Holy Mother of God! I had checked out of that thread because it seemed like The Other Waldo Pepper had invaded it, but man did Max_S bring his inimitable combination of stupidity and racism to great effect!
I meant a 3 vs 25 mile round trip in that post. 13 miles was about the limit of our service area when I delivered.
ETA: Double checked and it was 10 miles, not 13.
~Max
If only such a combination of stupidity and racism really were inimitable.
Can you even imagine what such a world would look like?
Sure, I’ve seen the utopian world of Star Trek. Maybe some day.
Getting a tan doesn’t change my race. It changes my skin color, not my race. If I am mistaken for a Mexican or Cuban, it is still a mistake.
~Max
What if you’re mistaken for someone who isn’t a racist?
Max_S abuses so much of the “No True Scotsman Fallacy” that Scottland Yard has a big dossier on him… 
Scotland Yard is in London. It’s not a true Scotland yard.
[Foghorn Leghorn]
I said, I said… It’s a Joke, Son!!..
[/Foghorn Leghorn]
99.78% on the Dope scale of things likely to happen was someone making this post.
I put “[channeling Max]” before my post but somehow it got deleted.
That’s fine, I looked at the joke and said to myself, “Myself, someone is going to post the Scotland Yard is in London”.
So for me at least, this worked out great.
TIL that enclosing things in > and < (but the other way around) in this board software causes it to become invisible.
Use backslashes beforehand, like this \<something\>
<something>
~Max
The dude is straight up trash. I wish people would stop making excuses for him, if someone is racist, that person is a piece of shit.
I’m seeing several people once again arguing with Max_S about race in the following thread.
https://boards.straightdope.com /t/well-it-looks-like-if-you-run-a-business-it-s-a-okay-to-discriminate-against-certain-customers-based-on-your-religious-beliefs/986409/162
Link broken out of politeness. Once again, Max is telling people who he is, and persons are trying to argue from a position of reasonableness. I salute you all, especially @DavidNRockies who seems to be forcing themselves to be respectful, but suggest you remind yourself of his past body of work in this thread, or at least take a moment to vent (again).
I perceive bog-standard, pre-Trump, Federalist style arguments in that thread. I’m not a Max_S connoisseur, but if there’s bigotry there it’s covered by layers of legalistic shellac.
I agree with Max that you can find precedent for the decision. He couches some of his arguments in the language of plausibility - I agree with him insofar as the decision clears that low bar. Here’s a discussion of the case I found helpful: Are wedding websites protected speech? Or protected conduct? – Kevin Drum
There are a number of tradeoffs involved in this case between conflicting rights. As a citizen, I think I have grounds for suspicion that the decision was arrived at for reasons other than first principles given the sharp cleavage between liberals and reactionaries in the court, as well as a few of the specious arguments in the majority opinion. Kevin Drum characterizes:
The majority bases its decision on a very thin distinction indeed: Smith, they say, is innocent of illegal discrimination because she has said she will happily serve LGBT customers; she just won’t sell them what they want. Soyomayor is unimpressed with this sophistry
Why am I reminded of the argument that teh gays are perfectly free to get married. Just not to each other.
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
― Anatole France
I would like to see someone tell this person “Oh, we’ll certainly put an advertisement in our publication for you. It will be overlaid with a banner saying “homophobic asshole”. We’re happy to serve you - we just won’t give you exactly what you want.”