[US Election 2016] Democratic Primary Megathread

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Obamacare and the civil rights act. We need a less burocratic system than Obamacare, and civil rights legislation that doesn't dictate to business owners who they must serve.

Why? If people won't act like citizens of their own accord, why shouldn't law dictate?

We don't have laws that suggest not murdering people.

But you're right about bureaucracy - the problem is that Obamacare didn't replace insurance, it just offered choice. And that means we're stuck with the insurance model. Seriously, see if you can audit the medical billing class at your nearest medical school - you'll see why American healthcare is the special kind of bureaucratic nightmare it is.

Why should a business whose owners have particular religious beliefs be forced to provide services (a gay marriage cake, for example) that directly opposes those beliefs?

[Grave_n_idle]

Why? If people won't act like citizens of their own accord, why shouldn't law dictate?

We don't have laws that suggest not murdering people.

But you're right about bureaucracy - the problem is that Obamacare didn't replace insurance, it just offered choice. And that means we're stuck with the insurance model. Seriously, see if you can audit the medical billing class at your nearest medical school - you'll see why American healthcare is the special kind of bureaucratic nightmare it is.

Why should a business whose owners have particular religious beliefs be forced to provide services (a gay marriage cake, for example) that directly opposes those beliefs?

Because it's bullshit.

If your beliefs say that you can't make cakes, don't be a baker. If your beliefs say that you can't marry someone of your own gender, don't marry them.

No one's beliefs say you can bake a cake for someone else and tell them how to use it. And if they did, those beliefs deserve to be legislated against.

[Roosevelt and Truman]

Repealing health reform, Dodd-Frank, peaceful diplomacy with Iran/Cuba, and so on?

Obamacare and the civil rights act. We need a less burocratic system than Obamacare, and civil rights legislation that doesn't dictate to business owners who they must serve.

Businesses should not be able to deny services to people based on race, religion, or sexual orientation. If that is what you define as restricting freedom, than I support constraints in that regard. Also, Obamacare has decreased the amount of uninsured by 16 million, significantly slowed the rate of cost inflation, has lowered our deficit, and maintains a market model. It's here to stay.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Why should a business whose owners have particular religious beliefs be forced to provide services (a gay marriage cake, for example) that directly opposes those beliefs?

Because it's bullshit.

If your beliefs say that you can't make cakes, don't be a baker. If your beliefs say that you can't marry someone of your own gender, don't marry them.

No one's beliefs say you can bake a cake for someone else and tell them how to use it. And if they did, those beliefs deserve to be legislated against.

So would you advocate for a priest to have to perform gay marriage ceremonies then?

[Roosevelt and Truman]

Because it's bullshit.

If your beliefs say that you can't make cakes, don't be a baker. If your beliefs say that you can't marry someone of your own gender, don't marry them.

No one's beliefs say you can bake a cake for someone else and tell them how to use it. And if they did, those beliefs deserve to be legislated against.

So would you advocate for a priest to have to perform gay marriage ceremonies then?

No one is advocating for forcing Catholic Churches to go against their beliefs. That would be a violation of the first amendment. However, businesses are secular institutions...not churches. They are bound by law to render services equally, as has been the standard for generations.

[Salandriagado]

Why? If people won't act like citizens of their own accord, why shouldn't law dictate?

We don't have laws that suggest not murdering people.

But you're right about bureaucracy - the problem is that Obamacare didn't replace insurance, it just offered choice. And that means we're stuck with the insurance model. Seriously, see if you can audit the medical billing class at your nearest medical school - you'll see why American healthcare is the special kind of bureaucratic nightmare it is.

Why should a business whose owners have particular religious beliefs be forced to provide services (a gay marriage cake, for example) that directly opposes those beliefs?

They advertise their business as providing a service (cake provision) to the public in return for a fee. That means that their business must provide that service to the public. All of the public that are willing to pay the fee. If they don't want to provide that service to the public, then they can just set their business up in such a way that it doesn't claim to provide that service to the public (see: how companies such as MACRO operate).

Because it's bullshit.

If your beliefs say that you can't make cakes, don't be a baker. If your beliefs say that you can't marry someone of your own gender, don't marry them.

No one's beliefs say you can bake a cake for someone else and tell them how to use it. And if they did, those beliefs deserve to be legislated against.

So would you advocate for a priest to have to perform gay marriage ceremonies then?

If said priest is performing marriages (as in beginning the legal institution of marriage, not any associated religious wedding, which is an entirely different thing) for the public (as opposed, say, to just a specific congregation), then yes.

[Grave_n_idle]

Because it's bullshit.

If your beliefs say that you can't make cakes, don't be a baker. If your beliefs say that you can't marry someone of your own gender, don't marry them.

No one's beliefs say you can bake a cake for someone else and tell them how to use it. And if they did, those beliefs deserve to be legislated against.

So would you advocate for a priest to have to perform gay marriage ceremonies then?

No, and that wasn't even hinted at in the discussion about bakers and other businesses.

Unless it's some sort of priest-for-sale, which would fit the 'business' thing we were discussing... in which case, sure - if they aren't 'real' priests, then they're just a business.

On the other hand, I do think that priests (of whatever denomination) should perform marriages on whichever legal couples ask them. Turning away homosexuals is no more acceptable than a priest turning away black parishioners.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

So would you advocate for a priest to have to perform gay marriage ceremonies then?

No, and that wasn't even hinted at in the discussion about bakers and other businesses.

Unless it's some sort of priest-for-sale, which would fit the 'business' thing we were discussing... in which case, sure - if they aren't 'real' priests, then they're just a business.

On the other hand, I do think that priests (of whatever denomination) should perform marriages on whichever legal couples ask them. Turning away homosexuals is no more acceptable than a priest turning away black parishioners.

They should both be acceptable. Its their church/business/insert here. They should be able to turn away who they want.

[Grave_n_idle]

No, and that wasn't even hinted at in the discussion about bakers and other businesses.

Unless it's some sort of priest-for-sale, which would fit the 'business' thing we were discussing... in which case, sure - if they aren't 'real' priests, then they're just a business.

On the other hand, I do think that priests (of whatever denomination) should perform marriages on whichever legal couples ask them. Turning away homosexuals is no more acceptable than a priest turning away black parishioners.

They should both be acceptable. Its their church/business/insert here. They should be able to turn away who they want.

They are not acceptable. I'm not saying that churches should have their membership legislated - I'm saying it's not acceptable.

If the church I attended refused black couples, I wouldn't go to that church any more.

[Wolfmanne]

They all seem pretty shitty. Personally if I was an American I guess whatever the party machine picks out in the election. I certainly wouldn't bother with this terrible lineup, but neither would I vote Republican.

[Ashmoria]

No, and that wasn't even hinted at in the discussion about bakers and other businesses.

Unless it's some sort of priest-for-sale, which would fit the 'business' thing we were discussing... in which case, sure - if they aren't 'real' priests, then they're just a business.

On the other hand, I do think that priests (of whatever denomination) should perform marriages on whichever legal couples ask them. Turning away homosexuals is no more acceptable than a priest turning away black parishioners.

They should both be acceptable. Its their church/business/insert here. They should be able to turn away who they want.

yes but a priest isn't in business but a cake maker is. performing a marriage is a religious act (for a priest) baking a cake isn't.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

They all seem pretty shitty. Personally if I was an American I guess whatever the party machine picks out in the election. I certainly wouldn't bother with this terrible lineup, but neither would I vote Republican.

You don't think Sanders and Clinton are both fantastic candidates for different reasons?

[Greater vakolicci haven]

They should both be acceptable. Its their church/business/insert here. They should be able to turn away who they want.

yes but a priest isn't in business but a cake maker is. performing a marriage is a religious act (for a priest) baking a cake isn't.

When the cake has an overtly political message, such as one supporting gay marriage, however then that is something that should be differenciated.

[Grave_n_idle]

yes but a priest isn't in business but a cake maker is. performing a marriage is a religious act (for a priest) baking a cake isn't.

When the cake has an overtly political message, such as one supporting gay marriage, however then that is something that should be differenciated.

Make up your mind - is it a religious objection, or a political one?

Are you just shifting goalposts?

[Ashmoria]

They all seem pretty shitty. Personally if I was an American I guess whatever the party machine picks out in the election. I certainly wouldn't bother with this terrible lineup, but neither would I vote Republican.

You don't think Sanders and Clinton are both fantastic candidates for different reasons?

they certainly are

and I would happily vote for ANY of the democratic candidates over ANY of the republicans.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

When the cake has an overtly political message, such as one supporting gay marriage, however then that is something that should be differenciated.

Make up your mind - is it a religious objection, or a political one?

Are you just shifting goalposts?

Both are acceptable. If you object to making a gay marriage cake, you shouldn't have to, no matter the grounds.

[Salandriagado]

Make up your mind - is it a religious objection, or a political one?

Are you just shifting goalposts?

Both are acceptable. If you object to making a gay marriage cake, you shouldn't have to, no matter the grounds.

So do you support allowing people to lie in their advertising?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

yes but a priest isn't in business but a cake maker is. performing a marriage is a religious act (for a priest) baking a cake isn't.

When the cake has an overtly political message, such as one supporting gay marriage, however then that is something that should be differenciated.

How is "happy wedding" an "overtly political message?"

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Both are acceptable. If you object to making a gay marriage cake, you shouldn't have to, no matter the grounds.

So do you support allowing people to lie in their advertising?

no

[Greater vakolicci haven]

When the cake has an overtly political message, such as one supporting gay marriage, however then that is something that should be differenciated.

How is "happy wedding" an "overtly political message?"

It's a message of support for something: in this case, the wedding.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

How is "happy wedding" an "overtly political message?"

It's a message of support for something: in this case, the wedding.

...I really don't think it's that serious of an issue.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

It's a message of support for something: in this case, the wedding.

...I really don't think it's that serious of an issue.

I really don't think it's an issue if one bakery refuses to make one cake. The free market is around for a reason.

[Salandriagado]

So do you support allowing people to lie in their advertising?

no

But they advertise their business as providing cakes to the public. They are not providing cakes to the public. Thus, they are lying in their advertising.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

no

But they advertise their business as providing cakes to the public. They are not providing cakes to the public. Thus, they are lying in their advertising.

They are. Are they advertising 'all cakes to the public?' No.

[Salandriagado]

How is "happy wedding" an "overtly political message?"

It's a message of support for something: in this case, the wedding.

No it isn't. No more than a taxi driver giving somebody a lift to a political demonstration is a message of support for the views of the demonstrators.