• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

General political chat

DoubleJ21

Well-Known Member
The Kurds are going to suffer badly once the Turkish army moves in. After all they did to fight ISIS, they deserve the international community’s support and protection. And they’re not the only ones who are going to pay the price: an ISIS resurgence would have devastating consequences for the region and for the world at large.
I'm definitely no expert on foreign policy, and I really don't like Turkey's government (something about being Armenian and all) but I thought this article provided some important context. I'm sure there's plenty of other context I'm unaware of.
 

DoubleJ21

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
You're kidding, right? This is all about letting people deny service to LGBTQ people for "religious belifs".

On the surface, I am absolutely fine with this. Deny me. I don't want your homophobic cake anyway. However, it opens up a discriminatory door that could get serious when a doctor wants to deny me, etc etc, etc.
417039
 

OneofThree

Well-Known Member
The region of Syria in question isn’t under Assad’s control.
That's completely irrelevant. If it's within Syrian borders, no one has any business there without the consent of the Syrian president. The area is no less "Syria" than Damascus in that regard.
 

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
I’ve been reading summations of all the parties platforms on key issues here in Canada to prep for voting either this weekend or on Election Day.

My partner is being smart and rating each parties commitment per topic to get a sense of where he sides with them.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
That's completely irrelevant. If it's within Syrian borders, no one has any business there without the consent of the Syrian president. The area is no less "Syria" than Damascus in that regard.
It is a breakaway region completely outside Assad’s control and therefore not at all comparable to Damascus. In any case, no party—whether Assad or the region’s actual leadership—has invited the Turkish army to invade. The Kurds are owed a great debt of gratitude for having fought ISIS, and they should not be left unprotected against Turkey.
 
Last edited:

Tony the Tigger

Well-Known Member
We’re talking about the Turkish army massing on the border with the intention of invading Northern Syria and establishing a so-called safe zone there. That is a breaking story. I’m not sure why you’re implying otherwise.
The story is so new, it hasn’t happened yet. Any minute now, apparently.

You're kidding, right? This is all about letting people deny service to LGBTQ people for "religious belifs".

On the surface, I am absolutely fine with this. Deny me. I don't want your homophobic cake anyway. However, it opens up a discriminatory door that could get serious when a doctor wants to deny me, etc etc, etc.
The cashier in aisle 5 will ring us up, but not aisle 8.

The CM at California Grill will serve us, but not Yachtsman Steakhouse. One at the Brown Derby will refuse to acknowledge our anniversary despite our pins, and won’t bring us an anniversary cake.

How does all that sound?

People, get real: this baloney is not right, not practical, and unAmerican - not to mention any “gains” by the right on this question are bound to be temporary.
 

OneofThree

Well-Known Member
It is a breakaway region completely outside Assad’s control and therefore not at all comparable to Damascus. In any case, no-one—whether Assad or the region’s actual rulers—have invited the Turkish army to invade.
"Breakaway region"? Lol. It's Syria.

I never said or implied that Turkey had any business there either.

Hmmm. Breakaway region. Maybe the US should send troops to that little island "breakaway region" of yours? :hilarious:
 

Quinnmac000

Well-Known Member
We give weapons and train Kurdish Fighters to fight ISIS, they fight ISIS, ISIS retreats, Turkey decides to attack Kurds due to history, we let Turkey Bomb the ones who help us and have our weapons, what do you think is going to happen.

Aka lets go back in history when we did this very thing with a similar group in the 80s.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
"Breakaway region"? Lol. It's Syria.
I really don’t get what’s funny about what I wrote. The region is called Rojava (officially the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria) if you want to learn more about it.

Hmmm. Breakaway region. Maybe the US should send troops to that little island "breakaway region" of yours? :hilarious:
From the foregoing, it seems you think people are calling on the US to send troops to Rojava to protect it from Turkey. Not at all. American soldiers are already there and have been so for years in alliance with the Kurds. They have only now started to withdraw, much to the dismay of the Kurds who are about to bear the brunt of the Turkish army.
 
Last edited:

DoubleJ21

Well-Known Member
The cashier in aisle 5 will ring us up, but not aisle 8.

The CM at California Grill will serve us, but not Yachtsman Steakhouse. One at the Brown Derby will refuse to acknowledge our anniversary despite our pins, and won’t bring us an anniversary cake.

How does all that sound?

People, get real: this baloney is not right, not practical, and unAmerican - not to mention any “gains” by the right on this question are bound to be temporary.
It's pathetically exaggerated premises such as this one that really make me question the intellectual honesty of your posts. It also highlights a lack of understanding of how the free market works, and it falsely poses government as the only mechanism to depress discrimination.

Now, let's take a look at your moral argument. Unless in special circumstances (for example, bona fide occupational qualifications) I don't support discrimination unless performing such a task would violate someone's genuinely held religious or moral beliefs. HOWEVER, having a moral objection to such a practice is vastly different from legally restricting it. Forcing individuals to trade against their will is something I consider a violation of individual liberty.

That said, I'm not against conditions imposed by the government in exchange for public funding. In fact, I would strongly support it. For example, a store will not be able to accept EBT as a form of payment if they discriminate against employees or customers. Or, doctors/hospitals cannot recieve Medicare/Medcaid funding if they discriminate against patients, etc.
 
Last edited:

Willmark

Well-Known Member
I know right? That’s not even what the question is in this case.

For those that haven’t read about the case? It’s about whether the the 1964 law covers sexual orientation/identity as protected not taking it away. Again what the laws says rather than how it’s being interpreted right now. The argument before the court is whether it’s covered to begin with. In other words it’s not written into the law hence why there is a question before the court.

I’m simply pointing this out for clarity, nothing more.
 
Last edited:

21stamps

Well-Known Member
The hypocrisy is neverending. In the same week- “Bush is a war criminal!!”has returned as a cry from the left...
The same people who now want to see us go to war with Turkey.

Outrage over Logic.. always.
 

Club Cooloholic

Well-Known Member
It's pathetically exaggerated premises such as this one that really make me question the intellectual honesty of your posts. It also highlights a lack of understanding of how the free market works, and it falsely poses government as the only mechanism to depress discrimination.

Now, let's take a look at your moral argument. Unless in special circumstances (for example, bona fide occupational qualifications) I don't support discrimination unless performing such a task would violate someone's genuinely held religious or moral beliefs. HOWEVER, having a moral objection to such a practice is vastly different from legally restricting it. Forcing individuals to trade against their will is something I consider a violation of individual liberty.

That said, I'm not against conditions imposed by the government in exchange for public funding. In fact, I would strongly support it. For example, a store will not be able to accept EBT as a form of payment if they discriminate against employees or customers. Or, doctors/hospitals cannot recieve Medicare/Medcaid funding if they discriminate against patients, etc.
When deciding how a case is settled you have to look at all the extreme outcomes of the decision, to ignore them is foolhardy.
 

The Mom

Moderator
Premium Member

The Mom

Moderator
Premium Member
The story is so new, it hasn’t happened yet. Any minute now, apparently.



The cashier in aisle 5 will ring us up, but not aisle 8.

The CM at California Grill will serve us, but not Yachtsman Steakhouse. One at the Brown Derby will refuse to acknowledge our anniversary despite our pins, and won’t bring us an anniversary cake.

How does all that sound?

People, get real: this baloney is not right, not practical, and unAmerican - not to mention any “gains” by the right on this question are bound to be temporary.
In the funeral home case, just having a religious belief against transgendered people should not be enough to fire them. However, if they can prove that this employee is making them lose business because of customers' refusing to use them due to this employee, they may have a case.

So it's almost the opposite of the cake issue, or your examples. The funeral home is not refusing service to anyone.

I did more thinking on this issue.

Pardon the puns:

This may be a case of an owner trying to save a dying business, and this might be the last nail in the coffin.

The funeral industry is in crisis mode, as fewer people want funeral directors and just want undertakers, ie, someone who just takes care of preparing a dead body for disposal (as crass as that sounds.) We have reached the tipping point where the majority of people are opting for cremation and then a celebration of life at a convenient time. Sometimes in a church, sometimes in a restaurant, hall, etc.
But the days of a 3 day wake followed by a service in a church or funeral home are long gone - this was the norm when I was growing up. So no need for limousine rentals, flowers, viewing costs, fancy metal and wood coffins, and all of the other burial costs.


So even if this particular employer wins the battle, he is ultimately going to lose the war. The cost of a simple cremation almost doubled between my father's death and my mother's 3 years later. And in my mother's case, I provided my own urn and coffin!

People are just getting tired of spending so much money for all of the "clutter" when all they really want is the memorial service, and a way to get together to honor and share memories of their loved one.

The person I dealt with for my mother's cremation was a minority, and prior to the Civil Rights Act funeral homes were segregated, so he would not have been working for a business dealing with "white" bodies. Nor did I ever see a female funeral home employee - although women have been responsible for preparing bodies for millennia. Now we have minorities and women working in most funeral homes - although I must admit that most whites do not use what were traditionally black funeral homes.

So perhaps change does need a little boost to really take effect. I'm just not sure that someone's sexual orientation has anything to do with caring for a dead body. Or teaching someone how to skydive, etc.

IDK, I guess I'm concerned with taking away one individual's rights for another's rights. I'm just an average citizen, and not a Supreme Court Judge, but perhaps they can find a way to balance the two?
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom