Greatoneshere

Right, but the difference being that the refusal was based on a problem with the type of person the gay couple actually were rather than about anything with them specifically as Bob or Ed (in terms of their specific personalities, etc.). It may have been a stance against the government, but the net effect is bigotry towards a group of people. The net effect in Sarah Huckabee Sanders' situation is the protest was political in nature directed directly at the specific person that is, in part, responsible for what is causing their protest in the first place. It is aimed at her and only her. Group of people (gay people) vs. individual (Sarah Huckabee Sanders specifically). Private people (random gay couple) vs. public figure (senior White House official / press secretary). That difference between generally and specifically is very important, even if both beliefs are political in nature. How it is aimed and who it is aimed at matters, which is why libel and slander laws (as a for instance) differentiate between private and public figures. I'm happy to discuss more if I'm truly misunderstanding something.

The thing is, that's true! We are bigoted against, specifically, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, due to who she is, what she's done, who she represents, etc. That's totally the same thing as refusing service to all gay people because they are gay! Totally the same thing GUYS. Being bigoted against one person and being bigoted against an entire group = SAME THING GUYS.

Whether it's more comparable is probably irrelavant since those two incidents are entirely different as well. In the making cakes incident, the person who was refusing service was based on the premise of who the couple were generally (members of the gay community) rather than who they were specifically (Bob and Ed, or whoever, they were). In the Red Hen incident, the person refusing service was based on the premise of who the person was specifically (aka Sarah Huckabee Sanders, senior White House official), due to Sarah's political stances and policies. Refusing her service (more accurately: politely asking her and her entourage to leave) was a form of political protest at a specific public person. This isn't directed at you Spawn. I'm just amazed a lot of people don't understand this distinction. But hey, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of both the baker and the Muslim Ban, so what do I know.

Insane. Truly.

I think that's incredibly alarmist, and inaccurate to DSA's or even Sanders' policies. I'm not for the "populist" left, I'm for change from what we've had for decades, and I want that change in a left direction than a right one. No, I don't want a centrist, because that's what we've had for ages and it hasn't worked, because it led us to Trump. So no, I'm for humane, free market capitalism and that, I think, is what we'd ultimately get with people like this.

And yet, still better than all other candidates that were presented, so what's it matter? It's an incredibly positive change compared to what we've gotten for decades. Not just in terms of policy, but personality and behavior and ethics and morals. You can't just ignore those wins.

Spec Ops: The Line was an absolutely phenomenal game - I have to give it a shout out, as not enough people played that wonderful game. Agreed. I'm not sure why everyone forgets they also did the Devil Mary Cry reboot, DmC though. That game, especially the remastered version, was just as legit as Heavenly Sword, Enslaved: Odyssey to the West, and Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice.

Right on point. It's amazing the lies societies and civilizations tell themselves when the truth is right there, staring them in the face.

Well put. It is indeed a medical condition, just not a mental illness. And the body is indeed the "flaw", not the gender identity.

This is actually a big win for trans people - just ask one of them. To be acknowledged that what you are isn't a medical condition but "natural" in the same ways straight or gay people are considered "natural" makes them feel validated - as they should. It was the same with homosexuality. And it does given the alt right less fodder if they can't point to science (they rarely can these days anyway, but every little bit helps). So this does help, though what you say is also important with regard to acceptance and understanding. And yes, mental health disorders can be based on their destructiveness. That's how many of them have been discovered - it was hurting themselves or the people around them. Transgenderism doesn't hurt anybody. Destructiveness is a key factor in determining mental disorders (not the only factor however, of course). Narcissistic personality disorder, for example (a mental health disorder our very president suffers from) is only diagnosable through its destructiveness on and towards others, as all its symptoms only exhibit themselves from how the person treats others.

That is FUCKING BALLER. Best news I've read today - thanks for that. All the news is so godawfully shitty that this was a nice change for once.

That tweet is something I've been saying since law school - every "incorrect" supreme court opinion almost universally ignores some clear contextual fact. It's ridiculous. It's "political correctness" at its truest definition.

My parents and both my brothers are doctors; one brother is a psychiatrist. I'm personally no expert, but you have a presumption that the "function runs counter to the design" but there is no "design" that is presumptively built into the human body - so long as it can keep living, that's really it's only function (that, and to procreate, which is a choice), and arguably even death is a choice. I absolutely agree if someone's chemical reactions or genetic traits are hurting themselves or others (or causing them to do something egregiously illegal in some way) then yeah, call it a mental disease or disorder. But no, the same logic could not be used for more destructive beahviours because, as you said, they are more destructive, thus making them different than this, thus using the same logic is impossible because they are entirely different contexts. Transgenderism isn't destructive, rape and murder are. Anti-vaxxers? It's not the same at all, since the choice not to vaccinate actually affects other people, like second-hand smoke. Transgenderism isn't anything like those.

I'm surprised, but not that surprised - we all figured that they'd walk it this way.

How does one argue when a chemical release or genetic trait is simply "different" vs. "bad and needs to be corrected"? I think transgenderism is the former.

Welp, Trump's ruined this now. It's not funny when it's true. He IS that.

Pretty much this.

I love that people tell them to fuck off rather than just not agreeing to meet.

This fucking guy.

You speak truth! This one is a tough call. Tim Miller is theoretically great but a lot is going to depend on the writing, I think, as it did with Deadpool.

Well fuck.

That doesn't match either. I saw that earlier in this thread. Pretty bad, not sure how they didn't catch that one during pre-production.

Usually when one isn't informed, they are surprised! Denis is great, as it sounds like you now know. Check out his other movies if you haven't yet, they are all universally great. I do grant knowing too much about a movie hurts my ability to be pleasantly surprised which is why these days I rarely even watch trailers. I just look at the behind the scenes talent and word of mouth and personal interest and go from there hah.