So Six Days in Fallujah is too controversial, but this kind of abject racism is permitted?
I don't necessarily think that there is no place for this kind of humor, but what if it was a game where you're Germany in WWII trying to keep Jews from getting out? I'm surprised this one made it onto Steam.
http://store.steampowered.com/app/664290/The_Mexican_Dream/ (http://store.steampowered.com/app/664290/The_Mexican_Dream/)
wow..... ???
Oy vey
:tickedoff:
Classy.
Maybe they'll have KKK Rally Simulator next.
More games like this please !
A game to stop boats at lybia would be good !
Uhh...
Quote from: Micha on August 29, 2017, 01:15:37 PM
More games like this please !
A game to stop boats at lybia would be good !
way down in 1981 when playing
Invader (browser: http://www.pacxon4u.com/space-invaders/ ) at the arcade
or maybe it was Centipde
i thought about (what we today would call) a mod or total conversion probably called
Asylander where 'pixel men' had to be stopped reaching the bottom of the screen as the fictional border ^-^
In the store page there is a flag near to the share/ embed, reported.
Thank you, Raied. I knew there was a way to complain/report a game, but I wasn't seeing where until you pointed it out.
that's insane that someone at Steam approved that one...
^Complaining, of course, begs the question...are video games and digital media a form of free speech that deserve a platform?
Quote from: Steelgrave on August 29, 2017, 01:52:27 PM
Thank you, Raied. I knew there was a way to complain/report a game, but I wasn't seeing where until you pointed it out.
+1 Thanks
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 29, 2017, 01:54:49 PM
^Complaining, of course, begs the question...are video games and digital media a form of free speech that deserve a platform?
I believe they are. But as consumers we have the right to voice our displeasure at what we are finding on the shelves.
Quote from: Steelgrave on August 29, 2017, 01:59:36 PM
I believe they are. But as consumers we have the right to voice our displeasure at what we are finding on the shelves.
Agreed. I support the right of the developers to make this game.
However, I don't think it's appropriate or required for a distribution platform like Steam to give them a wider venue.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 29, 2017, 01:54:49 PM
^Complaining, of course, begs the question...are video games and digital media a form of free speech that deserve a platform?
Interesting question. I don't think a retailer should be forced to carry a product. The game designers don't have to sell it through Steam either. They can market directly to the public or find other vendors. If the government stepped in and said they couldn't sell the game at all, there would definitely be a free speech violation.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 29, 2017, 01:54:49 PM
^Complaining, of course, begs the question...are video games and digital media a form of free speech that deserve a platform?
The US courts have generally held that they are, so far. There are other nations where that's not necessarily the case.
However, they've also upheld age restrictions for purchase, similar to movie ratings.
I think it's one thing to have turrets with MGs and Gatling guns to mow down undocumented workers, but using streams of piss and other weird shit is taking it to a whole new level of WTF.
Quote from: mirth on August 29, 2017, 02:02:43 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 29, 2017, 01:54:49 PM
^Complaining, of course, begs the question...are video games and digital media a form of free speech that deserve a platform?
Interesting question. I don't think a retailer should be forced to carry a product. The game designers don't have to sell it through Steam either. They can market directly to the public or find other vendors. If the government stepped in and said they couldn't sell the game at all, there would definitely be a free speech violation.
Yes, I also agree that retailers shouldn't be forced to carry products, but haven't the courts already held that businesses may be forced to provide certain goods and services, or face severe penalties? I know of at least one bakery in Colorado that probably has a strong opinion on this.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 29, 2017, 02:16:30 PM
Quote from: mirth on August 29, 2017, 02:02:43 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 29, 2017, 01:54:49 PM
^Complaining, of course, begs the question...are video games and digital media a form of free speech that deserve a platform?
Interesting question. I don't think a retailer should be forced to carry a product. The game designers don't have to sell it through Steam either. They can market directly to the public or find other vendors. If the government stepped in and said they couldn't sell the game at all, there would definitely be a free speech violation.
Yes, I also agree that retailers shouldn't be forced to carry products, but haven't the courts already held that businesses may be forced to provide certain goods and services, or face severe penalties? I know of at least one bakery in Colorado that probably has a strong opinion on this.
I dunno, but Steam, Walmart and Amazon all have policies prohibiting 'offensive' products from being sold on their platforms
http://help.walmart.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/841/~/prohibited-products-policy (http://help.walmart.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/841/~/prohibited-products-policy)
https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?ie=UTF8&nodeId=200277420 (https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?ie=UTF8&nodeId=200277420)
https://partner.steamgames.com/steamdirect (https://partner.steamgames.com/steamdirect)
^I know this. But is anything really "objectively" offensive? Do you think it is ok for Go Daddy to remove websites, from paying customers, that have content that the corporate officers or Board of Directors disagrees with? Is it ok for Google to make it difficult for people to locate certain products, or pages that it finds objectionable?
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 29, 2017, 02:50:55 PM
^I know this. But is anything really "objectively" offensive? Do you think it is ok for Go Daddy to remove websites, from paying customers, that have content that the corporate officers or Board of Directors disagrees with? Is it ok for Google to make it difficult for people to locate certain products, or pages that it finds objectionable?
I'm not trying to argue with you. You asked a question, I gave you my answer. These are why things get litigated and legislated.
Quote from: mirth on August 29, 2017, 02:55:42 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 29, 2017, 02:50:55 PM
^I know this. But is anything really "objectively" offensive? Do you think it is ok for Go Daddy to remove websites, from paying customers, that have content that the corporate officers or Board of Directors disagrees with? Is it ok for Google to make it difficult for people to locate certain products, or pages that it finds objectionable?
I'm not trying to argue with you. You asked a question, I gave you my answer. These are why things get litigated and legislated.
I'm not arguing with you. Just discussing and trying to see what your opinion is.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 29, 2017, 02:57:40 PM
Quote from: mirth on August 29, 2017, 02:55:42 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 29, 2017, 02:50:55 PM
^I know this. But is anything really "objectively" offensive? Do you think it is ok for Go Daddy to remove websites, from paying customers, that have content that the corporate officers or Board of Directors disagrees with? Is it ok for Google to make it difficult for people to locate certain products, or pages that it finds objectionable?
I'm not trying to argue with you. You asked a question, I gave you my answer. These are why things get litigated and legislated.
I'm not arguing with you. Just discussing and trying to see what your opinion is.
In this case, I think as long as the designers of the game aren't being told they can't make or sell their game at all, then I don't see a problem. Steam or any other retailer can decide whether or not to carry the product. If they opt not to carry it, the game developer can look for other distribution vendors or they can market sell it directly to the public themselves.
The question about GoDaddy denying someone a website is a somewhat different issue. GoDaddy is both a domain registrar and a web hosting company. I have no problem with GoDaddy saying, "we're not going to host your website". It's another thing for them to deny you a domain name. Domain registration is a quasi governmental function that has been delegated to private resellers such as GoDaddy. You can self host a website if you absolutely have to. You can't self-register a domain name. You have to use some authorized domain registrar.
The problem is that the government wants to pick and choose what products/customers you can choose. Either give the business owners the rights to make these decisions on their own, or start setup a bureaucracy to approve all such decisions make. If the later, than it's got to be big enough to make decisions within a couple of weeks.
As far as sale of products or services, I'm not sure why the government needs to be involved at all beyond preventing discrimination against customers doing business with them. Every business should have the right to determine what goods it will carry or what services it will provide. Consumers then have the right to decide whether or not they will patronize those businesses.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 29, 2017, 02:16:30 PM
Quote from: mirth on August 29, 2017, 02:02:43 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 29, 2017, 01:54:49 PM
^Complaining, of course, begs the question...are video games and digital media a form of free speech that deserve a platform?
Interesting question. I don't think a retailer should be forced to carry a product. The game designers don't have to sell it through Steam either. They can market directly to the public or find other vendors. If the government stepped in and said they couldn't sell the game at all, there would definitely be a free speech violation.
Yes, I also agree that retailers shouldn't be forced to carry products, but haven't the courts already held that businesses may be forced to provide certain goods and services, or face severe penalties? I know of at least one bakery in Colorado that probably has a strong opinion on this.
That bakery wasn't forced to supply a particular product, they were ordered to supply a product they regularly created and sold to a person they had refused to sell their regular product to. While that case is now up on appeal, it seems to me like a standard issue civil rights case, just like the seminal civil rights cases of the '60s where motels on federal highways were ordered to provide rooms to black people. Sexual preference has been a protected class for a few years now, so no, you can't refuse to sell your standard goods to gay people.
It wasn't like they were forced to produce a sexually explicit gay wedding cake, it was just a regular wedding cake that they refused to make for a gay couple. From the CO Civil Rights Commission's appellate brief:
QuoteRespondents Charlie Craig and David Mullins are a Colorado same-sex couple. In 2012, they planned to marry in Massachusetts and have a reception afterward in Colorado.
Accompanied by Craig's mother, Craig and Mullins went to Masterpiece to buy a wedding cake for their reception. Id. at 5a, 64a. At the shop, the couple was met by Phillips. When they told Phillips that they were interested in purchasing a wedding cake for their wedding, he replied that it was his standard business practice not to provide cakes for same-sex weddings. He explained that he would sell the couple other baked goods, including "birthday cakes, shower cakes, ... cookies and brownies." But, he said, "I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings." Id. at 4a–5a, 64a–65a.
Craig, Mullins, and Craig's mother immediately left. They never discussed details about the cake that Craig and Mullins were seeking, such as the cake's design or whether it would include any special features or messages. Id. at 4a, 65a.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 29, 2017, 02:57:40 PM
Quote from: mirth on August 29, 2017, 02:55:42 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 29, 2017, 02:50:55 PM
^I know this. But is anything really "objectively" offensive? Do you think it is ok for Go Daddy to remove websites, from paying customers, that have content that the corporate officers or Board of Directors disagrees with? Is it ok for Google to make it difficult for people to locate certain products, or pages that it finds objectionable?
I'm not trying to argue with you. You asked a question, I gave you my answer. These are why things get litigated and legislated.
I'm not arguing with you. Just discussing and trying to see what your opinion is.
Well - I think some of this is relative ... to raise a point made earlier - if it was a game of the KKK shooting black people would that be any more offensive - would perhaps steam have taken more notice and NOT allowed that one - I suggest it would have been and they would have done. Is it because its "just" mexicans ? Or is it a form of satire against the racists out there ? Having said that - there is a game on steam which consists of Scottish people fighting english people with beer bottles and porridge - is that less racist. I think given the current situation the fact there are mexicans is less humorous than it could have been a while back .. what if they werent mexicans but canadians - I am guessing that would probably be be more acceptable and generate far less comment - much as the england versus scots generated none.
So - I agree with JH - its racist and cannot see how this got through. Is there a right to absolute free speech - I would suggest if it were the KKK there wouldnt and shouldnt be. Personally to scots vs english game doesnt bother me - as perhaps this game wouldnt if it were canadians. Racism it would seem and whther somethng is acceptable or not is not black and white.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 29, 2017, 01:54:49 PM
^Complaining, of course, begs the question...are video games and digital media a form of free speech that deserve a platform?
My own sense is, while games like that should most certainly NOT be illegal, I'd rather the commercial sites that I use not feature such content. They're totally welcome to make their game and try to sell it.
I just don't want a platform I use to carry it. That's all.
Quote from: glen55 on August 29, 2017, 03:44:32 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 29, 2017, 02:16:30 PM
Quote from: mirth on August 29, 2017, 02:02:43 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 29, 2017, 01:54:49 PM
^Complaining, of course, begs the question...are video games and digital media a form of free speech that deserve a platform?
Interesting question. I don't think a retailer should be forced to carry a product. The game designers don't have to sell it through Steam either. They can market directly to the public or find other vendors. If the government stepped in and said they couldn't sell the game at all, there would definitely be a free speech violation.
Yes, I also agree that retailers shouldn't be forced to carry products, but haven't the courts already held that businesses may be forced to provide certain goods and services, or face severe penalties? I know of at least one bakery in Colorado that probably has a strong opinion on this.
That bakery wasn't forced to supply a particular product, they were ordered to supply a product they regularly created and sold to a person they had refused to sell their regular product to. While that case is now up on appeal, it seems to me like a standard issue civil rights case, just like the seminal civil rights cases of the '60s where motels on federal highways were ordered to provide rooms to black people. Sexual preference has been a protected class for a few years now, so no, you can't refuse to sell your standard goods to gay people.
It wasn't like they were forced to produce a sexually explicit gay wedding cake, it was just a regular wedding cake that they refused to make for a gay couple. From the CO Civil Rights Commission's appellate brief:
QuoteRespondents Charlie Craig and David Mullins are a Colorado same-sex couple. In 2012, they planned to marry in Massachusetts and have a reception afterward in Colorado.
Accompanied by Craig's mother, Craig and Mullins went to Masterpiece to buy a wedding cake for their reception. Id. at 5a, 64a. At the shop, the couple was met by Phillips. When they told Phillips that they were interested in purchasing a wedding cake for their wedding, he replied that it was his standard business practice not to provide cakes for same-sex weddings. He explained that he would sell the couple other baked goods, including "birthday cakes, shower cakes, ... cookies and brownies." But, he said, "I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings." Id. at 4a–5a, 64a–65a.
Craig, Mullins, and Craig's mother immediately left. They never discussed details about the cake that Craig and Mullins were seeking, such as the cake's design or whether it would include any special features or messages. Id. at 4a, 65a.
Here's the thing though. In 2012, same sex-marriage wasn't recognized in CO. Why should the baker be required to provide a cake for a wedding reception when the state didn't recognize the wedding as valid at the time?
Quote from: FarAway Sooner on August 29, 2017, 03:49:58 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 29, 2017, 01:54:49 PM
^Complaining, of course, begs the question...are video games and digital media a form of free speech that deserve a platform?
My own sense is, while games like that should most certainly NOT be illegal, I'd rather the commercial sites that I use not feature such content. They're totally welcome to make their game and try to sell it.
I just don't want a platform I use to carry it. That's all.
Good answer. I don't have a problem with porn websites carrying porn, but I don't want those titles to pop up when I'm searching Netflix with my grandsons.
Quote from: mirth on August 29, 2017, 03:52:55 PM
Quote from: glen55 on August 29, 2017, 03:44:32 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 29, 2017, 02:16:30 PM
Quote from: mirth on August 29, 2017, 02:02:43 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 29, 2017, 01:54:49 PM
^Complaining, of course, begs the question...are video games and digital media a form of free speech that deserve a platform?
Interesting question. I don't think a retailer should be forced to carry a product. The game designers don't have to sell it through Steam either. They can market directly to the public or find other vendors. If the government stepped in and said they couldn't sell the game at all, there would definitely be a free speech violation.
Yes, I also agree that retailers shouldn't be forced to carry products, but haven't the courts already held that businesses may be forced to provide certain goods and services, or face severe penalties? I know of at least one bakery in Colorado that probably has a strong opinion on this.
That bakery wasn't forced to supply a particular product, they were ordered to supply a product they regularly created and sold to a person they had refused to sell their regular product to. While that case is now up on appeal, it seems to me like a standard issue civil rights case, just like the seminal civil rights cases of the '60s where motels on federal highways were ordered to provide rooms to black people. Sexual preference has been a protected class for a few years now, so no, you can't refuse to sell your standard goods to gay people.
It wasn't like they were forced to produce a sexually explicit gay wedding cake, it was just a regular wedding cake that they refused to make for a gay couple. From the CO Civil Rights Commission's appellate brief:
QuoteRespondents Charlie Craig and David Mullins are a Colorado same-sex couple. In 2012, they planned to marry in Massachusetts and have a reception afterward in Colorado.
Accompanied by Craig's mother, Craig and Mullins went to Masterpiece to buy a wedding cake for their reception. Id. at 5a, 64a. At the shop, the couple was met by Phillips. When they told Phillips that they were interested in purchasing a wedding cake for their wedding, he replied that it was his standard business practice not to provide cakes for same-sex weddings. He explained that he would sell the couple other baked goods, including "birthday cakes, shower cakes, ... cookies and brownies." But, he said, "I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings." Id. at 4a–5a, 64a–65a.
Craig, Mullins, and Craig's mother immediately left. They never discussed details about the cake that Craig and Mullins were seeking, such as the cake's design or whether it would include any special features or messages. Id. at 4a, 65a.
Here's the thing though. In 2012, same sex-marriage wasn't recognized in CO. Why should the baker be required to provide a cake for a wedding reception when the state didn't recognize the wedding as valid at the time?
Not only that, but the case implicates issues involving religious freedom and separation of Church and State. Its not as simple as protecting "gay people from discrimination".
Quote from: Steelgrave on August 29, 2017, 03:56:54 PM
I don't have a problem with porn websites carrying porn,
As a man ten years married and twenty overall years with the same woman, neither do I.
Quote from: SirAndrewD on August 29, 2017, 04:20:08 PM
Quote from: Steelgrave on August 29, 2017, 03:56:54 PM
I don't have a problem with porn websites carrying porn,
As a man ten years married and twenty overall years with the same woman, neither do I.
8) O0
Consider something like "Shower With Your Dad Simulator." That's some creepy shit, and apparently rather popular on Steam, but whatever floats people's boats.
(warning, potential thread derailment)
As I understand it, the business owner gets to choose what products / services they will sell or provide, but once they have decided what to sell / provide, they most do so equally to everyone.
So a movie theater can decide not to show R-rated movies, but they can't only show R-rated movies to white folks.
The bakery gets to decide if they're going to make wedding cakes or not, but once they decide to make them, they have to make them for any customer. They can always choose not to make wedding cakes and you can't sue them because they don't. It would be like suing your plumber for not building your treehouse.
Please tell me Shower With Your Dad Simulator is not real.
Quote from: Gusington on August 29, 2017, 05:40:20 PM
Please tell me Shower With Your Dad Simulator is not real.
Well, we could tell you that but...
http://store.steampowered.com/app/359050/Shower_With_Your_Dad_Simulator_2015_Do_You_Still_Shower_With_Your_Dad/
Oh my frikkin God
God has nothing to do with it.
That makes me want to die.
Quote from: Gusington on August 29, 2017, 05:45:37 PM
That makes me want to die.
There's worse. I promise you.
GO AWAY EVIL GAMING NECROMANCER
[/quote]
Here's the thing though. In 2012, same sex-marriage wasn't recognized in CO. Why should the baker be required to provide a cake for a wedding reception when the state didn't recognize the wedding as valid at the time?
[/quote]
Because it was unconstitutional. State law is completely irrelevant to that, as states aren't allowed to write unconstitutional laws.
Caveat: I don't know the deep facts of this, and if there is an issue of enforcing law for pre-change behavior, I'm not commenting on that. I was really just commenting on Jarhead's statement that" I don't think a retailer should be forced to carry a product," which he linked to the Colorado bakery case.
[/quote]
Not only that, but the case implicates issues involving religious freedom and separation of Church and State. Its not as simple as protecting "gay people from discrimination".
[/quote]
Well, it "implicates" them, but in only in a way that is already well-settled in American constitutional law. Your religious beliefs do not entitle you to discriminate commercially against members of a protected class. If they did, that would be a mile-wide loophole in anti-discrimination law: just join the Church of Universal Enthusiastic Bigotry and open your whites-only restaurant chain nationwide.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 29, 2017, 04:12:09 PMNot only that, but the case implicates issues involving religious freedom and separation of Church and State. Its not as simple as protecting "gay people from discrimination".
\
As I understand it, a similar case was pretty much sealed when it was discovered that the bakery made cakes for people married at the courthouse that were never married in a church, thus completely invalidating the whole "we only make cakes for religious ceremonies we agree with" argument. I might've misread the details, but I think that was the gist of it.
Boy did you guys fall for all this mumbo jumbo hook, line and sinker. I started this conversation just to get BayonetBrant to actively participate in a thread in the computer wargaming forum. Suckers.
I feel so used.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 29, 2017, 06:20:31 PM
Boy did you guys fall for all this mumbo jumbo hook, line and sinker. I started this conversation just to get BayonetBrant to actively participate in a thread in the computer wargaming forum. Suckers.
success! O0
Quote from: mirth on August 29, 2017, 06:21:53 PMI feel so used.
you say that it's a deviation from the norm, IT guy...
How did we fall for anything? The conversation and games are real and so is the debate. And Shower With Your Dad still makes me want to die.
Quote from: Gusington on August 29, 2017, 07:17:36 PM
How did we fall for anything? The conversation and games are real and so is the debate. And Shower With Your Dad still makes me want to die.
It was fake. You're still in denial.
You can go ahead and trick me into talking about constitutional law whenever you feel like it. O0
Quote from: Gusington on August 29, 2017, 07:17:36 PM
How did we fall for anything? The conversation and games are real and so is the debate. And Shower With Your Dad still makes me want to die.
Shower with your Dad isn't even the worst shower game. Skip to 8:20 for the really crazy stuff.
Quote from: Steelgrave on August 29, 2017, 01:59:36 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 29, 2017, 01:54:49 PM
^Complaining, of course, begs the question...are video games and digital media a form of free speech that deserve a platform?
I believe they are. But as consumers we have the right to voice our displeasure at what we are finding on the shelves.
I agree with you. Personally I find it in bad taste, and won't be buying a copy.
Quote from: Boggit on August 29, 2017, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: Steelgrave on August 29, 2017, 01:59:36 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 29, 2017, 01:54:49 PM
^Complaining, of course, begs the question...are video games and digital media a form of free speech that deserve a platform?
I believe they are. But as consumers we have the right to voice our displeasure at what we are finding on the shelves.
I agree with you. Personally I find it in bad taste, and won't be buying a copy.
Let's be honest...is this a game anyone here would have bought anyway?
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 29, 2017, 08:07:15 PM
Quote from: Boggit on August 29, 2017, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: Steelgrave on August 29, 2017, 01:59:36 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 29, 2017, 01:54:49 PM
^Complaining, of course, begs the question...are video games and digital media a form of free speech that deserve a platform?
I believe they are. But as consumers we have the right to voice our displeasure at what we are finding on the shelves.
I agree with you. Personally I find it in bad taste, and won't be buying a copy.
Let's be honest...is this a game anyone here would have bought anyway?
Probably not.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 29, 2017, 08:07:15 PM
Let's be honest...is this a game anyone here would have bought anyway?
it's on a computer, and it's not a Civ game, so not me... :)
The game also lets you shoot americans, not just Mexicans. Not one-sided racist bias.
Yeah the 'Mexicans' don't look Mexican to me. They look like Anglos, run like them too. My Daughter-In-Law's family is Mexican and believe me, they can run faster than that.
Quote from: mirth on August 29, 2017, 03:40:46 PM
As far as sale of products or services, I'm not sure why the government needs to be involved at all beyond preventing discrimination against customers doing business with them. Every business should have the right to determine what goods it will carry or what services it will provide. Consumers then have the right to decide whether or not they will patronize those businesses.
The problem with allowing businesses to decide what to do kind of ended up with Jews being black listed from pretty much everywhere in Nazi Germany, right?
There was a case in the UK (or perhaps Ireland) where a gay couple couldn't get a cake made at a shop because it had a picture of them both on the front - their wedding cake I believe. The shop refused to bake said cake and present it to them. The couple went to court and the bakery was fined.
Now - we can all sit here - as people who aren't deemed odd in society (I maybe be speaking for myself here :P ) - and say "It's the shop's right to determine what and who they sell to, right?"...wrong.
I thought exactly the same thing - "What about the people running about the shop? What about their rights?". Well, they decided they were going to provide a service to the public and it should be done without prejudice.
So - the couple could've taken their request to another shop. But what if ALL bakeries were allowed to refuse to bake the cake? Then it's exclusion based on, in that case, sexual preference.
So no - perhaps businesses cannot determine what they can and can't sell.
I'm really not into government censorship - but businesses providing a service to the public shouldn't be allowed to do so by allowing any prejudices to determine which segments of the public they can include and exclude.
As for this game. The targeting and killing of innocent people shouldn't be in a game imo - particularly when it's so blatantly targeted.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on August 30, 2017, 12:48:58 AM
I thought exactly the same thing - "What about the people running about the shop? What about their rights?". Well, they decided they were going to provide a service to the public and it should be done without prejudice.
So - the couple could've taken their request to another shop. But what if ALL bakeries were allowed to refuse to bake the cake? Then it's exclusion based on, in that case, sexual preference.
So no - perhaps businesses cannot determine what they can and can't sell.
I'm really not into government censorship - but businesses providing a service to the public shouldn't be allowed to do so by allowing any prejudices to determine which segments of the public they can include and exclude.
There is a Solomon solution
its depends on the size of business and if owner is
personal involved in providing that service.
so a Mom and Pop store bakery can refuse to serve individual customers when they don't like the customer for whatever reason and even free of choice to don't let them on their property at all
so Pop just refuse to handcraft a 'dick in the ass erotic cake' or 'Jesus nailed upside down' or 'Swastika cluttered cake' or '9/11-planes hit WTC'-cake
if the biz get bigger, has more then one independent managed store (so owner don't swings between them) or it gets a chain and the owner just sits in a office building 'making directives' ...or even better is on the golf course and sail boat all day and just receive the benefits for being the majority stock holder, then the owner cant make directives that are exclude a social group. so he still can exclude an individual persons. (black list of individual names)
The problem today is that Political Correctness is a one sided left/green affair, abused as a political weapon
if the gay couple would sue for their 'dick in the ass' cake, the bakery get fined.
if an let's say WW2 reenactor group would sue for getting their 'Waffen SS-cake' , the bakery wins and get celebrated in MSM
for standing the ground (even so the reenactors are all Brits and no nazis at all)
(...and don't even dare to get an 'AFD'-cake for a let's say kickoff of an local AFD-party rally for the German elections in a few weeks here.)
and so today that exemplaric gay couple (activists) would search so long to finally find the single bakery left in town which refused and then ran for the media to air the scandal they where looking for.
I think MikeGER is right that political correctness is a device used as a political weapon to force people to comply with things they are bitterly opposed to, but also to shut down discussion of issues.
I'm in agreement with JD's view that shops should sell to people regardless of who they are, but MikeGER has made a very interesting point as to where a business is asked to provide a service to produce something in subject matter that is totally outside their normal course of business.
It is one thing for a gay couple to ask for a "normal" cake to be baked for them, but it becomes contentious and is an altogether different thing to ask for - and expect - for a bakery to bake a "sexually explicit" cake, when the business does not hold itself out as taking commissions for "sexually explicit" cakes. Now if the business is already in the practice of producing "sexually explicit" cakes for heterosexual couples, then a refusal to bake a gay version is unreasonable for direct discrimination based on a customers sexual preference, which is presently illegal. However, if the business does not make sexually explicit cakes, either as "normal" business, or for special commissions then I think a refusal to make is open to argument on the basis that the business is distinguished from being discriminatory by being asked to produce a product that it has not, and does not intend to supply/manufacture simply because it is not in that type of business.
A moral (not legal) argument to when such a request is outside the normal nature of the business, is that by making the cake it shows a tacit public approval of the subject matter, even though it may create offense to the people making it, and go against their views.
As with other contentious issues this all comes around to tolerance, and the limits we should set as a matter of law on the abuse of tolerance. This is an important issue in getting the balance right for any discrimination legislation - how far do you compel people to deal with people they are in notional opposition to? It is one thing compelling the right of purchase, but altogether another thing to stop exercising our personal right to embargo where it may be discriminatory on various grounds. In the instant case, I think the matter hinges on the normal course of business, and of the reasonableness of any request outside of it.
I was having this conversation with some friends the other night: If you think a bakery shouldn't have the right to refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, how about having the right to refuse make a Nazi-themed wedding cake? I'm still not sure where I sit on this issue, but I tend to lean on the "Both groups should get the same treatment."
There are two tricky questions here.
#1: Which group is more in the right here? (in the case of a kind, patient human being who is sadly refusing to provide the service on religious beliefs, both parties have some legitimacy in their claims here)
#2: How much downside is there from having the government involved in drawing black and white lines here?
Based on my beliefs in #1, I am inclined to boycott a store or chain that refuses to sell cakes to gay couples. But thinking that we should get the government involved is a separate conversation, as any good libertarian will tell us.
Folks just need to make sure whether they're objecting on grounds #1 or #2, I think. If they're objecting at all...
Quote from: mirth on August 29, 2017, 03:40:46 PM
As far as sale of products or services, I'm not sure why the government needs to be involved at all beyond preventing discrimination against customers doing business with them. Every business should have the right to determine what goods it will carry or what services it will provide. Consumers then have the right to decide whether or not they will patronize those businesses.
I don't have a problem with a business refusing to serve a customer, for whatever reason they choose. The only requirement would be that they have to post that on the front of their store. I'd rather know whom I'm really dealing with than some artificial PC business.
Healthcare and grocery stores are the two exceptions to the rule that I can think of.
I don't think it is as simple as refusing to make a cake for a gay couple. That is not really the issue involved in the particular case, or line of cases. The issue is whether a person or business can be forced by the government to provide custom goods and/or services that in some significant, material way, violates a legitimate religious conviction or belief.
Some say that the government should not wield this level of authority, and that it is the marketplace that should control. If a business expresses views that the majority of people disagree with, then we would hope they would not do business there and the venture will simply wither and die.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 30, 2017, 12:31:43 PM
violates a legitimate religious conviction or belief.
And there's the problem. Who gets to decide what that is? Ultimately it will have to be the government through legislation and legal decisions by the courts.
Anyway, I like how a thread about a stupid little game has morphed into a debate about gay and Nazis confections.
Quote from: mirth on August 30, 2017, 12:36:05 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 30, 2017, 12:31:43 PM
violates a legitimate religious conviction or belief.
And there's the problem. Who gets to decide what that is? Ultimately it will have to be the government through legislation and legal decisions by the courts.
That's not necessarily a problem. That's how literally everything works. There is a standard, or a test for everything in the law.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 30, 2017, 12:38:50 PM
Quote from: mirth on August 30, 2017, 12:36:05 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 30, 2017, 12:31:43 PM
violates a legitimate religious conviction or belief.
And there's the problem. Who gets to decide what that is? Ultimately it will have to be the government through legislation and legal decisions by the courts.
That's not necessarily a problem. That's how literally everything works. There is a standard, or a test for everything in the law.
I agree. I wasn't trying to present it as a problem (poor phrasing on my part). It's really the only way these issues can be resolved.
So has JH been suckered back in to his own thread? VICTORY
Quote from: Gusington on August 30, 2017, 01:46:20 PM
So has JH been suckered back in to his own thread? VICTORY
I'm going to have a slice of Gay Nazis wedding cake in celebration.
Fabulous!
Victory has never tasted sweeter.
Quote from: Gusington on August 30, 2017, 01:46:20 PM
So has JH been suckered back in to his own thread? VICTORY
No. Its all a ploy to get Brant to come back for an encore.
Can I still have the slice of Gay Nazis wedding cake?
Have two - don't be fooled by JH's cool facade
VICTORY
I'm just happy our Jewish Overlords settle for intellectual debate and not Thunderdome. Though I'm pretty defenseless in the intellectual area also. :idiot2:
Surely no one could equate offence at the prospect of two men getting married with that generated by the open support of a political movement which pursues genocide?
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 30, 2017, 12:31:43 PM
a legitimate religious conviction or belief.
See, for me, that is an oxymoron. I realise this is a largely philosophical debate about state intervention we're having here, but sometimes there is room for moral relativism.
(sorry to get all serious again - was typing whilst the cake posts were made)
Quote from: Father Ted on August 30, 2017, 02:30:18 PM
Surely no one could equate offence at the prospect of two men getting married with that generated by the open support of a political movement which pursues genocide?
Says who? You? I, of course, agree with your position from a moral position, but I also believe the government should not take sides by determining what belief is more offensive as a rule. This is coming from a Jewish son of a Holocaust survivor.
(https://i.imgflip.com/1v07s1.jpg)
Quote from: Father Ted on August 30, 2017, 02:30:18 PM
Surely no one could equate offence at the prospect of two men getting married with that generated by the open support of a political movement which pursues genocide?
That's the problem though, those that don't support same-sex marriage, and other non-PC views, are being equated to those that would support genocide.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on August 30, 2017, 02:00:50 PM
No. Its all a ploy to get Brant to come back for an encore.
:peace:
Quote from: OJsDad on August 30, 2017, 02:55:33 PM
Quote from: Father Ted on August 30, 2017, 02:30:18 PM
Surely no one could equate offence at the prospect of two men getting married with that generated by the open support of a political movement which pursues genocide?
That's the problem though, those that don't support same-sex marriage, and other non-PC views, are being equated to those that would support genocide.
Is that really happening?
Also, and I realise this is veering off topic, but what is the general objection to same-sex marriage? Who does it hurt? Seems to me genocide hurts a whole lot more people. So if you're worried that you may get lumped in with genocidal twats for being offended by it then why not let it go? What would happen to your world?
Quote from: Father Ted on August 30, 2017, 05:20:28 PM
Also, and I realise this is veering off topic, but what is the general objection to same-sex marriage? Who does it hurt? Seems to me genocide hurts a whole lot more people. So if you're worried that you may get lumped in with genocidal twats for being offended by it then why not let it go? What would happen to your world?
I do let it go. I work for a company that has embraced the LBGT community. I've worked with many people that are gay over the years that I've been there. I've worked with many gay people over that last 27 years. The company I work for has a support group for LBGT employees, along with ones for African Americans, Hispanics, and Woman. I could look at another job that doesn't embrace homosexuality as much, but I do like my job and my co workers.
I believe homosexuality is a sin. But it's God that will pass judgement on them, and me. No person has ever been appointed judge in God's place, except in their own mind. There's a huge difference between thinking homosexuality is a sin and wanting to see people harmed because of it.
But for some reason, because of my beliefs don't align with those on the some, they want to lump me and many others like me in with 'genocidal twats'. And why is that. Because too many people are unable to have a conversation and listen to what someone that has a different belief has to say. Yep, there are people that think homosexuality is a sin that go too far and extreme with their beliefs also. I've heard people say that what happened in Orlando was deserved because it was a gay club. What happened there wasn't deserved for any reason.
You ask what would happen to my world if I let it go. Nothing. But what would happen to my world if I told my employer that I think homosexuality is a sin. I'd be fired for creating a hostile work environment, even though that's never happened. If what I believed was make public, I, my wife, and my kids would be threated.
Jarhead, I realize that the legal question here is one about religious freedom. But I'm more interested in what the law should be than what it is. And I see both sides.
I really ask the question to call attention to the inconsistency on both sides.
Mirth's example of a Nazi Lesbian Wedding Cake might make it too hard for people of any political stripe to decide where they land on this issue. Most men would probably be heavily influenced by whether they were hot lesbians or not. But we're kind of dogs that way.
Can we go back to being horrified about how bad this game is?
Was this about a game? :buck2:
Quote from: JudgeDredd on August 31, 2017, 04:53:31 AM
Was this about a game? :buck2:
A game that shouldn't be made.
Shouldn't be, perhaps, but the developers have the right to make it and Steam the right to sell it.
I like cake.
As is your right.
I wish I could buy it on Steam.
Quote from: mirth on August 31, 2017, 08:01:08 AM
I like cake.
(https://cdn.meme.am/instances/60208783/mmmm-cake.jpg)
Cake sucks. I hated their music in the 90s, except for that one racing song. They're an instant 'change the channel' whenever they come on, along with Marcy Playground. >:(
You don't like sex and candy either?
Quote from: mirth on August 31, 2017, 08:22:35 AM
You don't like sex and candy either?
:pullhair: :pullhair: :pullhair:
Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck no. God I hate that song.
Song?
Mirth: two shows nightly! Try the veal!
And tip your waitress!
The one Counting Crows show I have ever been to had Cake as the opener. They were great. I slept through the entire Counting Crows set. Moral of the story: do not listen to BC, Cake are/is great. Counting Crows are your enemy.
Way to make BC eat crow.
'zactly.
Does he like pie.
floor pie
Quote from: BanzaiCat on August 31, 2017, 08:21:40 AM
Cake sucks. I hated their music in the 90s, except for that one racing song. They're an instant 'change the channel' whenever they come on, along with Marcy Playground. >:(
Even the racing song was crap. Their cover of "I Will Survive" wasn't half-bad, but gets old after about 2 verses.
Quote from: Gusington on August 31, 2017, 08:39:14 AMMoral of the story: do not listen to BC, Cake are/is great. Counting Crows are your enemy. Gus has shitty taste in music
FTFY
Cake are great. Counting Crows are terrible. That is all.
You boys are hilarious.
Let him eat...Cake.
Stop dropping fashion nuggets.
Their shininess might distract the Comfort Eagles.
Quote from: BanzaiCat on August 31, 2017, 06:14:50 PM
Stop dropping fashion nuggets.
You laid an egg with that one.
Bird is the word.
This talk of Nazi lesbians reminds me of a story.
It was around the summer of 2002, and the place I was working at treated us to an afternoon on a boat on the Potomac River. It was nice - a day out of the office, lunch, and a chance to hang out. Sort of a happy hour on company time.
We shared the boat with two other groups. I was bored, so I started figuring out who the other groups were. The first group was easy -- they were mentally impaired adults with their chaperones. They looked like they were enjoying themselves. It took me a bit longer to figure out that the second group of folks on the boat were deaf lesbians. When I pointed that out to my co-workers, they all said "yeah - you're right - I hadn't noticed that."
Deaf-Lesbians? I've never heard of such a thing. ::) Maybe they just weren't listening to you. ;D I have that effect on anything female apparently.
Quote from: Gusington on August 31, 2017, 09:55:35 AM
Cake are great. Counting Crows are terrible. That is all.
This x2
Quote from: Nefaro on September 01, 2017, 12:03:51 PM
Quote from: Gusington on August 31, 2017, 09:55:35 AM
Cake are great. Counting Crows are terrible. That is all.
This x2
so we've got 2 of y'all with crappy taste in music... ::)
Quote from: Gusington on August 31, 2017, 09:55:35 AM
Cake are great. Counting Crows are terrible. That is all.
Big time +1 on that
we're up to 3 of y'all that suck
Cake really isn't that good. It's hard to imagine ranking them above Counting Crows.
Please. Counting Crows are there for the whiners. Cake just wants to party. BB suck it.
Counting Crows were built to be famous and take advantage of the least common grunge denominator. Cake at least has its own sound.
Quote from: RyanE on September 01, 2017, 02:06:52 PM
Cake at least has its own sound.
It's own lame sound.
Time to settle this in
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4025/5147955118_46054bf421.jpg)
Quote from: Sir Slash on September 01, 2017, 10:57:09 AM
Deaf-Lesbians? I've never heard of such a thing.
You're thinking of Four Non-Blondes.
^ fuck that shit
Quote from: mirth on September 01, 2017, 06:23:11 PM
^ fuck that shit
Is that even possible?
WHY THE **** WONT ANY HTML CODES WORK FOR ME?
Is anyone seeing the great Cake tune above?
Quote from: Moreb on September 01, 2017, 07:55:37 PM
Quote from: mirth on September 01, 2017, 06:23:11 PM
^ fuck that shit
Is that even possible?
WHY THE **** WONT ANY HTML CODES WORK FOR ME?
Is anyone seeing the great Cake tune above?
Here ya go:
Quote from: Moreb on September 01, 2017, 07:55:37 PM
WHY THE **** WONT ANY HTML CODES WORK FOR ME?
http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=4814.msg550685#msg550685
Quote from: Moreb on September 01, 2017, 07:55:37 PM
Is anyone seeing the great Cake tune above?
No, but it's because there's no such thing, even if the embed was working
Quote from: bayonetbrant on September 02, 2017, 07:43:01 AM
No, but it's because there's no such thing, even if the embed was working
You hush now.
"Alexa! Play album: Comfort Eagle!"
Cake rules. Even if they don't rule they are better than Counting Crows. And 4 Non Blondes...*shudder* - we can all agree that they are uber-lame. Going to my deck now to drink beer and listen to my Best of The Fixx 😎
Quote from: Staggerwing on September 01, 2017, 09:39:35 PM
Quote from: Moreb on September 01, 2017, 07:55:37 PM
Quote from: mirth on September 01, 2017, 06:23:11 PM
^ fuck that shit
Is that even possible?
WHY THE **** WONT ANY HTML CODES WORK FOR ME?
Is anyone seeing the great Cake tune above?
Here ya go:
Thank you kind Sir. I believe that there song made a believer out of Brant.
heheh
Quote from: Staggerwing on September 02, 2017, 08:24:32 AM
"Alexa! Play album: Comfort Eagle!"
Could get the same result by saying, "Alexa! Play shit music!"
Though it's a toss up whether it'll be Cake, Marcy Playground, or 4 Non-Blondes that plays first. ;D
It definitely won't be Cake. But it will include Counting Crows.
I'd rather eat a cake filled with razor blades than listen to Counting Crows.
Those of you who can stomach that manufactured aural abortion are accomplished masochists.
👍
It all boils down to Greybriar's sig.
I am now a complete part of the martrix.
(https://i1.wp.com/elliedi.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Keanu-Whoa.jpg)
Perfect.
The cake is a lie.
...man, that joke was really, really late in this thread. L:-)
Have a cookie.
But what are the ingredients of the cookie?
1cup peanut butter
1 cup sugar
1 egg
Mix until stiff
Roll into small spheres
Mash flat with fork
Bake at 350 for 10-12 minutes
Okay, but I was reeeeeallly looking for Pratt to analyze each component, Barth, including the existential relationship that each one shares with the other ingredients on a sub-atomic level.
I'm mixing but I fear it growing too stiff. Should I call a doctor with culinary training or a chef with medical training?
Quote from: Gusington on September 25, 2017, 08:09:49 AM
I'm mixing but I fear it growing too stiff. Should I call a doctor with culinary training or a chef with medical training?
Just call Star.
Add goat milk.
I don't know which option is more gross.