mieseratte

See the final sentence of the comment to which you have replied:

> You don't have a right to force someone to create something they do not wish to create.

I responded to a comment painting this case as an example of conservatives refusing business to LGBT individuals, which it isn't. It is a case of refusing to be compelled to create content that expresses your views.

Of note, the baker in the referenced case offered to sell existing products. They simply refused the bespoke cake.

Yours is an example of discrimination of a rote service based not on content, but of immutable attribute. These are unrelated situations.

It is as relates to compelling someone to create custom content on your behalf, to express your views.

I can't use a religious belief to refuse a rote service, but I can to refuse bespoke work that expresses your views.

This case was never about refusing service to LGBT couples, it was about refusing bespoke work. To paint it as anything else, and in defense of your argument that "Conservatives are anti-LGBT" because of this case is wrong and nothing short of propaganda.

> Let's be clear, that is not the request.

Yes, it was the request. They wanted a custom cake celebrating a gay wedding, which was precluded by the baker's sincere religious belief.

If you read TFA I linked to, you would have read this as well as all the other insane requests refused, and that the baker was willing to sell otherwise made cakes.

This is a well litigated, well reported case and you have twice now insisted material elements of the case did not happen.

This is not about refusing someone based on their immutable attributes, but their requested content. Stop asking rhetorical questions regarding racism.

> But the fact is that conservative politicians as a whole demonize LGBTQ

"As a whole" they do not. There exists many who do, to paint it part and parcel of conservatism is incorrect.

One could just as well claim it's not their conservatism, but religious beliefs.

> For you to be consistent, you have to also defend the baker's right to refuse business to a black couple who requests a "bespoke cake".

Entirely depends on the content of the cake, if a black couple comes along and asks for a cake with, say, Satan licking a giant black dick[0] on it the baker might reasonably demur.

It isn't about refusing a couple based on their immutable attributes, it is about the content of the cake they requested.

You don't have a right to force someone to create something they do not wish to create.

[0] - https://www.newsweek.com/colorado-baker-protagonist-satan-di...

"Mein Kraft" has a nice Hitlerian ring to it.

I can see the criticisms now:

"These racists are using Mein Kraft to achieve power through the joy of gaming!"

> LGBTQ content censorship was celebrated by the same people now lamenting "conservative" demonetization.

The "same people?" All of them? Since when does "Conservative" equal "anti-LGBT?" You do know there exists LGBT conservatives, yes?

False equivalency? Yours is a non-existent equivalency.

Yes, which bears remarkable resemblance to the Bulgarian situation such that 30 years isn't going to allow for anyone to recover.

And if you believe the Treuhand situation is the start and end of East German problems you are being overly reductionist, Herr Antifa.

Even in prosperous Germany, the formerly communist East is well behind the capitalist West. One would assume for a nation with less means the problems would be more pronounced.

It takes one blow from a bat to the head to die. Yours is asking someone to risk death death, not a beating.

Were it simple fists I’d wonder what lack of training these officers have. Weapons are another matter.

Waxing nostalgic about Visual Basic like that, one might imagine you're also a hopeless romantic.

> A rubber bullet in lower body would have had enough stopping power.

No, it wouldn't. I've sustained worse injuries than a rubber bullet and remained fighting.

A bat to the head is a lethal assault. Using a firearm against such an assailant is completely justified.

This has nothing to do with pro / anti CCP feelings. As far as I'm concerned the CCP should be eliminated.

Your assertion is devoid of any reality.

Given that this is the second reply of its class, sounds like some of y'all have sketchier local councils than I do.

Perhaps this disenfranchisement is more of a regional issue.

And how likely are either of these?

> Why should someone be ashamed of themselves for having an opinion?

They should be ashamed for irrational fear-mongering.

In my neck of the woods they are held in the evenings, well after a typical 9-5 working day.

> so much this, young americans are systemically disenfranchised by how local governments are run

If by "routinely disenfranchised" you mean "regularly fail to show up to vote" then I would agree with you. Perhaps with the exception of university students registered at a parental home, I don't see how one could claim young Americans are materially disenfranchised in regards to local elections.

Well TFA is about MRR, so playing punker than thou is par for the course.

Nah, gotta burn it on a barge[0]

[0] - https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38120496

Considering how man treats fellow man, I wouldn't get hopes up.

> To me these seem contradictory. If remote work is so transparent, location shouldn't matter.

I don't understand what "transparency" has to do with anything here? Given that we know their algorithm for pay, based on CoL, it sound that they are being transparent?

> outlets for governments that hide behind a thin veneer of 'independent' ownership.

Considering how much of US media regularly pillories Trump, I'm skeptical that of the claim of government control. I'm certain they do, however, serve as a PR mouthpiece for various moneyed interests.

> Personally I view Elon's action as a profound statement on why you shouldn't smoke cannabis.

I'll bite, what is your take on why you shouldn't?

> If more and more people are competing crimes then doesn’t that suggest the deterrent effect is minimal

It's a multi-variable system. It could be that other conditions and effects override what is, in other circumstances, a solid deterrent.

Threat of long imprisonment works great on the guy who doesn't want to lose his cushy job and easy life. It doesn't work as well on someone with nothing and no hope of gaining anything.

Saying it doesn't serve as a deterrent for a certain class of individual is a fair statement, saying it doesn't work, full-stop is most certainly wrong.

> So if there was no threat of punishment you would become a murderous, thieving, drug user?

Many years ago I worked in a startup, as it turns out the primary owner of the business is what a typical person would likely consider a con-man. I have a rolodex filled with people who were harmed by this man's lies.

Good luck seeking justice if you don't have a bank-roll to fund a strong lawsuit.

I've long since let it go, but for a solid year or so I was consumed by hatred for this man and very much would've loved to take a tire-iron to this man's knees. Some of the other people hurt are close personal friends, I can say with certainty that I'm not the only one who wanted retribution. These people also have family / relationships, some amount of wealth, opportunity, etc.

As it turns out, the risking non-trivial amounts of time in prison serves a deterrent for certain classes of individual. People with something to lose. That, statistically, it doesn't quite appear to serve the purpose should make you question the circumstances, the incentives at play as relates to the people committing those crimes.

Do be cautions when drawing black-and-white conclusions from statistics.

Why would it be a poor idea? Unless he is actively a part of clandestine operations and units there is nothing materially damaging about this. No more than, say, folks like Chris Kyle, Dan Crenshaw, or Jocko Willink revealing they were SEALs.

> SE has always been a for-profit business, this makes Volunteering more like Free Labor and less like "doing something good for humanity".

> If a business model can not pay for labor, then it needs to be a Non-profit Foundation, not a for-profit business

Considering executive compensation at many non-profits, I don't think non-profit status alone is a good indicator of anything.

As for SO / SE, I didn't volunteer time and effort in light of their non-profit status, I volunteered in light of their mission. It was about putting in some amount of effort to make the world a better place. I couldn't care less if they made money off of it, just like I don't care if someone takes my open-source work and manages to make a business of it.

Well until someone comes forward with some concrete evidence we'll never anything beyond this he said, she said tale.

"Someone could have been theoretically, emotionally harmed, therefore I must cause real-world harm!"