Problematic Stuff

[Seabass]

Well that was predictable. I'm surprised it took this long.

Tennessee hardware store puts up 'No Gays Allowed' sign
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... /29552615/

That would not survive a legal challenge - it is far more overt than not baking a cake...

No, it wouldn't, but I knew the court decision would bring the bigots crawling back out of the woodwork.

[Forty Two]

Again, you seek to portray this nonsense as mainstream progressive academia, whereas in fact it is very much the absurdist tail of a large bell curve. It probably creeps down the tail a little further in the US, but the vast bulk of serious academic courses are unaffected.

That's a not-far-below Ivy League private liberal arts college to the tune of $53,000 per year tuition and fees. This is not some run-of-the mill college or university that offers basket-weaving classes to athletes and charges $5,000 a semester....

This is mainstream progressive academia, I'm sorry to say. It's not unusual, and nobody at the universities is suggesting that they are offering absurd courses.

[Forty Two]

Well that was predictable. I'm surprised it took this long.

Tennessee hardware store puts up 'No Gays Allowed' sign
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... /29552615/

That would not survive a legal challenge - it is far more overt than not baking a cake...

Not having researched it, I think Tennessee does not have sexual orientation as a protected class, so gays can exclude straights and vice versa, so there may be not much anyone can do about it.

[Forty Two]

Yeah but can we go back to how it's really the homo-lovin' left who are the real problem.

It's not the homo lovin' that's the problem with the left. And, there are multiple problems. It's not an either-or thing.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Well that was predictable. I'm surprised it took this long.

Yes, I expect that some American bigots, particularly those who use Christianity as a justification, will feel empowered by the recent decision (I've been carefully reading it and may post a commentary at some point) but ...











That story is from 2015.

[Seabass]

Well that was predictable. I'm surprised it took this long.

Yes, I expect that some American bigots, particularly those who use Christianity as a justification, will feel empowered by the recent decision (I've been carefully reading it and may post a commentary at some point) but ...











That story is from 2015.

D'oh!

Apparently he did it in 2015, and again after the cake decision.

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch ... ake-ruling

A Tennessee hardware store owner is celebrating the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of a bakery that refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding by placing a "No Gays Allowed" sign in front of his store.

Jeff Amyx, who owns Amyx Hardware & Roofing Supplies in Grainger County, initially posted the sign in 2015 after the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage but later removed it following intense backlash.

The sign returned this week, however, after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, according to WBIR 10.

Amyx told the local NBC affiliate that the ruling came as a shock to him, calling the decision a victory for Christianity.

"Christianity is under attack," Amyx said. "This is a great win, don't get me wrong, but this is not the end, this is just the beginning. Right now we're seeing a ray of sunshine. This is 'happy days' for Christians all over America, but dark days will come."

Amyx initially posted the "No Gays Allowed" sign in front of his store in 2015 because he wanted to stand for what he believed in as a Christian, he said.

But due to public scrutiny, he replaced it with a sign that read: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone who would violate our rights of freedom of speech & freedom of religion."

Amyx added that he fears a future Supreme Court decision will be different.

In a narrow 7-2 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy on Monday, the court said that religious and philosophical objections to same-sex marriage are in some instances protected forms of expression.

In addition, the court said that Colorado can protect gay people from being discriminated against by businesses that are open to the public. But it notes that the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion.

On Thursday, an Arizona appeals court ruled that a Phoenix-based calligraphy business cannot refuse to serve same-sex couples, citing Monday's decision.

[JimC]

Again, you seek to portray this nonsense as mainstream progressive academia, whereas in fact it is very much the absurdist tail of a large bell curve. It probably creeps down the tail a little further in the US, but the vast bulk of serious academic courses are unaffected.

That's a not-far-below Ivy League private liberal arts college to the tune of $53,000 per year tuition and fees. This is not some run-of-the mill college or university that offers basket-weaving classes to athletes and charges $5,000 a semester....

This is mainstream progressive academia, I'm sorry to say. It's not unusual, and nobody at the universities is suggesting that they are offering absurd courses.

I'm sure we would agree on one thing, that the course you allude to is ideologically driven, and is at odds with rational, evidence-based scientific inquiry, and that it and its ilk need robust criticism. However, I would be fairly certain that if a competent survey of all courses offered at American universities were done, the proportion that would fit into that category would be very small indeed. One would have to be careful in assigning them to this fringe category, too - there could be a course called "The history of feminism", which dispassionately examine this important social phenomenon without ideological blinkers...

As an aside, I don't think the fact that the course in question is offered at a wealthy private college has any bearing on a debate as to the extent that such courses are a true reflection of US academia...

[pErvinalia]

Arguably the media wears a large chunk of the responsibility for Trump. A weak as piss media, by not adequately confronting the default neoliberalism narrative over the last 40 years, has allowed bullshit concepts like "trickle down", regulation slashing, and "small government", to become essentially entrenched principles in governance. And by further peddling the fear that right wing politicians push about brown people stealing jobs and welfare at the same time, and also wanting to marry your children and blow up your friends. The media is responsible in part for this state of affairs which is an indebted, fearful, insecure worker voting for a dangerous moron like Trump.

When a media outlet is obliged to reflect the views of it's owners what more can we expect from the journalists it employs?

Yeah, the neoliberal capitalist ethic is sort of self-reinforcing. Media companies make cuts in the aim of "efficiency" and profits, and you end up with a shit organisation that doesn't adequately challenge neoliberalism and "trickle-down" etc, which in turn leads to more cuts... rinse repeat.

[pErvinalia]

Well that was predictable. I'm surprised it took this long.

Tennessee hardware store puts up 'No Gays Allowed' sign
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... /29552615/

That would not survive a legal challenge - it is far more overt than not baking a cake...

Not having researched it, I think Tennessee does not have sexual orientation as a protected class, so gays can exclude straights and vice versa, so there may be not much anyone can do about it.

I love how you led with "so gays can exclude straights"... It's like "there's good [and bad] people on both sides"..

[pErvinalia]

Again, you seek to portray this nonsense as mainstream progressive academia, whereas in fact it is very much the absurdist tail of a large bell curve. It probably creeps down the tail a little further in the US, but the vast bulk of serious academic courses are unaffected.

That's a not-far-below Ivy League private liberal arts college to the tune of $53,000 per year tuition and fees. This is not some run-of-the mill college or university that offers basket-weaving classes to athletes and charges $5,000 a semester....

This is mainstream progressive academia, I'm sorry to say. It's not unusual, and nobody at the universities is suggesting that they are offering absurd courses.

I'm sure we would agree on one thing, that the course you allude to is ideologically driven, and is at odds with rational, evidence-based scientific inquiry, and that it and its ilk need robust criticism. However, I would be fairly certain that if a competent survey of all courses offered at American universities were done, the proportion that would fit into that category would be very small indeed. One would have to be careful in assigning them to this fringe category, too - there could be a course called "The history of feminism", which dispassionately examine this important social phenomenon without ideological blinkers...

Some interesting goings on in Australia about "political correctness". Some on the "history wars" right are starting to froth. I couldn't be arsed summarising what's going on, but it's about the ANU's decision to not host this new Centre focussed on teh greatness of western civilisation.
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/nation ... 4zj0e.html

[JimC]

There are right-wing academics, particularly in history departments, who think that all Australian students need to know is the history of European civilisation. They are as ideologically driven as the loony left, and sit on the other end of the bell curve I mentioned earlier.

[pErvinalia]

Have you read the article? It's all John Howard, Tony Abbott and crew. These are the same people who have been drumming up trouble with the "history wars" for decades. And while they are definitely of the loony right, don't forget two of them were our Prime Ministers, with one of them being so for a record 13 years.

[JimC]

pErvinalia wrote:

I love how you led with "so gays can exclude straights"... It's like "there's good [and bad] people on both sides"..

I know what you mean, in the sense that discriminatory and hurtful exclusion is much more likely to operate in the opposite direction.

However, having said that, it is possible that some gay people would like to have "gay only" venues of one sort or another. If they did, and wanted that to be legally acceptable, they would also have to put up with "no gays allowed" venues, I would think...

[JimC]

Have you read the article? It's all John Howard, Tony Abbott and crew. These are the same people who have been drumming up trouble with the "history wars" for decades. And while they are definitely of the loony right, don't forget two of them were our Prime Ministers, with one of them being so for a record 13 years.

I've read articles in the past about "history wars". These guys want Australian history at schools to be like it was in the 50s - a brief mention of "aborigines", then a triumphant saga of exploration and settlement...

[pErvinalia]

pErvinalia wrote:

I love how you led with "so gays can exclude straights"... It's like "there's good [and bad] people on both sides"..

I know what you mean, in the sense that discriminatory and hurtful exclusion is much more likely to operate in the opposite direction.

However, having said that, it is possible that some gay people would like to have "gay only" venues of one sort or another. If they did, and wanted that to be legally acceptable, they would also have to put up with "no gays allowed" venues, I would think...

I'm sure there are some gay people that would like that, but is that what's really problematic in our societies? Is it of the same scale as the homophobes and racists who want exclusionary laws for no other reason than they are homophobes and racists? Of course not. Leading with the minority vs the majority is just a pathetic case of a rhetorical "there's bad people on both sides" effort.