/atheism/ - Atheism

>>7167

>Don't be a Southern bigot and you won't have grounds to be sued.

>Don't disagree with me or hold different cultural values from me, or I will inflict financial ruin upon you.

Yeah, fuck you.

>>7184

>Believing every Southerner can afford to flee to another state

>Believing every Southerner should just flee to another state

>Not responsible enough to try and clean up your front yard

We wouldn't need to pass federal laws if Southerners could do the right thing and not be trusted to be backwards morons on virtually every issue in history. Their congressmen are the ones who always hold onto the worst issues and make the most oppressive laws that the rest of the union have to work together to delete. From religious laws to civil rights, to womens' rights, to lgbt, Southerners can always be counted on to be on the wrong side of history. Congress and the Supreme Court always have to drag the south kicking and screaming into the modern age in every single generation.

And I don't see a problem with a few "innocent" cis Southerners suffering. They voted in the moronic governors that are passing these dumb laws, and vocally or quietly support them, and so they are due to be repaid with bad karma courtesy of the big federal government. I immensely trust the consensus formed by our federal government more on domestic civil rights issues than I'd ever trust local southern states and their local governments.

Southerners like to fly the confederate flag over the state flag, which is above the American flag. So it's like segregation and slavery first, state's second, and America last. It's about 150 years later and I wish they had just broke away and formed their own union. Wouldn't miss them at all, and we could still rely on them for our unisinsured and non-unionized sweatshops. They're pretty much America's Mexico for cheap labor anyway.

>>7185

>wrong side of history.

>cis

Alright everyone you can stop responding now.

>>7192

Google "southern court flies confederate flag." This picture comes from S.C. Perhaps you are partly right in that they don't fly it above the others now, but they certainly still fly it at court houses, and some erect statues of the ten commandments inside.

In fact they started flying the flag over courts during the the civil rights movement around the time when their politicians were fillerbustering against civil rights legislation. They probably started flying it to make the statement you cling to, namely "We have the right to be the same dicks we have always been."

Flying the Confederate flag at a courthouse is just is like letting your middle finger fly, and any other given reason like "Southern pride" is an excuse that only Southerners think would be convincing to others.

>>7194

> "southern court flies confederate flag

There are cases in SC, Georgia, Texas, and Louisiana. I could keep digging if I wanted to, but you don't have a leg to stand on.

Georgia 2015:

http://www.myajc.com/news/news/state-regional/chattooga-county-courthouse-flies-confederate-batt/nkrLj/

Louisiana 2009:

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/09/14/louisiana-high-court-says-confederate-flag-offensive/

The trend probably started in Alabama where it flew over the state capital for 29 years for the reasons I said, until a lawsuit took it down. I bet it still flies at the courthouses all over that state which people have not bothered to sue.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/case-docket/holmes-v-hunt

You don't see these flags because let's be honest, how often do you even drive by a courthouse much less go to one? Unless you work in law or against the law you won't see it. Where I live I have to drive 30 miles to get to the closest county courthouse, and there's no guarantee I'll pay attention to the flagpole pass by.

I wonder what goes through the head of a black man who is accused of raping a white woman when he looks at the flag and walks into the court.

>>7197

>It's a rare event so it's in the news

Or it's a news story because someone had the balls to sue the state capital on something Southerners popularly support. See the Alabama link at the bottom. Local courts are not going to be so significant or attract visible lawsuits.

>if it was a common thing like you're making it out to be you'd probably be able to find a list of counties that display the flag instead of citing news stories about individual cases.

You think someone drives around the south taking photographs of every confederate flag at a court and uploading them to a database? Many of the results on google come from state capitals. When the state capitals receive national heat for this nonsense and still try to keep flying the flag of segregation, that's good enough for me. Local counties are probably free to do the same crap as their superiors.

I don't even live near the South and yet one of my neighbors has a RV parked in his front yard and flies a Confederate flag, in a city that has hardly any flags at all. In fact it's literally the only flag in the neighborhood for at least six blocks going north until I reach a school or the post office a bit to the side.

I just multiply the number of flags per Southerner when I picture a neighborhood in Alabama or read about the links I showed you. It must be such an accepted part of the culture that even the courts do it, and the flags stay because Southerners have no problems with it.

>>7199

>try to keep flying the flag of segregation

You'd be surprised to know how many southerners, including black southerners, don't see the flag as a sign of segregation. This is mostly due to the smaller and often personal affects of the Civil War.

Big part of it was about abolishing slavery, but you still had Union soldiers come into the south pillage, rape and in general fuck shit up. Some of these people didn't even have any sort of stake in the War, they were just people living in the South at the time. It created a lot of solidarity among Southerners.

So, the Confederate flag isn't really seen as an emblem of segregation, it's more a symbol of the rebel spirit that made America what it is today.

You can continue to see the flag as a bad thing, and I can completely understand why - But for a lot of southerners, the Rebel flag (With the taint it has on it) is an important part of the culture.

On a side note - You'd be surprised how many people, including Yankees, want to play Confederates in Civil War reenactments. The confederacy is so popular, that a lot of confederate groups have to play Union just to participate. It's all about the idea of the Rebel spirit, the underdogs, etc.

A lot of people tend to forget about the questionable morals and values the Confederacy had, and get caught up in this idealistic vision of the underdog that stood up against the man.

I hope that gives some sort of insight, Anon. You're not wrong, the Confederate flag is everywhere here (There's a highschool football team here called the "Rebels" who have it on their helmets), but it does mean something different to what most Yankee's and non-southerners would probably think.

>>7215

Now that I took the time to understand the issue I can write my interpretation in length.

The two of these are fair game because they choose to be public figures, and the government is dealing with them in a pragmatic manner. We have also had similar severe cases when combating racial segregation before. The Oregon law is a way to quickly fix institutional prejudice, and it can be relaxed later the way affirmative action is being relaxed. I understand the paranoia about new laws, but if someone tries to misuse any law against you, there are always plenty of defenses and an appeal process.

The bakery won't suffer as much as it appears either, because political groups will donate to them. The pizza parlor that promised to refuse service to gays raised nearly a million dollars in donations from the right. Likewise, this bakery has already been promised 100 K from the son of Evangelist Billy Graham. In fact, it might be profitable to be sued under these laws.

In this case the bakery absolutely deserved to be sued, and they've always known they were breaking the law which was signed back in 2007. Going off their twitter, I wouldn't be surprised if they were also belligerent in court, which would sap any remaining sympathy of the judge. They were prepared to be public figures and fight authorities, and judges know that whoever takes up a popular cause such as this will find allies that rally behind them to defray their expenses or provide the best lawyers.

I don't think the government will make examples of bakeries later once the majority accept impartiality as the common sense way to run a business. A person can be intolerant in their personal life, but businesses are held to a higher standard of ethics and we now expect them to treat people equally. (It's better for society, and it creates fairer competition.)

A business still can refuse service if there is a business related reason not to, such as that it would hurt the bottom line. However, we now think you shouldn't be allowed to deny service simply because of who someone is.

Normally I dislike using the "emotional distress" line mainly because the wording doesn't accurately describe what it is used for - recovering lawyer fees, or circumventing caps on damages. However, this tool was put to useful effect to right a wrong here.

If I were the judge at this case ten years from now, I'd have reason to be more forgiving. I probably would only had them pay enough to cover the price of the lawsuit, and a little more to reward the lesbian couple for bothering.

Obviously today the panel wanted to punish them and make an example out of this bakery for the cameras. Now businesses all over the state will be afraid to deny a gay couple because they know the financial risk will be high, thanks to the publicity. It really makes sense if you think about why a panel would choose to do this.

I like to believe the panel deliberated behind closed doors about how to do this to improve society, and know what they are doing. It is foremost a political statement. They are sending a loud and clear message to the media to deter this unpleasant behavior. They can either reduce the fines later on appeal, or let them stay since it will be common knowledge that Christian groups will pool their money not for charity but to support prejudice.

There was a similiar case of a bakery in Colorado in 2012 that refused to sell to at least 6 gay couples. A civil rights administrative agency undercover phoned them and asked if they would bake a cake for celebrating the marriage of their two dogs and they agreed, showing they thought more of dogs than gays. The court ordered them to Cease and Desist discriminating, but to my knowledge didn't award any damages.

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-colorado-bakery-cater-sex-weddings/story?id=21136505

Since some of you guys seem to like moral posturing and telling people what to do so much, I thought I'd give you some Halloween costume ideas. It's never too early to start brainstorming.