# "I'm not gonna take your commission because you're right/left wing"



## Sindenbock (Dec 15, 2018)

So a few days ago my buddy tried contacting an artist to ask for a commission. Said artist then immediantely called him a troll and threatened to block him because my buddy followed 'alt-right accounts' (which I assume he does because of the giggles n sh*t). AFter nearly 15 minutes of defending himself, the person called him a liar , a troll and that infamous 'n' word  and blocked them. here is a tweet they sent out moments later:






For clarification, my friend did NOT ask them to draw anything political but merely a picture of their dragon sona. He is also not an alt-right winger. 

So what do you people think? Is refusing a commission based on the commissioners political views justified or unprofessional?


----------



## Alondight (Dec 15, 2018)

Hmm, I'd say the artist is allowed to decline a commission for whatever reason. But.. it's pretty stupid. Especially if it's just because the person follows other Twitter accounts they don't like. o_ô


----------



## Aznig (Dec 15, 2018)

The artist has a right to decline for any reason at all. However, it’s a damn stupid reason to do so. Then again, I don’t know this person the OP is referencing nor do I know whether or not they actually follow/support alt-right ideologies. There’s really not enough information.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 15, 2018)

Artists do have the right to decide what sort of 'brand' they want for their art.
I stopped drawing free art for people after discovering that I had drawn art for people who were making comments on their accounts that I viewed as mean; I don't want people to associate my art with meanness.

If they don't want it to be associated with political causes that's their prerogative.


I guess the lesson here is, artists have to be careful to make sure their image and brand is respectable. 
So if you want to commission artists, maybe you shouldn't be associating yourself with content that would be damaging for their brand.


----------



## BackPaw (Dec 15, 2018)

"Giggles n shit"?

Mate, your buddy is following MULTIPLE people who actively seek to hurt others via imposition of their opinions into law.  You sure about the "giggles n shit" side of things?  Might be an idea to see that person for who they actually are.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 15, 2018)

BackPaw said:


> "Giggles n shit"?
> 
> Mate, your buddy is following MULTIPLE people who actively seek to hurt others via imposition of their opinions into law.  You sure about the "giggles n shit" side of things?  Might be an idea to see that person for who they actually are.



Yeah BackPaw has a strong point here. People who claim they follow accounts like that 'for a joke' might just be saying that for cover, so that they avoid being criticised.

and people who do follow accounts like prison planet 'as a joke' need to realise that boosting the popularity and reach of websites like infowars isn't funny.


----------



## Yakamaru (Dec 15, 2018)

Them declining based on nothing more than political opinion make them a narrow-minded bigot, but they are free to refuse on such a basis. 

Make commissions and you base your living conditions off of that? You kind of don't have the luxury of being picky on who your commissioners are, unless you want to crash and burn and end up on the street. 

But they said it themselves: "I much prefer being homeless than work for someone who follows Prison Planet". 

You are not entitled to my money the same way I not entitled to your services.


----------



## Firuthi Dragovic (Dec 15, 2018)

It's up to the artist to determine how their work is viewed, yes.  An artist doing a cursory background check on their client is really their decision if they think it means protecting their branding.

I will add, though, that there are professional ways to protect a brand and something about the two public tweets you've shown doesn't do it.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 15, 2018)

FrostyTheDragon said:


> It's up to the artist to determine how their work is viewed, yes.  An artist doing a cursory background check on their client is really their decision if they think it means protecting their branding.
> 
> I will add, though, that there are professional ways to protect a brand and something about the two public tweets you've shown doesn't do it.



I would do it like this: 

-Declare yourself open for a limited number of commission slots. 'I'm open to draw 3 £20 pieces and 1 £100 pound piece of art'.
You'll pick the proposed art pieces that you think will turn out best. 

-and if you find out somebody applying for one of the slots is retweeting infowars stories, just pick somebody else's idea for the slot.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 15, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> Them declining based on nothing more than political opinion make them a narrow-minded bigot, but they are free to refuse on such a basis.
> 
> Make commissions and you base your living conditions off of that? You kind of don't have the luxury of being picky on who your commissioners are, unless you want to crash and burn and end up on the street.
> 
> ...


When people's "political views" include a desire for genocide, race based mass deportation, apartheid, and bigotry it isn't being bigoted to say "fuck that". 

Tolerance doesn't mean you have to assosciate with Fascists unless you are providing a mandatory service or life saving medical care. It means you don't demand Fascists be subjected to all the things Fascists want to subject their opponents to. 

Though I would argue for intolerance against bigots, that isn't what is being argued by anyone else here. Free assosciation means that if you are a sack of shit human being I don't have to do business with you. It isn't oppression not to be provided art because you are the worlds biggest asshat.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Dec 15, 2018)

Another aspect that hasn't been touched on in this thread yet: The artist probably expects the commissioner to repost the art somewhere. Most commissioners do. If the artist belongs to a minority, they may actually feel _unsafe_ creating artwork for people associated, even by Twitter follows, with far-right views. Like, there are probably people out there whom I'd respectfully decline commissions from because if they reposted the commission there would be a risk of people they frequently interact with stirring up the hate train against me again. Which would fuck with my mental health quite significantly. Or because they closely associate with people who tried to use my resignation from FA staff to score points for an ideology I have no love for.


----------



## Yakamaru (Dec 15, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> When people's "political views" include a desire for genocide, race based mass deportation, apartheid, and bigotry it isn't being bigoted to say "fuck that".
> 
> Tolerance doesn't mean you have to assosciate with Fascists unless you are providing a mandatory service or life saving medical care. It means you don't demand Fascists be subjected to all the things Fascists want to subject their opponents to.
> 
> Though I would argue for intolerance against bigots, that isn't what is being argued by anyone else here. Free assosciation means that if you are a sack of shit human being I don't have to do business with you. It isn't oppression not to be provided art because you are the worlds biggest asshat.


This post of yours make me feel like I stumbled upon someone's great grandfather who come into a conversation and ramble about something that's not even relevant.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 15, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> This post of yours make me feel like I stumbled upon someone's great grandfather who come into a conversation and ramble about something that's not even relevant.


Sorry, but that is exactly what the alt right is about. Bigotry and Fascism. Do I need to post the charlottesville video again?


----------



## Infrarednexus (Dec 15, 2018)

The bottom line is that if they are refusing to draw art for people then that's just less money for them. If you make most of your income on commissions but you're going to deny making art for people for political nonsense, then don't bother complaining that you can't make ends meet.

As for your statement,  "just for shit's and giggles", I find that hard to believe. People almost always follow those groups when they share similar interests, and it's far more likely that then just for comedic/trolling reasons.


----------



## Yakamaru (Dec 15, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Sorry, but that is exactly what the alt right is about. Bigotry and Fascism. Do I need to post the charlottesville video again?


The thread's topic is whether or not one is allowed to deny doing a commission for a potential customer based on political affiliation and/or beliefs.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 15, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> The thread's topic is whether or not one is allowed to deny doing a commission for a potential customer based on political affiliation and/or beliefs.


But we also have to take into account what those beliefs are. 

If someone has the political belief that rape and slavery should be perfectly legal we can all agree we would want nothing to do with that person, and would try to disassociate ourselves with them. Especially if it could effect our reputation as a business.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 15, 2018)

Freedom of assosciation is a thing. I can't discriminate against someone just because they voted for a Republican, but if they start ranting about killing the Mexicans I can decline them service for being a biggoted shitgibbon. And the people the asshat customer chose to assosciate with were not exactly the finest examples of human decency.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 15, 2018)

Like the right gets pissy whenever we suggest gender based nondiscrimination, but if you refuse someone service for being a racist turd, the right gets fucking entitled to shit.


----------



## Yakamaru (Dec 15, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> But we also have to take into account what those beliefs are.
> 
> If someone has the political belief that rape and slavery should be perfectly legal we can all agree we would want nothing to do with that person, and would try to disassociate ourselves with them. Especially if it could effect our reputation as a business.


Those beliefs are fringe for a reason, and rightly get the social backlash they deserve.

But I digress. It's up to the artist on whether or not they want to do a commission for them. I am not going to be surprised if they end up on the streets as a result of declining service to someone who could be their saving grace in terms of paying their living costs.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 15, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> Those beliefs are fringe for a reason, and rightly get the social backlash they deserve.
> 
> But I digress. It's up to the artist on whether or not they want to do a commission for them. I am not going to be surprised if they end up on the streets as a result of declining service to someone who could be their saving grace in terms of paying their living costs.


Because anyone who isn't nice to the alt-right deserves to be poor....


----------



## Cyroo (Dec 15, 2018)

So this little grandstanding condescending person who takes themselves too seriously, and doesn't like right wing content, called your friend the n word?

That's so funny, please continue.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 15, 2018)

I have a sneaking suspicion that the artist in question is black and them using said word is being purposefully taken out of co text. 

Not saying the artist isn't also an asshat, but that would have nothing to do with their choice to refuse service, which was the question.


----------



## Jackpot Raccuki (Dec 15, 2018)

Tell your friend to find a better artist and not to commission on shitter unless he does want this kind of shit to go down.

The artist does reserve the right to refuse service just like anyone who has service, and in some cases businesses try and avoid refusing service since money is money.

But if you're going to cry about something being a right wing and refuse service is strictly unprofessional, and to also cry on shitter only makes you more unprofessional.
Heck if anything it proved that the artist is a nosy person, he's lucky the artist rejected him anyway.

Just tell your friend to look on fur affinity instead, more better artist you'll find on there, heck even deviantart would have better artist than ones only on shitter.


----------



## Slytherin Umbreon (Dec 15, 2018)

This is going extremely well, I can tell already.


----------



## Massan Otter (Dec 15, 2018)

Cyroo said:


> So this little grandstanding condescending person who takes themselves too seriously, and doesn't like right wing content, called your friend the n word?
> 
> That's so funny, please continue.



Thinking about it, the OP wasn't at all clear about which word beginning with "n" they meant.  The n-word that right-wingers get up in arms about being called might not be the same one as the racial slur.


----------



## Infrarednexus (Dec 15, 2018)

Massan Otter said:


> Thinking about it, the OP wasn't at all clear about which word beginning with "n" they meant.  The n-word that right-wingers get up in arms about being called might not be the same one as the racial slur.


You make it seem as if it's no big deal calling people that. If someone called you that word, wouldn't you be pissed off too?

I didn't enjoy it when people called me that word when I proudly identified as right wing, and I don't like seeing people claim it's something I overreacted too or "got up in arms at", especially when many of those same people consistently talk about it and how horrible the "n word" people are.

No offense


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 15, 2018)

It's probably time I pointed out we are recieving this information from a likely biased source second hand through their friend, which means we are missing a lot of context, and either we or the original poster could be being lied to in order to justify their position.


----------



## Liseran Thistle (Dec 15, 2018)

Right wing politics are messy right now, and if i was doing commisions I wouldn't commision to anyone on that side politically. There are too many nazi's using other people's art to spread their own agenda and its gross. I would hate to draw someone a picture of rose quartz only to find it on some shitty 4-chan board bashing gay people. I wouldn't want to draw fanart of Frisk or Kris from Undertale, only to find that someone on twitter is using it to call non-binary people freaks. 

The artist may not have been a nice person, and using that kind of language was def uncalled for, but doing art for the right isn't very smart nowadays because you never know who you're giving it to. Some moderate who doesn't quite hate steven universe but likes the design, or some asshole trying to use your art for their own gain.


----------



## Liseran Thistle (Dec 15, 2018)

also if some nazi on twitter or 4 chan does get a hold of your art, it's never good news because then everyone else who supported you wants to know why this nazi is using your art to support their terrible poilitcal ideas, what if you too are a nazi. just being associated with a nazi is bad for your repuation, and it'll do quite some damage if you're looking for a job or work in the art field.


----------



## Liseran Thistle (Dec 15, 2018)

Infrarednexus said:


> You make it seem as if it's no big deal calling people that. If someone called you that word, wouldn't you be pissed off too?
> 
> I didn't enjoy it when people called me that word when I proudly identified as right wing, and I don't like seeing people claim it's something I overreacted too or "got up in arms at", especially when many of those same people consistently talk about it and how horrible the "n word" people are.
> 
> No offense



so wait are we talking about nazis or the other n-word? Because nazi's are trash, like they're scum of the earth bud. 

im black, and would normally just say the other n-word, but i realize this is a sensitive topic, and not everyone is comfortable reading or even thinking about that word. But you know I mean the one they used to describe black people in the 60's.


----------



## Massan Otter (Dec 15, 2018)

Infrarednexus said:


> You make it seem as if it's no big deal calling people that. If someone called you that word, wouldn't you be pissed off too?
> 
> I didn't enjoy it when people called me that word when I proudly identified as right wing, and I don't like seeing people claim it's something I overreacted too or "got up in arms at", especially when many of those same people consistently talk about it and how horrible the "n word" people are.
> 
> No offense



The point I intended to make is that this thread would benefit from some clarity about which word the OP is talking about.


----------



## Liseran Thistle (Dec 15, 2018)

oh. cool, that makes sense.


----------



## Infrarednexus (Dec 15, 2018)

Massan Otter said:


> The point I intended to make is that this thread would benefit from some clarity about which word the OP is talking about.


I'm sorry for taking it the wrong way.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 15, 2018)

Did we just dodge a trashfire?


----------



## Jackpot Raccuki (Dec 15, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> It's probably time I pointed out we are recieving this information from a likely biased source second hand through their friend, which means we are missing a lot of context, and either we or the original poster could be being lied to in order to justify their position.


I too would like to see the information.
I understand OP covered names to avoid a witch hunt, but it'd be nice to be able to read for ourselves.



Liseran Thistle said:


> Right wing politics are messy right now, and if i was doing commisions I wouldn't commision to anyone on that side politically. There are too many nazi's using other people's art to spread their own agenda and its gross. I would hate to draw someone a picture of rose quartz only to find it on some shitty 4-chan board bashing gay people. I wouldn't want to draw fanart of Frisk or Kris from Undertale, only to find that someone on twitter is using it to call non-binary people freaks.
> 
> The artist may not have been a nice person, and using that kind of language was def uncalled for, but doing art for the right isn't very smart nowadays because you never know who you're giving it to. Some moderate who doesn't quite hate steven universe but likes the design, or some asshole trying to use your art for their own gain.


I want to doubt 4chan really cares about getting commissions from artists. They're beyond capable of making their own art, it's why I don't underestimate them at times.
If /pol/ has an agenda you can bet your ass they'll get it done, and they won't need commissions.

I understand your concerns, but even I know using 4chan is a bad example.
But I just don't like how the artist handled the rejecting of someone for their political view.

Also that feeling when gay and also a right.



Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Did we just dodge a trashfire?


I think so, for now.


----------



## Liseran Thistle (Dec 15, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Did we just dodge a trashfire?



yes we did, you just witnessed something truly great happen on the internet, screenshot it for future generations.


----------



## Liseran Thistle (Dec 15, 2018)

Smexy Likeok4™ said:


> I too would like to see the information.
> I understand OP covered names to avoid a witch hunt, but it'd be nice to be able to read for ourselves.
> 
> 
> ...



4 chan has been credited with stealing people's art in the past and using them on boards like /pol. sure, it may not be an organized thing like they normally do, its more of something the individual anons do. I've seen countless artist have their art being used on that site for discussions they would doubtless want to be apart of. all it takes is someone screenshotting it and "exposing" the artist for being a racist/nazi whatever because some asshole on 4-chan used it when they were talking about bad stuff.


----------



## Tattorack (Dec 15, 2018)

This is extremely unprofessional. 
I can understand someone refusing to work for someone who's known to do terrible things. But having a different political opinion is an irrational basis to refuse someone's commission if their commission has nothing to do with the political opinion they have.


----------



## Jackpot Raccuki (Dec 15, 2018)

Liseran Thistle said:


> 4 chan has been credited with stealing people's art in the past and using them on boards like /pol in the past. sure, it may not be an organized thing like they normally do, its more of something the individual anons do. I've seen countless artist have their art being used on that site for discussions they would doubtless want to be apart of.


Most of the art they use aren't commissions or at least if they are then it's the ones where the artist make it public on their own profile, which of course it will be taken, it's there and open for the grabs.
And yeah, I've defiantly seen plenty of posts with artist's work, especially of the Steven universe purely because /pol/ hates anything that appears "SJW" or "is purposely making everything as LGBT as possible for no (story based) reason", or that's what they say.
I guess at the end of the day like they say in Steven Universe. "They'll always find a way."


----------



## Pipistrele (Dec 15, 2018)

Whatever the context is, I think it's kinda cool that artist rejected a decent chunk of money out of moral principles and was also honest about it. Take this opinion however you like.


----------



## Cyroo (Dec 15, 2018)

Oh, _Nazi._ I thought he meant the derogatory racial slur towards black people.


----------



## Liseran Thistle (Dec 15, 2018)

Smexy Likeok4™ said:


> Most of the art they use aren't commissions or at least if they are then it's the ones where the artist make it public on their own profile, which of course it will be taken, it's there and open for the grabs.
> And yeah, I've defiantly seen plenty of posts with artist's work, especially of the Steven universe purely because /pol/ hates anything that appears "SJW" or "is purposely making everything as LGBT as possible for no (story based) reason", or that's what they say.
> I guess at the end of the day like they say in Steven Universe. "They'll always find a way."



I honestly hate that website so much, like ugh the people on there have done such horrible shit to others for no reason. it truly is the cesspool of the internet, there are no good people there.


----------



## Jackpot Raccuki (Dec 15, 2018)

Liseran Thistle said:


> I honestly hate that website so much, like ugh the people on there have done such horrible shit to others for no reason. it truly is the cesspool of the internet, there are no good people there.


Even 4Chan's /LGBT/ is completely toxic.
I even remember someone saying "Turn all beta and bottom males into girls" or something along those lines.
And that's the nicest thing I saw in the thread that was posted in. Or even on the front page of the board excluding all the transgender related threads I don't read since it's just people talking about their experience / asking for tips and I ain't a transgender person nor plan to. (I hope I said that in a nice way without sounding like I'm against people being transgender. :\)


----------



## Liseran Thistle (Dec 15, 2018)

Why do they even say the "n-word" like its a slur? just say nazi. like, if you're a person who wants to round up and kill all of the minorities then you're a nazi. If you support people who do that then you're also a nazi. don't dance around calling people fascists when they're saying fascist shit. 

of course, im not advocating calling anyone you don't agree with a nazi, just you know, actual nazis.


----------



## Liseran Thistle (Dec 15, 2018)

Smexy Likeok4™ said:


> Even 4Chan's /LGBT/ is completely toxic.
> I even remember someone saying "Turn all beta and bottom males into girls" or something along those lines.
> And that's the nicest thing I saw in the thread that was posted in. Or even on the front page of the board excluding all the transgender related threads I don't read since it's just people talking about their experience / asking for tips and I ain't a transgender person nor plan to. (I hope I said that in a nice way without sounding like I'm against people being transgender. :\)



oof, i've seen that. It's like a very mean hateful lgbt group. They are somehow the most disheartening part about that damn website, aside from the pedos on the anime boards. The only, truly nice spot i could ever actually find on 4-chan was the /Quest/, which is kind of just a big roleplay forum. There wasn't as many nazis and pedos there. it was just geeks roleplaying in scifi worlds they made up.


----------



## Pipistrele (Dec 15, 2018)

Tattorack said:


> This is extremely unprofessional.
> I can understand someone refusing to work for someone who's known to do terrible things. But having a different political opinion is an irrational basis to refuse someone's commission if their commission has nothing to do with the political opinion they have.


I mean, furry artwork is unprofessional in general - for majority of people, it's a hobby or a side job at most, so it's kinda silly to expect Upwork levels of professionalism there.


----------



## Tattorack (Dec 15, 2018)

Pipistrele said:


> I mean, furry artwork is unprofessional in general - for majority of people, it's a hobby or a side job at most, so it's kinda silly to expect Upwork levels of professionalism there.


You're gaining money for time and skills you've honed over many years. It doesn't matter if you work in the industry or have some document that says you can do it or not, it is by all means a profession. Especially to those artists that make a good bit of revenue out of their art either through commissions or platforms like Patreon.
With this comes the very reasonable expectation of good etiquette.


----------



## Cyroo (Dec 15, 2018)

Liseran Thistle said:


> oof, i've seen that. It's like a very mean hateful lgbt group. They are somehow the most disheartening part about that damn website, aside from the pedos on the anime boards. The only, truly nice spot i could ever actually find on 4-chan was the /Quest/, which is kind of just a big roleplay forum. There wasn't as many nazis and pedos there. it was just geeks roleplaying in scifi worlds they made up.



You should look into /int/. It's a great board.


----------



## Liseran Thistle (Dec 15, 2018)

Cyroo said:


> You should look into /int/. It's a great board.



is that sarcasm or...? cause last time i checked that board they were all laughing and giggling about a raft of african people that got turned over in the middle of the ocean, and saying how of course the raft flipped over because something something "colored people are so stupid lmao".


----------



## Jackpot Raccuki (Dec 15, 2018)

Liseran Thistle said:


> is that sarcasm or...? cause last time i checked that board they were all laughing and giggling about a raft of african people that got turned over in the middle of the ocean, and saying how of course the raft flipped over because something something "colored people are so stupid lmao".


Depends on the thread.
Usually chill, but they'll defiantly at least have their "4chan" moments since it's 4chan.


----------



## Cyroo (Dec 15, 2018)

Liseran Thistle said:


> is that sarcasm or...? cause last time i checked that board they were all laughing and giggling about a raft of african people that got turned over in the middle of the ocean, and saying how of course the raft flipped over because something something "colored people are so stupid lmao".



Sure that wasn't /pol/?


----------



## Pipistrele (Dec 15, 2018)

Tattorack said:


> You're gaining money for time and skills you've honed over many years. It doesn't matter if you work in the industry or have some document that says you can do it or not, it is by all means a profession. Especially to those artists that make a good bit of revenue out of their art either through commissions or platforms like Patreon.
> With this comes the very reasonable expectation of good etiquette.


Eh, not really. As long as you understand the consequences and don't complain about them, it's a total creative free for all - since you establish your own guidelines, you may as well pick commissioners based on color of their boogers. You may make a profession out of it if you're willing enough, and some go with that indeed, but you'll be surprised how many commission artists are out there who don't take the whole thing as seriously as you do.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Dec 15, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> Them declining based on nothing more than political opinion make them a narrow-minded bigot, but they are free to refuse on such a basis.
> 
> Make commissions and you base your living conditions off of that? You kind of don't have the luxury of being picky on who your commissioners are, unless you want to crash and burn and end up on the street.
> 
> ...


 Reminds me off this


----------



## MAN_BURD (Dec 15, 2018)

God, I know that feel. You get indicted in _one _International Criminal Tribunal, and suddenly no one wants to draw your sona. 

I made a little mistake 20 years ago in Rwanda, hacked apart a few Tutsi and smuggled a few weapons, and that's all anyone wants to talk about. Get over it snowflakes, this is political correctness gone mad.


----------



## Izzy4895 (Dec 15, 2018)

Liseran Thistle said:


> Why do they even say the "n-word" like its a slur? just say nazi. like, if you're a person who wants to round up and kill all of the minorities then you're a nazi. If you support people who do that then you're also a nazi. don't dance around calling people fascists when they're saying fascist shit.
> 
> of course, im not advocating calling anyone you don't agree with a nazi, just you know, actual nazis.



Fascists have been working to rebrand themselves, so they want people to consider such a term that accurately describes them to be a slur (fascists loathe being exposed). Let us also not forget that considering “Nazi” to be an “N-word” (as per the wishes of the far-right) trivializes the racism blacks experience when the real N-word is used against them.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Dec 15, 2018)

I'll throw in my two cents as a writer and a conservative.

To be a little controversial here, I don't think that clients who voted for Trump should be barred wholesale from receiving requests and commissions. Many Americans voted for Trump for a variety of reasons that had nothing to do with hate and even if though you can make the argument that this threw certain minority groups under the proverbial bus, this wasn't at the forefront of those voters' minds. (And yes, I do realize there are Trump voters out there who voted for him for all the wrong reasons and say they supported him for other more palatable reasons.) Many people, including those in the fandom, also voted for Trump, then subsequently became displeased with him for a variety good reasons. All of the above groups should be considered acceptable and uncontroversial clients. I would also add for sure that barring someone from receiving art because they are simply conservative, especially those conservative who are strongly for minority rights, is petty. I am a Never Trump conservative and when I was searching for illustration commissions, two artists who knew me as acquaintance initially expressed concerns about my politics. Both times I straightened out their misconceptions and assured them I wasn't a bigot or even a Trump supporter and I got my money's worth, as I should've.

Having laid out the above, I will say that while there is some ambiguity to acknowledged when it comes to Trump supporters, there is no ambiguity about how Stephen Molyneaux and Pr1son Planet are supporters of the Alt-Right, which is an inherently and blatantly racist movement. The same goes for Alex Jones, Richard Spencer, and Jack Donovan, who are all undisputed Alt-Right figures. That the Alt-Right is racist is in their platform. It isn't even up debate and anyone questioning whether they are racist is gaslighting. Artists should not feel obligated to take the business of clients supporting these men or movements.

First, there is the moral issue of normalizing acceptance of these views by taking the money of people who find it acceptable to belittle and discriminate against minorities. If you feel need to engage in discriminatory behavior, whether in the fandom or society, private business owners have a right to want nothing to do you and tell you your money is no good. Criticizing and ostracizing bigoted behavior isn't wrong, am I right?

Second, doing business with bigots is not a good look for artists, writers, or any other kind of creator. Just pragmatically speaking, this can come back to bite in so many ways. I have seen multiple times where some Altfurry, Furry Raider, or whatever type of Nazifur got commissioned or requested art and proceeded to start shit all over the internet while prominently displaying that art. Then the artist gets asked why they decided to do business with or support this kind of person. There is a reason it's a good idea to use the Altfurry Blocklist. It cuts down massively on the amount of drama and risk your business can incur.

That's more or less my take.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 15, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Reminds me off this


The comic publisher in question had published works by an infamous bigot in the comics industry, who pushes an agenda that liberals are literally ruining comics by injecting politics. You know, the medium that used X-Men as a metaphor for the civil rights movement when it was first created. That includes publishing their manifesto on the above.

But the right seems to be universally against using boycotts and dollar votes against Fascists, just encourage it against SJWs.

Also, a video from a member of the alt-right leaning blogosphere. Why am I not surprised?


----------



## Water Draco (Dec 15, 2018)

An individual has approached an artist looking to commission there services. The artist has a method of conducting dew diligence before accepting to do a commission. 

It is important to remember the artist is under no obligation to accept commission. 

The individual should have respected the artist choice in not accepting to undertake the commission, and to have not then tried to pressure the artist into undertaking the commission that they have no obligation to do.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 15, 2018)

Vitaly said:


> *Captain obvious on*
> 
> I think if you dont want to take commission from a guy *you don’t like because his gender/race/sexuality*/political view it’s totally ok, but only if you politely refuse without telling a reason.
> 
> *Captain obvious off*


...are you being sarcastic?


----------



## Infrarednexus (Dec 15, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> ...are you being sarcastic?


I sincerely hope so....


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 15, 2018)

Infrarednexus said:


> I sincerely hope so....



If not, captain obvious is going to have to retire because it looks like he's developed dementia. ;^;


----------



## MAN_BURD (Dec 15, 2018)

not liking someone for being in romanian fascist party is exactly the same as not liking someone for being black. you imbecile. you absolute moron


----------



## Liseran Thistle (Dec 15, 2018)

Izzy4895 said:


> Fascists have been working to rebrand themselves, so they want people to consider such a term that accurately describes them to be a slur (fascists loathe being exposed). Let us also not forget that considering “Nazi” to be an “N-word” (as per the wishes of the far-right) trivializes the racism blacks experience when the real N-word is used against them.



Thats why I think it's important for all of us to know the signs and stuff, we gotta spot their "rebranding" and call them out on it. I know a lot of people think being mean to others is wrong, but I will wholeheartedly make a Nazi cry in public if calling them a nzai makes them feel bad and guilty. never feel bad for a nazi, that's what I think anyway. They'd just as soon as see you dead than standing and breathing. 



Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Reminds me off this



Also, i really don't like these "Bashing comics because they have people who aren't originally straight white men" thing going on on youtube. It's kind of a reason i just stick with manga and anime, because that community is at least accepting of the fact that some of their heroes are gay, or black. you'll never see the anime man make a video explaining how Yuri on Ice is the death of anime because it's got gay people in it, and that means the SJW's got their filthy PC hands all over the industry, but you will see countless videos complaining about iceman and how he's gay, and how thats so bad for the comic industry because now all the comics will be filled with tumblr bulshit and gay people.  it's very tiresome, especially when they try spinning it on characters that have already had a defined sexuality that wasn't straight, like wonder woman and deadpool. 

And it gets even worse when they try to shut down people's headcannons about popular heros and their sexuality, and they look at you like your crazy when you even suggest they might be gay like with batman superman. I could go on all day, but this isn't the right thread, and I'm tired.


----------



## dragon-in-sight (Dec 16, 2018)

That's a difficult topic. I can understand that someone may not be keen to do a comission for shady people. But on the other hand it's unprofessional to dismiss a client just because you don't like his mindset or views. In my studdying time as a designer we had a docent who told us that there always would be jobs we may not agree with, but aslong it's not straight up illegal a professinal will do his best to please his customer. Considdering this he gave us a series of exercises dealing with this concept: At first we should make a series of Album covers for a band or music genre we'd abseloutly hated. Then we should design a political Campaign for a Party we'd rather like to chop our hands of then voting for them. And for the last one we should make an image Campania for Al-Quaida. Needless to say that all this wasn't to be take seriously. But the gist was that we should learn to distinguish a job from a personal preference. Or quoting my docent: "You as a designer are not artists. Just overpaid wenches."


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Dec 16, 2018)

If someone tells you they will not do a commission for you look for a different artist who will accept your commission. Besides that I sincerely doubt this thread was made with good intentions and I will leave it at that.


----------



## Infrarednexus (Dec 16, 2018)

ZeroVoidTime said:


> If someone tells you they will not do a commission for you look for a different artist who will accept your commission. Besides that I sincerely doubt this thread was made with good intentions and I will leave it at that.


That's a good point. There are countless other artists you can go to for commissions if one turns you down for whatever reason.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Dec 16, 2018)

dragon-in-sight said:


> That's a difficult topic. I can understand that someone may not be keen to do a comission for shady people. But on the other hand it's unprofessional to dismiss a client just because you don't like his mindset or views. In my studdying time as a designer we had a docent who told us that there always would be jobs we may not agree with, but aslong it's not straight up illegal a professinal will do his best to please his customer. Considdering this he gave us a series of exercises dealing with this concept: At first we should make a series of Album covers for a band or music genre we'd abseloutly hated. Then we should design a political Campaign for a Party we'd rather like to chop our hands of then voting for them. And for the last one we should make an image Campania for Al-Quaida. Needless to say that all this wasn't to be take seriously. But the gist was that we should learn to distinguish a job from a personal preference. Or quoting my docent: "You as a designer are not artists. Just overpaid wenches."


Presumably this is in the context of working through an employer in the future? There's absolutely the option of rejecting a job you're not comfortable with as a freelance artist/illustrator; you don't need to state "it's because you're Republican" or whatever, you can simply offer a "I don't think I'm a good fit for your project" polite fiction. 

You will need to interact with your commissioner in order to complete their commission; if there's a reason they seriously rub you the wrong way, that alone could be difficult.

Once you've accepted a commission you should absolutely be as professional as possible about completing the job. But prior to that point, the only obligation you have towards your prospective client is whatever common courtesy standard you hold yourself to, and maybe responding to their inquiries in a reasonably prompt manner.


----------



## Slytherin Umbreon (Dec 16, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Did we just dodge a trashfire?


Don't worry, there's still plenty of time to fuck it up, my dear.


----------



## Slytherin Umbreon (Dec 16, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> ...are you being sarcastic?


New account, 33% serious, 66% sarcastic, 99% trolling for a reaction.


----------



## Apoc-Volkov (Dec 16, 2018)

Matters of 3rd-party association aside, I've always found it odd that such artists have a tendency to drop any pretense of professionalism when it comes to dealing with potential clients whose personal views do not line up with their own, even when the subject matter of the request has nothing to do with those views.

With that said, I've also heard of enough similar cases within the last decade where the service provider (be it an artist, barber, baker, etc.) was on the receiving end of a demanding and unruly client whom they've refused service as professionally as possible, only for the client to make a big stink about it as if they were chased away with torches and pitchforks. In the unfortunate case of one Muslim barber in Ontario several years back, his rather polite refusal to cut a girl's hair due to religious beliefs had culminated in an angry parent turning to social media and blowing the whole thing out of proportion.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Dec 16, 2018)

Slytherin Umbreon said:


> @Simo is it offensive if I name my new two-headed skunk fursona 'Gas the Skunks?'
> 
> Don't worry, there's still plenty of time to fuck it up, my dear.


Possibly, considering the man is Jewish and has a skunk, which I don't know if you know that. But this is a very targeted remark in thread talking about what happens when people make careless and callous edgelord jokes then expect to not to called onto the carpet for them.


----------



## Deleted member 111470 (Dec 16, 2018)

An artist may choose to deny a commission for whatever reason they feel like, even if it's incomprehensibly moronic.


----------



## Twpsyn (Dec 16, 2018)

Politics ruin everything? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Tattorack (Dec 16, 2018)

Twpsyn said:


> Politics ruin everything? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Amen!


----------



## Sunburst_Odell (Dec 16, 2018)

Twpsyn said:


> Politics ruin everything? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


All you gotta do is mention your political stance and it will start a trash fire.


----------



## Yakamaru (Dec 16, 2018)

Sunburst_Odell said:


> All you gotta do is mention your political stance and it will start a trash fire.


Sometimes you don't even need to do that. Be apolitical? People will attack you  and go "OHMIGOD Y U NO TAKE SIDES??"


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Dec 16, 2018)

Sunburst_Odell said:


> All you gotta do is mention your political stance and it will start a trash fire.


Except this isn't really a trash fire nor is it really that political.

Out of the Twitter accounts the OP mentioned his friend was following, there was broadly objectionable material concerning various demographics such as gays, trans people, muslims, blacks, and Hispanics. When it come to the Alt-Right, both conservative and liberals generally come to the same conclusions about their distastefulness and need for censure, this forum notwithstanding. I think we can agree this is more than a petty political argument.


----------



## Shadow of Bucephalus (Dec 16, 2018)

Sindenbock said:


> So a few days ago my buddy tried contacting an artist to ask for a commission. Said artist then immediantely called him a troll and threatened to block him because my buddy followed 'alt-right accounts' (which I assume he does because of the giggles n sh*t). AFter nearly 15 minutes of defending himself, the person called him a liar , a troll and that infamous 'n' word  and blocked them. here is a tweet they sent out moments later:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Couple of things about this OP as I see things in the real world-
1) No law or social custom has yet proven a 100% antidote towards someone being an asshole.
2) I believe any and all businesses have the inherent 'Right' to "Refuse Service to anyone"  It's THEIR BUSINESS, both economically and philosophically.  I take exception to people going into a business clearly labeled as, or marketing something, and trying to cause trouble with said business because they don't share *le gasps*, YOUR opinion or perspective about something.  Not so long ago, a bakery was SUED out of existence because, being Christian Owners and Operators, once they found out a Wedding Cake being ordered was for a gay couple, they decided they didn't want that business, and refused to make the cake.
The irate party/ies took umbrage to this refusal of slavery to their whims, SUED the business in court, and the courts, being oh-so-very-wise and full of bullshit, *ahems*, I mean, 'Common Sense', found the BUSINESS GUILTY.  For refusing servitude.
The Country is going to hell in a handbasket with all these little groups yammering for attention and respect for THEIR 'Authorita', when in fact, THEY are the ones being irritating little social hemorrhoids that need to be locked IN a 'Crying Room' till they mature intellectually, and can exist in the real g-damned world like most of us.

Now, all that being said?

Any business, Artist, etc., has the RIGHT to refuse to do something.  If they're professional, they'll handle the refusal for service politely and with tact.  If they're not, they'll do what this Artists in the OP seems to have done, alienate most of the people who MIGHT have been interested in commissioning them for their own works, and take their $$$ elsewhere.  That is what a Capitalist Society does.  Fail to provide 'The People' with the services/products they're wanting, they'll go to someone who will.  Thrive or starve, it's the business' choice.

I don't condone blatant racism, sexism, any type of 'ism', that slanders someone merely for being different.  Embrace your inner silliness/deviancy all YOU like.

But don't try to demand the rest of the world do, too.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Dec 16, 2018)

Slytherin Umbreon said:


> New account, 33% serious, 66% sarcastic, 99% trolling for a reaction.


He's Norros :V


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 16, 2018)

Shadow of Bucephalus said:


> Couple of things about this OP as I see things in the real world-
> 1) No law or social custom has yet proven a 100% antidote towards someone being an asshole.
> 2) I believe any and all businesses have the inherent 'Right' to "Refuse Service to anyone"  It's THEIR BUSINESS, both economically and philosophically.  I take exception to people going into a business clearly labeled as, or marketing something, and trying to cause trouble with said business because they don't share *le gasps*, YOUR opinion or perspective about something.  Not so long ago, a bakery was SUED out of existence because, being Christian Owners and Operators, once they found out a Wedding Cake being ordered was for a gay couple, they decided they didn't want that business, and refused to make the cake.
> The irate party/ies took umbrage to this refusal of slavery to their whims, SUED the business in court, and the courts, being oh-so-very-wise and full of bullshit, *ahems*, I mean, 'Common Sense', found the BUSINESS GUILTY.  For refusing servitude.
> ...


Except we do actually need anti-discrimination laws, or the bigoted fucks go out of their way to create an apartheid state, under a pretext and leveraging the market as a force of oppression.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Dec 16, 2018)

Shadow of Bucephalus said:


> Couple of things about this OP as I see things in the real world-
> 1) No law or social custom has yet proven a 100% antidote towards someone being an asshole.
> 2) I believe any and all businesses have the inherent 'Right' to "Refuse Service to anyone"  It's THEIR BUSINESS, both economically and philosophically.  I take exception to people going into a business clearly labeled as, or marketing something, and trying to cause trouble with said business because they don't share *le gasps*, YOUR opinion or perspective about something.  Not so long ago, a bakery was SUED out of existence because, being Christian Owners and Operators, once they found out a Wedding Cake being ordered was for a gay couple, they decided they didn't want that business, and refused to make the cake.
> The irate party/ies took umbrage to this refusal of slavery to their whims, SUED the business in court, and the courts, being oh-so-very-wise and full of bullshit, *ahems*, I mean, 'Common Sense', found the BUSINESS GUILTY.  For refusing servitude.
> ...


Damn it, I was just about to log off too. I also was hoping someone else would step up, but fine.

Before I get into this, I would put it out there that I would just like to hear from @Sunburst_Odell and @Yakamaru about their thoughts on whether we should be denying gay people business services and if it is appropriate to address this. I would also like to hear from @Yakamaru , who has been *very *political this week, about when is the appropriate time to bring up politics on the forum and when he has been attacked for being apolitical. I would like to know all this for my edification.

@Shadow of Bucephalus , there is a world of difference between a bakery denying a gay couple a wedding cake and an artist denying a commission to someone following Alt-Right propagandists. On a moral level, the gay couple being denied their wedding cake has done nothing wrong to the baker and actually has been inconvenienced since they need to search for a new baker whereas the artist here was clearly concerned about their client following individuals who have wholeheartedly preached extremely discriminatory views online. You could also easily see that taking a commission from someone who sees fit, for whatever reason, to follow Stefan Molyneux, who has frequently advocated for "white rights" and "men's rights", and PrisonPlanet, site with a forum that regularly endorse white genocide conspiracy theories. Aside from any moral reasons you could think of, like not supporting someone who frequents these outlets for hate, the artist could also not want to deal with the backlash of doing business with someone who could a member of the Alt-Right. That could reflect poorly on them.

Going back to your wedding cake example, there are a few thing worth pointing out about that case. The gay couple was being discriminated against by the baker for religious reasons, but you could easily draw parallels between this and how black people were denied services by white businesses during segregation. I don't think you call being black silliness or deviancy, would you? There is also the fact that several Christian conservative groups have used the wedding cake case as a test case for the larger issue of whether businesses should be allowed to deprive gays of basic service. A wedding cake may seem trivial, though certainly not the that gay couple, but imagine gays being denied essential services like medical appointments at private practices, prescriptions being filled at pharmacies, food at groceries stores, or even service at hospital emergency rooms. That is the true scope of what it is at stake with that case, which is still working its way through the courts. And with this current Supreme Court, it could go badly for gay rights. Of course you could say that businesses which don't discriminate against gays will reap the rewards and in urban areas, you may be right. However, if you live in a rural area like a town and are gay, there are a lot fewer options and you may have one option often that does not want to serve you. For instance, you may have one town doctor, one pharmacy, or one grocery store. That scenario, you've got no options. Capitalism is great, but sometimes people allow their hate to override their morals and their business sense. 

Now, our anonymous artist has good reason to deny business to this client. If this client, say, goes onto Tumblr, Twitter, Deviantart, or Fur Affinity and gets into some online controversy, some observers are going ask, "Is that picture X's work? Why would they draw art for someone supporting Alt-Right?" Especially on Twitter, this isn't far-fetched because the artist already noticed the rejected client was following these accounts, so it is a good bet that other Twitter users will too. This could cause a backlash against the artist and hurt their business. Not producing artist for this client makes good business sense, not mention it is the decent thing to do. If someone came if in a business you owned and proudly proclaimed they following the Alt-Right and other customers were uncomfortable with this talk, what would you do? Allow them to remain there and drive away your business? 

No.

The same thing goes for the artist.


----------



## Alv (Dec 16, 2018)

Quick solution:

A. Artists shouldn't stalk users to the point of trying to find out their political opinions. That's simply a waste of time. 

That said, we do have a problem with racist, bigoted, and nationalistic members of the fandom. It seems fair for people to refuse service to them, which leads me to 

B. If you follow shady, annoying, or harassing people and/or advocate their viewpoints, expect backlash from other people expercising their freedom of speech. 

Tldr; grow the fuck up people.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Dec 16, 2018)

Shadow of Bucephalus said:


> Not so long ago, a bakery was SUED out of existence because, being Christian Owners and Operators, once they found out a Wedding Cake being ordered was for a gay couple, they decided they didn't want that business, and refused to make the cake.
> The irate party/ies took umbrage to this refusal of slavery to their whims, SUED the business in court, and the courts, being oh-so-very-wise and full of bullshit, *ahems*, I mean, 'Common Sense', found the BUSINESS GUILTY. For refusing servitude.


Except this representation of the case is an oversimplification that ignores the other objectionable behavior the business owners engaged in as part of their refusal of service. I don't recall the exact details, but I believe inappropriate remarks about the gay couple on Facebook were involved. The court's decision on the cake front was, to the best of my recollection, also specifically based on judging the cake as a standard product for sale rather than a work of art or similar.

Now, I disagree with how lawsuit-happy the US can be in general, but presenting the case as being solely about refused service misrepresents the situation.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Dec 16, 2018)

Eh just be like me

Use  your main account to put on a face and make an alt account where you can talk about political shit.
Works everytime


----------



## Yakamaru (Dec 16, 2018)

Unicon said:


> Damn it, I was just about to log off too. I also was hoping someone else would step up, but fine.
> 
> Before I get into this, I would put it out there that I would just like to hear from @Sunburst_Odell and @Yakamaru about their thoughts on whether we should be denying gay people business services and if it is appropriate to address this. I would also like to hear from @Yakamaru , who has been *very *political this week, about when is the appropriate time to bring up politics on the forum and when he has been attacked for being apolitical. I would like to know all this for my edification.


Hmm. The denying gay people business services isn't exactly relevant to the thread's topic, but might as well dip into it now that the topic's already been brought up.

Is it wrong to discriminate? Of course it is, and you're an asshole if you do. Is it illegal? Well, it will depend completely on the context surrounding it. 

When it comes to the bakery thing, the gay couple pretty much showed zero respect for the guy's religious beliefs. The same way the Christian guy showed zero respect for the gay couple. So who's at fault here? The asshole baker, or the asshole couple? Both are, IMO. That shit got taken to a Federal Court and got turned in favor of the Christian baker. So it indicates it wasn't illegal, just him being a stuck up fuckstick. The same way the guy could've simply baked them their cake and be done with it, the couple could've gone elsewhere. If the situation had been reversed and a Christian wanted a cake but the gay couple refused, the result would have been the same. 

Though on-topic: Private businesses, in this case, the artist, have a right to refuse doing business with people. Political affiliation and/or beliefs aren't protected under the anti-discrimination laws in the US as far as I am aware. Is it a good idea to discriminate based on that? No, as it will hurt your business, not to mention can drive potential customers away. But ultimately, it's the rights of private citizen vs a private business. And the business have priority.

No one is entitled to a service. No one is entitled to people's money. If someone thinks they are entitled to anything they are narcissistic. 

This artist is also showing very unprofessional behaviour when it comes to declining the guy's request to make a commission. If you don't want your business to take any potential hits to its reputation, take it to a private conversation. The guy who made the request also simply could've accepted it and taken his business elsewhere. This is basically one being an ass on one side, the other being self-entitled. I am not picking sides in this. Just saying both sides are immature as fuck on both subjects.


----------



## Alv (Dec 16, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Eh just be like me
> 
> Use  your main account to put on a face and make an alt account where you can talk about political shit.
> Works everytime



I think if someone has to hide behind anonymity to discuss their views, there is something highly suspect there. All views should be expressed and should be countered and an interesting conversation can evolve. Toxicity is harder to sling around in that case.


----------



## Alv (Dec 16, 2018)

Hmm... someone blocked me after my last post... was it because I singled out racists, nationalists, and bigots? One has to wonder!


----------



## CertifiedCervine (Dec 16, 2018)

We still arguing over this? 

Honestly, a buisness has a right to refuse service to someone, but if it’s something like
“Oh, you’re a -insert race, gender, or religion- , well then get out of my store!”
Or
“Oh, you agree with Canidate 2’s idea on taxes? Then I’m not serving you!”
Seems a little childish, could ruin a buisness’s reputation, and is actively shutting off part of their potential income. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make it a excuse to treat them poorly, and just because buisness A accepts client B’s offer does not mean that buisness A automatically agrees with client B’s views on anything.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 16, 2018)

I would like to point out that the arguments yaka and ram jeep liking also justify deplatforming by denying Nazis access to private platforms. Because I'm petty like that.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Dec 16, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> Hmm. The denying gay people business services isn't exactly relevant to the thread's topic, but might as well dip into it now that the topic's already been brought up.
> 
> Is it wrong to discriminate? Of course it is, and you're an asshole if you do. Is it illegal? Well, it will depend completely on the context surrounding it.
> 
> ...


I don't see how the artist turning down a commission from a suspicious client with possible Alt-Right nor the gay couple denied a wedding cake for simply being what they are are being entitled or in the wrong. It does seem like someone is trying to extend blame from the guilty parties to the innocent parties to muddy the waters here. 

Also, you may want to get your facts straight because while the Supreme Court did rule in favor for baker's individual case, they deliberately left the door open in regard to whether American businesses can discriminate against gays and lesbians in the scope of the First Amendment:

www.nytimes.com: In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple



> The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who had refused to create a wedding cake for a gay couple. The court’s decision was narrow, and it left open the larger question of whether a business can discriminate against gay men and lesbians based on rights protected by the First Amendment.
> 
> The court passed on an opportunity to either bolster the right to same-sex marriage or explain how far the government can go in regulating businesses run on religious principles. Instead, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s majority opinion turned on the argument that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which originally ruled against the baker, had been shown to be hostile to religion because of the remarks of one of its members.
> 
> ...



That means that even the highest court in land, which is a conservative court in more than one meaning, didn't want to create a precedent that could endanger the rights of gay and lesbian citizens. 

So think on that before you make assertions about foreign legal system you are not familiar with.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Dec 16, 2018)

Alv said:


> I think if someone has to hide behind anonymity to discuss their views, there is something highly suspect there. All views should be expressed and should be countered and an interesting conversation can evolve. Toxicity is harder to sling around in that case.



Well for this situation, no conversation is involved. The artist refused service merely from who he follows.
Given that considerable amount of artist does this, It calls for an alt account where you can follow people with strong opinions

Don't worry. I only extend this suggestion towards people that are right leaning


----------



## Slytherin Umbreon (Dec 16, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> ram jeep


Beep Beep


----------



## Littlefoot505 (Dec 16, 2018)

I'd probably have to just agree with Tacoma here. It technically is a business's right to not serve people for dumb/silly reasons like their political leanings (or lack thereof), but it is pretty childish and dumb to refuse service for a reason like that.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Dec 16, 2018)

Littlefoot505 said:


> or lack thereof


What? Are there really artist that grills people for their political leanings? 0_0


----------



## Ramjet (Dec 16, 2018)

Slytherin Umbreon said:


> Beep Beep


----------



## Littlefoot505 (Dec 16, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> What? Are there really artist that grills people for their political leanings? 0_0



I really don't know (I personally, if I ever start doing commissions, won't give a darn what someone's political leanings are. The beauty of being a centrist who hates politics)


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Dec 16, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> What? Are there really artist that grills people for their political leanings? 0_0


I'm going walk out on a limb and say no artist is going to deny you a commission for not having a opinion.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 16, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Well for this situation, no conversation is involved. The artist refused service merely from who he follows.
> Given that considerable amount of artist does this, It calls for an alt account where you can follow people with strong opinions
> 
> Don't worry. I only extend this suggestion towards people that are right leaning


Except there was a conversation following that refusal, in which the person requesting the comission played the far right "reverse racism" card. 

We only have one side of the story here. That's important to remember.


----------



## Alv (Dec 16, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Well for this situation, no conversation is involved. The artist refused service merely from who he follows.
> Given that considerable amount of artist does this, It calls for an alt account where you can follow people with strong opinions
> 
> Don't worry. I only extend this suggestion towards people that are right leaning



There are plenty of instances of people attempting to be "opinion vigilantes" on both sides of the political aisle. Both cases are immature and childish. However, it is entirely natural from a sociological perspective for people to choose businesses that match their ethics more closely. I, for instance, choose not to invest with companies that produce undue strain on the environment.


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Dec 16, 2018)

Locking this thread for review, due to some reports I've received about it.


----------



## Shadow of Bucephalus (Dec 17, 2018)

Unicon said:


> Damn it, I was just about to log off too. I also was hoping someone else would step up, but fine.
> 
> Before I get into this, I would put it out there that I would just like to hear from @Sunburst_Odell and @Yakamaru about their thoughts on whether we should be denying gay people business services and if it is appropriate to address this. I would also like to hear from @Yakamaru , who has been *very *political this week, about when is the appropriate time to bring up politics on the forum and when he has been attacked for being apolitical. I would like to know all this for my edification.
> 
> ...



Thank You for replying, and sharing your views.

I won't back-down from a business, Artist, Musician, et al, who decides they don't want to do the work someone is asking them to do.   They don't HAVE to state a reason (probably the wisest choice, given our litigious society), but they certainly have the 'Right' to say-  "No, I don't want to do that.  Thanks for asking, but please find someone else."
I see nothing immoral about someone doing that.
Discriminating against someone for a job?  If they are mentally and physically capable of doing the job, that should be the ONLY criteria taken into consideration.  I know this from very personal experience, as it once cost me a very lucrative career in the private security sector, right outta Active Duty Marines.  I was the wrong color-of-skin, and male.  That isn't what their mandated hiring policies would permit.  Imagine my surprise when I sailed through ALL their pre-hiring tests and psychological exams, only to be told at what I THOUGHT was my 'Hiring Interview':  Nope, sorry.  You're PERFECT for the job, but we can't hire you.
If that isn't an eye-opening experience in REVERSE discrimination, I've never seen or heard of it.

Refusing to provide necessary services (Food, Fuel, Medical needs, etc.), is also a 'No Prejudice Zone' in my book.  Leave yours at home, and do your job professionally and with tact.

A cake is not a life-or-death, must-have-to-survive investment.  If a baker doesn't want to bake your cake, you HAVE the option to take your business to someone who DOES.  Simple.
Commissioning art isn't a life-or-death, must-have-to-survive investment, either.

You can't apply the same brush to everything.  There isn't a brush invented that can handle that task.

Homophobes, Anti-(Pick a theology.  ANY theology)(Pick a political party.  ANY political party)(Pick a skin color. ANY skin color)(you see where I'm going with this, I trust?), will cater to their own ideologies, prejudices, etc., no matter what.  LET THEM...  "Freedom of Choice" does matter.
If their choices find them losing business?  Going OUT of business?  Well and good.
If their choices find them GAINING business?  THRIVING?  Well and good.

I wouldn't walk into a business clearly oriented to something, with the intent of causing them grief because their views differ from mine.
That would make ME the antagonistic asshole, not the business.

I am not saying that gays should be vilified. I'm not saying Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc., should be vilified.  I don't give a rat's patootie what political party you adhere to.
Treat me civilly, with respect, and I will forward the same sentiment in turn.

That is being polite and mature.

Something I see becoming extinct in today's world.


----------



## Yakamaru (Dec 17, 2018)

Unicon said:


> I don't see how the artist turning down a commission from a suspicious client with possible Alt-Right nor the gay couple denied a wedding cake for simply being what they are are being entitled or in the wrong. It does seem like someone is trying to extend blame from the guilty parties to the innocent parties to muddy the waters here.
> 
> Also, you may want to get your facts straight because while the Supreme Court did rule in favor for baker's individual case, they deliberately left the door open in regard to whether American businesses can discriminate against gays and lesbians in the scope of the First Amendment:
> 
> ...


The First Amendment covers speech. I know more about American laws, its Amendments and America in general than the average American, not to mention the gun culture. Take that for what you will. 

A cake is something that is purely optional. Some could even call it a luxury item. It is not needed for your survival and as such it's up to the business on whether or not they want to do business with whomever they please. It doesn't make it okay to discriminate, but it's the facts of the matter. They are free, until laws change or they crash and burn, to discriminate how much or how little they please in these matters. The gay couple do not have a right to the baker's services, nor are they entitled to those optional services.

If we are talking housing, medical care, insurances and other life-saving/important topics, it's NOT okay to discriminate in any way, shape or form. And there are laws/acts preventing that, too. The Fair Housing Act is a good step in the right direction.

In the case of the thread's topic, the artist have made their choice. And so have the self-entitled moron who tried to force someone's services.


----------



## CertifiedCervine (Dec 17, 2018)

I know this is sort of off topic, but does the Op’s profile picture kinda look like Robbie rotten? Or is that just me? :v


----------



## Purple Jackal (Dec 17, 2018)

Love how artist think's he a hero by calling someone the N word an


Liseran Thistle said:


> oof, i've seen that. It's like a very mean hateful lgbt group. They are somehow the most disheartening part about that damn website, aside from the pedos on the anime boards. The only, truly nice spot i could ever actually find on 4-chan was the /Quest/, which is kind of just a big roleplay forum. There wasn't as many nazis and pedos there. it was just geeks roleplaying in scifi worlds they made up.



What putt me off is that furry is a instant perma ban there. /trash/ is the only board outside of /b/ that has any furry content. Not to mention the ones who hate /b/ because of the furry porn threads that pop up there.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 17, 2018)

Purple Jackal said:


> Love how artist think's he a hero by calling someone the N word an
> 
> 
> What putt me off is that furry is a instant perma ban there. /trash/ is the only board outside of /b/ that has any furry content. Not to mention the ones who hate /b/ because of the furry porn threads that pop up there.



By the 'N word'. The thread's creator seems to actually mean 'the Artist called the guy a *N*azi'. 

_Not _the N word that everybody automatically thought the OP meant.


----------



## Simo (Dec 17, 2018)

This thread is actually open again? Damn. And thus any hopes about the holiday season being a time of greater cheer about this place deflate just a bit more...


----------



## Purple Jackal (Dec 17, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> By the 'N word'. The thread's creator seems to actually mean 'the Artist called the guy a *N*azi'.
> 
> _Not _the N word that everybody automatically thought the OP meant.



I know i forgot to remove that when quoting someone.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 17, 2018)

Shadow of Bucephalus said:


> Thank You for replying, and sharing your views.
> 
> I won't back-down from a business, Artist, Musician, et al, who decides they don't want to do the work someone is asking them to do.   They don't HAVE to state a reason (probably the wisest choice, given our litigious society), but they certainly have the 'Right' to say-  "No, I don't want to do that.  Thanks for asking, but please find someone else."
> I see nothing immoral about someone doing that.
> ...



There's some confusion here in my opinion. 

Artisans in the USA can refuse to do commissions because craft (whether that be making a painting or decorating a cake) is a form of speech, not because the items they sell are considered luxurious. 
If a man was selling ferraris and refused to sell them to women, he'd get in trouble even though a ferrari is a luxury item. ( and rightly so ) 

I think you should maybe think about your suggestion that everything is 'well and good' if a business that discriminates against people finds itself 'THRIVING'.
That's _probably_ an indication of a problem with society, wouldn't you agree?


----------



## Yakamaru (Dec 17, 2018)

Simo said:


> This thread is actually open again? Damn. And thus any hopes about the holiday season being a time of greater cheer about this place deflate just a bit more...


I'm just hoping Mewtwo realizes he didn't actually lock the thread.


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Dec 17, 2018)

Either that or it was a quick review...... (I doubt it)


----------



## PearBoxSam2000 (Dec 17, 2018)

The left-wing snowflakes at it again.


----------



## Le Chat Nécro (Dec 17, 2018)

PearBoxSam2000 said:


> The left-wing snowflakes at it again.


Well it is winter.


----------



## Purple Jackal (Dec 17, 2018)

PearBoxSam2000 said:


> The left-wing snowflakes at it again.



Alway's love how there meltdowns make them look like angry 8 year olds.


----------



## Le Chat Nécro (Dec 17, 2018)

Purple Jackal said:


> Alway's love how there meltdowns make them look like angry 8 year olds.


Well people keep peeing on us, so it's no wonder we melt.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 17, 2018)

PearBoxSam2000 said:


> The left-wing snowflakes at it again.



For the sake of like..._common sense I suppose_? I have to point out that almost _all_ conservatives wouldn't want to be associated with folk like Stefan Molyneux either, a man who (among other things) claims that a shadowy globalist elite is plotting the extinction of white europeans. 

So all we can really say of the artist in the OP is that they're 'not far right'. They _might_ be a left wing snowflake. They _might _be a republican. In either case it's immaterial; the real question is...why is the OP's friend following Stefen Molyneux? 

We also have to bear in mind that we are only shown the OP's side of the story, which is obviously going to be sympathetic to their friend; they're not going to make a thread that reveals that an artist didn't want to do their friend's commission because their friend is a socially stunted 4channer, for example.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Dec 17, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> The First Amendment covers speech. I know more about American laws, its Amendments and America in general than the average American, not to mention the gun culture. Take that for what you will.


This is a very bold claim coming from a man who confused alimony, divorce, and child support law on that MGTOW mess of a thread not long ago and was unaware of our asylum procedures when it came to dealing with refugees. In the months I have been here, I've actually seen American users bring you up short most of the time because they understand our legal system. I'm also going to tangentially mention the sheer arrogance you have to assume that you know the laws of our land, not mention our land, better than those of us who were born and or raised here. You may want to pump your brakes.


Yakamaru said:


> A cake is something that is purely optional. Some could even call it a luxury item. It is not needed for your survival and as such it's up to the business on whether or not they want to do business with whomever they please. It doesn't make it okay to discriminate, but it's the facts of the matter. They are free, until laws change or they crash and burn, to discriminate how much or how little they please in these matters. The gay couple do not have a right to the baker's services, nor are they entitled to those optional services.


If you were familiar with the complexities of the First Amendment in their entirety, you would realize that while there are some exemptions for artists under the First Amendment when it comes to free speech, those exemptions did not come into play in the baker's legal battle because he was considered a business owner, of course, not an artist. Furthermore, if you want to make the argument that gay citizens and other minorities aren't entitled to equal service from American business if it is not essential to their survival, do note that it is a slippery slope for defining was is necessary for survival and what is not. The Supreme Court recognized this when they abstained from making this case a precedent for whether American businesses can discriminate against gay and lesbian couples by denying them service. 

This is partially because there is the very question of what constitutes a service or good necessary for survival. In a grocery store, are less nutritious foods really essential for you to meet your intake needs? Is a cosmestic surgery needed to fix a disfigurement or birth defect necessary since it isn't a life-saving procedure? Can a primary care physician argue that since they are not performing life saving services immediately, that they can deny gay patients check-up appointments? These are all sticky wickets that some homophobic advocacy groups will try to push through the court system, just like they did with the baker's case.

You could also ask moral questions about whether it is right to allow businesses to discriminate against gay and lesbian customers. You could also the users who fit into that category on this forum, some of whom are your friends, apparently.


----------



## Deleted member 111470 (Dec 17, 2018)

I saw cake being mentioned a couple of times and now I'm hungry.


----------



## Yakamaru (Dec 17, 2018)

Unicon said:


> This is a very bold claim coming from a man who confused alimony, divorce, and child support law on that MGTOW mess of a thread not long ago and was unaware of our asylum procedures when it came to dealing with refugees. In the months I have been here, I've actually seen American users bring you up short most of the time because they understand our legal system. I'm also going to tangentially mention the sheer arrogance you have to assume that you know the laws of our land, not mention our land, better than those of us who were born and or raised here. You may want to pump your brakes.


I forgot the names of child support and alimony and ended up confusing those two, which is what ended up happening and I was corrected on that front. 

And yes, I am claiming I know more about America than the average American. Hell, a decent amount of Americans don't even know they are living in a Constitutional Republic with an Electoral College let alone how either of them works. 

When it comes to asylum seekers the procedures are about the same across a lot of countries. I separate illegal aliens from actual refugees and immigrants. If you behave like crap you don't deserve jack shit. Tho when it comes to America specifically I don't know all the details on procedures, no. 



Unicon said:


> If you were familiar with the complexities of the First Amendment in their entirety, you would realize that while there are some exemptions for artists under the First Amendment when it comes to free speech, those exemptions did not come into play in the baker's legal battle because he was considered a business owner, of course, not an artist. Furthermore, if you want to make the argument that gay citizens and other minorities aren't entitled to equal service from American business if it is not essential to their survival, do note that it is a slippery slope for defining was is necessary for survival and what is not. The Supreme Court recognized this when they abstained from making this case a precedent for whether American businesses can discriminate against gay and lesbian couples by denying them service.
> 
> This is partially because there is the very question of what constitutes a service or good necessary for survival. In a grocery store, are less nutritious foods really essential for you to meet your intake needs? Is a cosmestic surgery needed to fix a disfigurement or birth defect necessary since it isn't a life-saving procedure? Can a primary care physician argue that since they are not performing life saving services immediately, that they can deny gay patients check-up appointments? These are all sticky wickets that some homophobic advocacy groups will try to push through the court system, just like they did with the baker's case.
> 
> You could also ask moral questions about whether it is right to allow businesses to discriminate against gay and lesbian customers. You could also the users who fit into that category on this forum, some of whom are your friends, apparently.


I know about the exceptions of the First Amendment and what it covers, yes. Up to the 6th, tho I still need to properly read up on and understand the remaining 21.

And I already said that what is essential for living isn't something you can or should discriminate on. Be it groceries, buying a car, medical care, housing and other important necessities for living. Things that are essential for living and the playing room for individual choice in the matter. Though I am not interested in a long-winded argument over something that will end in derailing the thread.

And what is moral for a Liberal may not be moral for someone else. Same goes for a Conservative, Authoritarian, Christian or a Libertarian for that matter. Morals are subjective for the most part. Do I find it morally reprehensible to refuse service to people based on sexuality? Yes. Do I find it morally reprehensible to harass someone based on their religious beliefs? Yes. Again, I am not taking sides in either of these issues. Just telling you how things are. From a moral perspective and a legal perspective.

Though I have already said my piece, so I am done with this thread. Have a nice day, Unicon.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 17, 2018)

I know more about American politics than most Americans, if you count babies and children and old people with dementia. 

I am very smart.


----------



## Shadow of Bucephalus (Dec 17, 2018)

Simo said:


> This thread is actually open again? Damn. And thus any hopes about the holiday season being a time of greater cheer about this place deflate just a bit more...



:: Prances-about, flinging glitter and tinsel everywhere! ::

There!  NOW we haz the Holiday Spirit back!

Now, point me to the Rum-an'-'Nog bucket, plz!

;-)


----------



## Shadow of Bucephalus (Dec 17, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> There's some confusion here in my opinion.
> 
> Artisans in the USA can refuse to do commissions because craft (whether that be making a painting or decorating a cake) is a form of speech, not because the items they sell are considered luxurious.
> If a man was selling ferraris and refused to sell them to women, he'd get in trouble even though a ferrari is a luxury item. ( and rightly so )
> ...



*BINGO*

This is one of the ways society governs itself, instead of some governmental bureaucracy or robe-garmented Elder sitting behind a desk.
Society tends to change more slowly, which can be a good or bad thing, depending.  I see far more harm jumping to conclusions (how many wars/conflicts have we seen over the centuries, that were based off completely inaccurate presumption(s)?  And it keeps right-on truckin' along...)


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Dec 17, 2018)

So I know you said you were done, but there are a few things I'd just like to bring to your attention and maybe ask for a little clarification on, just for my personal benefit.


Yakamaru said:


> *I forgot the names of child support and alimony and ended up confusing those two, which is what ended up happening and I was corrected on that front.*


You confused the concepts as well and forgot the fact that these systems already addressed your concerns with the extensive system of caveats written into them. Any American who is currently divorced or going through divorce proceeding could probably keep these concepts straight.


Yakamaru said:


> When it comes to asylum seekers the procedures are about the same across a lot of countries. I separate illegal aliens from actual refugees and immigrants. If you behave like crap you don't deserve jack shit. *Tho when it comes to America specifically I don't know all the details on procedures, no.*


It's good thing then that there were users constantly telling you what that process was. 


Yakamaru said:


> And yes, I am claiming I know more about America than the average American. Hell, a decent amount of Americans don't even know they are living in a Constitutional Republic with an Electoral College let alone how either of them works.


Based you copping to ignorance in the two separate instances I highlighted above, you can see where I am skeptical. Admitting to knowing six out of twenty-five amendments isn't exactly helping your cause either. And I would wager that after this last presidential election, most Americans know all about our democracy and the Electoral College, regardless of their political affiliation. Taking all that into account, don't pat yourself on the back.


Yakamaru said:


> I know about the exceptions of the First Amendment and what it covers, yes. Up to the 6th, tho I still need to properly read up on and understand the remaining 21.
> 
> And I already said that what is essential for living isn't something you can or should discriminate on. Be it groceries, buying a car, medical care, housing and other important necessities for living. Things that are essential for living and the playing room for individual choice in the matter. Though I am not interested in a long-winded argument over something that will end in derailing the thread.


If you had bothered to read up properly on those other amendments, you would realize that they cover several examples of discrimination that were redressed regarding female and black Americans. The spirit of these amendments is what the Supreme Court, and a conservative Supreme Court at that, bore in mind when deciding the case. 


Yakamaru said:


> And what is moral for a Liberal may not be moral for someone else. Same goes for a Conservative, Authoritarian, Christian or a Libertarian for that matter. Morals are subjective for the most part.


This is why we have codified laws meant to embody the best morals which ensure fair and equal treatment for everyone in our society. Furthermore, we have concepts like human rights which transcend political and national boundaries.


Yakamaru said:


> Do I find it morally reprehensible to harass someone based on their religious beliefs? Yes.


It is worth noting you keep saying the couple harassed the baker due to his religious beliefs, but that there isn't really a concrete record of this at all. It does, however, serve as a nice talking point for you to assign blame to them for the situation.


----------



## Purple Jackal (Dec 17, 2018)

It's still bullshit that people are quick to side the baker, when its clear he was being awkward prick to be blunt. All they wanted a just a cake with gay acceptance or something.


----------



## Jarren (Dec 17, 2018)

Is it unprofessional? Fuck yeah.
Does the artist (or any craftsperson/artist for that matter) have the right to refuse a custom piece of art/craft to a customer for any reason, as it is their time and effort on the line? Also fuck yeah.


Purple Jackal said:


> It's still bullshit that people are quick to side the baker, when its clear he was being awkward prick to be blunt. All they wanted a just a cake with gay acceptance or something.


It's my understanding that he both offered them any premade cake and offered to direct them to other bakeries he knew would be willing to take on their cake order. That said, I may have my info wrong.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Dec 17, 2018)

Jarren said:


> It's my understanding that he both offered them any premade cake and offered to direct them to other bakeries he knew would be willing to take on their cake order. That said, I may have my info wrong.


I've already spoke my piece on why _isn't_ unprofessional to turn down a potential commission client who is blatantly following white supremacists who spread conspiracy theories about white genocide. I don't know why some among feel that those with an affinity for Alt-Right should be entitled to art from artists don't want to associate with that kind of hatred.

As for the baker, he didn't offer them a premade, though he did offer them other baked goods and other store locations ... even though they were there for a wedding. I'm just saying this since facts do matter and unlike this fiasco with the OP's pal, we actually know the facts of this case very well. 

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Wikipedia

I'll also add that a lot of people seem to be conflating the two instances here when they are both very different in circumstances and when we know very little about what happened with one of those instances.


----------



## Liseran Thistle (Dec 17, 2018)

(note: I am a gay woman myself, I was just raised christian. I am not defending the baker or the couple, but I kinda think the baker was being an asshole, just a little.)

Honestly, I feel like we kind of head into murky territory when we start saying that business owners reserve the right to refuse anyone, because it sounds like a lawsuit just waiting to happen (Which is what happened here with the cake thing, so go figure.) I mean yeah you can say "I don't serve nazis, so leave" because thats a shitty political idea revolving around murdering a bunch of people who are different than you. But if you say "I don't serve gay people because it's against my religion" than it's just blatant blasphemy in the face of God and the patrons in the shop. I was raised in a christian household, and whenever any wack job says "I don't cater to gay people because thats against the bible" they're basically liars. See, God does in fact say that stupid line about man not laying with another man, and a million other people have already corrected the translation error and called this line out as being directly tampered with and shit (If you're really interested in the subject of the bible and it's many alterations, feel free to just google it you'll find many articles on it, just make sure to check your sources religion can be a very tricky, and purposefully misleading thing when on the internet.) God did say that line about man, but before he told us that he also told us "Thou shalt not judge". Judging people based on literally anything is a sin that was once unforgivable in his eyes, so you can see why I don't bother with christians like that. 

It's not against your religion to serve two people in a cake shop. Being gay is against your religion, but serving people who ARE gay is totally something you can do, and something god WANTS you to do. Jesus especially wants you to do it because he loves everyone, and would never tell you to treat someone so coldly and in such an abrupt manner, because it isn't your place at all. Judging people is not something humans should worry about, and if they do they are crossing a line in the eyes of god and acting like they have some kind of authority over others, which they don't. I get the baker didn't want to make a cake because of some autonomous reason about gay people and the bible, but its very ridiculous in my eyes and they were being a huge asshole. (When I say judging people, I am of course excluding extreme things like murder and stuff duh. just petty shit like "That girls hair looks weird so i won't sit with her" or "He's trans, and I don't like that, so i'm going to mock him for it."

Saying you won't serve gay people in your good christian bakery because it goes against the bible is like if my muslim friend told me I couldn't come to her house because I eat pork and thats against her religion. The baker was just using the bible as a means to not be around people that made them feel uncomfortable with reality, and the reality is that times are a changing and ain't nothing you can do about it. Jesus would not want you to wallow away, crying about how the gays are taking over, he'd want you to live beside them and be their friend because OTHER PEOPLE'S SEX LIVES/SEXUALITY IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS, AND ONLY GOD IS ALLOWED TO JUDGE PEOPLE ON THOSE GROUNDS. You as a human don't get to make the rules of who gets civil rights and who doesn't, which is a huge reason society has sucked for as long as society has existed. No one is ever happy except for straight white dudes with lots of money, and thats because they've gotten it into their head since the very beginning that they can just make whatever rules they want, and they'll just change all of Jesus' words and say they "Speak for him". If jesus were alive today, no one would like him because he wouldn't look like a white, middle aged man with baby blue eyes like all of the pictures paint him as and I find that to be such a disheartening fact.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Dec 17, 2018)

Liseran Thistle said:


> (note: I am a gay woman myself, I was just raised christian. I am not defending the baker or the couple, but I kinda think the baker was being an asshole, just a little.)
> 
> Honestly, I feel like we kind of head into murky territory when we start saying that business owners reserve the right to refuse anyone, because it sounds like a lawsuit just waiting to happen (Which is what happened here with the cake thing, so go figure.) I mean yeah you can say "I don't serve nazis, so leave" because thats a shitty political idea revolving around murdering a bunch of people who are different than you. But if you say "I don't serve gay people because it's against my religion" than it's just blatant blasphemy in the face of God and the patrons in the shop. I was raised in a christian household, and whenever any wack job says "I don't cater to gay people because thats against the bible" they're basically liars. See, God does in fact say that stupid line about man not laying with another man, and a million other people have already corrected the translation error and called this line out as being directly tampered with and shit (If you're really interested in the subject of the bible and it's many alterations, feel free to just google it you'll find many articles on it, just make sure to check your sources religion can be a very tricky, and purposefully misleading thing when on the internet.) God did say that line about man, but before he told us that he also told us "Thou shalt not judge". Judging people based on literally anything is a sin that was once unforgivable in his eyes, so you can see why I don't bother with christians like that.
> 
> ...


I agree. Preach.


----------



## Liseran Thistle (Dec 17, 2018)

Unicon said:


> I agree. Preach.



holy cow i got a follower! theres nothing on my page, though I do have interesting theories on spongebob if you want.


----------



## Apoc-Volkov (Dec 17, 2018)

Liseran Thistle said:


> (note: I am a gay woman myself, I was just raised christian. I am not defending the baker or the couple, but I kinda think the baker was being an asshole, just a little.)
> 
> Honestly, I feel like we kind of head into murky territory when we start saying that business owners reserve the right to refuse anyone, because it sounds like a lawsuit just waiting to happen (Which is what happened here with the cake thing, so go figure.) I mean yeah you can say "I don't serve nazis, so leave" because thats a shitty political idea revolving around murdering a bunch of people who are different than you. But if you say "I don't serve gay people because it's against my religion" than it's just blatant blasphemy in the face of God and the patrons in the shop. I was raised in a christian household, and whenever any wack job says "I don't cater to gay people because thats against the bible" they're basically liars. See, God does in fact say that stupid line about man not laying with another man, and a million other people have already corrected the translation error and called this line out as being directly tampered with and shit (If you're really interested in the subject of the bible and it's many alterations, feel free to just google it you'll find many articles on it, just make sure to check your sources religion can be a very tricky, and purposefully misleading thing when on the internet.) God did say that line about man, but before he told us that he also told us "Thou shalt not judge". Judging people based on literally anything is a sin that was once unforgivable in his eyes, so you can see why I don't bother with christians like that.
> 
> ...


One could easily use this rationale to argue that whatever the customer does outside of the business transaction is none of the service provider's business.

On a more pragmatic note, there is bound to be a culture clash in any multicultural society, regardless of how tolerant the people involved are of one another. Trying to force the issue under those circumstances, especially by means of preachy lecturing, will not only backfire but also can potentially make matters worse for everyone involved. Be mindful that the only actions we can reliably control are our own; the onus is on all of us to not act like the complete and utter idiots we tend to become when tempers rise.

If some idiot wants to use a rather liberal interpretation of some holy text to justify whatever breed of lunacy they fancy as their malfunction, yeah, it's within the public right to have them quarantined and possibly resocialized as a matter of damage control. If it's a genuine cultural artifact that someone adheres to out of tradition however, like for instance the fact that Muslim males are not allowed to touch a female they are not closely related to (the actual commandment, as it were, is framed a lot more conservatively in the Quran), and said tradition doesn't conflict with any existing laws, demanding that the service provider do something that goes against their core beliefs is unwarranted harassment.


----------



## Sunburst_Odell (Dec 17, 2018)

Unicon said:


> I would put it out there that I would just like to hear from @Sunburst_Odell and @Yakamaru about their thoughts on whether we should be denying gay people business services and if it is appropriate to address this.



Would have replied sooner but I thought this thread was locked until I saw it on the new posts tab.

But I'm not sure how you got the idea that I want to deny gay people services just because I mentioned politics always end up in a flame war? I never said anything that implies that at all.

I don't like talking about my political stance because I'm not very politically smart, mostly because I don't care enough about politics to stay informed, and in the past it always backfired on me. But, just so you know, I'm not homophobic. Far from it. So please do not drag me into this.

Anyway, after this I'm not replying to anything because I don't really want to get into this, and arguments in general are very stressful for me.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Dec 18, 2018)

Sunburst_Odell said:


> Would have replied sooner but I thought this thread was locked until I saw it on the new posts tab.
> 
> But I'm not sure how you got the idea that I want to deny gay people services just because I mentioned politics always end up in a flame war? I never said anything that implies that at all.
> 
> ...


I apologize if I made you feel that way because that totally wasn't my intention. I just wanted to hear your thoughts on whether I should've commented. I don't really have any beef with you. Sorry I if caused you any undue stress.


----------



## Sunburst_Odell (Dec 18, 2018)

Unicon said:


> I apologize if I made you feel that way because that totally wasn't my intention. I just wanted to hear your thoughts on whether I should've commented. I don't really have any beef with you. Sorry if caused you any undue stress.


It's alright, and I'm sorry if I sounded snappy. Looking back I sounded a little harsh and I feel bad about it.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Dec 18, 2018)

Sunburst_Odell said:


> It's alright, and I'm sorry if I sounded snappy. Looking back I sounded a little harsh and I feel bad about it.


Nothing to feel bad about and I didn't take it as snappy. Have a good night.


----------



## Purple Jackal (Dec 18, 2018)

Liseran Thistle said:


> (note: I am a gay woman myself, I was just raised christian. I am not defending the baker or the couple, but I kinda think the baker was being an asshole, just a little.)
> 
> Honestly, I feel like we kind of head into murky territory when we start saying that business owners reserve the right to refuse anyone, because it sounds like a lawsuit just waiting to happen (Which is what happened here with the cake thing, so go figure.) I mean yeah you can say "I don't serve nazis, so leave" because thats a shitty political idea revolving around murdering a bunch of people who are different than you. But if you say "I don't serve gay people because it's against my religion" than it's just blatant blasphemy in the face of God and the patrons in the shop. I was raised in a christian household, and whenever any wack job says "I don't cater to gay people because thats against the bible" they're basically liars. See, God does in fact say that stupid line about man not laying with another man, and a million other people have already corrected the translation error and called this line out as being directly tampered with and shit (If you're really interested in the subject of the bible and it's many alterations, feel free to just google it you'll find many articles on it, just make sure to check your sources religion can be a very tricky, and purposefully misleading thing when on the internet.) God did say that line about man, but before he told us that he also told us "Thou shalt not judge". Judging people based on literally anything is a sin that was once unforgivable in his eyes, so you can see why I don't bother with christians like that.
> 
> ...



The Discord i had this debate kept going around saying "It's his place go find a another baker". Apparently its okay to them, to refuse serving LGBT customers and that were being rude to christians.


----------



## Massan Otter (Dec 18, 2018)

Liseran Thistle said:


> holy cow i got a follower! theres nothing on my page, though I do have interesting theories on spongebob if you want.



Actually, that sounds like precisely the kind of thread we need around here at the moment!


----------



## ItsBrou (Dec 18, 2018)

Oh, hey. These threads are fun.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Dec 18, 2018)

Rusty_Raccoon said:


> I'm sorry if someone else said what I said, I only looked at about the first three pages of this thead. Of course, there's the fact that we don't have all the info or know OP's friend personally or anything, but assuming OP is being truthful, speaking from my personal experiences, I doubt OP's friend is a nazi or alt righter and is covering himself for following this accounts or anything.


There's a few issues with this:
1) The artist has no way of knowing which is the case
2) The previously raised point about the artist possibly feeling unsafe doing work for them because it leaves breadcrumbs between people who have extreme positions and themselves, via any reposting the commissioner does, doesn't care about whether the follows are serious. If it risks leading extremists back to the artist, it risks leading extremists back to the artist.
3) Exposure to extremist talking points over time often leads to people being influenced by those opinions. Basically, just because someone started listening to alt-righters to mock them, doesn't mean they won't internalize some of what's said. If it were just Donald Trump's account, that would be one thing, especially since he's taken to announcing policy via Twitter, but it's not only Trump.
4) It could be a "line in the sand" thing for the artist. They want no association, even indirectly. 

Now, do I agree with calling people nazis without very strong evidence that they actually engage in spreading white supremacist ideology? Not at all. I don't agree with the extent some people let perceived association poison their opinion of others. But given that a lot of people who do subscribe to toxic ideologies will say the exact same things to try to escape social repercussions for those positions, I wouldn't think it entirely fair to expect the artist to take their word for it that they're not alt-right, honest!


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 18, 2018)

Shadow of Bucephalus said:


> *BINGO*
> 
> This is one of the ways society governs itself, instead of some governmental bureaucracy or robe-garmented Elder sitting behind a desk.
> Society tends to change more slowly, *which can be a good or bad thing*, depending.  I see far more harm jumping to conclusions (how many wars/conflicts have we seen over the centuries, that were based off completely inaccurate presumption(s)?  And it keeps right-on truckin' along...)



In this case, if a business that banned people with the 'wrong' skin colour thrived (as you put it) that would be an incredibly bad thing.

That behaviour is morally inexcusable, and preventing bad behaviours like that is one of the functions of the state.


----------



## Inpw (Dec 18, 2018)

You're allowed to not do business with whoever you want. And the OP is allowed to mention it and we're allowed to criticise it. 

Personally the artist is an idiot who like many other people turned politics into their religion because they have nothing better to do. If bullshit starts to define who you are you are a bullshit person.


----------



## Furryfox777 (Dec 18, 2018)

Denying service based on religion, skin colour, sex, and any other inherent trait or affiliation, is stupid. And for most of aforementioned, illegal and or unethical.

Political affiliation is not (to my knowledge) a protected identity as such, but in my opinion that does not make it any more respectable to discriminate based on it. That said, I'm also a firm adherent to not shoving your own beliefs down someone else's throat and forcing them to accomodate you. Which makes it an interesting dilemma. My opinion, taking the things here at face value, is that the artist is stupid - but well within his rights to not offer service for any reason. You can criticize that decision, and I think you should. But he's perfectly allowed to offer his services for free, charge for his services, or deny them, as he or she pleases.
I think it's wrong to do so for a number of reasons. But having read some of the other input here, I can understand why one might choose to do so.

To answer the initial question:
Justified? Yes.
Unprofessional? No.
Stupid? In my opinion, yes.

We're all people, we all have different opinions, feelings, and ideas. Hating each other and building walls between us is not - contrary to some recent ideas - a good solution. In some cases, it may be a necessary action as the last resort. But it's never a good solution.


----------



## Shadow of Bucephalus (Dec 18, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> In this case, if a business that banned people with the 'wrong' skin colour thrived (as you put it) that would be an incredibly bad thing.
> 
> That behaviour is morally inexcusable, and preventing bad behaviours like that is one of the functions of the state.



*"preventing bad behaviours like that is one of the functions of the state."*

Here we agree to disagree.

I do not, will not, and cannot imagine ever thinking my morality/behavior is the responsibility of my (or anyone else's). 'Government'.
IF that were true?
Name one thing (here in America at least.  I won't pretend to speak on behalf of another Nation.), that our 'Government' has done right, in, oh, say the last THIRTY (plus) YEARS?

One.  Thing.

I'm not about to hand-over the reins like that.

That is the function of society, and by default (since we're discussing capitalism/money), commerce and good or bad business sense and decisions.

This conversation has become circular (like that's anything new).

I stand by my original post and sentiment-

Any business has the Right to refuse service to anyone.

Period.

There are some things the government should regulate, as has already been mentioned-  necessary materials/services.  Medical, Food, etc., should in no way be denied because of prejudice.

A wedding cake is not going to kill you if you don't eat it.  (quite the contrary, really)


----------



## Troj (Dec 18, 2018)

One of the functions of the state is to protect people from each other and from predatory institutions (including the government itself), so that everyone can enjoy the same basic rights and a basic level of comfort and safety.

The state can choose to "nudge" people away from undesirable behaviors and towards desirable ones with propaganda/education campaigns, social incentives, financial incentivizes, and peer pressure, but making "good" or "nice" behavior compulsory is one of the red flags of totalitarianism.

Anti-discrimination laws need to be grounded in the former above intention, and not the latter one--but, if the latter aim is achieved in the process, that's certainly a cherry on top.

Anyway, as long as artists are transparent, clear, and open about their policies, I see no reason why they can't politely turn down a commission request because they don't want to be associated with certain people, ideas, or content, or don't want their art to be misused, abused, or misappropriated. People are free to criticize that artist and take their business elsewhere, but the artist still gets to draw that boundary.

When the commissioner is a fundamentally-decent person who's just been misjudged by an artist, that's genuinely unfortunate. When the commissioner has earned a bad reputation through sketchy (ha ha) deeds, then they only have themselves to blame.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 19, 2018)

Shadow of Bucephalus said:


> *"preventing bad behaviours like that is one of the functions of the state."*
> 
> Here we agree to disagree.
> 
> ...



Of course regulating bad behaviour that harms society is in the purview of the Government. Why else do you think there are laws against littering? 

Sure you _could _make the argument that in _your_ moral system there's nothing wrong with dropping your trash wherever you want; how unfair that the tyrannical government forces its pansy-ass morality upon you!


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Dec 19, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I know more about American politics than most Americans, if you count babies and children and old people with dementia.
> 
> I am very smart.


Insane joke reply: Lies! You do not know American politics while I drink blue sky back and upwardsssss..........

Serious reply: *sigh* I sincerely doubt you understand the difference between political and general public America as most Americans from the general public are apathetic towards world affairs and tend to focus on local problems. I can imagine the same goes for any other human society as humans tend to be more focus on their own issues rather focus on a problem outside of their control. (This has become a massive issue due to the rise of the Internet and mass media being shoved in said apathetic citizens faces causing more negative backlash to become more frequent. Though America needs to stop shoving its problems on to the world stage and making drama out of it and acting self entitled. Though the same can be said about any other country and Americans just need to set a better example.)


----------



## Slytherin Umbreon (Dec 19, 2018)

ZeroVoidTime said:


> I sincerely doubt you understand the difference between political and general public America as most Americans from the general public are apathetic towards world affairs and tend to focus on local problems.


Just want to add to this, it's been a running joke for years, that many American's couldn't pass the citizenship test we make immigrants go through.
I don't know how valid that is, but it's a thing.
I'm pretty sure our President can't.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 19, 2018)

Slytherin Umbreon said:


> Just want to add to this, it's been a running joke for years, that many American's couldn't pass the citizenship test we make immigrants go through.
> I don't know how valid that is, but it's a thing.
> I'm pretty sure our President can't.


That was actually a study that was done. 

And our current president doesn't even know what powers he does and doesn't have, bust on the frequency of attempted constitutional violations. 

That or he's seeing what he can get away with. Either circumstance being really bad...


----------



## idkthough120 (Dec 19, 2018)

wait, what


----------



## Slytherin Umbreon (Dec 19, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> And our current president doesn't even know what powers he does and doesn't have, bust on the frequency of attempted constitutional violations.


Question 1: Who is the President of the United States?
Trump: -ugly smirk-

Question 2: Literally anything
Trump: -smirk wiped off- I refuse to take this, this test was written by the Left Fake News Alien Climate Change Trade Deal Investigation!


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Dec 19, 2018)

Personally I blame our poorly run public schools in the United States as they fail to teach how our government works and practically little to no life skills upon graduation. (Yes I know parents are suppose to teach their children how to function in society and learn life skills through them but parents will not know everything and will not always be there to help.)


----------



## Infrarednexus (Dec 19, 2018)

ZeroVoidTime said:


> Personally I blame our poorly run public schools in the United States as they fail to teach how our government works and practically little to no life skills upon graduation. (Yes I know parents are suppose to teach their children how to function in society and learn life skills through them but parents will not know everything and will not always be there to help.)


_"Education is the key that unlocks the golden door of freedom"_- George Washington Carver


----------



## pandasayori (Dec 20, 2018)

Whoot, late to the thread but here with an opinion!

I’m a tiny black artist who likes to think of myself as somewhere between liberal and centrist. I don’t really like extreme views on either side. That said, I also operate on “ignorance is bliss” as well as the “don’t ask don’t tell” method of interacting with others. I’m not going to hunt around and see what kind of political alignment a potential client has. I’m open to listen to their inquiry and deciding on if it’s doable or not.

The language the OP artist used was a bit uncalled for in my opinion. Disagreeing with differing point of views is fine and dandy, but it doesn’t make your political view better once the name calling come out. (Right wing chud in this case.) That’s just how I see it regardless of where anyone stands on the political spectrum

At the end of the day, I’m here to provide a service that pleases a commissioner. The situation could have been handled better, but that was entirely  up to the OP artist.


----------



## Liseran Thistle (Dec 20, 2018)

Apoc-Volkov said:


> One could easily use this rationale to argue that whatever the customer does outside of the business transaction is none of the service provider's business.
> 
> On a more pragmatic note, there is bound to be a culture clash in any multicultural society, regardless of how tolerant the people involved are of one another. Trying to force the issue under those circumstances, especially by means of preachy lecturing, will not only backfire but also can potentially make matters worse for everyone involved. Be mindful that the only actions we can reliably control are our own; the onus is on all of us to not act like the complete and utter idiots we tend to become when tempers rise.
> 
> If some idiot wants to use a rather liberal interpretation of some holy text to justify whatever breed of lunacy they fancy as their malfunction, yeah, it's within the public right to have them quarantined and possibly resocialized as a matter of damage control. If it's a genuine cultural artifact that someone adheres to out of tradition however, like for instance the fact that Muslim males are not allowed to touch a female they are not closely related to (the actual commandment, as it were, is framed a lot more conservatively in the Quran), and said tradition doesn't conflict with any existing laws, demanding that the service provider do something that goes against their core beliefs is unwarranted harassment.



Except there's a huge problem with you're comparison. The quran has a direct line that tells muslims they aren't allowed to do certain things, and so muslims follow it. But there is NO line in the bible, save one that's already been directly tampered with for the deceitful purpose of opressing a group of people, that says "Thou shalt not serve those who are gay", My point was that this baker was using her religion as a crutch for her own bigotry, and honestly this kind of thinking where we blindly defend people's use of "Freedom of Speech" or "freedom of religion" and we brush off their shitty behvaior because it "Techinally falls in the legal boundaries of those laws" is why even though gay marriage is legal in the states we still have assholes in texas and virginia trying their hardest to take that right away from people. It's why we have people saying that "Gay people aren't opressed anymore" because their idea of opression is being locked away, and hunted down for sport, and having intolrable laws set against you. Because they think "I'm not doing something THAT bad, so I'm not really being a jerk right now." We as a society need to step out of our comfort zone, and tell people like that baker to go fuck themselves, because they're acting like an asshole, and I firmly stand by the age old mantra of "Treat others how you would like to be treated." 

This doesn't just mean we should treat people nice, it means we should treat people who treat others terribly like shit, because otherwise they will never learn. Maybe this baker will learn not to be such a dick if people stopped buying caes from them, or if we gave warnings about them to others, gay AND straight. If you don't tolerate my existence and my right to live a happy successful life with a person I love, then I certainly am not going to tolerate being treated in that way, and other people shouldn't either. No one should have to sacrifice their civil rights just so someone else can practice their own. That's not how civil rights work.


----------



## Apoc-Volkov (Dec 20, 2018)

Liseran Thistle said:


> Except there's a huge problem with you're comparison. The quran has a direct line that tells muslims they aren't allowed to do certain things, and so muslims follow it. But there is NO line in the bible, save one that's already been directly tampered with for the deceitful purpose of opressing a group of people, that says "Thou shalt not serve those who are gay", My point was that this baker was using her religion as a crutch for her own bigotry, and honestly this kind of thinking where we blindly defend people's use of "Freedom of Speech" or "freedom of religion" and we brush off their shitty behvaior because it "Techinally falls in the legal boundaries of those laws" is why even though gay marriage is legal in the states we still have assholes in texas and virginia trying their hardest to take that right away from people. It's why we have people saying that "Gay people aren't opressed anymore" because their idea of opression is being locked away, and hunted down for sport, and having intolrable laws set against you. Because they think "I'm not doing something THAT bad, so I'm not really being a jerk right now." We as a society need to step out of our comfort zone, and tell people like that baker to go fuck themselves, because they're acting like an asshole, and I firmly stand by the age old mantra of "Treat others how you would like to be treated."
> 
> This doesn't just mean we should treat people nice, it means we should treat people who treat others terribly like shit, because otherwise they will never learn. Maybe this baker will learn not to be such a dick if people stopped buying caes from them, or if we gave warnings about them to others, gay AND straight. If you don't tolerate my existence and my right to live a happy successful life with a person I love, then I certainly am not going to tolerate being treated in that way, and other people shouldn't either. No one should have to sacrifice their civil rights just so someone else can practice their own. That's not how civil rights work.


I believe you're overlooking the point I made about people being rather liberal in how they interpret their holy text in order to justify the lunacy that is their malfunction. Any dumbass can take the "sacred" word wildly out of context should it suit their whims, regardless of the word's original intent. Case in point, the martyrdom that Islamic suicide bombers seek is not proscribed in the Quran; it's more often than not a deliberate misinterpretation of a verse venerating those who die while defending others.

For the sake of record however, when your holy book was written by bronze-age desert-dwelling goat-herders whose expectation for married couples was to make a lot of babies, it's not going to leave much to the fundamentalist imagination when they romanticize some parodic ideal based off of it.


----------



## thombol (Dec 21, 2018)

Sindenbock said:


> So a few days ago my buddy tried contacting an artist to ask for a commission. Said artist then immediantely called him a troll and threatened to block him because my buddy followed 'alt-right accounts' (which I assume he does because of the giggles n sh*t). AFter nearly 15 minutes of defending himself, the person called him a liar , a troll and that infamous 'n' word  and blocked them. here is a tweet they sent out moments later:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Highly unprofessional. A boycott might get their attention.


----------



## thombol (Dec 21, 2018)

Liseran Thistle said:


> Except there's a huge problem with you're comparison. The quran has a direct line that tells muslims they aren't allowed to do certain things, and so muslims follow it. But there is NO line in the bible, save one that's already been directly tampered with for the deceitful purpose of opressing a group of people, that says "Thou shalt not serve those who are gay", My point was that this baker was using her religion as a crutch for her own bigotry, and honestly this kind of thinking where we blindly defend people's use of "Freedom of Speech" or "freedom of religion" and we brush off their shitty behvaior because it "Techinally falls in the legal boundaries of those laws" is why even though gay marriage is legal in the states we still have assholes in texas and virginia trying their hardest to take that right away from people. It's why we have people saying that "Gay people aren't opressed anymore" because their idea of opression is being locked away, and hunted down for sport, and having intolrable laws set against you. Because they think "I'm not doing something THAT bad, so I'm not really being a jerk right now." We as a society need to step out of our comfort zone, and tell people like that baker to go fuck themselves, because they're acting like an asshole, and I firmly stand by the age old mantra of "Treat others how you would like to be treated."
> 
> This doesn't just mean we should treat people nice, it means we should treat people who treat others terribly like shit, because otherwise they will never learn. Maybe this baker will learn not to be such a dick if people stopped buying caes from them, or if we gave warnings about them to others, gay AND straight. If you don't tolerate my existence and my right to live a happy successful life with a person I love, then I certainly am not going to tolerate being treated in that way, and other people shouldn't either. No one should have to sacrifice their civil rights just so someone else can practice their own. That's not how civil rights work.



You assume the baker had anti-gay sentiments, which is a horrible projection on your part.


----------



## Massan Otter (Dec 21, 2018)

thombol said:


> Highly unprofessional. A boycott might get their attention.



I'd think they might rather welcome a boycott from people they would have refused to serve anyway.


----------



## thombol (Dec 21, 2018)

Massan Otter said:


> I'd think they might rather welcome a boycott from people they would have refused to serve anyway.



There are people on the left who would disagree with that person and probably join in.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 21, 2018)

thombol said:


> Highly unprofessional. A boycott might get their attention.


Should we destroy our Nike products too?


thombol said:


> You assume the baker had anti-gay sentiments, which is a horrible projection on your part.


The baker was very adamant in their anti-gay stance. Most Christians don't choose to deny service to gay people, because nothing in their faith holds they should do so. That's bigotry within the faith born of where said faith decries homosexuality as sinful and abomination. But seeing as Christians have no problem serving shellfish, I think there is an element of selective enforcement.


----------



## Simo (Dec 21, 2018)




----------



## Slytherin Umbreon (Dec 21, 2018)

How can these threads be derailed

.

When they clearly have no rails to begin with?


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Dec 21, 2018)

Money is money; if you're looking to take commissions than what difference does it make? Hmm?


----------



## Apoc-Volkov (Dec 22, 2018)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> Money is money; if you're looking to take commissions than what difference does it make? Hmm?


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Dec 22, 2018)

Simo said:


>


>LGBT is now a religion

Time to put on my Atheist hat then


----------



## Apoc-Volkov (Dec 22, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> >LGBT is now a religion
> 
> Time to put on my Atheist hat then


That's probably reading into it too much, but it wouldn't surprise me if there really are a few who profess such a thing.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 22, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> >LGBT is now a religion
> 
> Time to put on my Atheist hat then





Apoc-Volkov said:


> That's probably reading into it too much, but it wouldn't surprise me if there really are a few who profess such a thing.


You dipshits do realize some gay people have religions like Christianity right?


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Dec 22, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> You dipshits do realize some gay people have religions like Christianity right?


Ofc I know

I should know since I'm a conservative faggot


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 22, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Ofc I know
> 
> I should know since I'm a conservative faggot


Ah, I think you were joking, but the limits of text based communication resulted in Poe's law.


----------



## Apoc-Volkov (Dec 22, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> You dipshits do realize some gay people have religions like Christianity right?


Considering how many conservative Christians in the States privately ask Google if they're gay, I'd imagine the number is much higher than either of us care to admit.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Dec 22, 2018)

Apoc-Volkov said:


> Considering how many conservative Christians in the States privately ask Google if they're gay, I'd imagine the number is much higher than either of us care to admit.


What a weird coincidence :V
Just today a guy chat with me needing help figuring out his sexuality


----------



## killercuckquean (Dec 22, 2018)

my opinion is that they, as someone who's providing a non-vital service, have the right to refuse to do something for _any damn reason._ they could refuse to take the comission because the comissioner's hair pisses them off, doesn't matter.

but it's an *awful* way to run a business ("business" being used loosely here). that's money walking right out the door, and it's silly to let that happen. but they can do what they want.


----------



## Apoc-Volkov (Dec 22, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> What a weird coincidence :V
> Just today a guy chat with me needing help figuring out his sexuality
> 
> View attachment 50425 View attachment 50426


The funny part is that it isn't just Google searches for "gay tests" that corroborates this; their wives are just as likely to ask Google how to tell if their husbands are in the closet, with nothing to say of Pornhub statistics.

It is however a sobering fact that, due to humans being a communal species by nature, such individuals have little to gain from publicly accepting that part of their identity in a society that actively discourages it, and most will even lie to themselves about it.


----------



## TrishaCat (Dec 22, 2018)

Artists can decline commissions for any reason. They arent required to draw for you. 

Them flipping out is dumb but I'm curious as to how your friend engaged the artist. I feel like it would be better to see how the conversation went before passing judgement


----------



## Gradiusgadwin (Dec 22, 2018)

Imagine being so obsessed with politics that you refuse accepting money from people with different political beliefs. Then again these people still believe in a political ideology that NEVER worked and yet they have the delusion that it will work this time while blaming capitalism for current cases like Venezuela's poverty. This is why these kind of people suck at business. Like when making comics and video games with zero quality and full with shoved political agendas and of course they fail commercially and their companies end up shutting down. Get woke, go broke.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Dec 22, 2018)

Gradiusgadwin said:


> Imagine being so obsessed with politics that you refuse accepting money from people with different political beliefs. Then again these people still believe in a political ideology that NEVER worked and yet they have the delusion that it will work this time while blaming capitalism for current cases like Venezuela's poverty. This is why these kind of people suck at business. Like when making comics and video games with zero quality and full with shoved political agendas and of course they fail commercially and their companies end up shutting down. Get woke, go broke.


Reminds me of EA's BF5

>Forced political agenda in the game
>Fans be mad
>Don't buy it if you don't like it
>Tell their player base that they're ignorant and uneducated
>EA's Stock market falls so hard.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 22, 2018)

Gradiusgadwin said:


> Imagine being so obsessed with politics that you refuse accepting money from people with different political beliefs. Then again these people still believe in a political ideology that NEVER worked and yet they have the delusion that it will work this time while blaming capitalism for current cases like Venezuela's poverty. This is why these kind of people suck at business. Like when making comics and video games with zero quality and full with shoved political agendas and of course they fail commercially and their companies end up shutting down. Get woke, go broke.


You do realize Venezuela has been embargoed to some degree by most major countries right?


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 23, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Reminds me of EA's BF5
> 
> >Forced political agenda in the game
> >Fans be mad
> ...


I love how having a female character in a shooting game is a political agenda, but calling for a border wall and calling immigrants terrorists is apolitical.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Dec 23, 2018)

Just want to remind people that *there's more to good business sense than taking any money you're offered*. If completing a custom order for Edgy McIronicallyFollowingAltRighters will alienate your returning customer base (and a lot of artists do have regular customers to some degree), it's actually _bad_ business sense to take that commission, however nice that money might look in the short term. A company can be if not ruined, so at least take a significant hit to their bottom line by being perceived to be sympathetic to racist/white supremacist agendas. Most freelance artists don't have room for that in their bottom lines.

Now, publicly subtweeting about it sounds pretty unprofessional, but we also don't really know how much nagging the artist took from the would-be customer before reaching that point. (Bugging an artist to take your commission after you've been told no is being a shitty customer.)


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Dec 23, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> I love how having a female character in a shooting game is a political agenda, but calling for a border wall and calling immigrants terrorists is apolitical.


They're both political. What hole did you come from that you assume the wall isn't political?


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 23, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> They're both political. What hole did you come from that you assume the wall isn't political?


The one where you keep calling yourself apolitical.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 23, 2018)

Also, if having a woman in a game is a political agenda, then I have some bad news for you about Metroid. 

Women want shooters. Women want female characters in shooters. The market isn't going to eternally ignore that demographic just so gaming can keep being a boys club.


----------



## Dancy (Dec 23, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> >EA's Stock market falls so hard.


_electronic arts doesn't own a stock market._
_and their stock price is up._
_just saying._​


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Dec 23, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> The one where you keep calling yourself apolitical.


I did not claim to be apolitical, I just "try" to be impartial as possible.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 23, 2018)

Sorry I was thinking of yaka. 

It gets hard keeping dipshits straight.

As for impartiality, you frequently delve int alt-right-esque rants, and consider having a female character in a game a political agenda rather than a business move to exploit a growing demographic. That's before the we discuss the fact you quoted information from largely right wing sources that originally traces back to court documents that didn't even substantiate your position, in order to bash the mother in a custody battle for allowing their child to wear dresses. You used a shitty father's attempts to curry public opinion through misinformation to trans bash. You are far from impartial, borderline fascist, and a transphobe who thinks they are far more subtle than they actual are.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 23, 2018)

Your most recent "Opinion Piece" was an attempt to bait out anti-trans sentiment, and subtly dehumanise trans women under the guise of "fairness".


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 23, 2018)

And you have actively stated to value border security over civil liberties, while praising Trump like another coming of Christ.


----------



## Lexiand (Dec 23, 2018)

I guess thats less money for them. Move on


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 23, 2018)

Gradiusgadwin said:


> Imagine being so obsessed with politics that you refuse accepting money from people with different political beliefs.



Imo if somebody is just like 'I vote for the labour party' or 'I vote for the conservative party' then refusing their business is rude. 

However, if somebody's 'political beliefs' are 'I think that there's a conspiracy to replace white people', then _*ho-lee-sheet*_, get that person away from me; I don't want their grubby money. 
Stephan Molyneux, the user that the OP admitted their friend follows, believes exactly that.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Dec 23, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> As for impartiality, you frequently delve int alt-right-esque rants, and consider having a female character in a game a political agenda rather than a business move to exploit a growing demographic.


We have no poblemem with having woman in video-games, we have games with strong female charactera like Bayonetta, The protagonist in Metroid, just to name a few. Having a disabled woman in Battlefield 5, a  video game that's supposed to be an exact replication of the events in WW3 just reaks political agenda. Look at the sales numbers: EA have to do a 50% discount mere few weeks after launch... Where there the enlightened SJW's purchasing their game? *Looks around*

They sure know their demographics :V



Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> That's before the we discuss the fact you quoted information from largely right wing sources that originally traces back to court documents that didn't even substantiate your position, in order to bash the mother in a custody battle for allowing their child to wear dresses. You used a shitty father's attempts to curry public opinion through misinformation to trans bash. You are far from impartial, borderline fascist, and a transphobe who thinks they are far more subtle than they actual are.



This is basically ad hominen attack and character evidence. Up until this point nobody has done anything to disprove me that the mother was a c*nt for making their 6 year old son transition too early via hormonal suppression.

All I'm getting for you was hurr durr.. fEdeRaliSt is right wing! HuRR DuRr DaIlY mAil is RigHt wing. It's PrOpoGanda!

Ok then.. show me a different source then. I was asking that and I got nothing up until now.

The only thing substantial I got from you and your lackeys is that the father acted aggresively towards the mother, which still didn't address anything that would help the child's case about being forced into hormonal suppression. The mother still remains to be a c*nt and you still haven't changed our mind about it

And yes I do have biases and it's no secret to many here but I still gave you left wing Democrats a chance to tout us when I covered the Trump HiV story or the Next Brock Turner story

But you know.. that gets forgotten because it's convenient


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 23, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> We have no poblemem with having woman in video-games, we have games with strong female charactera like Bayonetta, The protagonist in Metroid, just to name a few. Having a disabled woman in Battlefield 5, a  video game that's supposed to be an exact replication of the events in WW3 just reaks political agenda. Look at the sales numbers: EA have to do a 50% discount mere few weeks after launch... Where there the enlightened SJW's purchasing their game? *Looks around*
> 
> They sure know their demographics :V
> 
> ...



Mikazuki. :\ I showed you the website the father set up, which included scans of court documents. 

I know that you _want_ to believe that mothers who stand up for gender non-conformign children are secretly all 'bitches' 'c*nts', mentally damaged, over-bearing and so forth. 
which is why that whole thread was so embarrassing. We got as far as you asking me whether I'd be able to forgive violent fathers if they behaved violently because of sincere religious beliefs. 

You're allowing your morality to be very seriously warped by online trash-news.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Dec 23, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> We got as far as you asking me whether I'd be able to forgive violent fathers if they behaved violently because of sincere religious beliefs.


You conveniently forgot to mention that the father had female clothing for the child to wear so you stating it's due to religious beliefs is just your baseless assumption

You have given me a source that the father attacked the mother but that's just it.

As far as I can see
>People calling mother an ass
>You don't like it us calling her an ass
>Gives me source that father is also an ass
>Still nothing to disprove that mother is an ass


So what's the point of your court documents?

To be more sympathetic towards the mother?


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 23, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> You conveniently forgot to mention that the father had female clothing for the child to wear so you stating it's due to religious beliefs is just your baseless assumption



Because that would make his violent behaviour okay?

The religious aspect of the story wasn't exactly hidden either Mikazuki. The website that the father set up was very open about the religious perspective (they view religion as a good thing remember), and most of the websites that picked the story up were religious websites.

...I mean, it's not remotely clear how domestic violence would become acceptable if religion weren't involved anyway. S:



Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> So what's the point of your court documents?




To expose the whole story as a piece of pro-religous propaganda that seeks to create more punitive attitudes towards parents who stand up for their gender non conforming children. 

A piece of propaganda you fell for. 

Be smarter. Don't be a sucker for that sort of thing.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Dec 23, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Because that would make his violent behaviour okay?
> 
> The religious aspect of the story wasn't exactly hidden either Mikazuki. The website that the father set up was very open about the religious perspective (they view religion as a good thing remember), and most of the websites that picked the story up were religious websites.
> 
> ...I mean, it's not remotely clear how domestic violence would become acceptable if religion weren't involved anyway. S:


Nobody said it was OK.
It just not helping the child's case. 

Also it's not unusual for religious people to be OK with gay/trans people

You seem to paint a broad brush that all religious people hate the LGBT. Regardless if the the family is religious.. doesn't change the fact that the child was given a choice, doesnt change the fact that the child insisted on wearing male clothes and doesnt change the fact that the child's inconsistent behavior requires reassessment and doesnt change the fact that the child needs time to make the decision himself when he's old


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 23, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Nobody said it was OK.
> It just not helping the child's case.
> 
> Also it's not unusual for religious people to be OK with gay/trans people
> ...



You asked me whether I would view the violence as forgiveable in the context. 
The moral answer obviously being *no-way Jose*. 
I completely agree that religious perspectives that are inclusive to gay and trans people should be promoted, and that we should all hope that they will replace more punitive attitudes. 
Your thread, of course, didn't help with that, did it? People were commenting on it saying they wanted to beat the mother to a pulp. 
You were spreading hate propaganda. :S 

Overall I am very concerned that your 'news' threads tend to completely mix-up real news sources and propaganda designed to encourage hate. 
You don't make any clear distinction between those two things, and the result is that your threads contribute to a blurring of the line between fact and phony.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Dec 23, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Your thread, of course, didn't help with that, did it? People were commenting on it saying they wanted to beat the mother to a pulp.
> You were spreading hate propaganda. :S
> 
> Overall I am very concerned that your 'news' threads tend to completely mix-up real news sources and propaganda designed to encourage hate.
> You don't make any clear distinction between those two things, and the result is that your threads contribute to a blurring of the line between fact and phony.


My threads being promoting hate is like.. your opinion man.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 23, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> My threads being promoting hate is like.. your opinion man.









It's not like you made _just one_ thread that_ just  happened_ to be about transgender people; and they're usually about questioning the authenticity of transgender people's identities- even encouraging people to take votes on whether the people described are _really_ trans.


----------



## Cawdabra (Dec 23, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> a  video game that's supposed to be an exact replication of the events in WW3


WW2*
Just so anyone unfamiliar with the game won't be confused. :V


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Dec 23, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> It's not like you even made a single thread about transgender people, and they're usually about questioning the authenticity of transgender people's identities- even encouraging people to take votes on whether the people described are _really_ trans.


That is the entire point of the thread. To question the authenticity of the claim. Isn't that not obvious?

So what are you trying to say? That to spare the mother from being called a b*tch, I should not included the parts where the mother is planning to conduct hormonal suppression towards a 6 year old child? 

Because if you look at it, that's the primary reason why people are calling her a b*tch


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 23, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> That is the entire point of the thread. To question the authenticity of the claim. Isn't that not obvious?
> 
> So what are you trying to say? That to spare the mother from being called a b*tch, I should not included the parts where the mother is planning to conduct hormonal suppression towards a 6 year old child?
> 
> Because if you look at it, that's the primary reason why people are calling her a b*tch



I think that when you make 'news' threads you should check that the stories you're about to post about are actually true. For example the claim that there were plans to force hormone drugs on a 6 year old were repeated extensively on conservative christian alternative-news websites...but the court documents never mentioned that. 

I think that everybody else is smart enough to see that the threads you've made about trans people promote negative views about trans folk, and they make people more familiar with 'news' sources that promote hateful views of gay and trans people.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 23, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> We have no poblemem with having woman in video-games, we have games with strong female charactera like Bayonetta, The protagonist in Metroid, just to name a few. Having a disabled woman in Battlefield 5, a  video game that's supposed to be an exact replication of the events in WW3 just reaks political agenda. Look at the sales numbers: EA have to do a 50% discount mere few weeks after launch... Where there the enlightened SJW's purchasing their game? *Looks around*
> 
> They sure know their demographics :V
> 
> ...


If battlefield wanted a realistic portrayal of WWII, they would have gone with this crazy bitch;
www.google.com: World War II's 'Most Dangerous’ Allied Spy Was a Woman With a Wooden Leg
But Battlefield isn't about historical accuracy given the gameplay of previous titles, especially Battlefield 1. Automatic guns fucking everywhere. Try Verdun on for size, and see what a REAL WW1 experience is like. 

Battlefield and CoD have never strived for historical or technical realism. I played BF3, and weapons frequently had different ballistics and rof than their real world counterparts. Usually for balance reasons. Battlefield 1 is so disgustingly mobile it isn't funny, with a dissapointing wealth of automatic weapons. 

Your perception on the "realism" of these games is a presuposition entrenched in the first reactions against a female character in Battlefield, that Battlefield must be historically realistic. It is an expectation that I sincerely hope nobody ever had of these games. But nobody had that expectation until they added a womz except the WW history buffs who have been praying for a "reenactment" game for these periods for years, and held out some insane hope battlefield would do it. 

Your sources are right to far right, often with little credibility, and we already confirmed that the father (possibly illegally and) purposefully leaked those documents, and the actual text shows that he was an abusive twat if you read far enough. Not to mention the inserted details that aren't actually present being added as the telephone game goes through some of the least credible news sources on the face of the earth. The father aimed to curry public favor for his case, and was willing to make this a public incident to do so. He's the parent who loses a custody battle and defames their ex to get back at them. And the rightwing news lapped it up because it fit their predetermined narrative that Trans-positive parents are evil, kid destroying monsters. 





And when you cross-reference that post with your other posts about trans people, your outright bigotry becomes evident.

You've been repeatedly posting antitrans arguments, lies, propoganda, and quackery. You make Fox News look fucking credible.


----------



## Massan Otter (Dec 23, 2018)

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the clinical guidelines of every country, but in the UK at least, hormone blockers are not prescribed until a pediatrician has determined that the child has begun puberty.  They are also regularly used to delay precocious puberty in cases with no gender dysphoria; and AFAIK 6 years old would certainly count as precocious.  
So it does look a lot like a confected outrage with little factual basis...


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Dec 23, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I think that when you make 'news' threads you should check that the stories you're about to post about are actually true. For example the claim that there were plans to force hormone drugs on a 6 year old were repeated extensively on conservative christian alternative-news websites...but the court documents never mentioned that.
> 
> I think that everybody else is smart enough to see that the threads you've made about trans people promote negative views about trans folk, and they make people more familiar with 'news' sources that promote hateful views of gay and trans people.


Then show me that it's false
You haven't done anything

In fact you sort of confirmed that there is a foundation of truth behind the story by showing us the court documents :V


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Dec 23, 2018)

Massan Otter said:


> I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the clinical guidelines of every country, but in the UK at least, hormone blockers are not prescribed until a pediatrician has determined that the child has begun puberty.  They are also regularly used to delay precocious puberty in cases with no gender dysphoria; and AFAIK 6 years old would certainly count as precocious.
> So it does look a lot like a confected outrage with little factual basis...


They're starting it at the age of 8 so take that as you will


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 23, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Then show me that it's false
> You haven't done anything
> 
> In fact you sort of confirmed that there is a foundation of truth behind the story by showing us the court documents :V


Except what the actual court documents say contradict the claims of the father and right wing news sources, and include evidence that the father was abusive, and therefore an unreliable narrator of events. There is no basis for this story except that the father got in trouble for violating a court order to keep the kid's hairstyle androgynous until the custody matter was settled. He violated a court order bybthe judge.


----------



## Massan Otter (Dec 23, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> They're starting it at the age of 8 so take that as you will



 So not "planning to conduct hormonal suppression towards a six year old child" at all then.  Sounds like their health professionals are simply acknowledging the existence of an option which will be assessed at a future date.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 23, 2018)

Massan Otter said:


> So not "planning to conduct hormonal suppression towards a six year old child" at all then.  Sounds like their health professionals are simply acknowledging the existence of an option which will be assessed at a future date.


In actuality I found no record of the health professionals even mentioning it. 

The health professional's opinions weren't really mentioned at all in any of the articles. 

I suspect that the articles claimed that hormone therapy might be provided when the child is 8 because the Wikipedia article on hormone therapy states that the period for which a child must be diagnosed is at least 2 years, before they are considered eligible. 

Often you'll notice that phony news articles and propaganda websites heavily crib from wikipedia, instead of citing experts.


----------



## Massan Otter (Dec 23, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> In actuality I found no record of the health professionals even mentioning it.
> 
> The health professional's opinions weren't really mentioned at all in any of the articles.
> 
> ...



But I'm sure it'll still be your job to prove that the health professionals didn't say that (in the absence of any evidence that they did) as that would appear to be how things work around here...


----------



## Muln (Dec 24, 2018)




----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 24, 2018)

Muln said:


>


Tim Pool is an alt righter who is trying to pretend to be a centrist. 
www.google.com: r/ChapoTrapHouse - Supposed "neutral journalist" Tim Pool gets caught on camera socializing with a bunch of white nationalist Pepes
He regularly fails basic fact checks, and can be seen frequently hanging out with the same people seen here; 





Muln you aren't being subtle in your alt-right politics. You haven't been since you joined the forums.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 24, 2018)

Muln said:


>


Don't be a sucker; if the youtube video has words all in caps-lock in it, and it's about some news event you can't believe is true...

...then do you really think you're about to get a reliable source of news?

In this case you can even see in the thumbnail that the youtuber is himself just copying the story from the DailyWire, a 'news' website founded by Ben Shapiro that's infamous for having entirely made-up stories on it:
The Daily Wire - Wikipedia


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 24, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Tim Cook is alt-right
> Ben Shapiro is alt-right
> Anyone who isn't left leaning is alt right.
> You guys are pathetic. A clear embodiment of NPC's
> ...



I don't know who tim cook is, and I don't give a toss whether ben shapiro is alt right.

I care that the daily wire isn't a reliable source of news because so many of their stories have transpired to be made-up nonsense posted to get clicks. We discussed it before and you agreed that it wasn't reliable and asked me to provide other sources.


The irony that guys like yourself complain about the 'biased MSM' and then you gobble up fictionalised news from places that you're well aware pull half their content out of their arses. 
S:


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 24, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Tim Cook is alt-right
> Ben Shapiro is alt-right
> Anyone who isn't left leaning is alt right.
> You guys are pathetic. A clear embodiment of NPC's
> ...


When you literally publish fake news that pushes antitrans conspiracies and justify authoritarianism, well; a duck is a duck mate. It's also hard to say you aren't alt-right when you get caught in a photoshoot with  people like Richard Spencer and Milo Yiannopoulos, your "centrist cred" has officially died. But it's no surprise you are trying to run interference for alt right hacks considsering our previous conversations.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 24, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I don't know who tim cook is, and I don't give a toss whether ben shapiro is alt right.
> 
> I care that the daily wire isn't a reliable source of news because so many of their stories have transpired to be made-up nonsense posted to get clicks. We discussed it before and you agreed that it wasn't reliable and asked me to provide other sources.


He fucked up typing Tim Pool.


----------



## Izzy4895 (Dec 24, 2018)

Every time a thread like this is started, the original post should simply be changed to this:






The thread should then be consequently locked, and CoC 2.7 should be _strictly enforced._


----------



## CerusSerenade (Dec 24, 2018)

I love when discussions break down into "YOU'RE A LIBTARD" "YEAH? WELL YOU'RE AN SJW!" "YEAH? WELL YOU'RE A NAZI!" shout matches that fail to acknowledge that both sides have done some stupid shit.

Antifa CONTINUES to cause mass destruction and damages, having recently assaulted marines for no real reason. CNN hasn't covered the story at all so of course there is no left leaning news outlet covering it because it hurts their narrative.

Meanwhile Fox will ALWAYS categorically defend anything that Trump says, even when it's indefensible.

It's frightening to think about how much headway we'd make if we'd drop the political non-sense and look at this from an objective angle without assigning superfluous labels that have nothing to do with the acts being done.

Back on topic, an artist may deny a commission for any reason. Period. This will affect their income, but they should undoubtedly be allowed to make that choice. I will say that this will only mean that future commissioners will only be more secretive about their political leanings, meaning you just wont' know in the future, but that's your problem if that's the policy you want to enforce.

Personally I don't see how Ben Shapiro is alt-right, and personally I find the whole "SJW" and "Alt-Right" naming scheme to be a method of evasion to avoid having to actually answer the arguments presented by people labeled as such. After all, an argument has nothing to do with the person making the argument. The argument stands on its own, whether it be a nazi who says it, a saint who says it, or anyone else. 1+1=2, and U.S.A. is located in North America. The idea that we continue to constantly and fervently attack each other rather than keep to the argument is a show of just how divisive we have let politics become, such to the point that we are no longer actually looking for a dialogue, but a for a reason to demonize people we don't personally agree with.

Misha, while I understand you feel passionately about why certain people who make arguments against your case, that doesn't mean you can just slap a label on them and dismiss their argument out of hand. That's not how a proper debate works.

Mikazuki, while I understand it can be frustrating, to strawman the argument you're working against is counter-intuitive to your own argument. If he is questioning your sources, find more sources.

But most importantly, everyone needs to ask themselves if they are here to actually argue a point and try to convince, and by extension possibly BE convinced if the evidence and logic adds up, or if they're just here to demonize people and propagate a narrative. I think EVERYONE can agree that both sides are pretty damn flawed, so understand that the other side doesn't want to kill all men/women, don't want to take away people's rights, and they just want to make sure people stay safe, and that people's rights are infringed upon. The methods of how they see that happening just happen to be different for reasons that they genuinely believe in for one reason or another.


----------



## pandasayori (Dec 24, 2018)

CerusSerenade said:


> I love when discussions break down into "YOU'RE A LIBTARD" "YEAH? WELL YOU'RE AN SJW!" "YEAH? WELL YOU'RE A NAZI!" shout matches that fail to acknowledge that both sides have done some stupid shit.



I wholeheartedly agree. When conversations stop being civil and delve into a screaming contest about who can throw in the most insults, it fails to make that side look any better than the other. It's possible to debate without resulting to calling someone a cuck, snowflake, nazi, libtard, ect. It doesn't make an argument better by being demeaning and hurling insults. Both sides are in the wrong when it comes to that.

People can have a debate without being vile to one another.


----------



## Cawdabra (Dec 24, 2018)

Gradiusgadwin said:


> View attachment 50546


Haha wow.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 24, 2018)

CerusSerenade said:


> I love when discussions break down into "YOU'RE A LIBTARD" "YEAH? WELL YOU'RE AN SJW!" "YEAH? WELL YOU'RE A NAZI!" shout matches that fail to acknowledge that both sides have done some stupid shit.
> 
> Antifa CONTINUES to cause mass destruction and damages, having recently assaulted marines for no real reason. CNN hasn't covered the story at all so of course there is no left leaning news outlet covering it because it hurts their narrative.
> 
> ...


The people in question have litteraly been spreading alt-right content on this page. 

That's not antifa in general, that's just philly antifa being stupid. If you read the backstory into that event, the assault occured during an alt-right event, as a result of alleged mistaken identity. Philly antifa needs to keep their asses on target and generally fix their shit.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 24, 2018)

On the whole "Two artists could be jailed..." Story, nobody has actually asked them to make artwork that violates their beliefs, they have brough a suit to the higher courts claiming an antidiscrimination law violates their first amendment rights. It's a basic antidiscrimination law that has nothing to do with the content of the art they are asked to create, but what patrons they can and can't refuse work from based on basic antidiscrimination standards.


----------



## Muln (Dec 24, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> The people in question have litteraly been spreading alt-right content on this page.



Alt-right

The next word that will lose all it's meaning...


Just like the word Nazi


----------



## CerusSerenade (Dec 24, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> The people in question have litteraly been spreading alt-right content on this page.
> 
> That's not antifa in general, that's just philly antifa being stupid. If you read the backstory into that event, the assault occured during an alt-right event, as a result of alleged mistaken identity. Philly antifa needs to keep their asses on target and generally fix their shit.



No true Scottsman eh?

Need we bring up the bike lock guy, the UC Berkely riots, etc? Antifa is a violent group, to claim it's not when there is clearly consistent video evidence otherwise would be straight up lying. Also, who are "the people in question" that you're referring to? Clearly it's not Ben Shapiro or Tim Cook since they most certainly don't post here. What is "alt-right" content defined as? Don't be vague, the definitions of these things has been blurred to the point that it's no longer easily understood.


----------



## idkthough120 (Dec 24, 2018)

Uhh


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 24, 2018)

I guess the strategy, after Daily Wire's stories were exposed as being well known for being completely made up, is that users like Mikazuki will just post them again and again...and then get their friends to make new accounts and post the stories *again*. 

Because if you repeat the lie enough it becomes true. :\


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 24, 2018)

Do I even ne


CerusSerenade said:


> No true Scottsman eh?
> 
> Need we bring up the bike lock guy, the UC Berkely riots, etc? Antifa is a violent group, to claim it's not when there is clearly consistent video evidence otherwise would be straight up lying. Also, who are "the people in question" that you're referring to? Clearly it's not Ben Shapiro or Tim Cook since they most certainly don't post here. What is "alt-right" content defined as? Don't be vague, the definitions of these things has been blurred to the point that it's no longer easily understood.


Please croll up a fee posts and see the video that includes footagw from Charlottesville taken by members of the alt-right. Including them declaring the purpose of said movement being to "gas the Jews" while holding a daily stormer banner. 

Tim Pool was caught hanging out with leaders of the alt-right multiple times. 

The alt-right are Fascists. End of subject. They put on a different face while recruiting, and burry their bullshit in Euphamisms, but when you see them litteraly running around with Nazi flags another day, it should be obvious. 

And while I have some problems with specific Antifa groups, the fact is that nonviolence against Nazis and the Italian Fascists ended with us in camps. Antifa is a non organization, meaning that each group operates independently, with its own goals and methods. The only universal factor is "Fuck Nazis"

I would like to remind that theses Nazis getting their ass beat regularly commit acts of violence during their rallies when they can get away from it, and have terrorised many of the neighborhoods they are holding these marches in previous years.


----------



## CrookedCroc (Dec 24, 2018)

Nice thread


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Dec 24, 2018)

*Sticks head in while delivering Christmas messages.*

It's good to see we're giving this thread a break for the Christmas season.

Though to be fair, the liberals are mostly right about the sourcing coming out from the those of the far-right persuasion. I would note a few things:

1. Tim Cook is not Alt-Right. He is the CEO of Apple and deserves to have his name NOT mistaken for Tim Pool, who is decidedly Alt-Right. I know this is minor, but mixing up names is not a good look.

2. Ben Shapiro isn't Alt-Right. One the main reasons he left Breitbart News was because he was concerned about the Alt-Right leanings the publication was starting to brazenly embrace. That said, Shapiro is not above distorting the facts in service of a rather extreme right political agenda. He has also been forced to multiple stories during his time at Breitbart News due to false reporting, a tradition he has continued as a freelancer. I wouldn't call him a credible journalist or source. You shouldn't call him Alt-Right, but you certainly shouldn't be wasting too much time defending his views and methods.

Anyway, Merry Christmas. Don't spend the whole holiday here.


----------



## Massan Otter (Dec 24, 2018)

Muln said:


> Alt-right
> 
> The next word that will lose all it's meaning...
> 
> ...



Or like the "NPC" that's in your member title? You are not the guy to be criticising this...


----------



## Apoc-Volkov (Dec 24, 2018)

Massan Otter said:


> Or like the "NPC" that's in your member title? You are not the guy to be criticising this...


Such is the nature of philosophical zombies, trying to convince us that they can think for themselves when it's just as likely that they're programmed automatons on autopilot.


----------



## CerusSerenade (Dec 24, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Do I even ne
> 
> Please croll up a fee posts and see the video that includes footagw from Charlottesville taken by members of the alt-right. Including them declaring the purpose of said movement being to "gas the Jews" while holding a daily stormer banner.
> 
> ...



What's your point? We already know that the "alt right" does some stupid shit. That doesn't change that Antifia is pretty much the same. This is completely unrelated to Antifa and you're trying to shift the topic from Antifa to the "Alt-right" to defend the group you're aligned with. Shouldn't you be against violent and destructive riots in general that hurt everyone, instead of picking sides based on supposed political leaning? 

So Tim Pool talked with "leaders of the alt-right" and is therefore guilty by association? That is so terrifyingly Orwellian that I guess we shouldn't speak to anyone at all out of fear of them potentially being associated with ANYTHING someone doesn't approve of. You can have a conversation with a person you don't agree with and not share their every viewpoint and ideal. That's what journalists do, and literally anyone can do it.

How and why are the alt-right "fascists" and how are you defining it? How are you defining nazis? The words have been thrown around so repetitively and casually that those words no longer have meaning. You need to define them as I asked you before. I can arleady tell you that Antifa acts like fascists in the cases of UC Berkely when they rioted and fired fireworks into buildings and looted banks and ATM's over Milo Yiannopoulos coming to speak there. You can disagree with Milo all you want, that's not the problem. The problem is attacking people, destroying private property, and other ACTUAL CRIMES to COMPLETELY UNRELATED PEOPLE in response. Threatening people just for SPEAKING is fascist.

If "Nazis" get their asses kicked by the police and by people defending themselves from violence from said "Nazis" then fine, they committed a crime and are being prosecuted for it, but this is so very rarely the case that it's actually something else entirely. It's people being labeled as "Nazis" when they're nothing of the sort, and simply disagree with the other side as I demonstrated in my first post.

Take for instance, you're calling Ben Shapiro a "Nazi" as you did you when you lumped him in with the "alt-right" . I find it interesting that you think a jewish man is a Nazi. I'll also preclude any attempted arguments that he's a self-loathing jewish man by saying he CLEARLY has pride in himself and his work by how he carries himself, his speaking style, and the adherence to his tradition in private. My argument is that you're throwing the term around so casually and flagrantly that I don't think we actually have a pinned down agreed upon definition for what the words means anymore. So I need you to define those words definitively for us so we know what you're talking about when you say them.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 25, 2018)

I'm not giving a debate to someone who is clearly arguing in bad faith on Christmas. Eat Kroot dicks.


----------



## CerusSerenade (Dec 25, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> I'm not giving a debate to someone who is clearly arguing in bad faith on Christmas. Eat Kroot dicks.



That's certainly not an appropriate way to conduct yourself in a civil discussion. I wasn't aware the validity of an argument rested on the time of day or year it was argued.


----------



## Slytherin Umbreon (Dec 25, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> I'm not giving a debate to someone who is clearly arguing in bad faith on Christmas. Eat Kroot dicks.
> on Christmas
> on Christmas
> on Christmas
> on Christmas


Bruh.
Come on.
you have no right to complain about that, starting shit this morning :/


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Dec 25, 2018)

Why is this thread still a thing?


----------



## Muln (Dec 25, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> I'm not giving a debate to someone who is clearly arguing in bad faith on Christmas. Eat Kroot dicks.


How Toxic :V


----------



## Cannabiskitty (Dec 25, 2018)

Good morning and happy holidays! Wait, this is the happy holiday thread right? Right??


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Dec 25, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> I'm not giving a debate to someone who is clearly arguing in bad faith on Christmas. Eat Kroot dicks.





Muln said:


> How Toxic :V


----------



## Jarren (Dec 25, 2018)

Unicon said:


> 1. Tim Cook is not Alt-Right. He is the CEO of Apple and deserves to have his name NOT mistaken for Tim Pool, who is decidedly Alt-Right. I know this is minor, but mixing up names is not a good look.
> 
> 2. Ben Shapiro isn't Alt-Right. One the main reasons he left Breitbart News was because he was concerned about the Alt-Right leanings the publication was starting to brazenly embrace. That said, Shapiro is not above distorting the facts in service of a rather extreme right political agenda. He has also been forced to multiple stories during his time at Breitbart News due to false reporting, a tradition he has continued as a freelancer.


Wait you think Pool is Alt Right but Shapiro isn't.... Sorry but you're gonna have to explain that one to me, because I think you've got that *fundamentally *reversed.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 25, 2018)

Jarren said:


> Wait you think Pool is Alt Right but Shapiro isn't.... Sorry but you're gonna have to explain that one to me, because I think you've got that *fundamentally *reversed.


This is just clarification so I'll bite. 

Shapiro is Trans/Homophobic, to the point of making up blatantly false news stories to advance that position, and has always had one foot in the alt right because of that. But he's held the alt right in general at an arms length, because the Nazi flags make him understandably uncomfortable. He still interfaces with it to get what he wants. 

Tim Pool has been caught on camera chilling with alt right leaders and hanging out with alt righters on multiple occasions. He acts like a centrist to "boil the frog", by validating alt right positions, often by sharing fake news or creating his own. He's either controlled opposition, or one of the worst cases of self denial I've ever seen. "I'm not a Nazi!" *said the man in an SS uniform holding a copy of mein kampf*


----------



## Aznig (Dec 25, 2018)

Maybe we should give this one a rest for Christmas?

Hope you all are having a lovely day filled with happiness!


----------



## Gradiusgadwin (Dec 25, 2018)

Left wing artists refuse taking commissions from right wing people: "It's the free market. Deal with it."
Christian artists refuse taking commissions from gay couples: "YOU CAN'T DO THAT! YOU'LL GO TO JAIL!"

https://www.dailywire.com/news/39608/two-female-christian-artists-could-be-jailed-not-hank-berrien


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 25, 2018)

Do I really need to explain anti-discrimination laws to people? No, I don't. Because I already have fifty fucking times. Being an asshole is not protected under antidiscrimination, and for good reason. And Trumpsters who equate the word Nazi with a racial slur are assholes.


----------



## CerusSerenade (Dec 25, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> *Do I really need to explain anti-discrimination laws to people? No, I don't. Because I already have fifty fucking times. Being an asshole is not protected under antidiscrimination, and for good reason.* And Trumpsters who equate the word Nazi with a racial slur are assholes.



Allow me to clarify exactly why this isn't correct.

You may not refuse service on the basis of protected classes. (race, sex, religion, etc) However, that does not mean you are required to do things your services don't offer. The cake shop offered to make a wedding cake for the gay couple, just not a "gay wedding cake" (I honestly don't get the big deal, get a normal one and put two male figures on it problem solved) because that was not within their list of services and listed products and they were not comfortable making it.

It's like walking into a female clothing store and demanding male clothing because you'll threaten discrimination based on sexual orientation if they don't.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 25, 2018)

CerusSerenade said:


> Allow me to clarify exactly why this isn't correct.
> 
> You may not refuse service on the basis of protected classes. (race, sex, religion, etc) However, that does not mean you are required to do things your services don't offer. The cake shop offered to make a wedding cake for the gay couple, just not a "gay wedding cake" (I honestly don't get the big deal, get a normal one and put two male figures on it problem solved) because that was not within their list of services and listed products and they were not comfortable making it.
> 
> It's like walking into a female clothing store and demanding male clothing because you'll threaten discrimination based on sexual orientation if they don't.


They asked for a regular wedding cake m8. Nice try tho.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 25, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I guess the strategy, after Daily Wire's stories were exposed as being well known for being completely made up, is that users like Mikazuki will just post them again and again...and then get their friends to make new accounts and post the stories *again*.
> 
> Because if you repeat the lie enough it becomes true. :\



The prophecy is fulfilled.


----------



## CerusSerenade (Dec 25, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> They asked for a regular wedding cake m8. Nice try tho.



They said they could purchase other products, but they did not provide "gay wedding cakes." Do you have a source for where they refused service entirely?


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 25, 2018)

CerusSerenade said:


> They said they could purchase other products, but they did not provide "gay wedding cakes." Do you have a source for where they refused service entirely?



Cersus, do you recognise that the DailyWire isn't itself a reliable source anyway? 

The Bulk of the wikipedia entry on the DailyWire is itself dedicated to examples of false stories, and the founder of the DailyWire is on-record describing Homosexual relationships as 'Sinful'. 

Does this not make you skeptical?


----------



## CerusSerenade (Dec 25, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> Cersus, do you recognise that the DailyWire isn't itself a reliable source anyway?
> 
> The Bulk of the wikipedia entry on the DailyWire is itself dedicated to examples of false stories, and the founder of the DailyWire is on-record describing Homosexual relationships as 'Sinful'.
> 
> Does this not make you skeptical?



I didn't get any of my information from the Daily Wire. Thank you for assuming that though.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 25, 2018)

CerusSerenade said:


> I didn't get any of my information from the Daily Wire. Thank you for assuming that though.



Where _did_ you get it from?

(and maybe I should be asking @Gradiusgadwin , since he brought the story up and he did use the Daily Wire as the source).


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 25, 2018)

For the record I looked the Caligraphy story up and the Calligraphers in question haven't been approached to make any art they disagree with. 
They're merely worried that they _might_. 
So it seems to be a fuss about ...well, not an awful lot at the moment. The Calligraphers are currently complaining that they could be sent to prison for a crime that they haven't actually committed yet anyway, so it's unlikely that the judges hearing the case will be able to make any kind of detailed comment. 





My source is the washington examiner, which has a conservative pro-christian slant.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 25, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> For the record I looked the Caligraphy story up and the Calligraphers in question haven't been approached to make any art they disagree with.
> They're merely worried that they _might_.
> So it seems to be a fuss about ...well, not an awful lot at the moment. The Calligraphers are currently complaining that they could be sent to prison for a crime that they haven't actually committed yet anyway, so it's unlikely that the judges hearing the case will be able to make any kind of detailed comment.
> 
> ...


I already said this. Just bail out while you still have brain cells.


----------



## CerusSerenade (Dec 25, 2018)

Why are we treating these like they're the same instance? One has to do with not providing a service that's not normally provided by the shop, and the other has to do with not providing service at all.


----------



## CrookedCroc (Dec 25, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> They asked for a regular wedding cake m8. Nice try tho.



The court documents say the opposite 









 

Earlier this year the supreme court ruled 7-2 in favor of Jack Phillips  

_"*The Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious  viewpoint," the ruling states*. "The government, consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices." 

"*The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression*," the ruling continues. "To Phillips, his claim that using his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation, has a  significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs." 

*"Forcing Phillips to create expression for and participate in a ceremony that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs invades his First Amendment rights,"* _Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall wrote in the brief._"

"_*The commissioner  even  went  so  far  as  to  compare  Phillips’ invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of  slavery  and  the  Holocaust.    This  sentiment  is  inappropriate  for  a  Commission  charged  with   the  solemn  responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law—a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation,*_" Anthony _Kennedy wrote_. "The  Court  cannot  avoid  the  conclusion  that  _*these  statements  cast  doubt  on  the  fairness  and  impartiality  of  the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case*_." _
_
_


----------



## Attaman (Dec 25, 2018)

I apparently missed this whole dumpsterfire and it’s Christmas so I haven’t particularly the time or spirit to dig too rip open wounds / debates, but as a quick note for @CerusSerenade since you appear to be missing many months of back-and-forth debate / context on this forum: Many of this forum’s less Right-leaning users are... in a word, _suspicious _of anyone asking about what is or isn’t a Nazi due to the well having been _hilariously _poisoned by several users (a couple of which, along with a couple more’s cheerleaders, are / were active in this very thread).

And when I say the well has been poisoned, I am only in the slightest degree being hyperbolic: We have had people on here (again, active in this very thread) literally defend the propagation of Nazi iconography, Nazi propaganda, the concept and rhetoric (if not, in a few cases, action) of ethnic cleansing, etcetera. We have had people _lie through their teeth _that groups doing all the above (including the liberal use of racial slurs to describe various groups, crock-science arguing about “racial inferiority”, sharing of comics portraying ethnicities / races as subhuman animals, once again use of Nazi iconography, etcetera) as “Not even vaguely Nazi-like”, and when presented _direct screencap proof as contradictory evidence _gone on to say “It’s fake news / just a joke” while _reporting the content as privacy violations to get the disproving evidence removed_.

So if some people seem oddly aggressive or disingenuous or unfair, keep the above in mind. Several of us are working in the context of debating with people who have literally argued in defense of the fourteen words and how ideological (/ racial) purity is a matter of national security, responded to a mass-shooting of a synagogue with belittling comments about Jewish users and conspiracy of it being a false-flag by Democrats, claimed that support of people of Islamic faith (in any context whatsoever) is a sign of the real Nazis, and portraying literal Nazi propaganda regurgitation as “Not actually Nazi”. Some of those people / their cheerleaders being individuals who, again, are actively posting in this very thread.

Shit has been _wild _this last half-year.


----------



## Gradiusgadwin (Dec 25, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Do I really need to explain anti-discrimination laws to people? No, I don't. Because I already have fifty fucking times. Being an asshole is not protected under antidiscrimination, and for good reason. And Trumpsters who equate the word Nazi with a racial slur are assholes.


Funny how the anti-discrimination laws work only for certain groups of people (so much for "equality"). And funny how you talk about discrimination when you label anyone you don't like as "nazi" just because you lack valid arguments and you try to derail the thread crying about nazi boogeymen.


----------



## Cannabiskitty (Dec 25, 2018)

CrookedCroc said:


> The court documents say the opposite
> View attachment 50580
> View attachment 50581
> View attachment 50582
> ...



So basically the constitution means nothing now while only four years ago somehow the administration decided to actually enforce the law.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 25, 2018)

@Gradiusgadwin Do you have a comment about using the Dailywire as a source?



CerusSerenade said:


> Why are we treating these like they're the same instance? One has to do with not providing a service that's not normally provided by the shop, and the other has to do with not providing service at all.



Perhaps two wires are crossed here; I was under the impression you were defending the story being brought up by the DailyWire. 
For the record then you agree that the DailyWire story about calligraphers is without substance?


----------



## pandasayori (Dec 25, 2018)

Aznig said:


> Maybe we should give this one a rest for Christmas?
> 
> Hope you all are having a lovely day filled with happiness!



Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you!! ╰(*´︶`*)╯♡


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 25, 2018)

CrookedCroc said:


> The court documents say the opposite
> View attachment 50580
> View attachment 50581
> View attachment 50582
> ...


A cake to celebrate a same sex marriage is just a wedding cake. It was a wedding cake for a gay couple, refused on the grounds that gay marriage is wrong.

The ruling itself DID NOT establish wether or not companies could discriminate based on their religous beliefs, but did establish that the comission in question executed the trial in a not impartial manner.

"...Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall wrote in the brief." The solicitor general is the person who argues a case on behalf of the federal government. Not a judge.

I've included the ruling.

Notable;
From the Opinion of the Court
"Whatever the confluence of speech and free exercise principles might be in some cases, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State’s obligation of religious neutrality. The reason and motive for the baker’s refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions. *The Court’s precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws. Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach. *That requirement, however, was not met here. When the Colorado Civil Rights Commission considered this case, it did not do so with the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires. Given all these considerations, it is proper to hold that whatever the outcome of some future controversy involving facts similar to these, the Commission’s actions here violated the Free Exercise Clause; and its order must be set aside."

"Phillips met Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins when they entered his shop in the summer of 2012. Craig and Mullins were planning to marry. At that time, Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages, so the couple planned to wed legally in Massachusetts and afterwards to host a reception for their family and friends in Denver. To prepare for their celebration, Craig and Mullins visited the shop and told Phillips that they were interested in ordering a cake for “our wedding.” Id., at 152 (emphasis deleted). *They did not mention the design of the cake they envisioned."*


----------



## CrookedCroc (Dec 25, 2018)

_The Department of Justice on Thursday filed a brief on behalf of baker Jack Phillips, who was found to have violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act by refusing to created a cake to celebrate the marriage of Charlie Craig and David Mullins in 2012. *Phillips said he doesn't create wedding cakes for same-sex couples because it would violate his religious beliefs.*

*The government agreed with Phillips that his cakes are a form of expression, and he cannot be compelled to use his talents for something in which he does not believe.*_
_
townhall.com: BREAKING: Supreme Court Overwhelmingly Rules in Favor of Colorado Baker in Wedding Cake Case

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...b822a46da5b_story.html?utm_term=.dcf9d1a53b22
_
Whether you like it or not Phillips is protected by the First Amendment and his freedom of expression.

Discrimination against religion is as bad as discriminating against protected groups.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 25, 2018)

CrookedCroc said:


> _The Department of Justice on Thursday filed a brief *on behalf of baker Jack Phillips...*_


Read the actual supreme court opinion, rather than the Baker's claims. The supreme court declined to validate his position for good reason, but judged that the lower courts handled the case without the necessary impartiality to resolve the conflict.


----------



## Muln (Dec 25, 2018)

Remember guys if it's not left leaning souce it's fake news

CNN is the best news source for these people.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 25, 2018)

Here is a free resource.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com

And CNN is shit.

The above resource says it best:
_"CNN usually sources its news properly through credible reporters/journalists and through hyperlinking to credible media sources. However, CNN has failed numerous fact checksfrom Politifact. It should be noted that these fact checks were almost exclusively from guests on their numerous talk shows and not from the reporting of actual news, which tends to be factual._

_Overall, we rate CNN left biased based on story selection that often favors the left. We rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to misinformation and failed fact checks from guests and pundits. However, CNN’s straight news reporting would earn a High rating for factual reporting."_


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 25, 2018)

As for your sources:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-daily-wire/

*"Funded by / Ownership*

The Daily Wire is owned by Forward Publishing LLC. Forward Publishing is owned and managed by the billionaire Wilks Bothers who made their money through the fossil fuel industry with their company Frac Tech. The Wilks brothers are also a part of the extreme Christian right who interpret the bible literally. The website is funded through a subscription and advertising model.

*Analysis / Bias*

The Daily Wire presents news with a right wing bias in reporting and wording. For example headlines are usually sensational and utilize strong emotional language such as this: Democrats Boo God. Then They Quote The Bible To Attack Trump.

Virtually every story favors the right and denigrates the left. *The Daily Wire has also published some false information such as these and this directly from Ben Shapiro. *Further, a factual search reveals that the Daily Wire, on a whole, has a mixed track record with fact checkers.

*Overall, we rate The Daily Wire as a far right biased news source that is Mixed for factual reporting.*"


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 25, 2018)

Muln said:


> Remember guys if it's not left leaning souce it's fake news
> 
> CNN is the best news source for these people.



I chose to source the story from the Washington Examiner. Which is _right _leaning. 
Media companies have slants or running opinion pieces isn't the problem Muln. The problem is that a lot of users have been exclusively linking websites which are so fringe that they can't be trusted to even get the basic facts of a story right. 
Maybe if that's what you've grown used to, everything else _does _look left to you. But that's an artefact of your own confirmation-bubble that you've found yourself trapped in. :\ 

Come back to reality. Stop with all of these automatically generated posts about CNN. I don't even know what your actual personality is because this is all I've ever found you doing. .-. 
You're allowed to break script.


----------



## Simo (Dec 25, 2018)

This is _still_ going on?

Is there anyway to kill it, and put it out of our misery?

This place sure is festive, around the holidays.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 25, 2018)

Fallowfox said:


> I chose to source the story from the Washington Examiner. Which is _right _leaning.
> Media companies have slants or running opinion pieces isn't the problem Muln. The problem is that a lot of users have been exclusively linking websites which are so fringe that they can't be trusted to even get the basic facts of a story right.
> Maybe if that's what you've grown used to, everything else _does _look left to you. But that's an artefact of your own confirmation-bubble that you've found yourself trapped in. :\
> 
> ...


He isn't allowed to break script if his profile pic is any indication. 



Simo said:


> This is _still_ going on?
> 
> Is there anyway to kill it, and put it out of our misery?
> 
> This place sure is festive, around the holidays.


If only. I could turn the toxic up to 11 and get it locked, but I'm trying not to make MewTwo's holiday shit. I'm also starting a program to try and be better.


----------



## Izzy4895 (Dec 25, 2018)

Simo said:


> This is _still_ going on?
> 
> Is there anyway to kill it, and put it out of our misery?
> 
> This place sure is festive, around the holidays.



 Consistent enforcement of CoC 2.7 would put a quick end to such threads.


----------



## CrookedCroc (Dec 25, 2018)

Simo said:


> Is there anyway to kill it, and put it out of our misery?



Yes, there's is a secret weapon capable of killing any thread.
Unfortunately I only have one of five parts of this weapon


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 25, 2018)

CrookedCroc said:


> Yes, there's is a secret weapon capable of killing any thread.
> Unfortunately I only have one of five parts of this weapon
> View attachment 50589


I destroyed a thread with a Bo Burnham song, and was understandably banned. Trying not to repeat that.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Dec 25, 2018)

Attaman said:


> _direct screencap proof as contradictory evidence _gone on to say “It’s fake news / just a joke” while _reporting the content as privacy violations to get the disproving evidence removed_.


I will note that COC specifically notes chat logs as being considered private information. The solution here isn't to disparage people for reporting violations. It's to not bloody post stuff that violates site rules. I think some of the arguments that have been brought up in the past are utterly ridiculous, but I'm not going to support violating site rules to counter them because I know from experience that dealing with that kind of bullshit _sucks_.


----------



## idkthough120 (Dec 25, 2018)

Okay then..


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 25, 2018)




----------



## Attaman (Dec 25, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> I will note that COC specifically notes chat logs as being considered private information. The solution here isn't to disparage people for reporting violations. It's to not bloody post stuff that violates site rules. I think some of the arguments that have been brought up in the past are utterly ridiculous, but I'm not going to support violating site rules to counter them because I know from experience that dealing with that kind of bullshit _sucks_.


And generally, I would agree with the sentiment (for similar reasons to why I would not encourage people to violate ToS and distribute copyrighted material or the like). The reason I bring it up in this particular case is the example I am referring to went something along the lines of:
"[x] is an untrustworthy, lying, deceitful person who you should not trust and sees Nazis everywhere because they called [y] group a bunch of (Neo)Nazis."
"But [x] was being entirely truthful, and [y] group literally were a bunch of (Neo)Nazis throwing out lines to recruit people."
"No they weren't. Trust me, I was there! And if you don't believe me I invite you to join and look yourself."
"Only [x] was there too, and they took screens to back up their claims."
"Oh it was just being ironic. You have to trust me on this, they're misinterpreting the context and it was entirely just a joke."

At some point you literally cannot disprove somebody _lying through their teeth_ without sharing (or referring to somewhere sharing) such information. Which is, if I had to guess, exactly what was being relied upon: They _*couldn't*_ be called out without sharing as much. It's why a lot of time whistleblowers are given proverbial slaps on the wrists even if what they did was (in the context of their whistleblowing) illegal.


----------



## Slytherin Umbreon (Dec 25, 2018)

Simo said:


> This is _still_ going on?
> 
> Is there anyway to kill it, and put it out of our misery?
> 
> This place sure is festive, around the holidays.


You bring the Paddle, I'll bring the Rod.
They can't type if they're too busy clutching their backsides.


----------



## FuzzleTheMintyDog (Dec 30, 2018)

*I don't accept de-platforming, de-personing or censorship. It doesn't matter if you do or do not fall in line with my political stance, my religious stance or my moral stance, when I'm providing my service of art, I only consider if the art itself is something I'm comfortable with. I absolutely hate this current state of mind that whoever is not with us is a monster who has to be chased out of society via the powers of a corporation or government. Let people be. *


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 30, 2018)

FuzzleTheMintyDog said:


> *I don't accept de-platforming, de-personing or censorship. It doesn't matter if you do or do not fall in line with my political stance, my religious stance or my moral stance, when I'm providing my service of art, I only consider if the art itself is something I'm comfortable with. I absolutely hate this current state of mind that whoever is not with us is a monster who has to be chased out of society via the powers of a corporation or government. Let people be. *


Fascists are monsters. Or did you not learn about the holocaust in school? 

And getting refused a service is not deplatforming.


----------



## FuzzleTheMintyDog (Dec 30, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Fascists are monsters. Or did you not learn about the holocaust in school?
> 
> And getting refused a service is not deplatforming.



*Yeah this is what I'm talking about. Very sad. *


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 30, 2018)

FuzzleTheMintyDog said:


> *Yeah this is what I'm talking about. Very sad. *


No, this was sad; 





People who perpetuate othering and whom are building towards a repetition of this getting ostracized as fanatics is supposed to be normal.

The fucking overton window is so far godamn right it isn't funny. Y'all wanna chill with people who litteraly want the next genocide while only a few decades ago those same people would litteraly get the shit beat out of them by the mafia for being too evil.


----------



## FuzzleTheMintyDog (Dec 30, 2018)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> No, this was sad;
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*No my friend, I don't chill with people who want to exterminate anyone and I certainly would never devalue the evil and importance of that distinction on any random dude who shares a meme or makes a joke or votes for someone you didn't and then use that gross misdiagnoses to justify any act of cruelty, censorship, banning, dehumanizing or 1 dimensionality to make myself look like more of a hero. 

Perhaps someone will decide you're a fascist, what then? If someone is espousing bad ideas, I want to hear them because I want them to be out in the open and I want them to be challenged out in the open, not drive them into the underground and let them fester and grow as martyrs. I'm talking real bad people, not people I lump in to sink them with the same anchor because its advantageous for my lazy posturing. 

Realize that people are people, you're dealing with humans, not 1 dimensional monsters and I do not accept your slippery slope giving power to people who can make laws and new rules on distinctions I don't trust you to make. 

I'd invite you to see people as the individual and not snap judgments that put them into wholesale groups you use to justify any and all acts against. Maybe, soon enough, this constant outrage and mob mentality will realize its mistake and disperse. *


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Dec 30, 2018)

FuzzleTheMintyDog said:


> *No my friend, I don't chill with people who want to exterminate anyone and I certainly would never devalue the evil and importance of that distinction on any random dude who shares a meme or makes a joke or votes for someone you didn't and then use that gross misdiagnoses to justify any act of cruelty, censorship, banning, dehumanizing or 1 dimensionality to make myself look like more of a hero.
> 
> Perhaps someone will decide you're a fascist, what then? If someone is espousing bad ideas, I want to hear them because I want them to be out in the open and I want them to be challenged out in the open, not drive them into the underground and let them fester and grow as martyrs. I'm talking real bad people, not people I lump in to sink them with the same anchor because its advantageous for my lazy posturing.
> 
> Realize that people are people, you're dealing with humans, not 1 dimensional monsters and I do not accept your slippery slope giving power to people who can make laws and new rules on distinctions I don't trust you to make. *


Who said anything about laws? 

As for "getting lumped in" we know full well what the alt right is about. 






And then there is the "1 dimensional monster matter". Unfortunately, Fascists are very much so human, with complex motives and emotions. Unfortunately, their conclusions involve the extermination of others, and that's not something that can be allowed to thrive....again. Fascists are monsters and human. Thus they must be defeated on one hand, and held accountable for their earnest evils on the other. 

I hate to tell you, but normalizing Fascism doesn't make it dissipate. It brings it out in the open. Fascism depends on popular appeal to be succesful, and if you lend it ligitimacy as a concept, it uses that in bad faith by deploying lies and emotional appeal to win over enough of the masses to its cause. 

Hate crimes, including mass murders, are on the rise in connection with the resurgance of these groups. 

This isn't some abstract debate going on in tea rooms and cafés, this is minorities getting murdered, primarily Jewish schools getting shot up, and an attempt to write Trans people out of existence. This is physical action already taken and being taken against the lives of others. This shit is not conceptual any more, it is very real.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Dec 30, 2018)

@FuzzleTheMintyDog While I can understand you being adamant about treating people as people, there is one important distinction I fear you're not making:

When someone voices bad ideas, you (gen.) do not have any obligation to debate those ideas. Debating them, as @Misha Bordiga Zahradník touched on, risks lending them legitimacy and ultimately disseminating them because a lot of the time bad ideas are simple and straightforward, which unfortunately can lend them appeal when contrasted with something that is a lot more complicated and nuanced.

What you arguably do have a responsibility to do, as a decent human being who doesn't want that nasty bit of history repeating itself, is tell these people "hey, this thing you just said is not okay." If you want to have a civil chat with them about the best way to tend your rose gardens, that's up to you. But if you don't set that boundary of "this is acceptable, this is not," those bad ideas will spread faster, to more people, and take root more strongly in vulnerable individuals. Presumably, since you agree they _are_ bad ideas, you don't want that.

When an organization says "you're not allowed to say these things on our platform," that's their way of marking that boundary - they're pre-emptively saying "saying these things is not okay" to their userbase. If a hypothetical neo-nazi can manage to exist on Twitter while only tweeting pictures of his lunch salad and sharing innocuous gardening tips, he won't be de-platformed/silenced/banned/whatever you want to call it. De-platforming is not about removing an individual's ability to be heard, it's about removing/reducing _a bad idea's_ ability to spread. Sadly, too many people have shown they can't handle the responsibility to _not say bad things_, which is basically why some organizations elect to just remove them from their platform altogether. It's not about dehumanizing people with bad ideas, it's about reducing the spread of those bad ideas. 

Sometimes, which might be unfortunate, this comes at the expense of gagging the complex individual altogether, but it comes at that expense because experience has shown service providers that these individuals rarely respect rules asking them to leave their bad ideas at the door. At some point it's understandable that the service provider's reaction is "how many times do I need to tell you guys to not say things like 'niggers are intellectually inferior'?" I can assure you, abuse staff has better things to do than babysitting a handful of problem users who insist on continuously pushing the boundaries of what they may do on the platform.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 30, 2018)

FuzzleTheMintyDog said:


> *I don't accept de-platforming, de-personing or censorship. It doesn't matter if you do or do not fall in line with my political stance, my religious stance or my moral stance, when I'm providing my service of art, I only consider if the art itself is something I'm comfortable with. I absolutely hate this current state of mind that whoever is not with us is a monster who has to be chased out of society via the powers of a corporation or government. Let people be. *


A bit of a curveball here. x3
You censored your own art in your recent thread, to adhere to the forum rules on nudity.

I just want to point out that when people say 'censorship' they usually say it in a way that implies all censorship is a manifestation of an autocratic soviet state.
Most censorship is actually just boring run-of-the-mill stuff though.

Instead of frankly saying we don't support censorship, we probably all need to have clearer ideas on what sort of censorship we find appropriate. For example I think censoring obscene swear words on television channels before 9pm is appropriate, and I think Fur affinity's choice to censor all NSFW art, unless the user specifically says they want to see it, is appropriate.



FuzzleTheMintyDog said:


> *If someone is espousing bad ideas, I want to hear them because I want them to be out in the open and I want them to be challenged out in the open, not drive them into the underground and let them fester and grow as martyrs. *



I'm not really sure I want to be exposed to *all *the bad ideas, because I know there are a lot of bad ideas I don't really stand to gain anything from discussing (and I know that I'm not infinitely smart, so I risk being tricked into believing nasty things!)

I feel that, if _all _ideas are game for re-visiting, then discussions can become very frozen and pointless. 
If a forum allows people to argue in favour of something really nasty, like paedophilia, for example, then the entire discussion just becomes nasty folk trying to defend really horrible behaviours, and accusing everybody else of being oppressive censors if they complain that they don't like the sort of atmosphere that those discussions foster, or the kinds of people who are attracted to those sorts of atmospheres. 


Community's which discuss Stephan Molyneux's ideas on 'white genocide' with genuine 'intellectual' interest have similar toxic atmospheres. 
To relate this back to the thread topic ( *I got there in the end, hooray! ;D* ), when an artist sees somebody retweeting that sort of thing, they effectively presented with a red flag that says 'this is a crazy person', and a lot of artists might not feel comfortable associating their brand with that sort of nasty thing.


----------

