I agree with Trump. Ever since the first European settlers came to the North America, the area has been in heavy decline. From polluting rivers to the point where they could be lit on fire, to the last president who was a fascist.
You’re full of absolute shit, Europeans were just the peanut on the turd. Ever since proto-Asians crossed Beringia North America has gone to hell, killing the sabertooth tigers and hunting all the really fucking cool megafauna to extinction. There used to be giant sloths here, and sloths are so chill.
Yeah, king. Motherfucking North America was like Africa, except less hot.
Woolly mammoths, giant armadillos and three species of camels were among more than 30 mammals that were hunted to extinction by North American humans 13,000 to 12,000 years ago, according to the most realistic, sophisticated computer model to date. The news is reported in the June 8 issue of the journal Science. …
Not likely wiped out by humans because they were probably already gone, but oreodonts are pretty cool too. They basically looked like pig dogs. And we don’t know if they were related to pigs, camels, or hares. Which is a funny verity of possible relatives.
I’m not sure what happened to fast food restaurants. Yeah, sure, they were unhealthy for us but they used to taste good. Now, the portions are smaller, they cost a lot more, they have the texture of wet cardboard with sauce, and it doesn’t taste good. I guess if all you have ever known is the fast food restaurants of the last 20 years then you probably never experienced a real Big Mac or Whopper from the 70s and even to the 80s. Somewhere around the 90s shit just started falling apart. Greed right, it’s always greed.
No, the food really did taste better, due to the cooking process and the different ingredients that were involved.
For example, the fries were cooked in beef tallow; the meat they used was of better quality, and more nutritious. The bread was different as well—McDonald’s changed it again only a few years ago.
Im not a dietician or a rancher, but not all beef is created equal. Being “beef” doesnt mean every cow is the same nutritionally. Its not just a ratio of muscle to fat that affects that. What cattle are fed, how they are treated/slaughtered, how much time they roam all effects the nutrients in the meat. I guarantee all of the above are worse in the cattle McDonald’s uses, even compared to the 80’s.
Or from which animal... More naturally grown meat has a completely different composition (also a much more elaborate texture) than the same meat from an animal quickly grown with a lot of growth hormones. But both are 100% beef.
Nah, I know for a fact that the Whopper has been enshittified since at least the 90s. It used to be one of my favorites but now tastes like shit and costs 3x the price.
No, McD's has publicly changed various formulations over the years. Never for the better. Even just a couple years ago when they went to "never frozen" beef for some of their sandwiches - they tasted worse IMO, but I'm sure somehow it saved McD's money.
We've got a pub near us that costs about only 10 bucks more in total to carryout from there and feed my family on burgers and fries than if we go to McDs. But we get a large hand shaped patty cooked to our individual preferences, on a bun from a local bakery, generous portion of thick cut fries, and a better experience all around.
It's insane that McD's prices are within spitting distance of the place. The drive-thru (and its related convenience) is the one and only benefit to McDs. I have reluctantly loved McD's for most of my life, but there's no doubt it's gone downhill a few times, and for sure in the past few years. If they hadn't also jacked up their prices it wouldn't be so bad, but it's really hard to justify eating there now.
They've become as infested with corporate greed as every other company of any significant size.
I'm not a huge McDonalds fan, but I used to get lunch there occasionally because it was fast, convenient, and inexpensive. Now it's none of those things. I think the self-serve kiosks somehow made things worse.
One thing mcds does have that’s good and cheap still is their breakfast. I use their app and it always has the $1.5 breakfast sandwich. I’ll get one and a hash brown and it’s $3 something. Compared to other places that’s super cheap.
This just in: after laws and rules enacted, prison intake rates drop to 0 and nobody does anything they aren’t allowed to. Why didn’t we think of this earlier? Back to you, Tim.
It's not like your phone or wallet are exactly clean either. Or the restaurant door, for that matter. Or the human cashier you'd be passing money to.
If something like this is a concern, just wash your hands or use some sanitizer before you eat. I struggle to imagine that kiosks caused a demonstrable increase in disease, but hey, maybe there's some data out there.
Every McDonalds I’ve been to in the last couple years seems like it’s staffed with the most pissed off people imaginable. I mean, I get it, the job is probably horrible and they’re being underpaid. But that doesn’t justify treating seemingly everyone like shit.
I had a guy in the drive thru get full on pissed at me and yell at me because I asked for no ketchup on my burger. That’s it. It wasn’t a big order, it was a McDouble and some fries. I could understand if I had changed my order 5 times and insisted all my food be cut in the shape of Argentina or some shit, but I made a pretty basic fucking request.
There’s also frequently times when it seems like they’re trying to get past interacting with you as fast as possible and don’t give a single shit what you’re trying to say.
“Can I get a 10 piece chicken nuggets and-”
“Ok pull to the first window”
“Wait, I wasn’t done. I also want a medium fry and-”
“Okpulltothefirstwindow”
“Hang on, I want a drink too, can I g-”
“OKPULLTOTHEFIRSTWINDOW!”
I get hating your job, but why do you have to treat every customer like they are personally causing you inconvenience? Like they’re doing something wrong for having the nerve to order food at a restaurant.
I dunno. The thing about the Big Mac is the convenience. It doesn’t really compare to actual burgers, but it’s got a distinctive taste, a handy size and no waiting time. On the other side of the burger spectrum are the restaurant café burgers that are difficult to eat even with utensils and still taste like something you could do better yourself. The best burgers are from some shady unknown local grill, but those are hit or miss. Anyway my point is that the Bic Mac is a fair product, but it’s not really comparable to actual food. I’m not disappointed with it because I didn’t expect it to be different from whatever it is and sometimes that is good enough. Like, I wouldn’t want to eat a gourmet restaurant every day even if I could afford it and had the time to wait for the bill.
Tl;dr: fast food sucks because it’s not food, but fast food rules because it’s fast.
A quarter pounder meal is around ten bucks, so is a cheeseburger and fries from a local restaurant or diner. The attractiveness was cheapness and now it’s not even that
I think one factor is probably “advances” in food science. Look how many ingredients go into an average fast food bun, for example… we have so many hyper-processed foods made with not just hella preservatives, but instead of wheat flour and butter it’s like wheat and corn starch, gluten, various vegetable proteins and several different oils, etc all recombined in a rather industrial way. It’s cheaper, and it’s sometimes specifically engineered to appeal to our palates, but it’s been taken too far imo. This is not just an issue in fast food by any means.
I miss McDonald fries from the 80’s. Y’all just don’t know. They should bring it back for a limited time like the McRib, or offer both fries and label it as Classic fries.
I’m addressing that they’re factory farmed birds so they probably won’t get better, which makes your statement a bad idea. Don’t just move the goalpost if you want to discuss stopping factory farming because I never indicated I was wanting to talk about that.
Projecting? Honey I kept the goal posts in the same place. This is obviously a pointless debate since you are to blinded by the rage you feel at people eating meat that you can’t see the actual situation.
Yeah we shouldn’t, but we did, so we are stuck having to do shit like this now. And shamefully it’s not going to change anytime soon. Corporate interests essentially control the country now to a degree that they haven’t since the late 19th century. Especially in the farming industry.
So you want to pay $50 for a McDonald’s chicken sandwich? I don’t think it’s right. These chickens are bred to be oversized and grow fast. They get so big that they can barely move. Full of antibiotics so they don’t get infected from sitting in their own leavings.
I am really hoping for lab grown meat personally.
And since you may have missed it, these chickens are all female. There are technically ways to determine sex before they hatch but if you really want to get upset Google ‘Chick Grinder’. It’s as horrible as it sounds so maybe don’t Google it.
That being said, I don’t want to pay for $50 chickens as much as I don’t want to pay for $2,000 iPhones because that’s what having them made without slave/child labor would probably cost…
I was reading that Europeans actually found a way to sex the egg so they don’t hatch the male eggs, thus negating the need to destroy male chicks. I’m guessing the technology costs money so it’s unlikely that US factory farms would use it. Probably easier to kill the with the grinder.
I think it’s kind of a false dichotomy, between spending a lower amount of money (i.e. being poor), and being ethical. I think there’s a lot more we could take issue with, on how society is structured, than accept this false dichotomy. There’s a better universe out there where instead of having to use paper straws, we all just switch to biodegradable, and it is incentivized that people use metal straws. Same shit with this. There’s a universe out there where we eat less meat, where this meat is more sustainably sourced and is locally sourced, which cuts down on logistics, and where, as a result, we don’t have to pay 50 bucks for a frankly pretty gross chicken sandwich.
Capitalism is a race to the bottom. Maximum profit/gain and minimal loss.
Not to overly malign chicken sandwiches, but the point of capitalism is to charge the maximum that the market will bear while paying the least to extract it. And morals have nothing to do with capitalism. Even if it was mandated to have humane farming we would have a boutique pampered chicken sandwich (until they’re mechanically separated in 35 seconds) and foreign-sourced bleached chicken.
Anyway I prefer the tortured beef from Burger King.
Yeah. I agree. I was kind of more on the side that we should maybe not have a race to the bottom, if you can see what I’m getting at
edit: sorry if that didn’t come across in my comment, I tend to not want to label every single thing as “capitalism is the problem bro!” because that puts people off, but then I kind of struggle with tiptoeing around the phrasing.
To be fair, capitalism can work. But unfettered capitalism is pure greed. And right now nearly all of the guardrails have been removed.
Industry consolidation is out of control. Citizens United gave them unlimited political influence. Their lobbyists write the laws to govern them.
I’m waiting for the return of company towns. Amazon and Walmart are selling healthcare so we’re edging closer.
We’re not going to change things by voting in millionaires. Run for local office. Encourage like minded people to do the same. School boards, library boards, it’s all about shifting thought. It won’t be quick but it will work. Beau of the Fifth Column on has several videos about building community networks. The idea is that by bringing people together, it helps grow local power.
This is specifically talking about mitigation for highly pathogenic avian influenza. HPAI kills chickens fairly quickly, so to contain the spread and minimize the risk of zoonotic spread to people, they kill every bird on every property that it’s detected on.
This is one of those situations where no one thinks it’s a great solution, it’s just a pragmatic one that minimizes the risk towards workers while quickly depopulating the barn. The problem is that this is one of the cheapest and least humane ways to depopulate a barn, and shouldn’t be allowed. We should insist that barns allow humane depopulation, or at least less inhumane methods.
I imagine that would be pretty difficult to do in a chicken coop. These are barns made out of corrugated steel and generally aren’t even remotely air tight. You will, ultimately, need about 10x the nitrogen you would otherwise need, and that’s if it even works.
So a special coop would need to be built for this purpose.
Chicken farmers are some of the poorest farmers in the country. They generally don’t have the means to build a special kill shed to humanely euthanize their flock. They barely have the means to keep up with Tyson and Perdue’s ridiculous bullshit.
So, while I agree, heat stroke is a fucking awful way to kill these animals, the issue isn’t just “there’s a humane method bro, just build a kill house bro”
The issue is, we are paying FAR too little for chicken, and most meat, honestly.
There are several documentaries on this topic, but they don’t have a lot of authority over how many chickens they buy. They’re dictated a flock size, they pay for it, and then they pay to feed and raise them, then they sell them back to the people they bought the chicks from. Inevitably every year the chicken processor, whoever it may be, makes additional demands that they also have to pay out of pocket for.
I’m not justifying their actions, I’m saying they are stuck between two masters and they have no room to wiggle.
It’s cheaper to out source it this way because as their farmers are contractors they don’t have to adhere to the legal responsibilities they would if they ran them in their own.
They can keep their contracted farmers in debt to them indefinitely and essentially have a class of indentured servants.
Why do people work fast food jobs if they don’t pay a living wage?
You’re blaming the poor for being poor. If you care so strongly about this, you should start financially supporting poultry farmers to change vocations.
Carbon monoxide would be cheaper. We used it for euthanizing animals that couldn’t be saved at the wildlife rehab center I worked at. Though, it was done with sealed induction box, not a drafty barn like someone mentioned
Monoxide is incredibly cheap to produce with a crappy farm truck or old tractor. You doing need to distill or concentrate anything, just a hose and the exhaust pipe and a couple hours of fuel for idling.
We used it to gas a nest of rats that had settled in under a grain bin floor. Only a couple rats popped out and they were dazed, the dogs quickly snacked them up. The rest expired rapidly.
A chicken barn is big and drafty but you could just use multiple tractors or detune them on purpose. Any engine running rich produces a lot of CO.
I disagree with him, and I think he's bigoted. But I don't think anyone has the right to his labor and that he should be legally forced to photograph things that he doesn't want to photograph. And it's not like photography is a business that anyone can corner the market of in a small town or anything like that, all you need is a camera. It's the most common side hustle I see people try.
I’d say anything that could be constructed as creative, and isn’t necessary for life.
That said, I’d rather non-essential creatives be allowed to discriminate. Who wants a closeted homophobe photographing their wedding? I’d rather a non-professional friend do it with their cell phone.
Should they also be allowed to have a whites only business? Because I’m pretty sure they legally can’t discriminate that way. It’s only okay if someone is LGBT+.
No. But he should be able to reject creating something that says “whites only” or “straights only”.
Example:
Denying a “white power” photo session - should be legal
Denying taking senior photos because the client is white - should not be legal
Denying professional headshots because the client is gay - should not be legal
Denying a “gay pride” photo session - should be legal (though you’re an asshole if you do it IMO)
But the thing is, don’t even give a reason. You don’t have to take every job, and you don’t have to say why. If you make the stand to not take a certain job because of political reasons, you are bringing negative attention on yourself
If they’re working individual jobs on a freelance, case by case, contract-based model, then they can do whatever they want as far as signing a contract to do work or not signing a contract to do work with whomever they wish.
The reasons might be shitty sometimes, but that’s not enough of a reason to compel all freelancers to do work they don’t want to.
I’d say anything that could be considered as creative
This is basically how it’s handled. In the Masterpiece Cake case it wasn’t about selling the couple “just” a cake. If they’d wanted one out of the case the Shop was legally required to sell them one. They wanted a custom cake and that falls under “creative” which changes the rules.
The United States has long held that “Artistic Expression”, basically creative work, is protected under the 1st Amendment as a type of speech and the Government cannot compel speech without extreme need and even then it can only do it narrowly and temporarily.
What we really have with these is a collision between individual rights. Is it fair for the Government to abrogate the 1st Amendment Right of one person by compelling them to speak (create art) in order to satisfy the 14th Amendment Right of another person?
It may seem obvious but consider the controversy around Piss Christ. It was art and was thus subject to 1st Amendment protections and without those protections it would have been removed.
Yes. I mean… if someone thinks it’s okay to force a minority to create racist content, their opinion isn’t worth a reply. And logically, that’s essentially what is being said when someone wants to force someone to create to spec something they don’t agree with.
I think the difference comes down to creative outlets. Just like with the "create a website for same-sex weddings". I also feel a photographer should be able to deny a Trump themed wedding or cake. But if it's a general service or product offered to everyone, you shouldn't be able to deny a person just for being gay or black or anything protected. I don't know if I'm elaborating my thoughts about it well but do you get where I'm coming from?
A wedding photographer offers their services to everyone having weddings. If that photographer refuses to photograph same-sex weddings, is that not the same as denying service to someone over their sexuality?
The United States has long held that creative work, art basically, is a form of Speech and protected under the 1st Amendment. This means that compelling art is the same compelling speech and boy howdy are there a bunch of laws around that, laws that society really needs to have.
So it’s a collision between rights:
On the one side we have the Photographer and their Constitutional Claims to not be compelled to create art (speak) and their right to not do something that is against their religion.
On the other side we have a LGBTQ person and their Constitutional Claim to not be denied services as a member of a protected class.
We currently draw the line by protecting the right to not be compelled to speak. In practical terms this means that buying a standard per-packaged Good or Service cannot be denied to people in a protected class. If a member of that protected class wants to purchase a Good or Service that would require creative input then the seller can refuse.
It becomes more clear if you create a scenario where someone in a protected class wants something distasteful. Let say that this Nazi here is gay and getting married to this Nazi here. They roll into one of these fine bakeries in New York and demand a custom cake in the shape of Hitler standing on a base that says “Blood and Soil” with little red fondant swastikas between each letter.
They also need a wedding photographer but their Hitler Themed wedding has a 7’ tall statute of the guy standing underneath a banner that says “Arbeit Macht Frei” and they really want a shot of the two of them standing next to that statue in their finest Hugo Boss tuxedo’s while they both kiss Hitler’s cheeks.
So how does Society decide this mess? Do we force the Jewish bakery to make that cake because the buyers are minorities and gay? Do we force the photographer to take those pictures? Would YOU want to be forced to do either of those?
I sure as hell wouldn’t because what they want is deeply and personally offensive. This is why we protect against compelled speech.
You make a good point and I thought the same thing after I made my initial comments. Another one I thought about was what if a person truly strongly believed in segregation, even maybe it being a part of their religion. Does that mean it’s ok for them to deny black people? That makes me deeply uncomfortable to put it lightly; I don’t think that is justifiable.
At the same time, there is something very personal about creative pursuits. Graphic artists can reject any idea and they don’t have to justify it. And this is something that is custom made for each customer. If the artist isn’t interested, and even is morally opposed to performing the work, even if they were legally required to do it, is it going to be their best work? Can they be penalized for deliberately doing a terrible job? I don’t know
I think this issue is why we have protected classes and why sexual orientation/preference/gender should be one.
When you say “graphic artists can reject any idea and they don’t have to justify it” the implication is that they can reject it for any reason which is not strictly true.
“I don’t feel like it” is a perfectly valid reason.
“I don’t like Black people” is not.
A photographer can choose not to do a job because they don’t feel like it, but not because it’s for a Black person or a Jewish person.
The issue here that is being overlooked in a lot of the discussion (but definitely is not being overlooked by the Supreme Court) is that LGBTQ people are not a protected class. Every time one of these cases pans out it sets another precedent that will be used to keep it that way.
It’s not the same as being forced to photograph a Trump rally or campaign photos. A far more apt comparison imo is race. Most people would agree that a business (any business) should not be able to exclude someone based on their race.
Not defending the practices or arguing in defense of bigotry, just offering an explanation.
If it’s a business model like a store where you come in and buy things with prices on them, that’s open to everyone equally.
If it’s a business where you sit down individually with each client and work out custom goods and services and pricing, then it’s less “owner sells things” and more “clients contract owner for XYZ”, and at that point, I’d tend to agree that it’s a two way street, that both parties must agree to terms.
At that point, both sides have the option to simply not agree and not enter into a contract, for any reason. Just because one may disagree with one party’s decision to not enter that agreement doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have that option.
What if it was a photographer who didn’t want to be hired to photograph a Trump rally, a pro-life protest, or something else they felt strongly against like a (peaceful, lawful) far right event?
I don’t think in those cases that a photographer should have no choice because the organizers are paying the money, so likewise, in this case, I don’t feel like it’s fair to force the photographer to cover an event they have a strong moral objection to, simply because that’s their business.
Again, I’m not arguing that I agree with the photographer or that their position isn’t bigoted, just offering a distinction.
I think your comment can be summed up more succinctly with “private contractors have more discretion to chose their clients/projects than businesses that serve the public.” And I agree with you
For the same reason that I don’t believe gay couples should be legally forced to accept services from a MAGA photographer. A private contract in this situation is just that, a contract. Both parties have the power to set whatever terms and conditions that they want.
For example, imagine a black couple wanted a photographer for a family event and said something along the lines of “we’d like to support members of the black community by hiring an independent black photographer.” If a white photographer saw this and sued, everyone would (rightfully) react negatively to him
But a MAGA supporter is not the same characteristic as being LGQTB. They are not equivalent. Some countries have protected classes which I think is best. Political affiliation is not protected. Sexual orientation is. A protected class is saying that infringing the freedoms of others based on these characteristics is a great threat to freedom. The country needs to explicitly state it won’t tolerate it, because it will erode the freedom far greater than not allowing it. You can discriminate against someone based on choices they make, but not on inherent characteristics they have.
Likewise saying you are hiring a black photographer isn’t the same as saying you’re not hiring a white photographer. The distinction is important. You’re not saying you exclude a person based on an inherent/protected characteristic. The exclusion can be inferred but it doesn’t actually mean the exclusion exists. You can say you will hire a black photographer does not mean you won’t consider or hire any other. But saying you will not hire a white photographer does concretely state your exclusion which shouldn’t be a factor in business in any free Democratic country.
I would think this is a choice that doesn’t have a right answer. All choices suck. You infringe on someone regardless of choice. But saying that I think the choice with least harm is choosing to have protected classes that can’t be infringed one vs allowing people to disallow people access to services based on these protected classes. I would prefer a person who feels they will infringe on those rights to not choose to be in the market offering services where they can discriminate based on sex, race, sexual orientation or other traits that should be protected. But if they feel they don’t want to serve plumbers or Democrats or movie producers all the power to them
Tricky one isn’t it. Its arguable that religion is a choice and isn’t inherent. But I think religion is an outlier because of historical reasons. The persecution of individuals in states where one religious sect is dominate is well known throughout history. Making the caveat for religious reason maybe preceded any of the modern protected classes and was just grandfathered in but for good reason. Just guessing though. I think its definitely an outlier though.
My over arching belief is you shouldn’t refuse services against anyone who isn’t hurting other people in some way. But also I believe that’s not realistic and there is levels to how comfortable I am hearing when someone is refused service. Refusing because the customer is an asshole, I’m comfortable. Because their political affliation, less comfortable. Because of a protected class not comfortable. Because of religious beliefs? Somewhere between political beliefs and inherent characteristics
I’m not saying I disagree with your position, but being a Trump supporter or anti-choice is a choice, whereas being LGBTQ isn’t, so the comparison isn’t of equal demographic descriptors.
I disagree with your appraisal but as an example that splits your uprights: let’s say the photographer in question is a member of a demographic that is or was persecuted in some way and those trying to hire them are members of the persecuting demographic.
A Ukrainian photographer being asked to cover a family event for a family of Russians. Even if nobody involved has anything to do with the war, the situation could very likely make the photographer uncomfortable, and I don’t think that most people would fault the photographer for passing on the opportunity.
A black photographer being asked to cover a wedding being held on the grounds of a former Southern plantation is another case where I feel that the photographer would be understandably uncomfortable and the photographer would be completely justified in declining.
Even something like, say, an artist who is the daughter of Filipino parents who were subjected to horrific treatment during the japanese occupation during ww2, and now she’s being approached by a Japanese patron to commission her for a piece. While there’s a good chance that the artist may not be affected by her family’s history and be able to create the commission without any issue, I also feel that if that’s not the case, and the dynamic makes her uncomfortable, she would be completely within her rights to simply decline.
There’s even the possibility of the effects of real trauma being unjustly applied: the black photographer who was assaulted by a white person and now simply doesn’t want to work events for white people (or vice versa). The female SA victim who won’t work with men.
Simply flipping the party who has a condition they can’t change seems (to me at least) to change the dynamic. Having non-choice conditions on both sides changes the dynamic even more.
As such, I feel that the only fair situation is one in which the business contact is understood to be a two party contract, with both sides having full agency over their decision about whether to enter into the agreement for any reason. It’s different when it’s like a shop owner or something, where the entire transaction takes a minute and the goods and services they provide are open to the public in general.
But in the cases I’m talking about, I see the business models and getting comparable to valves or switches in a system. Some valves are “always open” except in specific circumstances: the main water valve, the valve from the pipes into your toilet tank, etc. and they’re just left open outside of specific special circumstances. Others are “always closed” outside of special circumstances: the bypass for a filter, or a drainage valve, or even the knobs on the sink which are only open when you’re actually using it. I see storefronts as “always open” valves, providing their services to the public in general unless they’re closed. In contrast, contract workers are “always closed” valves, not working by default, and their valve of work only opens when they agree to it. And in that business model, they should be free to keep that valve closed for any reason, regardless of whether it’s a good or shitty reason to anyone else.
While you or I may not particularly like or approve of one party or the other’s reasoning for opting out of a contract, I do believe it should be their decision.
So I agree with you, but food for thought as I was mulling this over: what about someone’s building a deck? I shouldn’t discriminate who I build a deck for based on color or orientationn because building that deck doesn’t expose me to anything I object to (I’m using “I” universally here - I’m queer positive and don’t build decks). But like if I’m a boudoir photographer who is squicked by queer sexuality I ought to be able to decline a shoot.
So I don’t know that the line is just a one on one service. That’s not quite there, but it’s close. I recognize the need to protect folks from being forced to witness or participate in things they object to, but I also recognize the need to protect minority groups from being excluded from the benefits of society.
I also think it would do people good to get over themselves and be exposed to things they find uncomfortable and grow as a person, but I recognize that isn’t anything that can be forced on someone.
Yeah I agree that it doesn’t seem to be a firm hard line, but maybe that’s a good thing. And honestly, to me it’s one of those things that, from a purely economic standpoint, it’s just opening up that opportunity to competitors.
So you don’t wanna photo gay weddings? That’s cool, someone else will.
This isn’t about defining a business model. It’s about defining discrimination and protected groups. By your logic above, the photographer could charge a black couple more than a white one. I know that’s not what you mean, bit it would be the potential result of how that law would be interpreted.
At the end of the day, a Trump rally is not a protected group, so a business can say no. Just like a shop proprietor can refuse business to said rally goers, but not to a protected group.
By your logic above, the photographer could charge a black couple more than a white one. I know that’s not what you mean, but it would be the potential result of how that law would be interpreted.
No that is part of what I mean. And it is about defining a business model.
They absolutely could do that. You and I may not like that, but they should absolutely have the discretion to do that, when they’re negotiating individual terms with individual clients.
If the photographer was a black woman who’d been sexually assaulted by a white male police officer, should she be legally compelled to provide her services to a retirement party for a white male police chief, regardless of whether or causes her significant trauma?
What if instead it’s someone who was raised Catholic then eventually left the church with some hard feelings when they married an atheist…and now they’re being asked by the church to cover a fundraiser event the church is putting on? Or even just a Catholic family having a confirmation or something and they want the photographer to document the occasion?
I’m not saying that I personally wouldn’t do these events or that I feel the person’s objection may be legitimate or not, my point is that it doesn’t matter what I think, and that a freelancer should always have the right to not enter into a contract for any reason. Sure, that freedom could be used in ways that allow them to express their bigotry, but I feel that’s a possibility which is an acceptable cost/risk in return for the freedom of these freelancers to choose how to do business.
They absolutely could do that. You and I may not like that, but they should absolutely have the discretion to do that, when they’re negotiating individual terms with individual clients.
No, they can’t. They cannot simply because they are a protected class. If there other reasons, they can.
If the photographer was a black woman who’d been sexually assaulted by a white male police officer, should she be legally compelled to provide her services to a retirement party for a white male police chief, regardless of whether or causes her significant trauma?
Not because he is white. But yes because he is a police chief, or just about any other reason.
What if instead it’s someone who was raised Catholic then eventually left the church with some hard feelings when they married an atheist…and now they’re being asked by the church to cover a fundraiser event the church is putting on? Or even just a Catholic family having a confirmation or something and they want the photographer to document the occasion?
She could decline because its a church, a business, but not because a client has a religion.
… my point is that it doesn’t matter what I think, and that a freelancer should always have the right to not enter into a contract for any reason. Sure, that freedom could be used in ways that allow them to express their bigotry, but I feel that’s a possibility which is an acceptable cost/risk in return for the freedom of these freelancers to choose how to do business.
The rest of the paragraph is what you think. It is not what the majority think, and that is why laws exist as they do, because the majority voted for them.
Just my opinion and you’re free to disagree!
I do disagree, and so does the law, excluding OPs post and thus why this is relevant and important to understand. You’re still trying to frame this as a business model, but it’s about protected classes.
If it’s a business where you sit down individually with each client and work out custom goods and services and pricing, then it’s less “owner sells things” and more “clients contract owner for XYZ”, and at that point, I’d tend to agree that it’s a two way street, that both parties must agree to terms.
Take something you strongly disagree with. Let’s say a certain political party and their agenda. Republicans, Democrats, Nazis, a radical independent, doesn’t matter what, just one you disagree with.
You’ve decided to provide a private service as an individual. Let’s say, event planning.
That political party you disagree with so much approaches you to host their biggest rally yet.
Should you be made to? Are you denying rights by declining your services to them, or are you exercising your own by choosing to stand by your beliefs?
Your beliefs will of course outrage some people that have opposing ones, but they are yours and they should be protected no matter what they are or how wild or somber they are. It is only when you actively start harming people or directly denying human rights is when it becomes an issue. But you host events, you don’t control water, shelter, justice, health, or food to societies. So unless that’s somehow happening—and boy would that have been a regulatory fuck up—you have the freedom to not host events for things that go against what you believe, and we protect that even if people disagree with them.
You can’t make someone do things against their beliefs, just as you wouldn’t want to be made to do things against your own. That’s called hypocrisy and double standards. We respect this by disagreeing with someone’s beliefs, but we don’t strip them from people and force our own on them, just because we disagree.
There is a fundamental difference between immutable traits, such as race, gender, sexuality, and physical ability, and political beliefs. So your comparison to "something you strongly disagree with" is not fitting analogy.
Your beliefs will of course outrage some people that have opposing ones, but they are yours and they should be protected no matter what they are or how wild or somber they are.
We aren't talking about "beliefs". We're talking about actions. Discrimination is an action.
It is only when you actively start harming people or directly denying human rights is when it becomes an issue…
And denying people goods and services based on who they are is harming them. So it is an issue.
You can’t make someone do things against their beliefs, just as you wouldn’t want to be made to do things against your own.
We can and we do, all the time. That's part of living in society.
Being a member of a protected class is not some kind of trump card you can play to get whatever you want from whomever you want it.
Let’s say that this Nazi here is gay and getting married to this Nazi here. They roll into one of these fine bakeries in New York and demand a custom cake in the shape of Hitler standing on a base that says “Blood and Soil” with little red fondant swastikas between each letter.
They also need a wedding photographer and their Hitler Themed wedding has a 7’ tall statute of the guy standing underneath a banner that says “Arbeit Macht Frei” and they really want a shot of the two of them standing next to that statue in their finest Hugo Boss tuxedo’s while they both kiss Hitler’s cheeks. They plan to stop by Stak Studios tomorrow and talk to them about it.
And denying people goods and services based on who they are is harming them.
How are you feeling about your statement right now?
Being a member of a protected class is not some kind of trump card you can play to get whatever you want from whomever you want it.
Which is equivalent to saying you want to bring back “whites only” or “no gays” signs and whatever else. No thanks.
And let’s be clear. We aren’t actually talking about getting “whatever” from “whomever.” We are talking about people who are members of a group (not by choice) having the right to expect the same treatment as others from a business open to the public.
On the other hand, you have stated, essentially, bigoted owners of businesses open to the public can deny business to anyone who holds this proverbial membership card you mention.
Being a member of a protected class is not some kind of trump card you can play to get whatever you want from whomever you want it.
Never said it was.
The rest of your comment is similarly meaningless. You must have misunderstood me. The service would, and could, be denied because they are asking for a Nazi-themed service. Being a Nazi is a choice, not an immutable trait, nor a protected class.
Nowhere have I said that gay people shouldn't be denied service for any reason, only that they shouldn't be denied service because they're gay.
How are you feeling about your statement right now?
Exactly the same as before you made your utterly irrelevant comment.
The thing’s you say are very authoritarian. The disregard for individual thoughts and freedoms is honestly scary. You can’t even differentiate private venture with public service. I suspect you discriminate against others all of the time, but it’s fine since it’s coming from you and your side of things, never questioning if you’re the bad person or not.
It slowly gets worse and worse each time you type. That last part is just flat out disgusting to say.
The Handmaiden’s Tale didn’t get 8.4 on iMDB because people can’t wait for that future enough.
Heh. Thank you. My point and case for anti-libertarian rests on that response perfectly.
And I appreciate you taking your time to state you’re wasting your time. Best your words and outlook rest here than elsewhere. We’re trying to progress as a species so, in a way, this is unintentionally helping.
You’ve been addressed and deemed anti-liberal as what you’ve said is in direct opposition of the protection of people’s freedoms and beliefs. You in fact went on to nonchalantly say that’s fine and that you can take people’s beliefs from them and replace them, which is literally within definition of authoritatianism—the polar opposite of liberalism.
You know your text is still there, right? Like it’s still totally readable and still totally there.
You can’t make someone do things against their beliefs, just as you wouldn’t want to be made to do things against your own.
We can and we do, all the time. That’s part of living in society.
Yeah, okay. I’ll just go tear down the prayer room at my work and tell everyone they have to conduct their workday the way I do from now on. It’s fine. Some darq person on the internet said we totally do this all the time and it’s way easier than respecting their inconvenient beliefs; which are void now anyway since we’re reconditioning them to be more compatible with our ideal society. Also, all veterinarians have to provide euthanasia services. Oh, and a bar can’t refuse entry to someone exercising their right to bare arms. And flatearther reconditioning camps. Actually, just all sorts of reconditioning camps. We’ll take away that individual freedom, wash those beliefs out, and get them just how we like 'em. By the end of this, they’ll have to take photographs of whatever we fucking tell 'em!
You know your text is still there, right? Like it’s still totally readable and still totally there.
Yes, actions, not beliefs. People can believe whatever the hell they like. They don't actually get to act on those beliefs in all cases though. They don't get to discriminate if they want to run a business in society.
Yeah, okay. I’ll just go tear down the prayer room at my work and tell everyone they have to conduct their workday the way I do from now on. It’s fine. Some darq person on the internet said we totally do this all the time and it’s way easier than respecting their inconvenient beliefs; which are void now anyway since we’re reconditioning them to be more compatible with our ideal society. Also, all veterinarians have to provide euthanasia services. Oh, and a bar can’t refuse entry to someone exercising their right to bare arms. And flatearther reconditioning camps. Actually, just all sorts of reconditioning camps. We’ll take away that individual freedom, wash those beliefs out, and get them just how we like 'em. By the end of this, they’ll have to take photographs of whatever we fucking tell 'em!
I'm going to say it again: Stop arguing with people you have imagined.
Yes, actions, not beliefs. People can believe whatever the hell they like. They don’t actually get to act on those beliefs in all cases though.
Yes, they fucking do in this case. How they go about doing that is when discrimination could arise.
They don’t get to discriminate if they want to run a business in society.
It’s not discimination. They’re not stopping these people from something everyone else gets. They’re saying they won’t do it.
What’s your solution here if you think this is somehow discrimination? To stop “discrimination” all Musilims, Christians, Eastern orthodox, Catholics, some Buddhists, Hindus, and the Jews are now abolished from photography services…to stop discrimination.
Or do you have some practical plan better than what we already have which is…
“I would like you to do this.”
“I won’t do that based on my beliefs.”
“Fair enough, I’ll find someone else.” “I’m going to shame you through public court and media, to obviously lose, but I don’t like that the person you are isn’t what I want.”
Gig worker versus someone providing a service to the general public. A wedding photographer is not on the job until you both accept the terms and sign a contract.
Besides, do you really want a wedding photographer that doesn’t want to be there and has to be legally forced?
Not saying this is a perfect analogy, but consider housing. If you are renting or selling real estate, you can not discriminate based on protected classes. However, if you are renting a room with shared spaces, you can deny applicants for any reason.
One is and artistic and expressive occupation. Stitching up a gay person wouldn’t be perceived as a form of statement. But being required to produce work in the traditional style of a wedding photographer could be perceived as issuing a statement in support of the event.
If you sold signs, you shouldn’t be able to decline someone a blank sign just because they are LGBT. But you shouldn’t be required to design one that carried a pro LGBT (or any other kind) of message.
I see where you are going with that, and I follow. But what about when we get into healthcare that can be perceived as queer-specific?
Say, when a doctor refuses to do proper STD screenings for a gay man, refuses to prescribe PrEP or PEP, or refuses to authorize checks on hormone levels?
All taken from experiences me and my friends have had, by the way.
I wouldn’t consider screenings or prescribing countermeasures to people who suspect exposure to medical threats particularly artistic or expressive. All those seem like pretty normal things for any sexually active adult to ask for regardless of sexuality.
Additionally those should be confidential so I don’t see them as a form of compelled speech.
I mean…now you’re getting into the realm of words vs actions.
In the case of a freelance contract worker, there’s a difference between saying “I don’t do work for gays and blacks” and keeping your mouth shut (or providing some excuse like that you’re already too booked) and no-quoting that work, in effect not working for these groups.
However in both cases, I believe it is (and should be) legal.
Rude and offensive, sure, but I feel it’s a situation where you have to allow assholes to be assholes because the alternative is compulsory work which opens a whole new can of worms and is an even bigger restriction on freedoms.
So many people in these comments are trying to legislate morality, and it’s just a non-starter in these circumstances.
Whether you see it or not, your opinion is carving out a way for legal bigotry when done by a christian. Of course an atheist refusing to serve this asshole bigot would open up the door for a religious discrimination case against the atheist because bigots want nothing more than to divide society. We have no obligation to defend a bigot’s rights they are actively taking those same rights away from others.
While I agree about a photographer not having to photograph things they don't want to, as someone else said, where do you put that line in the sand?
If the private business of a photographer can deny their services, can the private business of a hospital deny their services for those same reasons?
The problem is it's a hard discussion to have as on the one hand you want private businesses to be able to give bigoted folks the boot, but then private businesses of bigots can then throw you out all the same. Advocating for the first does mean unintentionally advocating for the latter.
To say that anyone can be a photographer belittles the skill associated with a professional photographer. That’s akin to saying that you can hire anyone with a voice to be a singer. Sure, you can, but there’s a qualitative difference.
That aside, would there be any sign that the photographer could put on their door that would be illegal? No Blacks, No Jews, No Women, etc… If not, play that to the logical extreme; What if all photographers in town had the same sign? What services are appropriate to deny in entirety to a specific class of people.
That’s akin to saying that you can hire anyone with a voice to be a singer. Sure, you can, but there’s a qualitative difference.
Yes anyone with a camera can be a photographer just like anyone with a paintbrush can be a painter. Just because it takes skill to be good at them doesn’t mean the unskilled are just babies with fisherprice cameras pretending.
Why shouldn’t he be forced to photograph things he doesn’t want to photograph? If he just photographed things he wanted to, it would be a hobby. He’s not hanging around weddings taking photos for fun. He’s being paid to do a job, and the job is the same whether it is two men, two women, or one of each.
Apply the same logic to someone who didn’t want to photograph Asian people. “Hey, I know you’re in love, but I don’t condone your marriage because my God says Asian people shouldn’t get married. Sorry.”
It’s not that he should be forced to work for people he hates. It’s that he should not be allowed to be in the business at all if he wants to discriminate against his clients.
This is about my position. If somebody wants to discriminate, then a business is not the right structure for them. Same with public service, if you choose to be mayor, your responsibility is to everyone, not just a preferred subset.
Edit: To go further, talking about where to draw the line. I think for a business that’s an easy answer, the law. As a photo business for example they’d have have the duty to be available for hire to photograph any legal activity. But someone asking to photograph abuse or something is crossing the line.
I agree with that last point. You can’t be required to photograph crimes, and I’ll take it a step further and say you don’t have to offer your services to everyone. A wedding photographer doesn’t have to do proms, and a baker doesn’t have to make cookies. But if you photograph weddings and you bake wedding cakes, you can and should be prohibited from discriminating against clients based on your religion.
Eh, if he want to leave money on the table, that is his business, I am sure there are plenty of people in a small town seeing the niche the guy just opened, the “Don’t be an asshole” niche.
The discriminating photographer will find that more than just LGBT people don’t want to support him. How many more is absolutely up for debate, but probably enough to support a new photographer
What if it’s purely a subject matter question? Surely you wouldn’t be OK with a wedding photographer being forced to stay around for some spicier honeymoon pictures if they didn’t want to photograph adult activity…
They shouldn’t be blocked from being a photographer just because they’re unwilling to photograph ALL subjects. That’s fucking stupid.
Unfortunately this is a strawman argument. The subject in question is a wedding. It shouldn’t matter what sexuality or race the people are.
There’s a difference between filming/photography of pornography vs a wedding. Don’t be disingenuous suggesting that the mere act of being gay equates the same to pornography.
This potentially opened the floodgates for discrimination. Unless this is specifically only for for “hired” or “contract” If not…. Coming soon to stores in the south near you
Hey and let’s open that up to other businesses. What if the only diner in town doesn’t want to serve LGBT people, and maybe the only restaurant won’t either. You can’t just make your food at home! All you need is stove. What a stupid comment.
It’s not about the morons that refuse to wear mask. It about people that believes in truth checking that the things they know are correct. If we wore masks and never tested if that did anything we would be as stupid as any anti-vaxxer.
Yea but there was already ample evidence. This isn’t enlightening anyone with anything new. (not that revalidation is bad, but revalidation isn’t changing anything)
Late last year, I arranged to get a vasectomy because my wife is amazing, and I don’t want to put her through a pregnancy in my state. The urologist who performed the surgery said there had been a significant uptick in the amount of vasectomies he had scheduled because of the recent abortion ruling.
If you’ve got an experienced doc it’s basically just wearing baggy pants and avoiding ball taps for a couple weeks. Mine did ten or fifteen a week and I barely felt a thing. If the pain is keeping anyone from doing it they should reconsider.
Before I had it done I was told all sorts of horror stories by people who hadn’t had a vasectomy but “knew a guy who did, and it was horrible, trust me bro”. The surgery was literally painless. I laid in bed all day playing Factorio on my laptop, and two days later I was basically fine.
Idk… I mean sure, the price of literally everything is outpacing my stagnant income, and my benefits are increasingly shit… But there’s a banner outside the parking lot I’m not allowed to use (admins only!) that says “Heroes work here!”
Ya hear that?! I’m a fuckin hero, y’all!! I can’t not be motivated now!
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go shed a single tear while eating a meal of white rice. Again. With some soy sauce packets I stole from the cafeteria.
Seriously. What is this propagandist bullshit? Fucking sorry excuse for “journalism”, Bloomberg. Blame the prols? Is that it? Push us to judge each other, to shame our fellow replaceables until what? We roll out the guillotine again? I’m here for it.
I’ll even paint mine up so it says “Heroes work here!” right up at the top, so everyone knows who’s pulling the ripcord. How about that?
People of different family lineages can be German citizens and culturally German. Imagine if we went “Yeah, Americans” at every Gonzalez in the United States.
People of different family lineages can be German citizens and culturally German. Imagine if we went “Yeah, Americans” at every Gonzalez in the United States.
You are missing the point. This sounds like “Yandex is company in Netherlands”.
Henry Ford may have been a prick, but even he had the common sense to realize paying your workers enough to buy your products was mutually beneficial. All this wealth hoarding going on serves nobody but the ultra rich that are simply addicted to watching numbers go up.
Which is why I’m hesitant to actually call those greedy fucks “capitalists”, because they’re the very antithesis of capitalism. They literally break the system for their own benefit, and thanks to US politicians to being corrupt enough to allow themselves to be bought out for a few bucks from said greedy fucks, nobody in power is incentivized to actually do something.
Capitalism works with money flowing constantly, and it needs that to work well. When you have some Warren Buffet and Elongated Muskrat kind of people just hoarding wealth… well, you get the shitshow that is the the US today. $300B circulating in the system would be awesome, and I would think that is a good indicator of a healthy economy; but when $300B is pretty much tied to one person, then congrats, we missed the point of capitalism.
The only goal of capitalism is to raise capital. Any method that raises capital is as valid as any other. The working class people are essentially just a bank to draw capital from, nothing more. Not to them anyway.
Anything else they told you about capitalism in school was bullshit. It does one thing. Increase capital through any means.
There is a logical end point where the working class can keep no capital for themselves, and produce it until they die. And what happens when there’s no more shareholder value to extract from the working class I wonder?
It’s a post hoc rationalization of why he paid more. He paid more because he literally couldn’t staff his factory because the assembly line work was so dull.
This chart shows the median wage has gone up since the pandemic, even if using 2023 dollars
So the wages in the US are better than they have ever been, even inflation adjusted. You can go back as long as you want, they were not higher in the 50s, contrary to popular belief
So the wages in the US are better than they have ever been, even inflation adjusted. You can go back as long as you want, they were not higher in the 50s, contrary to popular belief
That’s just obviously false. Are you saying people who could pay for college by working summer jobs, and who could buy a car and house and raise a family on a single income were making less than people today who spend decades paying off student loans, and who can barely afford rent on a one-bedroom apartment?
Sure, but people pining for the lifestyle of the 50s forget they are looking at the top 10% of incomes. Life in the 50s wasn’t that good compared to now for the AVERAGE person
Except they had things like the G.I. bill which gave them money to go to college or buy a house and improve their lives. Every man who was in the military in WWII had that as an option. Maybe some didn’t utilize it, but that was by choice. If you include their spouses and children, that’s way more than 10% of the population.
Wages were comparatively higher too.
But I don’t know anyone on the left pining for the lifestyle of the 1950s, that’s something conservatives want. I wouldn’t mind the wages of the 1950s (adjusted for inflation) and I wouldn’t mind taxing the rich at 90%, but I sure would mind the racism and the sexism.
But that’s the argument people are making, that you could live better on one income in the 50s. But actually, not really. You would have less money, even if you include inflation. People these days have higher rates of home ownership, car ownership, TV ownership than people in the 50s.
Look at ANY metric of “having money or stuff” and people today are better off
If 99 homeless people and Elon Musk are in a room, the average net worth of every person in the room is 2 billion dollars. Why aren’t all 100 happy about that?
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.