Cable Forum - President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33705924)

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas (Post 35949806)

Okay I will give you an example here, Maggy. A few days back the ruling on the CO baker (who refused to participate in gay marriages) won his case in the high court not to have bake cakes for gay weddings, whilst not falling foul of CO's civil rights laws:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.dff35124ccf7

The same baker is now in trouble for refusing to bake a cake for a Transgender women:

https://nypost.com/2018/08/15/baker-...sgender-order/

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

A long overdue initiative to reign in the runway Market:

Elizabeth Warren unveils bold new plan to reshape American capitalism

Quote:

In an article announcing the bill, Warren said she was looking to reverse “a fundamental change in business practices” dating back three decades that made corporations beholden to the bottom line at the expense of better worker wages and local investment.

“The obsession with maximizing shareholder returns effectively means America’s biggest companies have dedicated themselves to making the rich even richer,” she wrote in the Wall Street Journal.

The proposal would create a new Office of United States Corporations within the Department of Commerce, which would be responsible for granting the charters – and which could revoke a charter if a state attorney general requests it, and the office finds the firm has a history of egregious and repeated illegal conduct and has failed take action to correct it.

Large companies dedicated 93% of their earnings to shareholders between 2007 and 2016 – a shift from the early 1980s, when they sent less than half their revenue to shareholders and spent the rest on employees and other priorities, Warren said.

“Real wages have stagnated even as productivity has continued to rise. Workers aren’t getting what they’ve earned. Companies also are setting themselves up to fail,” she wrote.

Will the bill pass? Not a hope ..

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35959937)

The same baker is now in trouble for refusing to bake a cake for a Transgender women:

https://nypost.com/2018/08/15/baker-...sgender-order/

He is not in trouble.

Fancy that, all the cake shops in America and they went to that one asking for a cake... They knew what they were fecking doing.

A shop owner has the right to refuse service, to any person, for any reason or no reason. The Supreme court upheld his appeal early this year when he refused to bake a cake for a gay couple because it was against his religious beliefs. Now that this test has passed in the Supreme Court, the highest Court in the land, he could get substantial damages when he sues for "targeted harassment".

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35959967)

Of course he was deliberately targeted.

Quote:

Autumn Scardina, a Denver attorney whose practice includes family, personal injury, insurance and employment law, filed the Colorado complaint — saying that Phillips refused her request for a gender transition cake in 2017...

...Phillips’ lawsuit refers to a website for Scardina’s practice, Scardina Law. The site states, in part: “We take great pride in taking on employers who discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and serving them their just desserts.”

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35959967)

He is not in trouble.

Fancy that, all the cake shops in America and they went to that one asking for a cake... They knew what they were fecking doing.

A shop owner has the right to refuse service, to any person, for any reason or no reason. The Supreme court upheld his appeal early this year when he refused to bake a cake for a gay couple because it was against his religious beliefs. Now that this test has passed in the Supreme Court, the highest Court in the land, he could get substantial damages when he sues for "targeted harassment".

Actually, they can't...

https://businessadvocatelaw.com/lawy...er_bl26152.htm

Quote:

The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to “full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.”

The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which precludes discrimination by businesses on the basis of disability.

In addition to these federal protections, many states also protect people from discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation or other personal attributes.

Second, putting up a sign does not create the right to refuse service; the right exists, but you must be careful about when you exercise it. When a customer is not a member of a federally protected class, you can generally deny service so long as you have a legitimate business reason. Some reasons that have been found to be legitimate include:

When a customer is not properly dressed. Hence the other common sign, “No shirt, no shoes, no service.”

When a customer has poor hygiene, such as extreme body odor or being excessively dirty.

When a customer is being disruptive. This includes customers that are intoxicated.

When a customer harasses your employees or other customers.

When there are safety concerns, such as when there are too many people to serve.

If you are certain a customer cannot or will not pay.

When a customer comes in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closed.

Patrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers who wish to stay on premises.

Even the most compelling business reason cannot overcome obvious discrimination. Legitimate reasons for denying service cannot be used as a shield when the actual reason for the refusal of service is discrimination.

You said

Quote:

The Supreme court upheld his appeal early this year when he refused to bake a cake for a gay couple because it was against his religious beliefs.

No, the Supreme Court didn't decide for him on the basis of his religious beliefs, they decided for him because the Colorado Court had shown "hostility" towards him.

Quote:

As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case.

Quote:

the Supreme Court ruling also specifically defends the rights of gay Americans. “Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth,” the majority opinion says.

While religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected under the First Amendment, the court warns, “It is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services.”

Exceptions to the anti-discrimination rule, it adds, must be strictly limited:

Yet if that exception were not confined, then a long list of persons who provide goods and services for marriages and weddings might refuse to do so for gay persons, thus resulting in a community-wide stigma inconsistent with the history and dynamics of civil rights laws that ensure equal access to goods, services, and public accommodations.

The court noted that Phillips’ exemption from anti-discrimination laws will not be broadly applicable in the future

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35959977)

Actually, they can't...

https://businessadvocatelaw.com/lawy...er_bl26152.htm

You said

No, the Supreme Court didn't decide for him on the basis of his religious beliefs, they decided for him because the Colorado Court had shown "hostility" towards him.

Hostility based on his refusal to bake a cake on his religious beliefs. I will stick to what I originally said thanks.

They can refuse to serve anybody they choose - They can close early, shut their doors if they desire and refuse entry, so yes they can refuse service, there is a ways and means.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35959979)

He doesn't seem to have used those means though. We'll have to see what happens now. I am not sure how far he can push the religious beliefs defence, if it gets you off from discrimination against transgender people then you can use it for anything.

All sides seem to be wanting this fight though. They picked him intentionally, he knew refusing to bake it would go down this road. They're willing participants in a culture war.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35959984)

I think this is something the Supreme court need to rule on.

I am non-religious but I respect anyone else's belief and would not expect anyone to do anything they objected to on religious grounds.

Personally I have many friends in the LGBT community and treat them no different than any of my other friends, quite often enjoying a laugh at each other's expense.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

Quote:

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35959994)

I think this is something the Supreme court need to rule on.

I am non-religious but I respect anyone else's belief and would not expect anyone to do anything they objected to on religious grounds.

But the question is how far can religious belief be used to deny others service? Also who decides if something is a legitimate religious issue? For example I didn’t really think that transgender issues were that much of an issue in Christianity.

It might be an idea for this guy to stop baking custom cakes anyway if he has this many issues with it. This issue has always been a bit of an outlier since it involves the creation of something through.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

FAKE NEWS CNN thinks it has every right to the names and addresses of the Manafort Jurors. They have filed a lawsuit against government for their details.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/08/17/...anafort-jurors

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35960174)

Not just CNN - I think they’re all wrong in doing this..

Quote:

The motion — filed on behalf of CNN, Washington Post, BuzzFeed, POLITICO, New York Times, NBC Universal, and the Associated Press

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

Juries don't tend to be anonymous in the US. The idea being that everyone should be able to seen justice being done including those who decide. In this case there is an exception because of the high-profile nature of the case and threats being directed at the judge and jury. I think the media are trying to get a compromise so they can see the names.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

After the case has been concluded, ordinarily!

Not while the trial is active / in deliberation of all phases.

You then get into Jury nullification / intimidation etc combined with tampering with the pool etc (depending on status of sequestration etc).

Media screwed up, yet again.

Also when they come forward, they waive their own anonymity of their own volition, not because they were outed!!!

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas (Post 35960310)

In this case there is a real danger to the jurors. The media (in particular the bloc that coordinated with the Clinton campaign through Podesta) have raised the level of political vitriol to a level I have never seen before. Add in a little social media insanity, season with self righteous "investigative reporting" and you've got the recipe for disaster. Even though this trial really has nothing to do with Trump the media has dragged it into that cesspool and the participants are at risk.

Re: President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas (Post 35960310)

There is nothing to say the Judge wouldn't have named them after the trial was finished had he accepted the motion.

https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-la...juror-names-an

Quote:

Despite the rise of anonymous juries, members of the news media possess the general right to challenge a court’s decision to withhold juror names and addresses. When making these challenges, the press typically asserts they have a First Amendment and common law right to the desired information. As will be displayed below, the majority of courts to consider the issue have concluded that a qualified right of access to juror names and addresses exists.

https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-la...entifying-jury

Quote:

After being granted the names and addresses of only two of the jurors, The Globe’s motion made its way to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. In a decision issued earlier this year, the Massachusetts high court sided with The Globe — ruling that the public has the right to learn the names of jurors who have been empanelled and rendered a verdict in criminal cases. The court specified, “Only on a judicial finding of good cause, which may include a risk of harm to the jurors or to the integrity of their service, may such a list be withheld.”

It's not uncommon.

This was a routine attempt to make the list known and the judge rejected on security fears. If you Google around you see the media has many examples of these petitions which sometimes are granted and sometimes not.

---------- Post added at 20:53 ---------- Previous post was at 20:48 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lutherf (Post 35960324)

It wasn't the left who caused a guy to walk into a pizza place with a gun because of conspiracies he saw. The internet is full of nasty, angry people irrespective of the political divide they are on.

---------- Post added at 20:53 ---------- Previous post was at 20:53 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lutherf (Post 35960324)

It wasn't the left who caused a guy to walk into a pizza place with a gun because of conspiracies he saw. The internet is full of nasty, angry people irrespective of the political divide they are on.