Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The March of Dimes Syndrome

city-journal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 125 posts

Re: The March of Dimes Syndrome

#101

Post by Georgelemental »

wtfwhateven wrote: post #98
Georgelemental wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He repeatedly admitted to refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple. He would bake cakes for straight couples without a problem. Gay couples? Nope. No. What he refused to do was bake a cake for the specific event of a marriage between two people of the same sex . There is no inherent law of nature forcing someone of a particular sexual orientation to marry someone of a particular sex. Who you marry is a choice; Phil…

> No. Yes. >What he refused to do was bake a cake for the specific event of a marriage between two people of the same sex. There is no difference. It's just grasping for a viable legal defense by someone who believes in Leviticus 20:13. Phillips's religious beliefs also tell him murdering gay people is righteous.

> Phillips's religious beliefs also tell him murdering gay people is righteous.

Even if he did believe what you claim (without a shred of evidence) he does, beliefs—even heinous ones—are not a crime.

Re: The March of Dimes Syndrome

#102

Post by wtfwhateven »

Georgelemental wrote: post #101
wtfwhateven wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No. Yes. >What he refused to do was bake a cake for the specific event of a marriage between two people of the same sex. There is no difference. It's just grasping for a viable legal defense by someone who believes in Leviticus 20:13. Phillips's religious beliefs also tell him murdering gay people is righteous.

> Phillips's religious beliefs also tell him murdering gay people is righteous. Even if he did believe what you claim (without a shred of evidence) he does, beliefs—even heinous ones—are not a crime.

>Even if he did believe what you claim (without a shred of evidence)

He repeatedly refers to the bible to justify his actions. He's used it as a moral compass for many years. What evidence is there that he doesn't believe in Leviticus 20:13? Does he just exclude the things that "inconvenience" him? I don't understand. Claiming there's not a shred of evidence of this is grossly dishonest IMO.

He's allowed to believe what he wants to believe. However his beliefs lead to his actions discriminating against people and he repeatedly refers to a book that includes things such as Leviticus 20:13 as justification of those actions.

Re: The March of Dimes Syndrome

#103

Post by tpoacher »

ggm wrote: post #2

I work in the not for profit internet governance space, and we frequently discuss the "shirky principle" -Because we see signs of it all the time.

Arguably they are different things.

Shirky principle states that stakeholders will prefer solutions that keep them relevant, over solutions that would solve the problem conclusively, but in a manner that makes their existence no longer relevant.

This seems to suggest instead a tendency to solve the problem in a way that is conclusive, and thus indeed making them less relevant, but then trying to impose continued relevance by trying to overstate the importance of any remaining and ultimately trivial aspects of the problem. Which is an equally intetesting angle to consider.

I have to say though, even in the latter case, the name chosen is unfortunate, since the organisation it refers to seems to have actually done the right thing after polio was eradicated: they went after other problems (as opposed to keep campaigning about polio).

Re: The March of Dimes Syndrome

#104

Post by indigo0086 »

zzo38computer wrote: post #74
TulliusCicero wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is no longer enough for conservative Christians to tolerate same-sex marriage—now they must be legally required to bake cakes and design web pages for the weddings. This is a bit of a gray area because of religious freedom, but generally businesses open to the general public aren't allowed to discriminate against protected classes, because that used to go rather poorly for society. If a business refuses to bake…

> This is a bit of a gray area because of religious freedom, but generally businesses open to the general public aren't allowed to discriminate against protected classes, because that used to go rather poorly for society. It should not have to do with religion. It would be if it is a custom order; custom orders can potentially be anything. If they refuse a custom order, they can lose money and they can get a bad repu…

So much written, so little said

Re: The March of Dimes Syndrome

#105

Post by wtfwhateven »

Georgelemental wrote: post #99
TulliusCicero wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is no longer enough for conservative Christians to tolerate same-sex marriage—now they must be legally required to bake cakes and design web pages for the weddings. This is a bit of a gray area because of religious freedom, but generally businesses open to the general public aren't allowed to discriminate against protected classes, because that used to go rather poorly for society. If a business refuses to bake…

> If a business refuses to bake a cake for black people's weddings, is that okay? The critical distinction here is that your sexual orientation does force you to marry someone of a particular sex. It is perfectly possible for a homosexual (or bisexual) individual to marry someone of the opposite sex, and it is perfectly possible for a heterosexual to marry someone of the same sex. Masterpiece Cakeshop and 303 Creativ…

>The critical distinction here is that your sexual orientation does force you to marry someone of a particular sex.

>It is perfectly possible for a homosexual (or bisexual) individual to marry someone of the opposite sex, and it is perfectly possible for a heterosexual to marry someone of the same sex.

These seem contradictory? I guess you meant to say "doesn't force"

>In contrast, if a black person gets married, that will always be a "black person's wedding", so refusing to service it on that basis would be racially discriminatory.

Using your logic it would be perfectly fine for someone to refuse to bake a cake for a mixed race couple. Nobody's forcing them to marry someone of another race right? So discriminating against them is fine because... reasons?

Regardless the "distinction" you keep insisting on is wholly useless and meaningless for any reasonable person, all it does is attempt to justify the behavior of someone who believes Leviticus 20:13 is correct (the person uses the Bible to justify their actions so it's safe to assume they believe in the entirety of the bible including Leviticus 20:13).

Re: The March of Dimes Syndrome

#106

Post by wtfwhateven »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #68
Georgelemental wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your theory doesn't explain this part, though (emphasis mine): > It is no longer enough for conservative Christians to tolerate same-sex marriage—now they must be legally required to bake cakes and design web pages for the weddings. It is no longer enough to protect gay students from harassment—now these students must have access in elementary school libraries to how-to manuals for anal sex. Public schools must encou…

> It is no longer enough for conservative Christians to tolerate same-sex marriage—now they must be legally required to bake cakes and design web pages for the weddings. This is a bit of a gray area because of religious freedom, but generally businesses open to the general public aren't allowed to discriminate against protected classes, because that used to go rather poorly for society. If a business refuses to bake…

I think it's unfortunate that the people who push violent extremist ideologies don't receive more pushback. These are people that believe in Leviticus 20:13. Some may say they reject Leviticus 20:13 but that must also mean they reject the alleged infallibility of the bible. Many Christians do not reject Leviticus 20:13 and other horrid passages. The "religious freedom" angle is wholly insincere and just an attempt to claw back some of the power they've lost. "Religious freedom" is sadly synonymous with "make it legal to discriminate against people again". This is also demonstrated by Christians trying to make exceptions in "religious freedom" to shut down groups they don't agree with. They tend go silent if you mention Leviticus 20:13 because they agree with Leviticus 20:13, they just don't want to reject it because of their "beliefs", and they don't want to tell you they agree with it because it makes them look bad.

Many of the replies in this thread that advocate for this ideology are attempting to make distinctions that don't exist (or are meaningless) to justify discrimination. Everything they've said can be applied to interracial marriage too but if you tell them that they go silent because they know they need to eliminate gay marriage first before they go after interracial marriage.

It's extremely gross and deceitful behaviour. I would prefer these people be sincere and just say they dislike gay people instead of incoherent and nonsensical arguments they make as a facade to hide their true intentions.

All of this is an act to move society back in their favour. "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Mountain_Mandate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025

They, sadly, want a theocracy. They want to discriminate against LGBT+ people in the workplace. They want to refuse service to anyone they don't like the look of. They want to use Leviticus 20:13 again without repurcussions. They won't tell you to that because of optics. But Leviticus 20:13 exists in the bible, the book they use as a moral compass, the book they believe morality itself is codeified.

It's extremely difficult for any reasonable person to give any of this an ounce of good faith. It's literally arguing against people who want gay people slaughtered. There's not much discussion to have with such extremists.

It's useful to remember that Hanlon's razor is a joke that came from a joke book.

Project 2025 is what they want to lay the groundwork for all this horridness.

Religious extremism is abhorrent.

Re: The March of Dimes Syndrome

#107

Post by paulmd »

Tao3300 wrote: post #81
TulliusCicero wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a generally-open-to-the-public business refused to service women or black people or Muslims, should we be okay with that too, because hey, they probably don't want someone who dislikes them to provide them a product?

You must be replying in the wrong place. I didn't say it was okay. I said knowingly forcing someone to do this is a good way to get a shitty cake.

At the end of the day the person coming to a public accommodation for a service or good doesn’t and shouldn’t need to know anything about the religion of the owner. Why should they? What does that have to do with me buying a muffler from their store or a bouquet of flowers?

Living in a world where we have to follow all the weird -isms of each individual proprietor (including, yes, racism) would be a social nightmare and incredibly disruptive to social order. Which it was.

Re: The March of Dimes Syndrome

#108

Post by red-iron-pine »

Martinussen wrote: post #47
Georgelemental wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your theory doesn't explain this part, though (emphasis mine): > It is no longer enough for conservative Christians to tolerate same-sex marriage—now they must be legally required to bake cakes and design web pages for the weddings. It is no longer enough to protect gay students from harassment—now these students must have access in elementary school libraries to how-to manuals for anal sex. Public schools must encou…

That entire paragraph is mostly a strawman, or, if you're feeling charitable, coming from an extremely surface-level awareness of the actual issues they're talking about.

"Anything I don't agree with is a strawman"

Re: The March of Dimes Syndrome

#109

Post by TulliusCicero »

Georgelemental wrote: post #99
TulliusCicero wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is no longer enough for conservative Christians to tolerate same-sex marriage—now they must be legally required to bake cakes and design web pages for the weddings. This is a bit of a gray area because of religious freedom, but generally businesses open to the general public aren't allowed to discriminate against protected classes, because that used to go rather poorly for society. If a business refuses to bake…

> If a business refuses to bake a cake for black people's weddings, is that okay? The critical distinction here is that your sexual orientation does force you to marry someone of a particular sex. It is perfectly possible for a homosexual (or bisexual) individual to marry someone of the opposite sex, and it is perfectly possible for a heterosexual to marry someone of the same sex. Masterpiece Cakeshop and 303 Creativ…

This is the level of obtuseness we're talking about here, that's necessary to defend this sort of reasoning:

> Well, a straight dude technically could marry a guy! It could happen!

Re: The March of Dimes Syndrome

#110

Post by Georgelemental »

wtfwhateven wrote: post #105
Georgelemental wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a business refuses to bake a cake for black people's weddings, is that okay? The critical distinction here is that your sexual orientation does force you to marry someone of a particular sex. It is perfectly possible for a homosexual (or bisexual) individual to marry someone of the opposite sex, and it is perfectly possible for a heterosexual to marry someone of the same sex. Masterpiece Cakeshop and 303 Creativ…

>The critical distinction here is that your sexual orientation does force you to marry someone of a particular sex. >It is perfectly possible for a homosexual (or bisexual) individual to marry someone of the opposite sex, and it is perfectly possible for a heterosexual to marry someone of the same sex. These seem contradictory? I guess you meant to say "doesn't force" >In contrast, if a black person gets married, tha…

> I guess you meant to say "doesn't force"

Yes, sorry.

> It would be perfectly fine for someone to refuse to bake a cake for a mixed race couple.

It would be legal to refuse to bake a cake celebrating an interracial marriage. Not "fine"—it would be morally wrong, and if an establishment did this I would boycott them for it—but it would be constitutionally protected speech.

Post reply on HN