wbjones wrote:madmallard wrote: you see, i'm torn. In one vein, you can make a point using a free speech example. Free speech laws are meant to defend unpopular speech, because popular speech doesnt inherently need defending. But does this concept transpose directly to anything else? In this case, so called protected classes of people?if we (by that I mean the royal we) weren't such shiny happy people we wouldn't need protected classes of people
This, one thousand times this.
Appleseed wrote: You are white, heterosexual, and male. No one gives a E36 M3 about you.
Given that in Arizona and California "non-Hispanic whites" are now a minority, to say nothing of gender or orientation, it seems like we're on our way to being eligible for protected status soon.
Datsun1500 wrote: In reply to wbjones: It's the double standard that bugs me. If any help wanted ad said "men only" people would have a problem with it.
easy solution … don't support their business model 
KyAllroad wrote:Appleseed wrote: You are white, heterosexual, and male. No one gives a E36 M3 about you.Given that in Arizona and California "non-Hispanic whites" are now a minority, to say nothing of gender or orientation, it seems like we're on our way to being eligible for protected status soon.
We already are. We just don't need to wield it. Race, Gender, Ethnicity, and (in some places) Sexual Orientation are protected statuses. This means that you can't get turned away for being strait/white/male.
Hahahhahha! I used to think that, until I was turned away.
On the subject of the $135,000 fine... it actually wasn't for refusing to bake the cake. The fine was for the pain and suffering of the couple during the subsequent proceedings. The bakers went so far as to publish the names, address, and phone numbers of the lesbian couple publicly on their Facebook page. The couple then received harassing letters, phone calls, and threats. That is primarily what the damages were for.
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2015/03/halfway_through_sweet_cakes_by.html
Beer Baron wrote: On the subject of the $135,000 fine... it actually wasn't for refusing to bake the cake. The fine was for the pain and suffering of the couple during the subsequent proceedings. The bakers went so far as to publish the names, address, and phone numbers of the lesbian couple publicly on their Facebook page. The couple then received harassing letters, phone calls, and threats. That is primarily what the damages were for. http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2015/03/halfway_through_sweet_cakes_by.html
that's just being a serious shiny happy person. They got what they deserved then to pull such a move
wbjones wrote:Datsun1500 wrote: If a regular restaurant said they were only hiring men as waitstaff, they'd be sued. How can Hooters say we will hire you for this job, but not that one?the job requirements read … incredible bod, and shapely boobs … when a man shows up that fits the description, I'm sure he'll get equal consideration …
Lots of men out there with shapely boobs. And you could say they have incredible bods, for some values of "incredible".
(i-beat-anorexia.jpg)
You'll need to log in to post.
