Ben Shapiro Explains The Transgender Conundrum

[Koko78]

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

You know the first President in history who came out for gay marriage before he won? Trump.

 

That was just so he could track gays in order to hunt them down and have the Supreme Court under Kavanaugh slaughter them - along with women - in FEMA camps set up in North Korea, right before Trump sends nuclear warheads (with illegal aliens from Mexico strapped to the nose, of course) at Pyongyang.

[Tiberius]

Libertarians are still around? Seems like they only come out of their caves when Democrats are in charge. Free pass from all the "Government is enslaving us! ?" nonsense when a Republican is President

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 hour ago, billsfan89 said:

Can I saw for sure that they are 100% liars? No, it's almost impossible to prove that. But in my opinion, their shift in position coinciding with the unpopularity of their original position makes the timing of their change in beliefs look more like a business decision than an actual intellectual change.

Toss in the fact that the position they took was one that seems to be designed to protect themselves from pissing off two audiences in a very calculated manner and I think there is very legitimate grounds to be very suspicious of their new position.

I think guys like John Stossell or Penn Gillette have the sincere belief that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage and they have held that belief for a long time and it is in line with their overall philosophy. 

 

...

 

Your position, backed solely by your own confirmation biases, is that while you can't prove they are liars, that you will call them liars because it aligns closely with your feelings about them.

 

And while you also acknowledge (hell, not just acknowledge, it's actually central to your argument) a shift in the public sentiment, which means individuals are being persuaded; you completely discount the notion that Shapiro may have been persuaded, and disregard his general shift towards libertarian principals in other areas which would give weight to that actually being the case.

 

 

 

[billsfan89]

4 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

...

 

Your position, backed solely by your own confirmation biases, is that while you can't prove they are liars, that you will call them liars because it aligns closely with your feelings about them.

 

And while you also acknowledge (hell, not just acknowledge, it's actually central to your argument) a shift in the public sentiment, which means individuals are being persuaded; you completely discount the notion that Shapiro may have been persuaded, and disregard his general shift towards libertarian principals in other areas which would give weight to that actually being the case.

 

 

 

 

My position is backed by their shift in opinion serving a pragmatic purpose coinciding with convenient timing. It also is backed by their general lack of consistent principles and their partisan nature. I can't prove anyone is lying about what their opinion is anymore than you can confirm they are telling the truth. I gave you my reasons for why I think their shift in opinion is an insincere way to be both for and against something at the same time so as not to piss off two opposing audiences. If you disagree with those reasons and think my assessment is motivated by my own confirmation bias/general disdain for them, then I honestly can't dissuade you. 

 

I look at the circumstances that their shift to a libertarian position took them to and I think that their shift was done more so as a means to an end as opposed to a genuine change of heart. I don't honestly think Sean Hannity and Shaprio thinks the government shouldn't have issued them a marriage license. Is it possible that's the case? Of course., but I am just giving my opinion on the matter and how it appears to me. 

[IDBillzFan]

1 hour ago, billsfan89 said:

To me you certainly are entitled to believe and interpret your religion how you want to. However when it comes to advocating for public policy that everyone has to follow your religion is not evidence to support changes to public policy esp in a country that has a definitive separation of church and state as one of its founding principles.

 

I would be interested to see your link supporting that Shapiro has ever been more than 'government should not be in the business of marriage, gay, straight or otherwise' because once the government is involved, it can then force churches like Synagogues to marry gays, against their religion.

 

Likewise you can not force a person by federal law to do something against their religion. Just ask the Little Sisters of the Poor. Or the Christian baker.

 

The left wants to do this because they need control over everyone to ensure that the only way to live is how the left wants you to live.

 

That's all I'm saying. 

[DC Tom]

33 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

...

 

Your position, backed solely by your own confirmation biases, is that while you can't prove they are liars, that you will call them liars because it aligns closely with your feelings about them.

 

And while you also acknowledge (hell, not just acknowledge, it's actually central to your argument) a shift in the public sentiment, which means individuals are being persuaded; you completely discount the notion that Shapiro may have been persuaded, and disregard his general shift towards libertarian principals in other areas which would give weight to that actually being the case.

 

 

 

 

The important thing to remember is that, while Republicans lie, Democrats find their positions evolving.

 

Lets also not forget how many Democrats (like Biden) "evolved" after voting for the Defense of Marriage Act.

 

 

[Koko78]

10 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

The important thing to remember is that, while Republicans lie, Democrats find their positions evolving.

 

Lets also not forget how many Democrats (like Biden) "evolved" after voting for the Defense of Marriage Act.

 

Kind of amazing how the Democrats evolve their positions based on the latest polling numbers and focus group results.

[Bray Wyatt]

22 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

My position is backed by their shift in opinion serving a pragmatic purpose coinciding with convenient timing. It also is backed by their general lack of consistent principles and their partisan nature. I can't prove anyone is lying about what their opinion is anymore than you can confirm they are telling the truth. I gave you my reasons for why I think their shift in opinion is an insincere way to be both for and against something at the same time so as not to piss off two opposing audiences. If you disagree with those reasons and think my assessment is motivated by my own confirmation bias/general disdain for them, then I honestly can't dissuade you. 

 

I look at the circumstances that their shift to a libertarian position took them to and I think that their shift was done more so as a means to an end as opposed to a genuine change of heart. I don't honestly think Sean Hannity and Shaprio thinks the government shouldn't have issued them a marriage license. Is it possible that's the case? Of course., but I am just giving my opinion on the matter and how it appears to me. 

 

If they are partisan hacks in your eyes, and the party's stance changed, wouldnt it make sense that they changed their public stance to coincide?

 

Also, if that is the case, it is quite possible that the first stance wouldnt necessarily have been their real stance then correct? So how do we know how they really feel one way or the other?

Edited October 17, 2018 by Bray Wyatt

[GG]

1 hour ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Shapiro and Hannity were against the state sanctioning gay marriage for many years before shifting to a libertarian position on the issue to avoid sticking to an increasingly unpopular position. They were not holding a personal position (to which anyone is certainly entitled to) they were holding a policy position that would impact many people's lives. The criticism I have with them on this is that they didn't shift their stated position because of a legitimate intellectual revolution but rather to preserve their popularity. 

 

To me you certainly are entitled to believe and interpret your religion how you want to. However when it comes to advocating for public policy that everyone has to follow your religion is not evidence to support changes to public policy esp in a country that has a definitive separation of church and state as one of its founding principles. Now if there are non-religious moral (as in moral arguments that go beyond this is what the bible or my religious texts say) and legal arguments that exist outside of religious texts then that is a different story. 

 

 

 

The veterans here have been down this road for a long time when the discussion was just hypotheticals 2 decades ago (geez I'm old). 

 

There were many supporters of gay marriage calling everyone else silly that allowing gay marriage in a secular legal environment would in no way shape or form would impinge on the religious beliefs or rights of others.  How has that worked out?

 

Sometimes you have to look at today's opposing views not as bigoted towards the discriminated, but as a forward view of what will inevitably come from the party that never settles for a win.

 

In the debates of long ago, it was also argued that marriage isn't truly a secular institution and was coopted from religion.  Very few people who opposed gay marriage opposed legal civil unions sanctioned by the state with the same rights and responsibilities that are given upon what are now called marriages.

 

 

[boyst]

2 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Shapiro and Hannity were against the state sanctioning gay marriage for many years before shifting to a libertarian position on the issue to avoid sticking to an increasingly unpopular position. They were not holding a personal position (to which anyone is certainly entitled to) they were holding a policy position that would impact many people's lives. The criticism I have with them on this is that they didn't shift their stated position because of a legitimate intellectual revolution but rather to preserve their popularity. 

 

To me you certainly are entitled to believe and interpret your religion how you want to. However when it comes to advocating for public policy that everyone has to follow your religion is not evidence to support changes to public policy esp in a country that has a definitive separation of church and state as one of its founding principles. Now if there are non-religious moral (as in moral arguments that go beyond this is what the bible or my religious texts say) and legal arguments that exist outside of religious texts then that is a different story. 

 

Also as a side note I think the "Take it to the States" mantra is also a bit disingenuous of an argument. For some issues I think it makes sense so this is not a blanket argument. But I think that saying that people "Can Vote With Their Feet" makes the proposition that it is easy for people to up root their lives to go to other states that have policies they agree with. It's not always a realistic proposition for someone to leave their job, family, friends, and everything they know behind just to go a state that has a policy or policies they agree with. 

 

Can I saw for sure that they are 100% liars? No, it's almost impossible to prove that. But in my opinion, their shift in position coinciding with the unpopularity of their original position makes the timing of their change in beliefs look more like a business decision than an actual intellectual change.

Toss in the fact that the position they took was one that seems to be designed to protect themselves from pissing off two audiences in a very calculated manner and I think there is very legitimate grounds to be very suspicious of their new position.

I think guys like John Stossell or Penn Gillette have the sincere belief that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage and they have held that belief for a long time and it is in line with their overall philosophy. 

 

Nancy Grace is an awful human being. Rachel Maddow is a partisan left wing hack. Hillary Clinton is a scumbag who lost due to arrogance and here generally being a bad person. Bernie Sanders is a guy with good intentions and genuinely trying to represent working people, I didn't agree with all of his policies but he was the best of all the flawed choices out there. 

Bernie Sanders is a fraud who only serves his best interests by making his best interest that of which he is a common person. Look at his wife and look at his children to see all you need to know about that *****

[Tiberius]

4 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Just like Obama and Hillary did. 

 

You know the first President in history who came out for gay marriage before he won? Trump.

And who voted for him? The people against gay marriage! 

[billsfan89]

2 minutes ago, GG said:

 

The veterans here have been down this road for a long time when the discussion was just hypotheticals 2 decades ago (geez I'm old). 

 

There were many supporters of gay marriage calling everyone else silly that allowing gay marriage in a secular legal environment would in no way shape or form would impinge on the religious beliefs or rights of others.  How has that worked out?

 

Sometimes you have to look at today's opposing views not as bigoted towards the discriminated, but as a forward view of what will inevitably come from the party that never settles for a win.

 

In the debates of long ago, it was also argued that marriage isn't truly a secular institution and was coopted from religion.  Very few people who opposed gay marriage opposed legal civil unions sanctioned by the state with the same rights and responsibilities that are given upon what are now called marriages.

 

 

 

I think the whole argument of civil unions OK but just don't call it marriage is basically advocating for a separate but equal system which philosophically I think states that there is something wrong with a homosexual marriage that isn't equal to that of a relationship with a man and a woman in a legal sense. 

 

If a government is truly secular and there is no good non-religious argument against issuing marriage licenses to same-sex adults then I fail to see why you can deny people the same legal standing. 

 

I also fail to see what the slippery slope argument is in gay marriage. If a church is forced to marry a same-sex couple I will be the first person to say that is too far and a violation of that churches freedom of association and religion. But from what I can tell that is simply not happening in any even remotely significant manner. 

 

But bakeries that serve the entire public being forced to bake a cake or cater a same-sex wedding is treating gay couples with basic protections under the law. If you serve the public you have to serve the entire public. Yes, you can deny service to anyone but you can't do so based off of immutable characteristics. 

[Deranged Rhino]

10 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

And who voted for him? The people against gay marriage! 

[Koko78]

16 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

But bakeries that serve the entire public being forced to bake a cake or cater a same-sex wedding is treating gay couples with basic protections under the law. If you serve the public you have to serve the entire public. Yes, you can deny service to anyone but you can't do so based off of immutable characteristics. 

 

Bakeries do not serve the "entire public". People who own private businesses are under no obligation to serve the "entire public", especially where such service becomes involuntary and against their beliefs. True, they cannot overtly discriminate, but there is no requirement that private businesses must cater to the whims of anyone who feels like walking in the door to demand service.

 

To claim otherwise is advocating for slavery.

[billsfan89]

6 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Bakeries do not serve the "entire public". People who own private businesses are under no obligation to serve the "entire public", especially where such service becomes involuntary and against their beliefs. True, they cannot overtly discriminate, but there is no requirement that private businesses must cater to the whims of anyone who feels like walking in the door to demand service.

 

To claim otherwise is advocating for slavery.

 

A bakery that serves anyone off the street who has the money to pay for their services by definition serves the public. Unless you are a business that has membership requirements to obtain a service then legally speaking you serve the public and you can't discriminate based off of immutable characteristics (Race, Gender, Sexual Orientation, things people can't change about themselves in any reasonable fashion.) Yes you are free as a public institution to refuse service to anyone but legally speaking you can't base that refusal on immutable characteristics. 

Edited October 17, 2018 by billsfan89

[Koko78]

7 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

A bakery that serves anyone off the street who has the money to pay for their services by definition serves the public. Unless you are a business that has membership requirements to obtain a service then legally speaking you serve the public and you can't discriminate based off of immutable characteristics (Race, Gender, Sexual Orientation, things people can't change about themselves in any reasonable fashion.) Yes you are free as a public institution to refuse service to anyone but legally speaking you can't base that refusal on immutable characteristics. 

 

Serving the public and serving the "entire public" are not the same thing.

 

However, more to the misinformed point: The bakery owner told them explicitly that he would not bake them a custom cake that violated his religious beliefs, but that they were welcome to purchase any of the premade cakes in his store. They declined and filed complaints/suits.

 

Businesses are not required to perform custom services they have a valid objection to, just because someone walked in the door. Legally speaking.

[billsfan89]

3 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Serving the public and serving the "entire public" are not the same thing.

 

However, more to the misinformed point: The bakery owner told them explicitly that he would not bake them a custom cake that violated his religious beliefs, but that they were welcome to purchase any of the premade cakes in his store. They declined and filed complaints/suits.

 

Businesses are not required to perform custom services they have a valid objection to, just because someone walked in the door. Legally speaking.

 

Here is a few links to Shapiro's history on the issue. He never makes it about the government shouldn't be involved in marriage. He thinks (or at least thought) at the time that gay marriage would destroy heterosexual marriage. There is another interview on Youtube where he states he used to be outright against it on a legal level and I can't find it but I will search at another time and edit it in. 

https://www.creators.com/read/ben-shapiro/02/07/the-homosexual-assault-on-traditional-marriage
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/ben_shapiro_636974?src=t_gay_marriage

While you do have the freedom to practice your religion and certain protections under the law to do so, your religion is not a blanket protection to do whatever you want. You can claim it is a religious belief to not pay overtime but you still have to pay overtime. Yes, that is an extreme and rather stupid example but I think you get what I am going for your religious belief is not some blanket protection.

As to gay marriage being an issue of control I simply don't see it that way. I see it more as a group of historically very marginalized people wanting the same rights and protections afforded to them as anyone else. If a church is forced to marry a gay couple I will be the first person to cry that is ***** up and a violation of that organization's rights (Church's are not technically public institutions as you have to become a member of a parish so they can discriminate.)

Bakers and other public services not being able to hide behind their religion to discriminate against a same-sex couple I do not get as being some egregious violation. If your religion was against non-Christian marriages would it be OK to not serve non-Chrisitan couples? Either all discrimination is OK or none of it is in my mind. 

The legal standing is that if you are a public institution you must be willing to serve the public and not discriminate based off of immutable qualities (Race, Gender, Sexual Orientation.) Sexual Orientation is a protected class (link below) so I do not see the difference between a baker refusing a cake for a black person, a Muslim, or a gay person. 

https://www.upcounsel.com/is-sexual-orientation-a-protected-class

8 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Serving the public and serving the "entire public" are not the same thing.

 

However, more to the misinformed point: The bakery owner told them explicitly that he would not bake them a custom cake that violated his religious beliefs, but that they were welcome to purchase any of the premade cakes in his store. They declined and filed complaints/suits.

 

Businesses are not required to perform custom services they have a valid objection to, just because someone walked in the door. Legally speaking.

 

The context of the public and the entire public is that you can't choose to only serve all white people. If you are a business open to the public then you can't discriminate based off of immutable qualities. Sexual orientation is a protected class. I see no difference as to someone claiming a custom cake made for a gay wedding violates their religious beliefs and someone claiming a custom cake for an interracial wedding violates their religious beliefs.  

https://www.upcounsel.com/is-sexual-orientation-a-protected-class

Even in the case of the Colorado Bakery, the court agreed that you couldn't discriminate against gay couples due to religious beliefs they won the case in a non-prescident setting case because of the way the state agency acted towards the bakery and not based off the principle of it being a custom cake.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/04/politics/masterpiece-colorado-gay-marriage-cake-supreme-court/index.html

"The court held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed hostility toward the baker based on his religious beliefs."

[Koko78]

42 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

Bakers and other public services not being able to hide behind their religion to discriminate against a same-sex couple I do not get as being some egregious violation. If your religion was against non-Christian marriages would it be OK to not serve non-Chrisitan couples? Either all discrimination is OK or none of it is in my mind. 

 

The legal standing is that if you are a public institution you must be willing to serve the public and not discriminate based off of immutable qualities (Race, Gender, Sexual Orientation.) Sexual Orientation is a protected class (link below) so I do not see the difference between a baker refusing a cake for a black person, a Muslim, or a gay person.

 

Let's put this in another context: I walk into a Jewish bakery. I order a custom cake with a Nazi flag in the center, flanked by a portrait of Hitler on the left and an image of a mass grave at Dachau on the right. Maybe the words "Arbeit Macht Frei" in an arch across the top. Your argument is that the Jewish bakers must make my cake to order, without being allowed to refuse, because they're a "public institution"? After all, they can't discriminate against me because they're offended by my request, right?

 

Oh by the way, privately owned businesses are not "public institutions". You're still advocating for slavery.

[Koko78]

1 hour ago, billsfan89 said:

Even in the case of the Colorado Bakery, the court agreed that you couldn't discriminate against gay couples due to religious beliefs they won the case in a non-prescident setting case because of the way the state agency acted towards the bakery and not based off the principle of it being a custom cake.

 

That's not quite what the court's decision said.

 

Quote

It is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons, just as it can protect other classes of individuals, in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public. And there are no doubt innumerable goods and services that no one could argue implicate the First Amendment. Petitioners conceded, moreover, that if a baker refused to sell any goods or any cakes for gay weddings, that would be a different matter and the State would have a strong case under this Court's precedents that this would be a denial of goods and services that went beyond any protected rights of a baker who offers goods and services to the general public and is subject to a neutrally applied and generally applicable public accommodations law. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 4-7, 10.

 

Phillips claims, however, that a narrower issue is presented. He argues that he had to use his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation. As Phillips would see the case, this contention has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs. In this context the baker likely found it difficult to find a line where the customers' rights to goods and services became a demand for him to exercise the right of his own personal expression for their message, a message he could not express in a way consistent with his religious beliefs.

 

Phillips' dilemma was particularly understandable given the background of legal principles and administration of the law in Colorado at that time. His decision and his actions leading to the refusal of service all occurred in the year 2012. At that point, Colorado did not recognize the validity of gay marriages performed in its own State. See Colo. Const., Art. II, § 31 (2012); 370 P.3d, at 277. At the time of the events in question, this Court had not issued its decisions either in United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744, 133 S.Ct. 2675, 186 L.Ed.2d 808 (2013), or Obergefell. Since the State itself did not allow those marriages to be performed in Colorado, there is some force to the argument that the baker was not unreasonable in deeming it lawful to decline to take an action that he understood to be an expression of support for their validity when that expression was contrary to his sincerely held religious beliefs, at least insofar as his refusal was limited to refusing to create and express a message in support of gay marriage, even one planned to take place in another State.

 

At the time, state law also afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specific messages the storekeeper considered offensive. Indeed, while enforcement proceedings against Phillips were ongoing, the Colorado Civil Rights Division itself endorsed this proposition in cases involving other bakers' creation of cakes, concluding on at least three occasions that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1795043925537702415&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33

 

Don't get your synopsis from CNN.

Edited October 17, 2018 by Koko78

[billsfan89]

36 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Let's put this in another context: I walk into a Jewish bakery. I order a custom cake with a Nazi flag in the center, flanked by a portrait of Hitler on the left and an image of a mass grave at Dachau on the right. Maybe the words "Arbeit Macht Frei" in an arch across the top. Your argument is that the Jewish bakers must make my cake to order, without being allowed to refuse, because they're a "public institution"? After all, they can't discriminate against me because they're offended by my request, right?

 

Oh by the way, privately owned businesses are not "public institutions". You're still advocating for slavery.

 

Nazi's are not a protected class of people. I don't understand how you could possibly equate the two. Equating the term slavery is an astonishing leap of logic (And rather insulting) because one people are getting paid to make a cake and you wouldn't say this about a baker refusing to bake a cake for an interracial wedding because that violated their religious beliefs. Is it slavery if someone wants to have a whites only business? 

26 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

That's not quite what the court's decision said.

 

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1795043925537702415&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33

 

Don't get your synopsis from CNN.

 

I stand somewhat corrected, but the case did not uphold the rights of the bakers expression as a reason to why they won the case. The court did not rule based off of free speech grounds. 

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/06/the-court-slices-a-narrow-ruling-out-of-masterpiece-cakeshop/561986/

 

Kennedy wrote, “the adjudication concerned a context that may well be different going forward.” Thus, “the outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts.”

Edited October 17, 2018 by billsfan89