, but by taking a principled stand you can also incur mob outrage and lose your entire business. There is no compelling reason for government or the courts to do anything.

Finally, sexual orientation may end up as a protected class even though it?s obviously not in the 14th A. But even then it be as protected as race.

[AlabamAlum]

How was the chicken?

Got the two-piece dark to go. Beans and slaw. It is just great.

[AlabamAlum]

AA

Personally, I think the cases that created compelled service are best viewed in their historical setting. I could go into the reasoning and legal arguments, but the bottom line was there was systemic refusal to serve - there were no options. In this case, and in your hypothetical, the market is very much at play. And not only that, but by taking a principled stand you can also incur mob outrage and lose your entire business. There is no compelling reason for government or the courts to do anything.

Finally, sexual orientation may end up as a protected class even though it?s obviously not in the 14th A. But even then it be as protected as race.

That was what I thought. But this civil rights lawyer just said it so matter-of-factly I thought I would throw it out here. I know there would be challenges and it depends which court/judge gets the case, but the cake thing is a bit different from the lunch counter thing of the 50's and before.

[froot loops]

Roberts was best off to punt the decision and let Kennedy write it.

[Da Geezer]

Did you read Kennedy's piece-of-shit opinion, Talent? This is turning out pretty much as Alito predicted in his dissent in the Oberkfell (sp?) decision. What amazes me is that the CO Civil Rights Commission actually had a case where Christians were refused service by an atheist. Folks must be out there just trying to make a case. Best to leave it to the market. Everyone should recognize that it is the proprietor's option to serve or not serve and that by exercising that option, he is constrained by the free market. Let all the LGBTQ's boycott the baker, and let Christians boycott the atheist. I agree, there is no reason for the government to get involved. But the situation in which we now find ourselves arose from the gay marriage case and the mushy thinking of Kennedy in his opinion.

Kennedy is a flat-out menace.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Yup. Your "no southern Republicans..." is true but misleading because there were so few southern Rs in the Congress. 152-96 (61%) was the Dem vote in favor, 138-34 (80%) the R vote in favor. This was before the Democrat wave of 1964.

There were more Democrats than Republicans overall in every region of the country during the 60's and therefore should be expected to be closer to the mean.

But keeping the regions separate, a Northern Democrat had better odds of voting for the Civil Right Acts than a Northern Republican and the same is true of a Southern Democrat vs. a Southern Republican. When apples are compared to apples, the Dems supported the Act in stronger numbers. But I understand quite well that modern conservatives attempt to argue the opposite, that it was all driven by the Republican Party...when in fact Barry Goldwater was adamantly against the Civil Rights Act and won the '64 nomination in part on that stance.