PDA

View Full Version : Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding cake


maddogmj77
September 8th, 2017, 04:24 AM
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/09/07/trump-sides-with-colorado-baker-who-refused-to-make-gay-wedding-cake/

Imagine if this had happened to ANY other minority.

"Cake-Maker refuses to make cake for Black couple."
"Cake-Maker refuses to make cake for White couple."
"Cake-Maker refuses to make cake for interracial couple."
"Cake-Maker refuses to make cake for Muslim couple."
"Cake-Maker refuses to make cake for Christian couple."

People would've have been in fucking arms over this; riots in the streets. (Maybe not if it was against black people or Muslims; people are perfectly fine discriminating against minorities)

[Added in edit:]: It is ILLEGAL to exclude all people of a race from your business; Anti-Discrimination laws prevent this.

It's not okay to discriminate against anybody else; why is it okay to do it against gay people?

Living For Love
September 8th, 2017, 04:34 AM
"Cake-Maker refuses to make cake for white supremacist couple."
"Cake-Maker refuses to make cake for neo-Nazi couple."
"Cake-Maker refuses to make cake for Trump supporter couple."
"Cake-Maker refuses to make cake for KKK couple."
"Cake-Maker refuses to make cake for anti-abortion couple"

maddogmj77
September 8th, 2017, 04:35 AM
"Cake-Maker refuses to make cake for white supremacist couple."
"Cake-Maker refuses to make cake for neo-Nazi couple."
"Cake-Maker refuses to make cake for Trump supporter couple."
"Cake-Maker refuses to make cake for KKK couple."
"Cake-Maker refuses to make cake for anti-abortion couple"

Was that supposed to be an argument?

If you run a public business, it's not okay to discriminate against ANYBODY.
These people are using "religious rights" as a shield to protect their bigotry.

Living For Love
September 8th, 2017, 04:42 AM
Was that supposed to be an argument?

If you run a public business, it's not okay to discriminate against ANYBODY.
These people are using "religious rights" as a shield to protect their bigotry.
No, I want to ask you if you think a cake-baker has the right to refuse service to any of the people I stated above.

maddogmj77
September 8th, 2017, 04:43 AM
No, I want to ask you if you think a cake-baker has the right to refuse service to any of the people I stated above.

Nope, they do not. They run a public business. They don't get to discriminate against anyone, just like I said.

Vlerchan
September 8th, 2017, 04:47 AM
If you run a public business, it's not okay to discriminate against ANYBODY.
Let's start simple.

How do you feel about cinemas charging less to you as a teenager? Or me as a student.

How do you feel about bars which only allow entry to over 23s?

If you support either of those very common cases, then you support discrimination by public businesses.

(Well, that's incorrect. These are private businesses, run by private individuals, who whatever their incorporation retain a right to freedom of association).

---

I would also appreciate if you made an argument as opposed to just a statement of belief. Why is it not OK for businesses to discriminate against anybody? Even if I find discrimination against LGBT couples terrible - I do - there's no natural extension from that to, individuals who are also entrepreneurs should have their freedom of association rights revoked - which is, you guessed it, discriminatory.

(Except in this case it's discrimination by the government which is worse. It's worse - and this is what I mean by arguments - because the government holds a monopoly on violence. Friend's of Jesus's Bakery does not.)

maddogmj77
September 8th, 2017, 04:50 AM
Let's start simple.

How do you feel about cinemas charging less to you as a teenager? Or me as a student.

How do you feel about bars which only allow entry to over 23s?

If you support either of those very common cases, then you support discrimination by public businesses.

(Well, that's incorrect. These are private businesses, run by private individuals, who whatever their incorporation retain a right to freedom of association).

---

I would also appreciate if you made an argument as opposed to just a statement of belief. Why is it not OK for businesses to discriminate against anybody? Even if I find discrimination against LGBT couples terrible - I do - there's no natural extension from that to, individuals who are also entrepreneurs should have their freedom of association rights revoked - which is, you guessed it, discriminatory.

Have you ever heard of anti-discrimination laws?
It used to be legal to have segregated businesses: "Whites only"

Anti-discrimination laws prevented businesses from discriminating against people based on whatever beliefs they hold. (religious or otherwise)

So if it's not okay to say "Whites only", or exclude anybody else. Why is it okay to exclude gay people?

Vlerchan
September 8th, 2017, 04:53 AM
Have you ever heard of anti-discrimination laws?
It used to be legal to have segregated businesses: "Whites only"

Anti-discrimination laws prevented businesses from discriminating against people based on whatever beliefs they hold. (religious or otherwise)

So if it's not okay to say "Whites only", or exclude anybody else. Why is it okay to exclude gay people?
It's the law, is not an argument.

I think it's OK for private businesses to discriminate against Blacks, Whites, Gays and Straights.

---

You also never responded to the point I made above. I would appreciate if you could.

maddogmj77
September 8th, 2017, 04:57 AM
It's the law, is not an argument.

I think it's OK for private businesses to discriminate against Blacks, Whites, Gays and Straights.

---

You also never responded to the point I made above. I would appreciate if you could.

You're right, it 'IS' the law. It is ILLEGAL to say "Whites only".
Why then, do we not extend that same law, to everybody else?

---

I don't support businesses being able to discriminate against anyone in anyway for any reason whatsoever, I've made that point very clear.

Vlerchan
September 8th, 2017, 05:01 AM
You're right, it IS the law. It is ILLEGAL to say "Whites only". Why then, do we not extend that same logic, to everybody else.
1. It's the law in your country. My country has quite extensive freedom of association rights.
2. That it's the law is not an argument that it should be the law. That woman don't have a guarantee to equal rights in some countries in the world does not suggest that women shouldn't have equal rights in these countries.
3. We might not extend the same logic to LGBT people if we did not agree with the initial logic.

You have yet to explain what the logic is - i.e. why discrimination by private individuals is so bad, that it would be an ethical improvement to outlaw it. I have only received insistence that it's the law and the law is god, or something.

If I seem unclear in referring to your position, it's because you have been unclear in describing it.

I don't support businesses being able to discriminate against anyone for any reason whatsoever, I've made that point very clear.
But just to confirm, you don't agree with the notion of special deals for students?

This arrangement is undoubtedly welfare improving.

---

I also wonder if you, in turn, are opposed to discriminating through a dress code?

Should goths be refused from entering black-tie events because they dress like goths? That's undoubtedly discriminatory too.

Though, I feel I should emphasize, your solution discriminates against entrepreneurs, who lose their right to free association.

Living For Love
September 8th, 2017, 05:02 AM
Nope, they do not. They run a public business. They don't get to discriminate against anyone, just like I said.
A baker is not a public business, and a bakery can be privately held (I believe this was the case). However, just because you run a private company, doesn't mean you can refuse service to anyone you want. In the USA, as far as I know, The Civil Rights Act outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It doesn't outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation or political views, but some states/cities have passed laws that extend those prohibitions to sexual orientation, for instance. This doesn't mean, however, that a private company can't, in any circumstance, refuse to serve someone. If there is a certain dress code, or certain health/safety restrictions that can't be violated, a private business can still refuse service. I have the opinion that a private company can refuse service to anyone, because they are private, and the government doesn't have the right to force them to serve people based on a non-discrimination legislation. On the other hand, how would you think this would clash with the First Amendment? Doesn't the baker have the right to refuse doing something, especially his own work? Also, if the baker was found guilty, what would be the solution? A fine? Jail term? Forcing him to bake the cake at gunpoint?

maddogmj77
September 8th, 2017, 05:14 AM
1. It's the law in your country. My country has quite extensive freedom of association rights.
2. That it's the law is not an argument that it should be the law. That woman don't have a guarantee to equal rights in some countries in the world does not suggest that women shouldn't have equal rights in these countries.
3. We might not extend the same logic to LGBT people if we did not agree with the initial logic.

1. I'm talking about my country, moot point.

2. I have brought up law and logic to prove my point.
It's already illegal to discriminate racially/sexistly as a business. That's how it should be
It should be illegal to discriminate against people with a certain sexual orientation.
Just extending Anti-Discrimination laws to include everybody.
Other countries don't matter, this is about our law.

3. Well my country agrees with the initial logic that you shouldn't be able to discriminate against people based on gender or race. We've put that into law.

My point, is that in a "free-market" country, where individuals and businesses are the ONLY way to obtain goods.
Those public businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate, as they are restricting other people's means of obtaining goods.

But just to confirm, you don't agree with the notion of special deals for students?

This arrangement is undoubtedly welfare improving.

---

I also wonder if you, in turn, are opposed to discriminating through a dress code? Should goths be refused from entering black-tie events because they dress like goths? That's undoubtedly discriminatory too.

Deals to seniors & students are not the same as flat-out refusing to sell to black people, or women, or gay people.

"Goths" can choose what they want to wear.
Black people can't stop being black
Women can't stop being women
Gay people can't stop being gay.


A baker is not a public business, and a bakery can be privately held (I believe this was the case).

The baker runs a private business that is open to the public. Yes, it is a "private" business; my bad.

However, just because you run a private company, doesn't mean you can refuse service to anyone you want. In the USA, as far as I know, The Civil Rights Act outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Exactly, you would never be able to put up a sign saying "Whites only", that's illegal.

It doesn't outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation or political views, but some states/cities have passed laws that extend those prohibitions to sexual orientation, for instance.

And it should, on the federal level. Just like race, sex, etc...

This doesn't mean, however, that a private company can't, in any circumstance, refuse to serve someone. If there is a certain dress code, or certain health/safety restrictions that can't be violated, a private business can still refuse service.
Yes, but not based on Race, Sex, Religion, or national origin, as you said. That law should be extended to sexual orientation, on the federal level.

I have the opinion that a private company can refuse service to anyone, because they are private, and the government doesn't have the right to force them to serve people based on a non-discrimination legislation.
And I disagree with that, with all the reasons mentioned above and below.

On the other hand, how would you think this would clash with the First Amendment? Doesn't the baker have the right to refuse doing something, especially his own work?

It's already been ruled by the supreme court. It's okay to stop discrimination by private businesses, that's backed up by all the current Anti-Discrimination laws based on race, sex, etc. that are already on the books.
I just want that those same protections & Anti-Discrimination laws, extended to sexual orientation.

Also, if the baker was found guilty, what would be the solution? A fine? Jail term? Forcing him to bake the cake at gunpoint?

What was the solution when we stopped racial segregation of private businesses?
Same thing. They either serve everybody, or get their business shut down.

Living For Love
September 8th, 2017, 05:23 AM
It's already illegal to discriminate racially/sexistly as a business. That's how it should be
It should be illegal to discriminate against people with a certain sexual orientation.
But why? I agree with that argument when it comes to public services, obviously, but why should private services be included in that too?

"Goths" can choose what they want to wear.
Black people can't stop being black
Women can't stop being women
Gay people can't stop being gay.
You can stop going to whatever services refuse to serve you.

There was also another example of another baker in Colorado. The baker refused service to a customer who wanted a cake with anti-gay Bible verses on it. The customer argued that he was discriminated against because of his religious beliefs. What's your opinion on this case?

maddogmj77
September 8th, 2017, 05:47 AM
[I replied to your message 3 up by adding on to my message 2 up]
But why? I agree with that argument when it comes to public services, obviously, but why should private services be included in that too?

Like I said above, "in a "free-market" economy, where individuals and businesses are the ONLY way to obtain goods. Private businesses can not allowed to discriminate, as they are restricting other people's means of obtaining goods."
This was ruled by the supreme court in terms of racial segregation & outlawing the refusal of service to people based on race, sex, etc...

You can stop going to whatever services refuse to serve you.

They shouldn't have to go to another store, that's the whole "separate but equal" logic that the supreme court ruled against.
Try telling that to the black people in the 1940s when more than 90% of businesses would refuse to serve them, or have segregated areas.

There was also another example of another baker in Colorado. The baker refused service to a customer who wanted a cake with anti-gay Bible verses on it. The customer argued that he was discriminated against because of his religious beliefs. What's your opinion on this case?

Same logic. No discrimination, just bake them the damn cake.

Living For Love
September 8th, 2017, 06:07 AM
It's already been proven by the supreme court. It's okay to stop discrimination by private businesses, that's backed up by all anti-discrimination laws against race, sex, etc...
I just want that same protection extended to sexual orientation.
Right, but why valuing the anti-discrimination law over the First Amendment?

Also, which anti-discrimination laws are you talking about here? We've mentioned race, colour, religion, sex, natural origin, sexual discrimination and political views. What about gender identity, or eye colour, or preferred brand of shoes? Why shouldn't we have anti-discrimination laws against all that too?

And also, would it be okay in your opinion if, for instance, instead of refusing service to black people, a certain business charged black people more for a service than it charges white people? You do realise that some nightclubs/bars/restaurants charge men more than they charge women (something called ladies' night).

maddogmj77
September 8th, 2017, 06:18 AM
Right, but why valuing the anti-discrimination law over the First Amendment?
Because people are using their "religious freedoms" as a legal shield to discriminate against people.

Should people be allowed to serve "Whites only"?
That's what went on in the 1940s, and the businesses that black people could go to were few and far between. Almost as if their freedom to obtain goods was being impeded by other people claiming "religious freedom".

This also comes back to my other argument: "in a "free-market" economy, where private businesses are the ONLY way to obtain goods. Private businesses can not be allowed to discriminate, as they are restricting other people's means of obtaining goods."

Also, which anti-discrimination laws are you talking about here? We've mentioned race, colour, religion, sex, natural origin, sexual discrimination and political views. What about gender identity, or eye colour, or preferred brand of shoes? Why shouldn't we have anti-discrimination laws against all that too?
Gender, physical features, personal preferences, all of those should be covered by Anti-Discrimination laws too, yes.

And also, would it be okay in your opinion if, for instance, instead of refusing service to black people, a certain business charged black people more for a service than it charges white people? You do realise that some nightclubs/bars/restaurants charge men more than they charge women (something called ladies' night).
I would be against that, as that's discrimination based on gender and race.

Still, you're kinda going off-track, trying to find a separate situation in which I might disagree in order to combat my current argument. And in all instances I have stayed consistent.
Everyone should have the freedom to buy from whoever they want, and prices should be equal for everybody.

Vlerchan
September 8th, 2017, 06:39 AM
2. I have brought up law and logic to prove my point.
It's already illegal to discriminate racially/sexistly as a business. That's how it should be
It should be illegal to discriminate against people with a certain sexual orientation.
Just extending Anti-Discrimination laws to include everybody.
Other countries don't matter, this is about our law.
1. That it is illegal to do something is no suggestion that the legislation is moral or proper or useful.

2. That's how it should be is not a logical argument in favour of a given end. Your insistences in general are not arguments. That it's the law is not a a logical argument in favour of a given end.

You have - as such - offered no logical argument.

---

I was also raising international women's rights as a suggestion that the statues quo is not a definitionally moral position.

3. Well my country agrees with the initial logic that you shouldn't be able to discriminate against people based on gender or race. We've put that into law.
This is either an argument to authority or an argument to majority. I'm not sure. Irrespective its fallacious reasoning.

My point, is that in a "free-market" country, where individuals and businesses are the ONLY way to obtain goods.
Those public businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate, as they are restricting other people's means of obtaining goods.
The plaintiffs in to case referred to the supreme court were not restricted from obtaining goods. Those people were restricted from accessing a given supplier.

It was still possible to obtain those goods from another supplier. The free market all but ensures this as the marginal benefit of supplying into a given market rises as other firms exit - i.e. discriminate.

Deals to seniors & students are not the same as flat-out refusing to sell to black people, or women, or gay people.
It's discrimination. In refusing to condemn it you are being logically inconsistent.

You're also making claims without posing an argument in their defence again.

"Goths" can choose what they want to wear.
Black people can't stop being black
Women can't stop being women
Gay people can't stop being gay.
So discrimination is only bad when the characteristic being discriminated against is immutable? Is the amount of discrimination which prostitutes receive (in housing, future employment) morally legitimate?

This tangent is irrelevant to the points I'm making - but interesting to ponder nonetheless.

---

You also never addressed my argument that your solution discriminates against entrepreneurs.

maddogmj77
September 8th, 2017, 06:43 AM
It's discrimination. In refusing to condemn it you are being logically inconsistent.
I never refused to condemn it, I simply brought up that it was quiet different. But if you look at my other comments you will see that I oppose ALL discrimination.

This next part will answer all of your other questions.


I feel like this ENTIRE disagreement comes down to whether or not private businesses should be allowed to discriminate.

You guys believe they should be able to, for whatever reason they want. (Don't start cherry-picking on me now.)
I believe they should not be able to, for any reason.


My logic for my argument is as follows

In a Capitalistic economy, where private businesses are the ONLY way to obtain goods. Private businesses can not be allowed to discriminate; they are restricting other people's means of obtaining goods.


When businesses 'were' allowed to discriminate (against black people), the amount of stores that black people could buy from were extremely limited.
They could hardly get anything they needed or wanted, and it was usually over-priced. Even bare necessities like food, clothes, & houses were hard to find or over-priced.
[I don't want to see that happen again to anybody]


Feel free to disagree with me on the basic premise that private businesses should or should not be allowed to discriminate; but don't cherry-pick exactly what that discrimination comes down to.

Living For Love
September 8th, 2017, 06:47 AM
Because people are using their "religious freedoms" as a legal shield to discriminate against people.

Should people be allowed to serve "Whites only"?
That's what went on in the 1940s, and the businesses that black people could go to were few and far between. Almost as if their freedom to obtain goods was being impeded by other people claiming "religious freedom".
Why are you always pulling the "religious freedom" card? You do realise that one can refuse to serve gay people and be atheist?

Gender, physical features, personal preferences, all of those should be covered by Anti-Discrimination laws too, yes.
You stated earlier goths choose to be goths, whereas women don't choose to be women (although I know some SJWs who would disagree with you on this point). People also choose which things they like, which sports club they support, which political views they defend, and all that. So, in this case, you would be fine refusing service to a goth due to a dress code, but wouldn't be fine refusing service to a man because he's a Hillary supporter?

Also, how exactly are deals to seniors and students different from the ladies' night example I mentioned? Both are marketing strategies.

I would be against that, as that's discrimination based on gender and race.
Making women pay less than men so that to attract lots of women and, consequently, attract lots of men as well (heterosexual men, at least) is a marketing strategy. By forbidding it you are actually hampering nightclub owners of making more profit.

maddogmj77
September 8th, 2017, 06:51 AM
Why are you always pulling the "religious freedom" card? You do realise that one can refuse to serve gay people and be atheist?

Because the only reason this discrimination is legal is because people claim it goes against their "religious freedoms" (1st Amendment).
That's the only way discrimination has ever been legal. That's the defense they used when discriminating against black people and having racial segregation in the 1940s.
It wouldn't be "legal" otherwise.

I'm bringing it up because people who discriminate "pull that card" (religious freedom) in order to claim exemption from law.


You stated earlier goths choose to be goths, whereas women don't choose to be women (although I know some SJWs who would disagree with you on this point). People also choose which things they like, which sports club they support, which political views they defend, and all that. So, in this case, you would be fine refusing service to a goth due to a dress code, but wouldn't be fine refusing service to a man because he's a Hillary supporter?

No, I am making this very clear right now: I oppose ALL discrimination. Read my reply above.

Living For Love
September 8th, 2017, 07:01 AM
Because the 'only' reason this discrimination is legal is because people claim it goes against their "religious freedoms" (1st Amendment).
That's the 'only' way discrimination has 'ever' been legal. That's the defense they used when discriminating against black people and having racial segregation.
It wouldn't be "legal" otherwise.

I'm pulling that card because people who discriminate pull that card in order to claim exemption from law.
You're missing my point. If I refuse to bake a cake to a gay couple because "I don't want to bake a cake to a gay couple", how exactly is religious freedom related to that?

No, I am making this very clear right now: I oppose ALL discrimination.
So:
- do you oppose ladies' night events?
- do you oppose special discounts for children in museums/theatres/amusement parks, etc?

Please answer with "yes" or "no".

When businesses 'were' allowed to discriminate (against black people), the amount of stores that black people could buy from were extremely limited.
They could hardly get anything they needed or wanted, and it was usually over-priced. Even bare necessities like food, clothes, & houses were hard to find or over-priced.
I apologise if this question comes off as ignorant, but in the 40s, was that discrimination enforced by the government?

maddogmj77
September 8th, 2017, 07:20 AM
You're missing my point. If I refuse to bake a cake to a gay couple because "I don't want to bake a cake to a gay couple", how exactly is religious freedom related to that?
Because if you said it like that, it would be illegal to discriminate like that.
The only way it's "legal" is if you say "baking this cake goes against my religious freedoms".

So:
- do you oppose ladies' night events?
- do you oppose special discounts for children in museums/theatres/amusement parks, etc?

Please answer with "yes" or "no".
-yes
-yes
I oppose all discrimination in terms of providing services/goods, segregation, and pricing.
Read my reply a page back: "Feel free to disagree with me on the basic premise that private businesses should or should not be allowed to discriminate; but don't cherry-pick exactly what that discrimination comes down to."

I suppose you could come up with the argument that children in the amusement park won't be able to ride on all of the rides (due to safety concerns, not discrimination) therefore not taking full advantage of the park, and subsequently receiving a discount.
Only a legitimate reasoning like that would be able to justify price difference.

I apologize if this question comes off as ignorant, but in the 40s, was that discrimination enforced by the government?
No, it was private businesses who were segregating their restaurants to make their White customers feel better being surrounded by White people.
At the time, only White people really owned any businesses; as Black people owning property or business had been illegal for quite a long time.
Those private businesses claimed "religious freedom", and the government let them do it.

Vlerchan
September 8th, 2017, 07:28 AM
In a Capitalistic economy, where private businesses are the ONLY way to obtain goods. Private businesses can not be allowed to discriminate; they are restricting other people's means of obtaining goods.
I responded to this above.

Capitalism raises the private gains associated with supplying to marginalised groups.

When businesses 'were' allowed to discriminate (against black people), the amount of stores that black people could buy from were extremely limited.
They could hardly get anything they needed or wanted, and it was usually over-priced. Even bare necessities like food, clothes, & houses were hard to find or over-priced.
[I don't want to see that happen again to anybody]
The issue is that in majoritorian societies - like the US - these protections exist at the times when these are least needed. Laws against discriminating against Blacks were introduced as a result of the popular support of whites. If that support had faltered we might have expected then to disappear.

This is an null argument because it doesn't solve the actual issue - racial resentment. It just allows us to feel good until we reach the next tipping point.

---

You also never responded to the point I made that he solution being proposed requires discrimination against entrepreneurs by the government.

If you're insisting that individuals choose to be entrepreneurs then I would appreciate an answer to the question I asked about discrimination against prostitutes.

On a final note: How do you feel about women's shelters?

maddogmj77
September 8th, 2017, 07:49 AM
I responded to this above.
Capitalism raises the private gains associated with supplying to marginalised groups.
Then how do you explain the segregation that happened in every single restaurant in the 40s? It would have been beneficial for those stores to serve everybody... but they didn't. The same thing is happening now.

The issue is that in majoritorian societies - like the US - these protections exist at the times when these are least needed. Laws against discriminating against Blacks were introduced as a result of the popular support of whites. If that support had faltered we might have expected then to disappear.
This is an null argument because it doesn't solve the actual issue - racial resentment. It just allows us to feel good until we reach the next tipping point.

Those laws were introduced when restaurants were STILL segregating, it actually did make a difference. Don't try to deny history now.

If we pass Anti-Discrimination laws that cover everyone, we can prevent everyone from being discriminating on by private businesses, forever.

You also never responded to the point I made that he solution being proposed requires discrimination against entrepreneurs by the government.
I don't understand this: "discrimination against entrepreneurs by the government."
Please explain it to me. But again, I've consistently said, no discrimination of any kind.

If you're insisting that individuals choose to be entrepreneurs then I would appreciate an answer to the question I asked about discrimination against prostitutes.
Are you talking about prostitutes refusing service to people? That has a logical reasoning behind it just like kids' discount at an amusement park.
Inability to become sexually aroused or sexually perform. It's not discrimination, they literally can't "do" it.

On a final note: How do you feel about women's shelters?
Love how you keep bringing up anything you can to try to catch me off-guard.
They're a non-profit organization, they can do whatever they want. (Most of them are open to all people anyways)

Vlerchan
September 8th, 2017, 09:19 AM
Then how do you explain the segregation that happened in every single restaurant in the 40s? It would have been beneficial for those stores to serve everybody... but they didn't. The same thing is happening now.
Do you have any statistics which document percentage of stores which excluded black customers. I also mean to refer to just those that refused black customers - and not those which segregated them from white customers.

I'd be quite interested to see them.

Those laws were introduced when restaurants were STILL segregating, it actually did make a difference. Don't try to deny history now.

If we pass Anti-Discrimination laws that cover everyone, we can prevent everyone from being discriminating on by private businesses, forever.
The point I'm making is that these laws were enacted when a rough majority of white people in the Union supported them. Not before.

With regards to the second point we are preventing discrimination until those laws are repealed.

I don't understand this: "discrimination against entrepreneurs by the government."
Please explain it to me. But again, I've consistently said, no discrimination of any kind.
In the United States all individuals have a right to associate with - and disassociate from - whoever one wants. Introducing anti-discrimination laws forces a subset of these people - entrepreneurs - to associate with people they don't want to. This discriminates against those entrepreneurs.

Are you talking about prostitutes refusing service to people? That has a logical reasoning behind it just like kids' discount at an amusement park.
Inability to become sexually aroused or sexually perform. It's not discrimination, they literally can't "do" it.
I mean when former prostitutes are refused access to housing for being prostitutes. Or when the same prostitutes are refused access to other employment as a result of being prostitutes.


Love how you keep bringing up anything you can to try to catch me off-guard.
They're a non-profit organization, they can do whatever they want. (Most of them are open to all people anyways)
I'm not trying to catch you off guard. I just feel that your current position is morally untenable and am slowly raising the stakes to see how far its going to be taken.

If I wanted to catch you off guard I would have immediately asked about private schools who refuse to hire peadophiles.

Your current point is interesting though: So would you agree that it is OK to discriminate against someone so long as you're not registered as wanting to make a profit?

maddogmj77
September 8th, 2017, 09:39 AM
Do you have any statistics which document percentage of stores which excluded black customers. I also mean to refer to just those that refused black customers - and not those which segregated them from white customers.

I'd be quite interested to see them.
No, and it really doesn't matter. The fact that one store was "Whites only" is reason enough. Would you prefer we went back to that?

The point I'm making is that these laws were enacted when a rough majority of white people in the Union supported them. Not before.
The only requirement for passing that law is congress and the Supreme Court, public opinion never matters.
The point I'm making is that these laws helped stooped discrimination.

With regards to the second point we are preventing discrimination until those laws are repealed.
How are we going to prevent discrimination without those laws? And why would you want to repeal them? Do you really want to let stores be able to say "Whites only", again?

In the United States all individuals have a right to associate with - and disassociate from - whoever one wants. Introducing anti-discrimination laws forces a subset of these people - entrepreneurs - to associate with people they don't want to. This discriminates against those entrepreneurs.
It takes away business licenses of those who discriminate, yes. That's what we already do with current Anti-Discrimination laws.

I mean when former prostitutes are refused access to housing for being prostitutes. Or when the same prostitutes are refused access to other employment as a result of being prostitutes.
That's discrimination...again. I oppose that.

I'm not trying to catch you off guard. I just feel that your current position is morally untenable and am slowly raising the stakes to see how far its going to be taken.
Go ahead, I've countered every argument so far. Better hurry it up with those stakes boy.

If I wanted to catch you off guard I would have immediately asked about private schools who refuse to hire peadophiles.
This one wasn't hard at all. That has logical reasoning behind it (like kids's costing less at amusement parks, or prostitutes refusing to serve people), it's a genuine safety concern.

Your current point is interesting though: So would you agree that it is OK to discriminate against someone so long as you're not registered as wanting to make a profit?
I don't believe it's morally okay. But so long as they're not a private business, we have no jurisdiction over that (like churches).

Living For Love
September 8th, 2017, 09:45 AM
Because if you said it like that, it would be illegal to discriminate like that.
So it's illegal for me to say "I don't want to do this"? Whatever the reasons, whatever the circumstances, as a self-employed person, if someone asks me to do something, I have to do it no matter what because otherwise I would be discriminating against whoever was asking me to do that based on any characteristic the person who asked me to do that had?

The only way it's "legal" is if you say "baking this cake goes against my religious freedoms".
So it's only "legal" if you have a religion? That's not discriminatory against atheist and agnostic people at all...

I suppose you could come up with the argument that children in the amusement park won't be able to ride on all of the rides (due to safety concerns, not discrimination) therefore not taking full advantage of the park, and subsequently receiving a discount.
Only a legitimate reasoning like that would be able to justify price difference.
You're missing my point (again). You keep coming up with justifications and excuses for the discrimination examples I'm suggesting to you. The owner of an amusement park can perfectly create a discount for children just as a marketing strategy, without any other second intention whatsoever.

No, it was private businesses who were segregating their restaurants to make their White customers feel better being surrounded by White people.
At the time, only White people really owned any businesses; as Black people owning property or business had been illegal for quite a long time.
Those private businesses claimed "religious freedom", and the government let them do it.
Oh ok. Because I was just thinking that, in the 40s, a restaurant/supermarket owner could also make a restaurant/supermarket only for black people and make huge profit, since all the black people in a certain region had to choose that restaurant/supermarket to go to.

Also, interesting thought: if we had restaurants only for black people and restaurants only for white people, cases like this (http://www.fox13memphis.com/top-stories/homeless-memphis-waiter-gets-racist-note-on-receipt-instead-of-tip/562894062) would simply stop to exist.

maddogmj77
September 8th, 2017, 09:51 AM
So it's illegal for me to say "I don't want to do this"? Whatever the reasons, whatever the circumstances, as a self-employed person, if someone asks me to do something, I have to do it no matter what because otherwise I would be discriminating against whoever was asking me to do that based on any characteristic the person who asked me to do that had?
If you are offering the same goods/services to other people, and you don't have a legitimate reason for safety, time concerns, personal ability etc. and your only reasoning was because you disagreed with your customer on a personal issue, then yes.


So it's only "legal" if you have a religion? That's not discriminatory against atheist and agnostic people at all...
Eeeeexactly. That's the ridiculous "religious freedom" these people are trying to claim. They believe that just because they're religious, they're free to discriminate.


You're missing my point (again). You keep coming up with justifications and excuses for the discrimination examples I'm suggesting to you. The owner of an amusement park can perfectly create a discount for children just as a marketing strategy, without any other second intention whatsoever.
No, I said that I opposed price differences, read it again.
I was just adding on that a logical argument 'could' be made as to why kids cost less at an amusement park.
If there is no logical reasoning behind it, then I don't believe it to be just.

Oh ok. Because I was just thinking that a restaurant/supermarket owner could also make a restaurant/supermarket only for black people and make huge profit, since all the black people in a certain region had to choose that restaurant/supermarket to go to.
They could have, sure. And that would have been discriminatory too. I don't really think you wanna limit all the black people to one store.

Vlerchan
September 8th, 2017, 10:04 AM
No, and it really doesn't matter. The fact that one store was "Whites only" is reason enough. Would you prefer we went back to that?
It does matter. Its the fundamental basis of your claim.

I'd also rather people didn't discriminate against each other. But that's irrelevant to the point I'm making.

The only requirement for passing that law is congress and the Supreme Court, public opinion never matters
You live in a Republic. Public opinion matters.

How are we going to prevent discrimination without those laws?
Unless one believes that white people are biological racists then it seems reasonable that the furtherance of good social mores through education is reasonable.

It takes away business licenses of those who discriminate, yes. That's what we already do with current Anti-Discrimination laws.
You missed the point I made. The point was that entrepreneurs lose their right go free association - the state discriminates against them.

That's discrimination...again. I oppose that
Earlier it was claimed that it is fine to discriminate against goths at black-tie events. Your current position is in conflict with that since prostitutes choose to be prostitutes like goths choose to be goths.

What do you actually believe?

This one wasn't hard at all. That has logical reasoning behind it (like kids's discounts at Amusement parks, and prostitutes refusing to serve people), it's a genuine safety concern.
That someone is attracted to children does not make them an inherent danger.

You support discrimination against non-kids in amusement parks?

Living For Love
September 8th, 2017, 10:44 AM
If you are offering the same goods/services to other people, and you don't have a legitimate reason for safety, time concerns, personal ability etc. and your only reasoning was because you disagreed with your customer on a personal issue, then yes.
You're not disagreeing with anyone, you're just saying "No, I don't want to serve you. Period."

Do you think people have the right not to like another group of people for whatever reasons?

Eeeeexactly. That's the ridiculous "religious freedom" these people are trying to claim. They believe that just because they're religious, they're free to discriminate.
You said the 'only' reason this discrimination is legal is because people claim it goes against their "religious freedoms" (1st Amendment). If I say I'm an atheist and I refuse to bake a cake to a gay couple, why would the anti-discrimination laws you purpose be superior to my inherent right of free will?


No, I said that I opposed price differences, read it again.
I was just adding on that a logical argument 'could' be made as to why kids cost less at an amusement park.
If there is no logical reasoning behind it, then I don't believe it to be just.
So, in your opinion, the creation of a discount for children in amusement park tickets only as a marketing strategy is a form of discrimination?

maddogmj77
September 8th, 2017, 11:43 AM
It does matter. Its the fundamental basis of your claim.
No, it actually isn't. The fundamental basis of my claim is that black people (or any people), shouldn't be excluded from any stores whatsoever.
The actual numbers don't matter.

You live in a Republic. Public opinion matters.
Yes, we do live in a Republic, not a democracy. If laws were passed by direct democracy, then public opinion would matter. But they aren't, they're passed by Congress, a group made up of 535 people. Just a little shy of 323 million

Unless one believes that white people are biological racists then it seems reasonable that the furtherance of good social mores through education is reasonable.
I don't believe they are, and education is a good deterrent of racism. But there will still be people who try to discriminate, and we need a way to stop them.

You missed the point I made. The point was that entrepreneurs lose their right go free association - the state discriminates against them.
They've already lost that "right" with the current Anti-Discrimination laws we have already.

Earlier it was claimed that it is fine to discriminate against goths at black-tie events. Your current position is in conflict with that since prostitutes choose to be prostitutes like goths choose to be goths.
If it is a private event, not open to the public, they can do whatever they want. If it's a private business which is open to the public, then no, they can't discriminate like that.

What do you actually believe?
You're really using gas-lighting techniques on me?
I'm just gonna have to repeat my entire argument again because apparently you missed it. Scroll to the bottom.
That someone is attracted to children does not make them an inherent danger.
Working in a job surrounded by kids every second, seeing hundreds of them everyday, yes, it is. If they have a criminal record of pedophilia, they are a safety concern.

You support discrimination against non-kids in amusement parks?
Nope, that's the Strawman Fallacy (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/169/Strawman-Fallacy). You weren't paying attention.
You can go back and read this, but I said: "I suppose you could come up with the argument that children in the amusement park won't be able to ride on all of the rides (due to safety concerns, not discrimination) therefore not taking full advantage of the park, and subsequently receiving a discount.
Only a legitimate reasoning like that would be able to justify price difference."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're not disagreeing with anyone, you're just saying "No, I don't want to serve you. Period."
I don't know, I guess you could technically make up any arbitrary reason for not serving people. Then Anti-Discrimination laws wouldn't work. But that's not really the point.

Do you think people have the right not to like another group of people for whatever reasons?
They have the right to not like or disagree with whoever they want. But when they run a business, they can't discriminate on who they provide goods or services to.

You said the 'only' reason this discrimination is legal is because people claim it goes against their "religious freedoms" (1st Amendment). If I say I'm an atheist and I refuse to bake a cake to a gay couple, why would the anti-discrimination laws you purpose be superior to my inherent right of free will?
Because there's no law protecting your right to refuse service. They would be subject to Anti-Discrimination laws and you would have nothing. Your "right to free will" isn't in the constitution.
Even if you weren't religious, I don't see why anyone couldn't just claim "religious freedom" to discriminate against whoever you want.

So, in your opinion, the creation of a discount for children in amusement park tickets only as a marketing strategy is a form of discrimination?
Yes, it would be price discrimination based on age.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I feel like this ENTIRE disagreement comes down to whether or not private businesses should be allowed to discriminate.

You guys believe they should be able to, for whatever reason they want. (Don't start cherry-picking on me now.)
I believe they should not be able, for any reason.


My logic for my argument is as follows

In a Capitalistic economy, where private businesses are the ONLY way to obtain goods. Private businesses can not be allowed to discriminate; they are restricting other people's means of obtaining goods.


When businesses 'were' allowed to discriminate (against black people), the amount of stores that black people could buy from were extremely limited.
They could hardly get anything they needed or wanted, and it was usually over-priced. Even bare necessities like food, clothes, & houses were hard to find or over-priced.
[I don't want to see that happen again to anybody]


Feel free to disagree with me on the basic premise that private businesses should or should not be allowed to discriminate; but don't cherry-pick exactly what that discrimination comes down to.

So to both of you: Should private businesses be allowed to discriminate, yes or no.

mattsmith48
September 8th, 2017, 11:54 AM
Why doing that now, if they continue like this there won't be anything left for Mike Pence to do when he replaces Trump.

Talking about Trump, if you are against business discriminating against gay people because that's what Jesus would do, and you believe that there should be a law to prevent businesses from discriminating against gay people, do like Trump and blame Obama for, he had 8 years to pass that kind of law and prevent this from happening.

Finally funny how the same people who are scared of Muslims imposing sharia law on them are fine with the republicans doing exactly that, but with Christianity.

maddogmj77
September 8th, 2017, 12:08 PM
Why do that now, if they continue like this there won't be anything left for Mike Pence to do when he replaces Trump.
I thought the saving grace for Donald Trump was that he 'wasn't' going to push religious agenda on us like Pence would.
The removal of the LGBT-rights page from whitehouse.gov, the Transgender military ban, and now this... has proven me wrong.

Talking about Trump, if you are against business discriminating against gay people because that's what Jesus would do, and you believe that there should be a law to prevent businesses from discriminating against gay people, do like Trump and blame Obama for it, he had 8 years to pass that kind of law and prevent this from happening.
Yup, just blame Obama XD (even though he doesn't control congress)

Finally funny how the same people who are scared of Muslims imposing sharia law on them are fine with the republicans doing exactly that, but with Christianity.
Of course. It's okay to discriminate, as long as it's the White Christians who get to do it.

Living For Love
September 8th, 2017, 12:16 PM
They've already lost that "right" with the current Anti-Discrimination laws we have already.
You don't have any discrimination law that prevents owners to refuse service to a person because they have blue eyes or because they're favourite colour is red.

Working in a job surrounded by kids every second, seeing hundreds of them everyday, yes, it is. If they have a criminal record of pedophilia, they are a safety concern.
According to your logic, a murderer would have to be forbidden to socialise with anyone else after serving their sentence and possibly become a hermit, since they would be a safety concern due to being surrounded by people everyday.

I don't know, I guess you could technically make up any arbitrary reason for not serving people. Then Anti-Discrimination laws wouldn't work. But that's not really the point.
It is part of the point, actually, and you're right, anti-discrimination laws wouldn't work if one made up an arbitrary excuse. You have recognised your laws are useless (apart from denying right to owners).

They have the right to not like or disagree with whoever they want. But when they run a business, they can't discriminate on who they provide goods or services to.
Please start listing all your exceptions here. So far we have the paedophile case, the discount for kids in case they can't use all the facilities in an amusement park and the private black-tie event.

Because there's no law protecting your right to refuse service. They would be subject to Anti-Discrimination laws and you would have nothing. Your "right to free will" isn't in the constitution.
There is, the right to freedom of association that has been mentioned in this thread.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The Free Press Clause protects publication of information and opinions, and applies to a wide variety of media. [...] the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected against prior restraint—pre-publication censorship—in almost all cases. [...] In addition to the right of assembly guaranteed by this clause, the Court has also ruled that the amendment implicitly protects freedom of association.

Also, check the article 20 of the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

So to both of you: Should private businesses be allowed to discriminate, yes or no.
Yes, in case this wasn't obvious by now.

maddogmj77
September 8th, 2017, 12:32 PM
You don't have any discrimination law that prevents owners to refuse service to a person because they have blue eyes or because they're favourite colour is red.
Yes, I know that. I believe all physical characteristics and personal preferences should be included in Anti-Discrimination laws. (Like I've already said before.)

According to your logic, a murderer would have to be forbidden to socialise with anyone else after serving their sentence and possibly become a hermit, since they would be a safety concern due to being surrounded by people everyday.
If you're found guilty of assault or murder, you are now a felon. Do you know how hard it is already to find a job as a felon?
I never said they 'had' to be forbidden. There is now simply a logical argument as to why they could be. (Safety concerns)
This is only in relation to working for or purchasing goods/services from private businesses.

It is part of the point, actually, and you're right, anti-discrimination laws wouldn't work if one made up an arbitrary excuse. You have recognized your laws are useless (apart from denying right to owners).
No, I have only established a possible work around. But if a business is consistently refusing people business with no good reason; that would be a reason to start investigating and possibly suspend their license.

Please start listing all your exceptions here. So far we have the paedophile case, the discount for kids in case they can't use all the facilities in an amusement park and the private black-tie event.
Any case in which there is a valid safety concern (pedophilia, felons), health concerns, time constrictions, personal inability to perform, or any clear logical argument which can be shown and demonstrated. (Kids costing less for the park)
Private events not open to the public, and non-profit organizations are out of jurisdiction. (black-tie event)
Done.


There is, the right to freedom of association that has been mentioned in this thread.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


Also, check the article 20 of the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

Yes, but do you actually know what Freedom of Association (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) does or protects?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Explain to me how that protects your "right to discriminate". I'll wait...

Yes, in case this wasn't obvious by now.
And I disagree for all the reasons I've mentioned so far.

Vlerchan
September 8th, 2017, 12:59 PM
No, it actually isn't. The fundamental basis of my claim is that black people (or any people), shouldn't be excluded from any stores whatsoever.
The actual numbers don't matter.
Let's review the conversation.

You claimed:

In a Capitalistic economy, where private businesses are the ONLY way to obtain goods. Private businesses can not be allowed to discriminate; they are restricting other people's means of obtaining goods.

I responded:

I responded to this above.

Capitalism raises the private gains associated with supplying to marginalised groups.

You responded.

Then how do you explain the segregation that happened in every single restaurant in the 40s? It would have been beneficial for those stores to serve everybody... but they didn't. The same thing is happening now.

Please note the bolded. I then countered:

Do you have any statistics which document percentage of stores which excluded black customers. I also mean to refer to just those that refused black customers - and not those which segregated them from white customers.

I'd be quite interested to see them.

Then I received his:

No, and it really doesn't matter. The fact that one store was "Whites only" is reason enough. Would you prefer we went back to that?

In the context of that conversation being able to demonstrate that the bolded claim is true does matter. If it is not true then your argument is null.

In this latest post you seem to be pretending that initial argument was never made.

Yes, we do live in a Republic, not a democracy. If laws were passed by direct democracy, then public opinion would matter. But they aren't, they're passed by Congress, a group made up of 535 people. Just a little shy of 323 million
Why do you think certain politicians are elected are certain politicians are not?

I don't believe they are, and education is a good deterrent of racism. But there will still be people who try to discriminate, and we need a way to stop them.
There will still be people who still discriminate.

But a small minority holding an abhorrent opinion is no reason to terminate the entire community's right to free association.


They've already lost that "right" with the current Anti-Discrimination laws we have already.
The argument I'm making is that decision is wrong.

That a group doesn't have a certain right does not make it just for that group not to have a certain right.

If it is a private event, not open to the public, they can do whatever they want. If it's a private business which is open to the public, then no, they can't discriminate like that.
So private high-end restaurants can't require that people dress formally or go 'black tie'?

Can companies demand their employees dress formally thus also discriminating against goths?

Working in a job surrounded by kids every second, seeing hundreds of them everyday, yes, it is. If they have a criminal record of pedophilia, they are a safety concern
What if they don't have a criminal record?

There's also a difference between being a peadophile and a rapist.

Nope, that's the Strawman Fallacy. You weren't paying attention.
You can go back and read this, but I said: "I suppose you could come up with the argument that children in the amusement park won't be able to ride on all of the rides (due to safety concerns, not discrimination) therefore not taking full advantage of the park, and subsequently receiving a discount.
Only a legitimate reasoning like that would be able to justify price difference."
Ah apologies. I'm not reading your responses to other people as I'm in work.

maddogmj77
September 8th, 2017, 01:11 PM
Let's review the conversation.

You claimed:

In a Capitalistic economy, where private businesses are the ONLY way to obtain goods. Private businesses can not be allowed to discriminate; they are restricting other people's means of obtaining goods.

I responded:

I responded to this above.

Capitalism raises the private gains associated with supplying to marginalised groups.

You responded.

Then how do you explain the segregation that happened in every single restaurant in the 40s? It would have been beneficial for those stores to serve everybody... but they didn't. The same thing is happening now.

Please note the bolded. I then countered:

Do you have any statistics which document percentage of stores which excluded black customers. I also mean to refer to just those that refused black customers - and not those which segregated them from white customers.

I'd be quite interested to see them.

Then I received his:

No, and it really doesn't matter. The fact that one store was "Whites only" is reason enough. Would you prefer we went back to that?

In the context of that conversation being able to demonstrate that the bolded claim is true does matter. If it is not true then your argument is null.

In this latest post you seem to be pretending that initial argument was never made.
I see your point. My point is this: ONE store refusing service to black people (or any people) is too much.
In a Capitalist economy, the private market is the only way to obtain goods, even those such as food, clothes, and houses. Without out, people can die. It's no place for discrimination

Why do you think certain politicians are elected are certain politicians are not?
Lobbying, Super-PACs, Corporations funding campaigns... Then once that's all said & done we get to choose from a couple of corporate shills.

There will still be people who still discriminate.

But a small minority holding an abhorrent opinion is no reason to terminate the entire community's right to free association.
We can stop those people who discriminate, and keep people's right to obtain necessary goods in a capitalist economy.

Again, what do you think Freedom of Association (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association) is? I don't think it means what you think it means.

The argument I'm making is that decision is wrong.

That a group doesn't have a certain right does not make it just for that group not to have a certain right.
And I believe businesses who discriminate is wrong.

This is another claim to "Freedom of Association (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association)", which doesn't exist.

So private high-end restaurants can't require that people dress formally or go 'black tie'?
If the restaurant is open to the public, then no, they can not discriminate.

What if they don't have a criminal record?

There's also a difference between being a pedophile and a rapist.
Still a safety concern.

Vlerchan
September 8th, 2017, 01:32 PM
I see your point. My point is this: ONE store refusing service to black people (or any people) is too much.
In a Capitalist economy, the private market is the only way to obtain goods, even those such as food, clothes, and houses. Without out, people can die. It's no place for discrimination
One store discriminating does not have a material effect on the victims of that discrimination.

Your argument thus seems reduced to discrimination is bad because discrimination is bad.

Lobbying, Super-PACs, corporations funding campaign funding...
This suggests that you believe that the anti discrimination act was introduced because business leaders wanted it to be introduced.

Do you genuinely believe that the will of the electorate has no impact on policy selection?

We can stop those people who discriminate, and keep people's right to obtain necessary goods in a capitalist economy.

Again, what do you think Freedom of Association is? I don't think it means what you think it means.
1. People retain the right to obtain necessary goods. You were unable to establish that they might be completed excluded from markets.

2. From your link:

Freedom of association encompasses both an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, and the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members.

In this instance the group is the business and the interest is the non-endorsenent of same-sex marriage through the production of a product equivalent of that extended to opposite-sex couples.

And I believe businesses who discriminate is wrong.
This fails to address the point I have made.

If the restaurant is open to the public, then no, they can not discriminate.
OK. Can the restaurant require its staff to wear a uniform - and fire those who don't?

Still a safety concern.
This is equivalent to claiming its a safety concern for heterosexual men to work alongside women.

Peadophiles might be more likely to rape children but men are more likely to rape women.

Living For Love
September 8th, 2017, 01:33 PM
No, I have only established a possible work around. But if a business is consistently refusing people business with no good reason; that would be a reason to start investigating and possibly suspend their license.
Suspending their license under what law?

Any case in which there is a valid safety concern (pedophilia, felons)
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime

According to the 2010–2015 American Community Survey, the racial composition of the United States in 2015 was that 12.6% of the entire population was black. (here (https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk) is the source).

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, black offenders committed 52 per cent of homicides recorded in the data between 1980 and 2008. (source (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf) - skip to page 11).

https://fournews-assets-prod-s3b-ew1-aws-c4-pml.s3.amazonaws.com/media/2014/11/27_bjs_use.jpg

These numbers are highly disproportionate. Thus, according to these statistics, an owner could potentially refuse service to a black person under your "valid safety concern" criteria.

I can come up with other examples. For instance, imagine a group of people who own a private company and that religiously believe that homosexual people have a higher tendency of being paedophiles, and wouldn't hire a homosexual because of it. How exactly would your laws handle the situation in this case?

Obviously, just because someone is black doesn't mean he's a murderer, just because someone is a homosexual doesn't mean he's a paedophile, and just because someone committed a paedophile crime in the past doesn't mean he will commit another in the future.

health concerns
Would it be okay if I refused service to someone lacking adequate hygiene (excess dirt, body odour), to the point it's making other customers in my restaurant uncomfortable?

time constrictions
What do you mean by time constrictions?

personal inability to perform
Does IQ count here? Like, a company refusing to hire people below a certain IQ score? Or are you talking about physical handicap?

or any clear logical argument which can be shown and demonstrated. (Kids costing less for the park)
Do personal experiences count here? For instance, I have a restaurant and I have served 10 Muslim people, and all those 10 people have caused trouble in my restaurant, so now I refuse to serve Muslims. Would this be ok?

Yes, but do you actually know what Freedom of Association (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) does or protects?

Explain to me how that protects your "right to discriminate". I'll wait...
Freedom of association is the right to get together for a common cause or purpose without interference, the right to form a group of people, and to choose to meet with people individually or not. In its simplest form, it is the right to form or not to form human connections. Conversely, it includes the right not to be compelled to join one of those groups. You don't have a right to discriminate, you have a right to choose not to form a human connection to someone you don't want to by whatever reason.

Dalcourt
September 8th, 2017, 09:40 PM
This whole thread is an interesting read...it's especially interesting to see how a thread that originally was about discrimination against gay people shifted to discuss Muslims and especially blacks and even promoting a new racial segregation. I used to be accused to be "obsessed with race issues" by people on here just because of the color of my skin. Therefore it is really interesting to see how white people make things a race issues when it was simply a sexual orientation issue.

But ignoring your discussion here I will give my opinion on the original topic.

Anti Discrimation Laws are always kinda tricky...they sadly seem necessary why else would they be put into effect? But at the same time they are not really helpful since they just increase bad blood as they might "force" certain groups to do things. Like hiring a woman or disabled person, or serving a colored or transgender customer.
This being forced just creates more hate and mental segregation but that's just how I feel others may be completely fine with it.

So as far as I am concerned a baker can refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple. I'm not sure if this would be a Christian thing to do, since the Christian God I learned about, told us to love all and judge none.
However, according to this argument, people also have the right then to boycott said baker alongside their own beliefs. For some business owners this could lead to them having to go out of business. Since you do your business to earn money and make a living every business owner has to decide for themselves what's more important to them in the long run. And the majority will always take money over personal beliefs as personal beliefs won't feed their family.

People of all gender, race, religion etc. are confronted with discrimination, or at least what they personally feel is discrimination, at one point in their lives. For some groups discrimination is a daily affair, so they won't even talk about it as it became "normal".
Imagine being a colored female waitress...if you would make every racist or sexist slur you get public like the person in @LivingforLove 's example you would be busier doing complaints than your actual work. But it is nice to see how such "exotic" cases are promoted. (I also sorta feel this baker just wants publicity or a TV show like this Cake Boss guy but that's just my humble opinion).

I'm sorry I don't get more into the discussion you made out of this original topic but you three got already too deep into your arguments for an outsider to grasp the complete logic behind it.

Living For Love
September 9th, 2017, 05:57 AM
This whole thread is an interesting read...it's especially interesting to see how a thread that originally was about discrimination against gay people shifted to discuss Muslims and especially blacks and even promoting a new racial segregation. I used to be accused to be "obsessed with race issues" by people on here just because of the color of my skin. Therefore it is really interesting to see how white people make things a race issues when it was simply a sexual orientation issue.
Actually, the OP had already mentioned Muslims in his first post, and he was also the first one to come up with the racial segregation example in the 40s. I just followed up those examples. And I also didn't know you were black.

So as far as I am concerned a baker can refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple. I'm not sure if this would be a Christian thing to do, since the Christian God I learned about, told us to love all and judge none.
Right, but still, the reason I refuse to bake the cake can be completely independent of my religion. I'm not sure why people think that just because I have a religion, all my opinions, stances and perspectives must be derived from it, or in some way related to it.

Dalcourt
September 9th, 2017, 07:46 AM
Actually, the OP had already mentioned Muslims in his first post, and he was also the first one to come up with the racial segregation example in the 40s. I just followed up those examples. And I also didn't know you were black.


Right, but still, the reason I refuse to bake the cake can be completely independent of my religion. I'm not sure why people think that just because I have a religion, all my opinions, stances and perspectives must be derived from it, or in some way related to it.

Why do you feel so attacked? I referred to the whole discussion not to you.
It's not relevant if you knew about my skin color or not I just generally stated that white people seem to be as, or even more obsessed with race issues than colored people are. Nevertheless they always accuse the coloreds of this matter.

I don't know what you do out of religious or other beliefs but the OP posted this article where it is said that this baker refused out of religious motifs. And I stated that I as a Christian learned different than to judge people like that.

lliam
September 9th, 2017, 12:32 PM
There may be anti-discrimination laws.
But when I run a business, I'm not forced to sell my stuff to everyone.


And I can choose my target group. eg:


On Mondays I sell only goods to crude cursing orthodox-Jewish nudists who wear mankinis.


On Tuesdays I only serve gay, Catholic Buddhists with Rasta haircuts.


On Wednesdays only one-armed Muslims with a plastic-explosives-belt-phobia are my supported customers.


On Thursdays I've only time for failed Trump assassins, who therefore suffer from severe depressions.


On Fridays, my business is open only to Brazilian immigrants who are outing themselves as anime fans in public and who only speak Japanese on this day, but don't understand a word of what they say cause they recite only memorized phrases from animes.


On Saturdays, only Mafia-godfathers with a tendency wearing dresses for women will be my customers


And on Sundays I only welcome God and his other million colleagues in my shop.




Well, if I therefore don't make enough sales or profit for living because of this exclusive target groups, it's my own fault when I go bankrupt.

maddogmj77
September 9th, 2017, 01:21 PM
One store discriminating does not have a material effect on the victims of that discrimination.

Your argument thus seems reduced to discrimination is bad because discrimination is bad.
You really think stores discriminating will have absolutely no effect on those who are discriminate? That is absurd. The discriminated will have to travel further and/or spend more.
It happened to black people in the 40's. It just happened to this gay couple trying to get a wedding cake.

This suggests that you believe that the anti discrimination act was introduced because business leaders wanted it to be introduced.

Do you genuinely believe that the will of the electorate has no impact on policy selection?
Fair point. But I have a graph to show you that says public opinion makes almost no difference on what Congress decides to pass.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/de8I9Al6I0g/maxresdefault.jpg
The bottom 90% of people according to wealth have had absolutely no effect on Congress in the past 20 years. Only what the top 10% want matters.
Corruption is legal in America (https://act.represent.us/sign/the-problem/)

As it stands however, this doesn't have any bearing on the debate at hand.

1. People retain the right to obtain necessary goods. You were unable to establish that they might be completed excluded from markets.
No, they will end up having to travel further, and spend more. Just like I said above.

2. From your link:

Freedom of association encompasses both an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, and the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members.

In this instance the group is the business and the interest is the non-endorsement of same-sex marriage through the production of a product equivalent of that extended to opposite-sex couples.
From my link: "Freedom of association is manifested through the right to join a trade union, to engage in free speech or to participate in debating societies, political parties, or any other club or association, including religious denominations and organizations, fraternities, and sport clubs."

Do you see "private business" listed anywhere in there? It's all about Unions, Clubs, Groups, Parties, and Associations.
Nothing to do with private businesses.

Don't you think if your made-up version of "Freedom of Association" actually existed, then the current Anti-Discrimination laws that we already have, would have been ruled unconstitutional?

OK. Can the restaurant require its staff to wear a uniform - and fire those who don't?
Yes. Working as an employee is different than just purchasing goods/service from that business.
By working for them you agree to the rules and regulations that they set.
It's not discrimination either. There's a legitimate concern of safety (safety boots, long-pants, hard-hats). It also helps with recognition & consistency, to make sure that a customer doesn't mistake some random person as an actual worker.

This is equivalent to claiming its a safety concern for heterosexual men to work alongside women.

Pedophiles might be more likely to rape children but men are more likely to rape women.
No, if someone has an actual criminal record of assault, murder, rape, molestation etc., then it is a legitimate safety concern.
Otherwise you're just discriminating against men.

Forgot what i said about pedophiles with no criminal record, there would be no way for a hiring business to know this anyways.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suspending their license under what law?
Under current Anti-Discrimination laws that already exist, and for the possible new ones to include sexual orientation & gender identity.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime

According to the 2010–2015 American Community Survey, the racial composition of the United States in 2015 was that 12.6% of the entire population was black. (here (https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk) is the source).

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, black offenders committed 52 per cent of homicides recorded in the data between 1980 and 2008. (source (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf) - skip to page 11).

image (https://fournews-assets-prod-s3b-ew1-aws-c4-pml.s3.amazonaws.com/media/2014/11/27_bjs_use.jpg)

These numbers are highly disproportionate. Thus, according to these statistics, an owner could potentially refuse service to a black person under your "valid safety concern" criteria.
No, unless they are a convicted felon of murder, rape, etc. there is no safety concern and it's just discrimination.
I would like to point out though, that White & Black juveniles do drugs at almost exactly the same rate. But Black juveniles are 2x more likely to get arrested. It's not that they do more crime, it's that they get arrested more.

I can come up with other examples. For instance, imagine a group of people who own a private company and that religiously believe that homosexual people have a higher tendency of being pedophiles, and wouldn't hire a homosexual because of it. How exactly would your laws handle the situation in this case?
Well firstly, they're wrong, just look at statistics, it's actually heterosexual males.
Even so, if they're not a convicted criminal for rape, murder etc., it's just discrimination.

Obviously, just because someone is black doesn't mean he's a murderer, just because someone is a homosexual doesn't mean he's a paedophile, and just because someone committed a paedophile crime in the past doesn't mean he will commit another in the future.
It actually is likely that someone who has committed assault or rape, is more likely to do so again.

Would it be okay if I refused service to someone lacking adequate hygiene (excess dirt, body odour), to the point it's making other customers in my restaurant uncomfortable?
Yes actually, that's a health concern. I already said that. In fact, you already said that.

What do you mean by time constrictions?
You're unable to do something because the store is closing? I don't know, that seems pretty niche. The other ones are more relevant.

Does IQ count here? Like, a company refusing to hire people below a certain IQ score? Or are you talking about physical handicap?
If someone is unable to do the job you are hiring them to do, it's completely logical to not hire them.

Do personal experiences count here? For instance, I have a restaurant and I have served 10 Muslim people, and all those 10 people have caused trouble in my restaurant, so now I refuse to serve Muslims. Would this be ok?
No, personal experiences do not count.
This last part wasn't a very good one, my other reasons are much more relevant.

Freedom of association is the right to get together for a common cause or purpose without interference, the right to form a group of people, and to choose to meet with people individually or not. In its simplest form, it is the right to form or not to form human connections. Conversely, it includes the right not to be compelled to join one of those groups. You don't have a right to discriminate, you have a right to choose not to form a human connection to someone you don't want to by whatever reason.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There may be anti-discrimination laws.
But when I run a business, I'm not forced to sell my stuff to everyone.


And I can choose my target group. eg:


On Mondays I sell only goods to crude cursing orthodox-Jewish nudists who wear mankinis.


On Tuesdays I only serve gay, Catholic Buddhists with Rasta haircuts.


On Wednesdays only one-armed Muslims with a plastic-explosives-belt-phobia are my supported customers.


On Thursdays I've only time for failed Trump assassins, who therefore suffer from severe depressions.


On Fridays, my business is open only to Brazilian immigrants who are outing themselves as anime fans in public and who only speak Japanese on this day, but don't understand a word of what they say cause they recite only memorized phrases from animes.


On Saturdays, only Mafia-godfathers with a tendency wearing dresses for women will be my customers


And on Sundays I only welcome God and his other million colleagues in my shop.




Well, if I therefore don't make enough sales or profit for living because of this exclusive target groups, it's my own fault when I go bankrupt.
Sorry, but what you would be doing is illegal. It is Illegal in America to refuse service to someone based on their race, sex, religion, or national origin. (Some states have added sexual orientation & gender identity, but it's not on the federal level yet.)

Nobody's going to go bankrupt from not serving gay people (a very small minority), but gay people will feel the effect of it.

Living For Love
September 9th, 2017, 03:19 PM
You really think stores discriminating will have absolutely no effect on those who are discriminate? That is absurd. The discriminated will have to travel further and/or spend more.
It happened to black people in the 40's. It just happened to this gay couple trying to get a wedding cake.
If there are 1000 clothes shops in New York City and only one of them refuses to serve black people, how exactly will black people feel the effect of discrimination?

Fair point. But I have a graph to show you that says public opinion makes almost no difference on what Congress decides to pass.
The bottom 90% of people according to wealth have had absolutely no effect on Congress in the past 40 years. Only what the top 10% wants matters.
Corruption is legal in America (https://act.represent.us/sign/the-problem/)

As it stands however, this doesn't have any bearing on the debate at hand.
I know this is not related to the debate, but who are the elites exactly? Who are the lobbies?

No, they will end up having to travel further, and spend more. Just like I said above.
But imagine if in NYC there are 100 clothes shops and only one of them refuses to serve black people, and that store is right next to another better store which serves any kind of people. What difference does it make?

Yes. Working as an employee is different than just purchasing goods/service from that business.
By working for them you agree to the rules and regulations that they set.
It's not discrimination either. There's a legitimate concern of safety (safety boots, long-pants, hard-hats). It also helps with recognition & consistency, to make sure that a customer doesn't mistake some random person as an actual worker.
In my restaurant, you can only be hired if you wear this uniform and if you are heterosexual. Is this ok to you?

Also, in the example I mentioned of people refusing to hire a heterosexual man for fear that he might be a paedophile, you said it was discrimination, but in the example of the person refusing to wear the uniform, you said it wasn't because he has to abide by the rules and regulations that they set.

No, unless they are a convicted felon of murder, rape, etc. there is no safety concern and it's just discrimination.
I would like to point out though, that White & Black juveniles do drugs at almost exactly the same rate. But Black juveniles are 2x more likely to get arrested. It's not that they do more crime, it's that they get arrested more.
What if he's only a suspect? What if a man decides to get a job in a restaurant but members of his family swear he's a paedophile, although no evidence has yet be found by authorities?

No, personal experiences do not count.
Why not?

maddogmj77
September 9th, 2017, 03:49 PM
If there are 1000 clothes shops in New York City and only one of them refuses to serve black people, how exactly will black people feel the effect of discrimination?
If there's one cake store for a hundred miles around in Kentucky, and a gay couple is refused service, where do they go?

Discrimination usually happens in rural areas, where racism, homophobia, discrimination etc. is rampant.

Even ONE store is too much.

I know this is not related to the debate, but who are the elites exactly? Who are the lobbies?
The Elites in that graph, are the top 10% according to wealth. (The top 10% wealthiest Americans)

Lobbyists are people hired by corporations to fund political campaigns. Because corporations cannot "directly" fund campaigns, they get lobbyists to do it.
So the corporation gets the lobbyist to start a fundraising campaign for their chosen politician, and the corporation pours money into them.
At the fundraiser, that same lobbyist is perfectly able to speak to the politician, tell him exactly where the money came from, and tell him that there can be more money if they decide to pass some certain bills; even offer them a high-paying job for when they get out.

And this happens ALL the time in our Congress. 100% of U.S. Representatives & 97% of Senators are all paid by lobbyists.
50% of them go to work as a lobbyist when they get out of Congress.

But imagine if in NYC there are 100 clothes shops and only one of them refuses to serve black people, and that store is right next to another better store which serves any kind of people. What difference does it make?
Imagine if there's one clothes store in a rural area, and it refuses to serve black people.
Imagine if there's one cake-store in a rural area, and it refuses to serve gay people.

ONE store is too much

In my restaurant, you can only be hired if you wear this uniform and if you are heterosexual. Is this ok to you?
Uniform is safety, consistency, and recognition (Like I've said). Heterosexual is discrimination.

Also, in the example I mentioned of people refusing to hire a heterosexual man for fear that he might be a pedophile, you said it was discrimination, but in the example of the person refusing to wear the uniform, you said it wasn't because he has to abide by the rules and regulations that they set.
It's reasonable to require your workers to wear uniforms for safety, consistency, and recognition. It's discrimination to not hire heterosexual males.

What if he's only a suspect? What if a man decides to get a job in a restaurant but members of his family swear he's a pedophile, although no evidence has yet be found by authorities?
You could certainly make a court in case for why he would be a safety concern, with witnesses you'd have a good shot.

I don't believe these niche cases have any bearing on the general idea of whether or not businesses should be allowed to discriminate in general.

Why not?
Because then anyone could claim anything to discriminate against anybody.

Vlerchan
September 9th, 2017, 03:50 PM
You really think stores discriminating will have absolutely no effect on those who are discriminate? That is absurd. The discriminated will have to travel further and/or spend more.
It happened to black people in the 40's. It just happened to this gay couple trying to get a wedding cake.
You seem to be forgetting the argument you initially made. It was this.

In a Capitalistic economy, where private businesses are the ONLY way to obtain goods. Private businesses can not be allowed to discriminate; they are restricting other people's means of obtaining goods.

Please note the language I bolded.

I am arguing that since alternative suppliers are almost guaranteed to exist, one's access to the good isn't being restricted. You might have to travel to another store, but I have seen no evidence - i.e. you have not provided any evidence - that under free business regimes minorities are restricted access to these goods.

In the case highlighted, the couple might have attended another bakery.

Only what the top 10% wants matters.
Corruption is legal in America
The policy preferences of the rich and the middle-class and even the poor are very highly correlated (and almost identical when it comes to drugs, education, defense, the environment, homeland security and a few other issues). The conclusion of that paper only really matters in areas where there are strong levels of divergence in policy preferences - inflation, and tax cuts.

Then there's Branham et al. (2016) (http://jabranham.com/papers/when-do-the-rich-win.pdf) which used the same data and found that about fifty percent of the proposals which the middle class supported and elites didn't, passed. There was no statistical difference between that and the percent of proposals which elites supported, and the middle class didn't, which passed.

In other words, the results are highly overblown in the media.

As it stands however, this doesn't have any bearing on the debate at hand.
Your argument is null if it is the case that ordinary people affect policy. This is because it suggests that minority rights are dependent on majority acquiescence. That in turn suggests that these bills are likely to only occur in situations when they are least required - in situations where they are required, we can expect them to be repealed.

No, they will end up having to travel further, and spend more. Just like I said above.
You haven't demonstrated that they will need to spend more. Though, note that this would create huge arbitrage opportunities for whites to sell to blacks and pocket some part of the difference - which should lead to the difference becoming trivial.

Though you initially argued that they would be restricted access to that good, which you have so far failed to demonstrate with any degree of confidence.

From my link: "Freedom of association is manifested through the right to join a trade union, to engage in free speech or to participate in debating societies, political parties, or any other club or association, including religious denominations and organizations, fraternities, and sport clubs."

Do you see "private business" listed anywhere in there? It's all about Unions, Clubs, Groups, Parties, and Associations.
Nothing to do with private businesses.
Please note that the term association is only proposed as including "religious denominations and organizations, fraternities, and sport clubs". I would suggest that private buisnesses would fit nicely in there.

---

Just to add, I'm referring to the philosophical concept of freedom of association. You have this strange habit of diverting into discussing how we currently discuss ideas as evidence that things should be this way.

I'm happy to dive down this rabbit hole but it might become relevent again at some point in the future and I figure it should be raised now.

Don't you think if your made-up version of "Freedom of Association" actually existed, then the current Anti-Discrimination laws that we already have, would have been ruled unconstitutional?
Lol. Don't tell me you don't disagree with any point in the history of your nation's jurisprudence.

That Plessy v. Ferguson suggested that state-enforced segregation did not violate the separate but equal clause does not mean that the argument is settled for now and all eternity.

That it's the law does not mean that it's logical. You're just making an argument to authority.

Yes. Working as an employee is different than just purchasing goods/service from that business.
By working for them you agree to the rules and regulations that they set.
You never explained how the first point logically entails the latter. For example, presume a trans person is told that they must dress in the clothing that is considered proper for the sex they were assigned at birth, based on their genetalia. If they refused, is it fine for them to be fired?

Nevertheless, I presume you feel that it's thus moral to not employ people because they have a prior criminal conviction - for example, possession of marijuana?

It's not discrimination either. There's a legitimate concern of safety (safety boots, long-pants, hard-hats). It also helps with recognition & consistency, to make sure that a customer doesn't mistake some random person as an actual worker.
In my the office I work in, we dress business casual. That is neither for safety reasons or so we aren't mistaken for some random person - we aren't client facing.

Should I be allowed to turn up dressed like a goth and not get fired on Monday?

No, if someone has an actual criminal record of assault, murder, rape, molestation etc., then it is a legitimate safety concern.
Otherwise you're just discriminating against men.
So if the peadophile doesn't have a criminal record, the school should be forced to let them work with children?

Forgot what i said about pedophiles with no criminal record, there would be no way for a hiring business to know this anyways.
Presume they find out. They're tipped off by a concerned citizen, or the peadophile lets it slip during the interview.

maddogmj77
September 9th, 2017, 04:24 PM
You seem to be forgetting the argument you initially made. It was this.

In a Capitalistic economy, where private businesses are the ONLY way to obtain goods. Private businesses can not be allowed to discriminate; they are restricting other people's means of obtaining goods.

Please note the language I bolded.

I am arguing that since alternative suppliers are almost guaranteed to exist, one's access to the good isn't being restricted. You might have to travel to another store, but I have seen no evidence - i.e. you have not provided any evidence - that under free business regimes minorities are restricted access to these goods.

In the case highlighted, the couple might have attended another bakery.
I will repeat my argument that I have just made to the other person, as I believe you missed it.

"If there's one cake store for a hundred miles around in Kentucky, and a gay couple is refused service, where do they go?
Imagine if there's one clothes store in a rural area, and it refuses to serve black people.
Imagine if there's one cake-store in a rural area, and it refuses to serve gay people.

Discrimination usually happens in rural areas, where racism, homophobia, discrimination etc. is rampant.

ONE store is too much"

The policy preferences of the rich and the middle-class and even the poor are very highly correlated (and almost identical when it comes to drugs, education, defense, the environment, homeland security and a few other issues). The conclusion of that paper only really matters in areas where there are strong levels of divergence in policy preferences - inflation, and tax cuts.

Then there's Branham et al. (2016) (http://jabranham.com/papers/when-do-the-rich-win.pdf) which used the same data and found that about fifty percent of the proposals which the middle class supported and elites didn't, passed. There was no statistical difference between that and the percent of proposals which elites supported, and the middle class didn't, which passed.

In other words, the results are highly overblown in the media.
No, that study took into account all bills passed in the last 20 years. (As lobbying is much more rampant)

It's not media, it's an actual study (https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf) done by Princeton University.

Your study still found that the rich have more of an effect on Congress than anybody else. Read pages 29-32.

Your argument is null if it is the case that ordinary people affect policy. This is because it suggests that minority rights are dependent on majority acquiescence. That in turn suggests that these bills are likely to only occur in situations when they are least required - in situations where they are required, we can expect them to be repealed.
No, it's really not.
Even if a majority of people are against discrimnation. Guess what?... It still happens.

You haven't demonstrated that they will need to spend more. Though, note that this would create huge arbitrage opportunities for whites to sell to blacks and pocket some part of the difference - which should lead to the difference becoming trivial.

Though you initially argued that they would be restricted access to that good, which you have so far failed to demonstrate with any degree of confidence.
People will be effected, it is ridiculous to say that not one single person will be effected in some way.
Refer to my analogy above in rural areas. (Where most discrimination happens)

Please note that the term association is only proposed as including "religious denominations and organizations, fraternities, and sport clubs". I would suggest that private businesses would fit nicely in there.
No, it really wouldn't. Private businesses are not religious denominations. They're not an organization of people. And they're certainly not fraternities or sports clubs.

Just to add, I'm referring to the philosophical concept of freedom of association. You have this strange habit of diverting into discussing how we currently discuss ideas as evidence that things should be this way.

I'm happy to dive down this rabbit hole but it might become relevent again at some point in the future and I figure it should be raised now.
YOU ARE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT UP FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION!

Also, I call bullshit that you were just talking about the "philosophical freedom of association". Here's a quote from you:
"2. From your link:

Freedom of association encompasses both an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, and the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members.

In this instance the group is the business and the interest is the non-endorsenent of same-sex marriage through the production of a product equivalent of that extended to opposite-sex couples."
You were talking about Freedom of Association as stated in the First Amendment. Not the "philosophical freedom of association" like you are claiming now.

If you believe businesses should have "freedom of association" & be able to discriminate against whoever they want, fine, have that belief. I disagree with it, I've made my point for it over and over again.

I imagine you are more of a libertarian judging from most of your talking points. We simply disagree.

You believe businesses should be able to do whatever they want & that the free-market will fix itself. I don't think so.

Lol. Don't tell me you don't disagree with any point in the history of your nation's jurisprudence.

That Plessy v. Ferguson suggested that state-enforced segregation did not violate the separate but equal clause does not mean that the argument is settled for now and all eternity.

That it's the law does not mean that it's logical. You're just making an argument to authority.
No, I hate my country & it's racist white-washed history to be honest.

Again, I only brought up Freedom of Association because you brought it up first.

You never explained how the first point logically entails the latter. For example, presume a trans person is told that they must dress in the clothing that is considered proper for the sex they were assigned at birth, based on their genitalia. If they refused, is it fine for them to be fired?
Again, a niche case trying to find a crack to "disprove" my entire ideology.
This 'should' be discrimination (sexual orientation & gender identity are not yet covered on the federal level). It should be perfectly okay for that worker to wear whatever uniform they require the other sex to wear.

Nevertheless, I presume you feel that it's thus moral to not employ people because they have a prior criminal conviction - for example, possession of marijuana?
No, I don't believe it's moral. Stop assuming my beliefs please.

I assume YOU believe it's okay, as you are the one arguing in favor of business discrimination.

It is however, legal as it's still a felony (unfortunately).

In my the office I work in, we dress business casual. That is neither for safety reasons or so we aren't mistaken for some random person - we aren't client facing.

Should I be allowed to turn up dressed like a goth and not get fired on Monday?
Nope. You agreed to that by signing up to work for them.

Working for a company is much different than purchasing their goods/services. (Like I have said already)

So if the peadophile doesn't have a criminal record, the school should be forced to let them work with children?

Presume they find out. They're tipped off by a concerned citizen, or the pedophile lets it slip during the interview.
Again... another niche case. I've already answered this.

"You could certainly make a court in case for why he would be a safety concern, with witnesses you'd have a good shot.

I don't believe these niche cases have any bearing on the general idea of whether or not businesses should be allowed to discriminate in general."

Living For Love
September 9th, 2017, 04:56 PM
If there's one cake store for a hundred miles around in Kentucky, and a gay couple is refused service, where do they go?

Discrimination usually happens in rural areas, where racism, homophobia, discrimination etc. is rampant.

Even ONE store is too much.
So is the location of the store relevant, in your opinion? If a store that discriminates is right next to another store that doesn't discriminate, would it be fine?

The Elites in that graph, are the top 10% according to wealth. (The top 10% wealthiest Americans)

Lobbyists are people hired by corporations to fund political campaigns. Because corporations cannot "directly" fund campaigns, they get lobbyists to do it.
So the corporation gets the lobbyist to start a fundraising campaign for their chosen politician, and the corporation pours money into them.
At the fundraiser, that same lobbyist is perfectly able to speak to the politician, tell him exactly where the money came from, and tell him that there can be more money if they decide to pass some certain bills; even offer them a high-paying job for when they get out.

And this happens ALL the time in our Congress. 100% of U.S. Representatives & 97% of Senators are all paid by lobbyists.
50% of them go to work as a lobbyist when they get out of Congress.
Still, how are voters influenced by lobbyists? They don't win if people don't vote for those politicians.

Uniform is safety, consistency, and recognition (Like I've said). Heterosexual is discrimination.

It's reasonable to require your workers to wear uniforms for safety, consistency, and recognition. It's discrimination to not hire heterosexual males.
But you are discriminating against goths if the restaurant says they have to wear a red and blue uniform.

Because then anyone could claim anything to discriminate against anybody.
And wouldn't that be fair? If all Muslim clients insulted you at your restaurant after you've served them, isn't that a "clear logical argument which can be shown and demonstrated" in favour of refusing to serve any more Muslims?

People will be effected, it is ridiculous to say that not one single person will be effected in some way.
Do you think the fact that one people is discriminated is enough to strip millions of employers of their right not to employ someone?

No, I don't believe it's moral.
So, why is it okay not to hire a convicted paedophile but it's not okay not to hire a convicted marijuana possessor?

Vlerchan
September 9th, 2017, 05:18 PM
I will repeat my argument that I have just made to the other person, as I believe you missed it.

"If there's one cake store for a hundred miles around in Kentucky, and a gay couple is refused service, where do they go?
Imagine if there's one clothes store in a rural area, and it refuses to serve black people.
Imagine if there's one cake-store in a rural area, and it refuses to serve gay people.

Discrimination usually happens in rural areas, where racism, homophobia, discrimination etc. is rampant.
Ecommerce will cover almost everything. Where I live you can go to customcakes.ie.

Now you might insist on purchasing your cake in person, in which case the welfare loss from travelling to a location 100 miles away to purchase from someone who doesn't detest your Union is likely to be quite small.

No, that study took into account all bills passed in the last 20 years. (As lobbying is much more rampant)
I'm not sure what you mean. The criticism I proposed still stands, as does the criticism proposed in the study I directed you to.

It's not media, it's an actual study done by Princeton University.
I am aware it's an actual study. I meant to suggest that the results from that study - as the media reported them - are highly overblown.

Your study still found that the rich have more of an effect on Congress than anybody else. Read pages 29-32.
Please read page 9 where it discusses the analysis - you're referring to base descriptive statistics. It notes that any difference between the influence of the rich and the middle class is not statistically significant.

That the poor have little influence also has nothing to do with lobbying and all to do with the rich and the middle-class forming a coalition to eat the poor. This is a well-noted phenomena in the political science literature when the electoral system is winner-takes-all - under proportional representation, the middle class and poor form an electoral coalition. Note the arguments made in, for example, Manow (2009) (http://www.mpifg.de/pu/mpifg_ja/SER_7_2009_Manow.pdf).

No, it's really not.
Even if a majority of people are against discrimnation. Guess what?... It still happens.
Please note the claim I made earlier:

There will still be people who still discriminate.

But a small minority holding an abhorrent opinion is no reason to terminate the entire community's right to free association.

You're nevertheless dodging the point I made, it's that these sort of protections are only significant when there is limited discrimination. It lets whites/straights/whoever feel good about themselves and avoids the sort of battles which actually need to happen: in the case of discrimination of homosexual people, letting straight people pretend it's all hunky-dorey because they passed some basic legislation, as will actually happen, is terrible strategy-wise.

People will be effected, it is ridiculous to say that not one single person will be effected in some way.
Refer to my analogy above in rural areas. (Where most discrimination happens)
We may see some small amount of people affected - though not restricted access to goods, as I argued above.

In that case, please refer to my argument that the welfare loss is not large enough to lead me to believe it's a good idea to undermine our fundemental rights. Note that you are suggesting we shouldn't even allow cinema's to sell cheap tickets to children - the welfare-loss that would lead on from the precedent you want to set is considerably more damaging that the welfare-loss you are averting.

No, it really wouldn't. Private businesses are not religious denominations. They're not an organization of people. And they're certainly not fraternities or sports clubs.
Please note that the extract you cited read 'including religious denominations and organizations, fraternities, and sport clubs' which suggests that it is not limited to these bodies.

The common element which binds them - individuals joined together for a set purpose - also binds private businesses.

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT UP FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION!
:O

Perhaps I shall rephrase. I am referring to that princepal in terms of its philosophical sense, and not it's current legally-embodied sense.

I imagine you are a libertarian judging from most of your talking points. We simply disagree.
Nah. I share some opinions with libertarians - freedom of speech, freedom of association - but I also disagree with them on a heap - for example, I am in favour of gun control, socialised healthcare, BLM, radical feminism, spying and so on.

And, even then, what I share with them, I tend to support for very different reasons. In terms of issues like this, I think letting people associate freely leads to the most efficient long-run sorting: where conflicts emerge, and we're forced to deal with them, rather than just shove them under the legislative rug. Rural communities should be forced to confront their racism rather than just have a gaggle of Californians make it illegal. And then letting businesses discrinate when it comes to the price of, say, cinema tickets is just welfare improving, period: everyone is better off.

You believe businesses should be able to do whatever they want. I don't think so.
No, not at all.

No, I hate my country & it's racist white-washed history, to be honest.

Again, I only brought up Freedom of Association because you brought it up first.
What I am claiming is that just because something is the law doesn't mean it should be the law, your argument implied otherwise.

Again, a niche case trying to find a crack to "disprove" my entire ideology.
Your idea argument has come to rest on the idea that it's possible that someone, somewhere could be forced to drive 100 miles.

This 'should' be discrimination (sexual orientation & gender identity are not yet covered on the federal level). It should be perfectly okay for that worker to wear whatever uniform they require the other sex to wear.
Why should it be discrimination?

You do this a lot where you don't clearly outline your reasoning, just state that the world should operate this way.

No, I don't believe it's moral. Stop assuming my beliefs please.

I assume YOU believe it's okay, as you are the one arguing in favor of business discrimination.

It is however, legal as it's still a felony (unfortunately).
I do believe it's moral. If you don't let businesses discriminate against criminals, they discriminate against all african-americans as a proxy. This leaves an even larger population worse off.

Please see Agan (2016) (https://law.yale.edu/system/files/area/workshop/leo/leo16_starr.pdf).

Do you think it should be illegal?

---

When I say 'I presume', I'm asking a question. Sorry if that's not clear across out cultures(:

Nope. You agreed to that by signing up to work for them.

Working for a company is much different than purchasing their goods/services. (Like I have said already)
I asked why you think it's so different and you never gave me an answer. You just re-asserted the claim.

I only agreed with that when I signed up to them because they would discriminate against me if I tried to reveal my inner-goth.


"You could certainly make a court in case for why he would be a safety concern, with witnesses you'd have a good shot.

I don't believe these niche cases have any bearing on the general idea of whether or not businesses should be allowed to discriminate in general."
I have no idea why you don't think niche cases matter. The interrogation of niche cases is probably the most important part of philosophical inquiry. In fact, it's dealing with the niche caes that I probably spend about 99 percent of my own time dealing with.

I also said earlier that being a peadophile does not make you a rapist with any degree of certainty. In the same sense being a male does not make you a rapist with any degree of certainty - even though a significant amount of them commit sexual violence. You're speaking through prejuices here.

---

Right, I feel like we're going around in circles at this stage [we have been for a while, but I need a life]. Your essential conclusion that our perspective are unbridgeable is right. So I'mma end my input here: I feel everyone understands my argument [I've made it at least 3 times here, so some of our audience might even be sick of it] . Just figured I'd let you know, so you can decide whether to take the time having the last word or not.

Nice debating with you, anyways.

Otherwise, see you next year, ROTW.

maddogmj77
September 9th, 2017, 05:23 PM
So is the location of the store relevant, in your opinion? If a store that discriminates is right next to another store that doesn't discriminate, would it be fine?
No, it's not okay, like I've said for the 10th time.

ONE store is too much

Still, how are voters influenced by lobbyists? They don't win if people don't vote for those politicians.
Because they spend millions of dollars running ads on TV & social media, rallying both sides against each other. Slandering, mud-slinging, building hope for one candidate, and disdain for the other.
Lobbyists own the Democrats & Republicans.

The Democrats vote Democrat because they don't want Republicans to win.
The Republicans vote Republican because they don't want Democrats to win.

It also has to do with how our voting system is organized to make 2-party systems inevitable.
First-Past the Post voting system (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo)

But you are discriminating against goths if the restaurant says they have to wear a red and blue uniform.
No, you agree to wear their uniform when deciding to work for them.
Goths can change clothes.
Heterosexual men can't stop being heterosexual man.

And wouldn't that be fair? If all Muslim clients insulted you at your restaurant after you've served them, isn't that a "clear logical argument which can be shown and demonstrated" in favor of refusing to serve any more Muslims?
No. And I already said to forget about that last point as the previous situations are much more relevant. "Safety, health, personal inability"

Do you think the fact that one people is discriminated is enough to strip millions of employers of their right not to employ someone?
To not employ someone simply because they are White, Black, Male, Female, Christian, Muslim, Gay, Straight, Cis, Transexual. Yes.

I know this is an appeal to authority, but we've already done this with our current Anti-Discrimination laws that exist already.

You believe that employers have a "right" not to employ someone for any reason at all, I don't think so.

So, why is it okay not to hire a convicted pedophile but it's not okay not to hire a convicted marijuana possessor?
It's okay to not hire the convicted pedophile because they present a safety concern.

It's not okay to not hire the convicted marijuana possessor because they pose no safety concern.

Living For Love
September 9th, 2017, 06:00 PM
Because they spend millions of dollars running ads on TV & social media, rallying both sides against each other. Slandering, mud-slinging, building hope for one candidate, and disdain for the other.
Lobbyists own the Democrats & Republicans.

The Democrats vote Democrat because they don't want Republicans to win.
The Republicans vote Republican because they don't want Democrats to win.

It also has to do with how our voting system is organized to make 2-party systems inevitable.
First-Past the Post voting system (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo)
Yes, it's something called electoral campaigns. Also, if lobbyists own everything, you won't have neither Democrats nor Republicans at an advantage. It would be unfair if lobbyists only helped one side unequally.

No, you agree to wear their uniform when deciding to work for them.
Goths can change clothes.
Heterosexual men can't stop being heterosexual man.
We've already been through this argument. It's only discrimination if I can't change the aspect that's causing the discrimination?

Let me rephrase my example, then:

In my restaurant, you can only be hired if you wear this uniform and if you are a KKK supporter. Is this ok to you?

It's okay to not hire the convicted pedophile because they present a safety concern.

It's not okay to not hire the convicted marijuana possessor because they pose no safety concern.
Why do you think they don't pose a safety concern? If marijuana is illegal in a certain state and if that person is a marijuana possessor, it means that person is breaking the law.

maddogmj77
September 9th, 2017, 06:21 PM
Ecommerce will cover almost everything. Where I live you can go to customcakes.ie.
So your argument is that they should just buy online? They don't have a computer, they don't have a credit card. People will be effected.

Now you might insist on purchasing your cake in person, in which case the welfare loss from travelling to a location 100 miles away to purchase from someone who doesn't detest your Union is likely to be quite small.
Oh sure, only takes you an extra 4 hours & $20 in gas. (200miles / 25mpg * $2.50/g)
That's enough to make someone not able to buy it.

I'm not sure what you mean. The criticism I proposed still stands, as does the criticism proposed in the study I directed you to.
You suggested this difference only happened in bills related to tax cuts and such, I pointed out that they actually looked at everything.

I am aware it's an actual study. I meant to suggest that the results from that study - as the media reported them - are highly overblown.
Except that graph is actually from the study...

And it's not the media, it's a campaign to get rid of political corruption. Which is a problem, no matter how big or small.

Please read page 9 where it discusses the analysis - you're referring to base descriptive statistics. It notes that any difference between the influence of the rich and the middle class is not statistically significant.

That the poor have little influence also has nothing to do with lobbying and all to do with the rich and the middle-class forming a coalition to eat the poor. This is a well-noted phenomena in the political science literature when the electoral system is winner-takes-all - under proportional representation, the middle class and poor form an electoral coalition. Note the arguments made in, for example, Manow (2009) (http://www.mpifg.de/pu/mpifg_ja/SER_7_2009_Manow.pdf).
I've referenced my study, it shows a difference.

Either way, this does nothing for the argument at hand.
Like I said before, even if the majority was against discrimination, it would still happen.

I guess we should make all racism legal, "because the majority already disapproves".
Maybe make crime legal "because the majority already disapproves"; "We can fix it with education"

Please note the claim I made earlier:

There will still be people who still discriminate.

But a small minority holding an abhorrent opinion is no reason to terminate the entire community's right to free association.
Yes, it is, because those people who get discriminated against are effected. (4 hours +$20)

Also, what "right to free association"? We've been over that.
Also, I love how you're the one who brings up "Freedom of Association" as stated in the 1st amendment, which is an appeal to authority fallacy, and then You accuse me of the same thing!

Well played sir... well played.

It appears your ideology is "morally untenable".

You're nevertheless dodging the point I made, it's that these sort of protections are only significant when there is limited discrimination. It lets whites/straights/whoever feel good about themselves and avoids the sort of battles which actually need to happen: in the case of discrimination of homosexual people, letting straight people pretend it's all hunky-dorey because they passed some basic legislation, as will actually happen, is terrible strategy-wise.
Yes, so let's make all racism legal, because the majority already disapproves. *sarcasm*

We may see some small amount of people affected - though not restricted access to goods, as I argued above.
Sure, 4 hours and $20 in gas is just nothing.

In that case, please refer to my argument that the welfare loss is not large enough to lead me to believe it's a good idea to undermine our fundemental rights. Note that you are suggesting we shouldn't even allow cinema's to sell cheap tickets to children - the welfare-loss that would lead on from the precedent you want to set is considerably more damaging that the welfare-loss you are averting.
Again, 4 hours and $20 is quite significant.

What fundamental right? You made up your whole "Freedom of Association", and it's an appeal to authority fallacy.
(And if you're talking about it in the "philosophical" sense, then I simply disagree. And I have already stated my arguments against it numerous times.)

What welfare loss? They would make more money by providing to everybody. (This is your argument)

Please note that the extract you cited read 'including religious denominations and organizations, fraternities, and sport clubs' which suggests that it is not limited to these bodies.

The common element which binds them - individuals joined together for a set purpose - also binds private businesses.
Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Nowhere does it say that it include businesses. It actually pretty heavily implies that it's talking about free-forms of religious groups, sports clubs, political parties, fraternities, and other gatherings of people.

:O

Perhaps I shall rephrase. I am referring to that princepal in terms of its philosophical sense, and not it's current legally-embodied sense.
Nope, I'm calling you on your bullshit (I already added this to my previous response as you were responding).
"Also, I call bullshit that you were just talking about the "philosophical freedom of association". Here's a quote from you:"
"2. From your link:

Freedom of association encompasses both an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, and the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members.

In this instance the group is the business and the interest is the non-endorsenent of same-sex marriage through the production of a product equivalent of that extended to opposite-sex couples."
"You were talking about Freedom of Association as stated in the First Amendment. Not the "philosophical freedom of association" like you are claiming now."


Nah. I share some opinions with libertarians - freedom of speech, freedom of association - but I also disagree with them on a heap - for example, I am in favor of gun control, socialized healthcare, BLM, radical feminism, spying and so on.

And, even then, what I share with them, I tend to support for very different reasons. In terms of issues like this, I think letting people associate freely leads to the most efficient long-run sorting: where conflicts emerge, and we're forced to deal with them, rather than just shove them under the legislative rug. Rural communities should be forced to confront their racism rather than just have a gaggle of Californians make it illegal. And then letting businesses discriminate when it comes to the price of, say, cinema tickets is just welfare improving, period: everyone is better off.
Ahh, well, you seem to take a very libertarian approach to this.

No, not at all.

What I am claiming is that just because something is the law doesn't mean it should be the law, your argument implied otherwise.
You've already used the appeal to authority fallacy, and you were the first to do it.

It's not already the law that sexual orientation & gender identity are included in Anti-discrimination laws, I believe they should be included.

Your idea argument has come to rest on the idea that it's possible that someone, somewhere could be forced to drive 100 miles.
You guys are throwing niche cases at me left & right, I'm not allowed one?
Living for Love brought up the idea that there are "100 clothes store in NYC, 1 store will not make a difference".

Why should it be discrimination?

You do this a lot where you don't clearly outline your reasoning, just state that the world should operate this way.
And you do the same thing dude. You brought up freedom of association...

It should be discrimination because people who identify as a different gender will be forced to wear clothes that go completely against their gender, when it is very easy to let them wear the other uniform.

I do believe it's moral. If you don't let businesses discriminate against criminals, they discriminate against all African-Americans as a proxy. This leaves an even larger population worse off.

Please see Agan (2016) (https://law.yale.edu/system/files/area/workshop/leo/leo16_starr.pdf).

Do you think it should be illegal?
Are you serious? You do realize that I am in favor of businesses not being able to discriminate against people because of race...right?
That wouldn't happen under my law.

When I say 'I presume', I'm asking a question. Sorry if that's not clear across out cultures(:
Ah, no problem. Sorry if I came across as rude then.

I asked why you think it's so different and you never gave me an answer. You just re-asserted the claim.

I only agreed with that when I signed up to them because they would discriminate against me if I tried to reveal my inner-goth.
Well, as I've actually said before, I don't believe they should be able to discriminate because of "physical characteristics & personal preferences".

It is though, a valid concern for the company to uphold their image, consistency, and recognition.


I have no idea why you don't think niche cases matter. The interrogation of niche cases is probably the most important part of philosphical inquiry.
Same to you then. Why does my case in a rural area where someone is required to drive 4 hours and spend $20, not matter?

I also said earlier that being a pedophile does not make you a rapist with any degree of certainty. In the same sense being a male does not make you a rapist with any degree of certainty - even though a significant amount of them commit sexual violence. You're speaking through prejudices here.
I never made a direct judgement on that one niche case, I said you could bring it up to the court.
(Love how you bring up so many niche cases, and then when I make one, it's not okay)

You do make a fair point.
I don't believe you should be able to discriminate against pedophiles or males then. Only the convicted criminals

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, it's something called electoral campaigns. Also, if lobbyists own everything, you won't have neither Democrats nor Republicans at an advantage. It would be unfair if lobbyists only helped one side unequally.
And normal people who run for office don't have enough money to finance their own campaigns unless they take money from lobbyists.

Sure, Democrats & Republicans are equal~. But the corporations own them all.


We've already been through this argument. It's only discrimination if I can't change the aspect that's causing the discrimination?

Let me rephrase my example, then:

In my restaurant, you can only be hired if you wear this uniform and if you are a KKK supporter. Is this ok to you?
Uniform is for safety, upholding an image, consistency, and recognition. It's also a very easy thing to do.

You cannot actually change your mind about being a KKK supporter.
That's like trying to turn a straight person gay.

Why do you think they don't pose a safety concern? If marijuana is illegal in a certain state and if that person is a marijuana possessor, it means that person is breaking the law.
Appeal to authority fallacy.

Marijuana is harmless (scientifically proven), and many many people hold jobs perfectly well while still smoking.

If the person smokes on the job, or doesn't do the job to adequate standards (because of marijuana or not), then that would be reason to fire them.

As it stands though, it is (unfortunately) legal to not hire someone because they smoke marijuana.

lliam
September 9th, 2017, 06:50 PM
Sorry, but what you would be doing is illegal. It is Illegal in America to refuse service to someone based on their race, sex, religion, or national origin. (Some states have added sexual orientation & gender identity, but it's not on the federal level yet.)

Nobody's going to go bankrupt from not serving gay people (a very small minority), but gay people will feel the effect of it.


sorry, you didn't get the message.

BlackParadePixie
September 9th, 2017, 07:24 PM
you keep saying its "the law" to discriminate against someone based on sexual orientation. that's not true. there is no FEDERAL law prohibiting the refusal of service to same sex couples, because as of yet, homosexuals are not a protected class. There is the federal civil rights act of 1964, which yes, does cover race, religion, color of skin, etc....but not sexual orientation.
yes, some states have added state level laws prohibiting discrimination against sexual orientation (california and new york come to mind), but if this case didn't happen in any of those states....it really doesn't matter.

maddogmj77
September 9th, 2017, 08:09 PM
sorry, you didn't get the message.
Yes, I understood that it was sarcasm, but couldn't quite figure out what your point was :whoops: I'm dumb XD

you keep saying its "the law" to discriminate against someone based on sexual orientation. that's not true. there is no FEDERAL law prohibiting the refusal of service to same sex couples, because as of yet, homosexuals are not a protected class. There is the federal civil rights act of 1964, which yes, does cover race, religion, color of skin, etc....but not sexual orientation.
yes, some states have added state level laws prohibiting discrimination against sexual orientation (california and new york come to mind), but if this case didn't happen in any of those states....it really doesn't matter.

I have actually made that very clear, go back and look.

I stated that federal law includes gender, race, religion, and national origin. I also stated that some states have added sexual orientation and gender identity. I wish it were on the federal level though.
You can see Iliam quote me, just above you.

BlackParadePixie
September 9th, 2017, 08:40 PM
if wishes were horses...

Living For Love
September 10th, 2017, 05:13 AM
Yes, it is, because those people who get discriminated against are effected. (4 hours +$20)
Just because the store refuses to serve someone doesn't mean that person is forced to drive somewhere else in search of that product.

Also, what if in my restaurant I refuse to serve gay people and there aren't any gay people in a 1000000 mile radius? Is it okay?

It should be discrimination because people who identify as a different gender will be forced to wear clothes that go completely against their gender, when it is very easy to let them wear the other uniform.
But discriminating against goths is fine?

Uniform is for safety, upholding an image, consistency, and recognition. It's also a very easy thing to do.

You cannot actually change your mind about being a KKK supporter.
That's like trying to turn a straight person gay.
Check this link:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kkk-klu-klux-klan-members-leave-black-man-racism-friends-convince-persuade-chicago-daryl-davis-a7489596.html

I could Google 3 or 4 people right now who were a KKK supporter or a white supremacist in the past and then change their mind and stopped being one. You're saying KKK supporters are already born KKK supporters, just like males are already born males?

Let's put it this way, I'll list a number of examples, please answer with "yes" or "no":
- In my restaurant, you can only be hired if you wear this uniform and if you are heterosexual. Is this ok to you?
- In my restaurant, you can only be hired if you wear this uniform and if you are a KKK supporter. Is this ok to you?
- In my restaurant, you can only be hired if you wear this uniform and if your favourite colour is red. Is this ok to you?
- In my restaurant, you can only be hired if you wear this uniform and if you support abortion. Is this ok to you?

lliam
September 10th, 2017, 07:14 AM
I'm dumb XD


nah. that's my part, cos my point was just sarcasm. :D

maddogmj77
September 10th, 2017, 03:39 PM
Just because the store refuses to serve someone doesn't mean that person is forced to drive somewhere else in search of that product.
[Edited: Don't know how I completely misread what you put]
So then they are unable to obtain their product, great. That could be food, clothes, a hotel room, a house.

Just by going to the store and getting refused, that's a waste of time & gas money.
If they wanna go to another store, that's more time and more money.

Also, what if in my restaurant I refuse to serve gay people and there aren't any gay people in a 1,000,000 mile radius? Is it okay?
No. Like I have said for the 5th time.

One store is too much.

But discriminating against goths is fine?
This is clothing.
Not a characteristic like being Transgender or another gender.

When you work for them you agree to wear the uniform, it's not a a big deal like trying to turn someone to another gender.

Check this link:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kkk-klu-klux-klan-members-leave-black-man-racism-friends-convince-persuade-chicago-daryl-davis-a7489596.html

I could Google 3 or 4 people right now who were a KKK supporter or a white supremacist in the past and then change their mind and stopped being one. You're saying KKK supporters are already born KKK supporters, just like males are already born males?
It is a belief. Not able to be changed easily. Like asking someone to change their religion (which is already illegal; appeal to authority, I know).

Let's put it this way, I'll list a number of examples, please answer with "yes" or "no":
- In my restaurant, you can only be hired if you wear this uniform and if you are heterosexual. Is this ok to you?
- In my restaurant, you can only be hired if you wear this uniform and if you are a KKK supporter. Is this ok to you?
- In my restaurant, you can only be hired if you wear this uniform and if your favourite colour is red. Is this ok to you?
- In my restaurant, you can only be hired if you wear this uniform and if you support abortion. Is this ok to you?

No
No
No
No

You can ask someone to change their clothes.

You can't ask someone to change their sexuality.
You can't ask someone to change their beliefs.

------------------------------------------------------------

At one point or another, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I don't feel like this debating is really going anywhere.

We're not debating facts, we're debating opinions & ideology.

You believe that businesses should have more rights.
I believe that individuals should have more rights.

------------------------------------------------------------

As for that Lobbying thing, I wanna show you something.

Jeff Sessions is pushing for harder sentences on drug crimes right now.
Let's take a look at where his Campaign Financing comes from.

His Campaign Contributions (http://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary?cid=N00003062) look like this:

00.66% Small Individual Contributions
29.54% Large Individual Contributions
56.27% PAC Contributions
13.53% Other/Unkown


He's received money from Industries (https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/industries?cid=N00003062&cycle=2016) like:

Defense Aerospace manufacturers (Benefits from war)
Oil & Gas Companies (Benefits From Destroying Regulations)
Railroad Companies (Benefits From Passing Their Laws & Permits)
Real Estate (Benefits From Passing Their Laws & Permits)
Lawyers/Law firms (Benefits From Sending People To Court)
Commercial Banks (Benefits From Passing Their Laws; Corporate Welfare)

Money from Contributors (https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/contributors?cid=N00003062&cycle=2012&recs=100&type=C) like:

Balch & Bingham (Law Firm)
Bradley, Arant (Law Firm)
BGR Group (Lobbyists)
American Bankers Association (Bank lobbyists)
Southern Co. (Natural Gas Company)
Koch Industries (Oil Industry Company)
Drummond Co (Coal Mining/Products & Real Estate)
Lockheed Martin (Aerospace, Defense, Security)
Northrop Grumman (Aerospace, Defense, Security)
Airbus Group (Aerospace, Defense, Security)
BAE Systems (Aerospace, Defense, Security)
AFLAC (Insurance Company)
HealthSouth Corp (Healthcare Provider)
Blue Cross/Blue Shield (Health Insurance)
CSX Corp (Real Estate & Railroads)
International Paper (Large Global Paper Manufacturer)
Vulcan Materials (Construction Company)
FedEx Corp (Multinational Postal Service)
WPP Group (Multinational Advertising)
Honeywell International (Multinational Conglomerate)
Harbert Management (Investment Management Company)

The list goes on...and on.

He and his Super-PAC sponsors personally benefit when corporations are able to pass their own laws.
Almost every Senator & House Representatives' Campaign Contributions look about the same. All corporations trying to pass their own laws.



But what about someone like Bernie Sanders?

His Campaign Contributions (http://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary?cid=N00000528&cycle=2018&type=C) look like this:

82.20% Small individual contributions
15.05% Large Individual Contributions
2.83% PAC Contributions
Negative 0.09% other/unknown


Of the very few PAC Contributors (https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/contributors?cid=N00000528&cycle=2018&recs=20&type=C) he does have, they're organizations like:

Teachers' Federation of America (Non-Profit Labor Union)
Communication Workers of America (Non-Profit Labor Union)
American Postal Workers Union (Non-Profit Labor Union)
National Union of Healthcare Workers (Non-Profit Labor Union)
Amalgamated Transit Union (Non-Profit Labor Union)
UNITE HERE (Non-Profit Labor Union)
American Nurses Association (Non-Profit Labor Union)
National Association of Letter Carriers (Non-Profit Labor Union)
National Air Traffic Controllers Association (Non-Profit Labor Union)
American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (Non-Profit Labor Union)
Bristol Bay Native Assn (Non-Profit Native Association)
Moveon.org (Non-Profit Democratic Activist Organization)
Climate Change Champions (Climate Change Prevention)
America Works (Employment Agency)
Rkb Enterprises (Small Local metal-hinge/sheet-metal making business)
University of California
Personal friends of Bernie Sanders

And about 15 or so other Non-Profit Labor Unions.

He personally benefits when people get jobs, and when the workers' standard of living gets better.

------------------------------------------------------------

THIS is why I love Bernie Sanders.
THIS is why I value individual rights over business rights.

------------------------------------------------------------

Watch this if you're interested, only 3 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsL6mKxtOlQ
It's a comedian (George Carlin, the great) explaining just how bad lobbying really is.
He's hilarious, and every word of it is true.

[It was a lot for me to take in too, but America is seriously corrupt, and seriously fucked. It's pay to play.
And the vast majority of Americans are just completely oblivious to how broken their system is.
They still believe we're the greatest nation on Earth, and that we're all about Freedom & Democracy.
It's all bullshit, it's about money & power.]

Living For Love
September 11th, 2017, 10:29 AM
Nobody's going to go bankrupt from not serving gay people (a very small minority), but gay people will feel the effect of it.
Ok, just a last question before I leave you in peace, you might feel a bit fed up already of me asking questions to you, but I think this will be the last one. (: Imagine the following scenario:

A man opens a restaurant in a small isolated town called Springfield and he creates a rule saying only KKK supporters can be allowed to eat in his restaurant. In Springfield, there were no restaurants before this man decided to open his restaurant. However, nobody in that town is a KKK supporter, and so the restaurant goes bankrupt and he decides to move to another town and open his restaurant there.

How do you feel about this? Obviously, if your rules are implemented, he couldn't discriminate in the first place, but do you think it's fair that he has to be "forced" to move to another town because no one in his town is a KKK supporter, just like gay people have to move to another town if the only restaurant in their town refuses service to gay people?
Assuming, like you stated, that you can't ask people to change their beliefs, he can't be asked to change that rule. You could argue, however, that just because he has a certain belief doesnt't mean he can justify discrimination according to his belief (even if it's his own restaurant). However, if you still think he must accept non-KKK supporters in his restaurant despite his beliefs, then he has indeed to change his beliefs to allow non-KKK costumers in his restaurant. But if you agree with that, then why can't Springfield residents also be forced to change their beliefs and become KKK supporters in order to prevent the restaurant from going bankrupt, just like you force the owner of the restaurant who refuses service to gay people to accept gay people so that gay people aren't forced to drive hundreds of miles to the next town?

maddogmj77
September 11th, 2017, 02:42 PM
Ok, just a last question before I leave you in peace, you might feel a bit fed up already of me asking questions to you, but I think this will be the last one. (: Imagine the following scenario:

A man opens a restaurant in a small isolated town called Springfield and he creates a rule saying only KKK supporters can be allowed to eat in his restaurant. In Springfield, there were no restaurants before this man decided to open his restaurant. However, nobody in that town is a KKK supporter, and so the restaurant goes bankrupt and he decides to move to another town and open his restaurant there.

How do you feel about this? Obviously, if your rules are implemented, he couldn't discriminate in the first place, but do you think it's fair that he has to be "forced" to move to another town because no one in his town is a KKK supporter, just like gay people have to move to another town if the only restaurant in their town refuses service to gay people?
He wouldn't be forced to move to another town. He would be forced to serve everybody.

The gay people wouldn't be forced to move to another town either. The restaurant would be forced to serve them.

Assuming, like you stated, that you can't ask people to change their beliefs, he can't be asked to change that rule. You could argue, however, that just because he has a certain belief doesn't mean he can justify discrimination according to his belief (even if it's his own restaurant).
It's his belief to be a KKK supporter. He just can't make a rule to force than onto others.

However, if you still think he must accept non-KKK supporters in his restaurant despite his beliefs, then he has indeed to change his beliefs to allow non-KKK costumers in his restaurant.
Nope. Restaurant owner is still a KKK supporter, we're not asking him to change that.
We're simply asking that he doesn't discriminate against non-KKK supporters.

But if you agree with that, then why can't Springfield residents also be forced to change their beliefs and become KKK supporters in order to prevent the restaurant from going bankrupt, just like you force the owner of the restaurant who refuses service to gay people to accept gay people so that gay people aren't forced to drive hundreds of miles to the next town?
Because I'm not asking anybody to change their beliefs. I'm not asking the owner to support gay-rights, or support gay marriage.
I'm simply asking the owner to serve everybody, regardless of his discriminatory beliefs.

There's always been a limit to one's belief.
If someone has the belief that the Jewish race should be exterminated, should we let them do it?
What if it's someone's belief that Black people should be subservient to White people; should we let them do it?
Are you telling me we're not allowed to discriminate against those people?

Living For Love
September 11th, 2017, 03:05 PM
He wouldn't be forced to move to another town. He would be forced to serve everybody.
But by forcing him to serve everybody you're forcing him to change his beliefs.


Nope. Restaurant owner is still a KKK supporter, we're not asking him to change that.
We're simply asking that he doesn't discriminate against non-KKK supporters.

Nope. His belief is that non-KKK supporters are inferior people, and hence he doesn't want to be around them in his restaurant. By forcing him to allow non-KKK supporters, you're forcing him to think "I'm allowing these inferior people in my restaurant, meaning I'm going against my own beliefs by having them socialise with me in my restaurant".


If someone has the belief that the Jewish race should be exterminated, should we let them do it?
What if it's someone's belief that Black people should be subservient to White people; should we let them do it?
It's fine if you have that belief. Putting it into practice is a totally different thing.

maddogmj77
September 11th, 2017, 03:13 PM
But by forcing him to serve everybody you're forcing him to change his beliefs.
By not allowing the Nazis exterminate the Jews, you're forcing them to change their beliefs.
By not allowing the KKK to enslave Black people, you're forcing them to change their beliefs.

Nope. His belief is that non-KKK supporters are inferior people, and hence he doesn't want to be around them in his restaurant. By forcing him to allow non-KKK supporters, you're forcing him to think "I'm allowing these inferior people in my restaurant, meaning I'm going against my own beliefs by having them socialise with me in my restaurant".
By not letting Nazis kill Jews, we're making them think: "I'm allowing these Jews to live. I'm going against my own beliefs by not killing them."
By not letting KKK-supporters enslave Black people, we're making them think: "I'm allowing these Black people to live equally. I'm going against my own beliefs by not enslaving them."

It's fine if you have that belief. Putting it into practice is a totally different thing.
Exactly.
The owner has the belief that Non-KKK supporters are inferior. But he's not allowed to act on those beliefs.

Living For Love
September 11th, 2017, 03:28 PM
And by not allowing the Nazis to exterminate the Jews, you're forcing them to change their beliefs.
Yes, you are, although that's totally understandable and desirable since no one has the right to take another person's life over sharing different opinions.

By not letting Nazis kill Jews, we're making them think "I'm allowing these Jews to live. I'm going against my own beliefs by letting these Jewish people live."
That's correct. But like I said above, that's justifiable. Also, pretty much everything you said in your reply above can also be said so that we're forcing customers to change instead of the owner of the restaurant to change. In bold is what you said, underlined is what I could say as well (in an example where certain customers are denied service).

He wouldn't be forced to move to another town. He would be forced to serve everybody.
Customers wouldn't be forced to move to another town. They would be forced to not enter the restaurant.

Nope. Restaurant owner is still a KKK supporter, we're not asking him to change that.
We're simply asking that he doesn't discriminate against non-KKK supporters.
Nope. Customers are still gay/non-KKK supporters, we're not asking them to change that
We're simply asking them not to enter in our restaurant.

Because I'm not asking anybody to change their beliefs. I'm not asking the owner to support gay-rights, or support gay marriage.
I'm simply asking the owner to serve everybody, regardless of his discriminatory beliefs.
Because I'm not asking anybody to change their beliefs or way of life. I'm not asking these costumers to support the KKK or support heterosexuality.
I'm simply asking these customers to not ask me to serve them, regardless of their sinful habits/hateful personalities.


Exactly.
The owner has the belief that Non-KKK supporters are inferior. But he's not allowed to act on those beliefs.
The customer has the belief that by being gay/non-KKK supporter he has the right to enter wherever he wants. But he's not allowed to act on those beliefs.

maddogmj77
September 11th, 2017, 03:35 PM
Yes, you are, although that's totally understandable and desirable since no one has the right to take another person's life over sharing different opinions.
Yes, and not letting private businesses discriminate is totally understandable and desirable since private businesses are the only way anyone can buy goods or services.

That's correct. But like I said above, that's justifiable. Also, pretty much everything you said in your reply above can also be said so that we're forcing customers to change instead of the owner of the restaurant to change. In bold is what you said, underlined is what I could say as well (in an example where certain customers are denied service).

He wouldn't be forced to move to another town. He would be forced to serve everybody.
Customers wouldn't be forced to move to another town. They would be forced to not enter the restaurant.

Nope. Restaurant owner is still a KKK supporter, we're not asking him to change that.
We're simply asking that he doesn't discriminate against non-KKK supporters.
Nope. Customers are still gay/non-KKK supporters, we're not asking them to change that
We're simply asking them not to enter in our restaurant.

Because I'm not asking anybody to change their beliefs. I'm not asking the owner to support gay-rights, or support gay marriage.
I'm simply asking the owner to serve everybody, regardless of his discriminatory beliefs.
Because I'm not asking anybody to change their beliefs or way of life. I'm not asking these costumers to support the KKK or support heterosexuality.
I'm simply asking these customers to not ask me to serve them, regardless of their sinful habits/hateful personalities.
And this comes back to the core ideology.

You support business rights.
I support individual rights.

And that is because, in a capitalist economy, the only way to buy goods or services is through private businesses.
It will be a minor inconvenience to force businesses to serve everybody equally.
It will be detrimental to the people who buy those goods and services.

The customer has the belief that by being gay/non-KKK supporter he has the right to enter wherever he wants. But he's not allowed to act on those beliefs.
No. The customer has the right (not a belief) as a consumer (not by being gay or non-KKK) to buy from whatever store they want.
[At least that's what I believe]

Living For Love
September 11th, 2017, 03:56 PM
Yes, and not letting private businesses discriminate is totally understandable and desirable since private businesses are the only way anyone can buy goods or services.
Right. I just don't think that reason is strong enough not to allow discrimination.


It will be a minor inconvenience to force businesses to serve everybody equally.
It will be detrimental to the people who buy those goods and services.
Not really. I want to avoid employers to have certain beliefs forced upon themselves, you want to avoid customers to have certain beliefs forced upon themselves. The inconvenience is the same, we're just on different sides.


No. The customer has the right (not a belief) as a consumer (not by being gay or non-KKK) to buy from whatever store they want.
[At least that's what I believe]
I totally disagree with this. Customers have the right to offer to pay for a certain product/service. Private companies have the right to offer to sell a certain product/service. It's like a contract that it's being established. Both can and have the right to refuse to participate in such business/trade (the customer refusing to buy, the private company refusing to sell, for whatever reasons).

maddogmj77
September 11th, 2017, 04:09 PM
Right. I just don't think that reason is strong enough not to allow discrimination.
Well I believe it is, and I've provided my reasoning for why I believe so.

Not really. I want to avoid employers to have certain beliefs forced upon themselves, you want to avoid customers to have certain beliefs forced upon themselves. The inconvenience is the same, we're just on different sides.
The employers are not having certain beliefs forced on them anymore than Nazis who aren't allowed to kill Jews.
Nobody's belief is being changed. We're simply asking that for the sake of the free-market, we need people to put down their beliefs.
[Just like, for the sake of human decency, Nazis put down their genocidal beliefs]

The inconvenience is not the same

If the businesses are forced to sell to everybody, they receive more money, and may be uncomfortable.
If the businesses are allowed to discriminate, consumers are wasting time, gas-money, and may be unable to buy food, clothes, houses or other bare necessities.


I believe that people's ability to buy food, clothes, houses & bare necessities, are more important than a business owners' belief or comfort level.
Would you disagree with that?

I totally disagree with this. Customers have the right to offer to pay for a certain product/service. Private companies have the right to offer to sell a certain product/service. It's like a contract that it's being established. Both can and have the right to refuse to participate in such business/trade (the customer refusing to buy, the private company refusing to sell, for whatever reasons).
When the customer refuses to buy, that makes little difference to the company, just one sale.
When the business refuses to sell, that causes a huge difference for the customer because now they've just wasted time, and gas money coming over there.

They "could" try to go to another store, but if one isn't close enough, then they will be unable to buy their desired goods & services. This could be food, clothes, houses, anything.

Living For Love
September 11th, 2017, 05:22 PM
The employers are not having certain beliefs forced on them anymore than Nazis who aren't allowed to kill Jews.
You can't compare discrimination to mass genocide.

Nobody's belief is being changed. We're simply asking that for the sake of the free-market, we need people to put down their beliefs.
I know you're referring to private companies, but this sentence could perfectly be used in reference to customers as well.


The inconvenience is not the same
If the businesses are forced to sell to everybody, they receive more money, and may be uncomfortable.
It's just as uncomfortable for a gay person to be refused service as it is to FORCE a restaurant owner to serve a gay person.

If the businesses are allowed to discriminate, consumers are wasting time, gas-money, and may be unable to buy food, clothes, houses or other bare necessities.

This is not private companies fault. I'm not responsible for other people's actions.

I believe that people's ability to buy food, clothes, houses & bare necessities, are more important than a business owners' belief or comfort level.
Would you disagree with that?
Yep, totally disagree with that.

When the customer refuses to buy, that makes little difference to the company, just one sale.
When the business refuses to sell, that causes a huge difference for the customer because now they've just wasted time, and gas money coming over there.
What if the store is literally around the corner and they waste only 30 seconds on the trip? They wouldn't even need gas.

Also, why are we talking about basic necessities? We could be talking about a Cartier store.

Uniquemind
September 11th, 2017, 05:45 PM
The inner lawyer in me now wants to create a law that puts a legal definition to a "belief" that can then carry legal weight and foundation to trigger a legal claim against infringing on "religious freedom".

Anything not fitting a strict definition of "belief" legally, must then be relegated to that of a legal "opinion" which must not then carry the same legal weight.


Hence from then on if people's opinion's are hurt or violated...the next barometer is commerce and the fact of whether clients had the money for the service and/or product.


---

But as it stands now, sexual orientation isn't protected beyond individual city and/or state law depending where you are.

It's not fair, but you have to get that class of people defined in federal law the same way race got defined.

And it's self-evident for race you can't choose what race you become, however it is not apparently understood what makes an individual gay, straight, bi, trans, etc.


So when people claim "you can't choose your orientation" that's a hurtle even the segregation era discrimination didn't have to face.

maddogmj77
September 11th, 2017, 09:50 PM
Me: "Nobody's belief is being changed. We're simply asking that for the sake of the free-market, we need people to put down their beliefs."
LfL: I know you're referring to private companies, but this sentence could perfectly be used in reference to customers as well.
No. Because it's not that simple.

You're not asking that gay couple to "put down their belief". You're asking them to change themselves in a way that is not actually possible. Or else be denied food, clothes, or bare necessities.

The only thing we ask for the business owner is that they're a little uncomfortable.

But again, I believe that people's ability to eat, be clothed, and be housed, are more important than a business owners beliefs or feelings.
How can you disagree with that?

It's just as uncomfortable for a gay person to be refused service as it is to FORCE a restaurant owner to serve a gay person.
No. This is a completely false equivalence. I'll try to explain it one more time.

The gay person being refused service will spend more time, more money and possibly be unable to buy food, clothes, or other bare necessities.

The business owner may be uncomfortable, but he's not being denied bare necessities.

Yep, totally disagree with that.
So you would let someone go unfed, unclothed, and unhoused, just because you didn't wanna hurt a business owners feelings.
At least I know where you stand.

What if the store is literally around the corner and they waste only 30 seconds on the trip? They wouldn't even need gas.
And what if it's not?! What if it's 4 hours away?
It's never okay.

Also, why are we talking about basic necessities? We could be talking about a Cartier store.
We could be....
We could (and are) also talking about basic necessities. Food, Clothes, Houses, etc..

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The inner lawyer in me now wants to create a law that puts a legal definition to a "belief" that can then carry legal weight and foundation to trigger a legal claim against infringing on "religious freedom".

Hitler used the term "Positive Christianity" in order to sell Nazism.
For Nazis, it was a religious belief that Jews should be exterminated.

I guess we can't infringe on their "religious freedoms"...

"Religious freedoms" shouldn't provide extra rights. You shouldn't get more rights just because you have a religion & have "beliefs"
You should be able to practice your religion in anyway you want without government interference; so long as it doesn't go against currently established laws.

Uniquemind
September 12th, 2017, 01:27 AM
No. Because it's not that simple.

You're not asking that gay couple to "put down their belief". You're asking them to change themselves in a way that is not actually possible. Or else be denied food, clothes, or bare necessities.

The only thing we ask for the business owner is that they're a little uncomfortable.

But again, I believe that people's ability to eat, be clothed, and be housed, are more important than a business owners beliefs or feelings.
You can't say the same.


No. This is a completely false equivalence. I'll try to explain it one more time.

The gay person being refused service will spend more time, more money and possibly be unable to buy food, clothes, or other bare necessities.

The business owner may be uncomfortable, but he's not being denied bare necessities.


So you would let someone go unfed, unclothed, and unhoused, just because you didn't wanna hurt a business owners feelings.
At least I know where you stand.


And what if it's not?! What if it's 4 hours away?
It's never okay.


We could be....
We could (and are) also talking about basic necessities. Food, Clothes, Houses, etc..

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Hitler used the term "Positive Christianity" in order to sell Nazism.
For Nazis, it was a religious belief that Jews should be exterminated.

I guess we can't infringe on their "religious freedoms"...

"Religious freedoms" shouldn't provide extra rights. You shouldn't get more rights just because you have a religion & have "beliefs"
You should be able to practice your religion in anyway you want without government interference; so long as it doesn't go against currently established laws.

The problem is there are many passages in the bible that say things to the effect that God's laws are above man's law, and when man's law contradicts God's law, God's law is the higher authority.

It's why you get so many religious folk so emboldened to ignore certain laws in the name of their whatever faith.

Look my personal views on this is that life is inherently unfair and people are playing a game of tug-of-war over resources and power, and whose ego is more or less sensitive.

That's what all of our earth's drama is about and it's actually quite pointless given that eventually we all return to being cosmic dust.

People get upset because their personal identities are too attached emotionally to the friends, family, career, and they swing from completely sociopathic detachment versus too attached and too empathetic. Either is an unhealthy extreme.


I'm humble enough to know I'm not going to be everybody's friend, I don't need to be everybody's friend and not everybody is gonna wanna be around me or service me. You can't make someone change their mental view of you, they have to walk their own path on a spiritual level or whatever to understand their own flaws that takes a certain amount of consent.

If a business is proven to offer the same service to one but denies it to another for a reason protected by law, then sure the customer has a case but then has to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, beyond circumstantial evidence , that the discrimination was unlawful.


Idealistically, you are right that LGBTQ community needs to mobilize and advocate for protection under civil rights. Until then it's gonna be a struggle.

Again this isn't a perfect world, your posts are coming off in a boiled down sense that you are upset at this life fact, and feel like it needs to change at the cost of other people's right to their isolationist views.

This brings a larger question, should law have a place to break people out of a psychological comfort zone? I guess the airline industry is another good example that all of us can relate too as well and there are many case examples of refused service, some where the customers are right and others were the business is right.

My point is the situation resides in the nuances of these kinda of situations.

maddogmj77
September 12th, 2017, 03:00 PM
The problem is there are many passages in the bible that say things to the effect that God's laws are above man's law, and when man's law contradicts God's law, God's law is the higher authority.

It's why you get so many religious folk so emboldened to ignore certain laws in the name of their whatever faith.
And we need to bring those people back to reality to realize that they are not above the law.

Look my personal views on this is that life is inherently unfair and people are playing a game of tug-of-war over resources and power, and whose ego is more or less sensitive.

That's what all of our earth's drama is about and it's actually quite pointless given that eventually we all return to being cosmic dust.
Which is why I believe consumers need to be protected as much as possible.
Businesses only have their own profits and/or beliefs in mind.

People get upset because their personal identities are too attached emotionally to the friends, family, career, and they swing from completely sociopathic detachment versus too attached and too empathetic. Either is an unhealthy extreme.
I don't have a single person I know who's ever been refused service from a store.
I simply realize the gravity of the situation being that those who are denied goods/services suffer much more, than a business owner who's forced to serve everybody. [Reference 4 replies down]

I'm humble enough to know I'm not going to be everybody's friend, I don't need to be everybody's friend and not everybody is gonna wanna be around me or service me. You can't make someone change their mental view of you, they have to walk their own path on a spiritual level or whatever to understand their own flaws that takes a certain amount of consent.
I'm not asking people to change their mental views. I'm just asking that they serve everybody equally.
They can be thinking inside their head how much of a "faggot" this guy is, how he wish he didn't have to do it, and how this gay person doesn't deserve to be served.
But he can't act on those beliefs.

If a business is proven to offer the same service to one but denies it to another for a reason protected by law, then sure the customer has a case but then has to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, beyond circumstantial evidence, that the discrimination was unlawful.
Sure, I agree with that.
And that cake-baker specifically refused to make the cake because the couple was gay. In that state, sexual orientation is unfortunately not covered by Anti-Discrimination laws.

Idealistically, you are right that LGBTQ community needs to mobilize and advocate for protection under civil rights. Until then it's gonna be a struggle.
The LGBTQ community is to small to do it on it's own, it needs support.
If it's just the LGBTQ community, then you have religious nuts who accuse them of "forcing their gay agenda".

Again this isn't a perfect world, your posts are coming off in a boiled down sense that you are upset at this life fact, and feel like it needs to change at the cost of other people's right to their isolationist views.
The fact of life is that we can change these laws however we want. We can make it better.

If we don't, then it's the people who are discriminated who are going to be paying the cost, with time, money, and inability to get certain goods & services.
If we do, then the business owners are simply uncomfortable. Sucks for them, this isn't a perfect world.

This brings a larger question, should law have a place to break people out of a psychological comfort zone? I guess the airline industry is another good example that all of us can relate too as well and there are many case examples of refused service, some where the customers are right and others were the business is right.

My point is the situation resides in the nuances of these kinda of situations.
Yes, it should.
We already use the law to break Nazis & KKK out of their psychological comfort zones, by not letting them kill Jews or enslave Black people.
This serves a purpose of preventing murder & slavery. Protecting Human decency.
The Nazis & KKK will be uncomfortable, but that's just too bad.

We need to use the law to break discriminatory business owners out of their psychological comfort zones, by making them serve everybody equally.
This serves a purpose of preventing people wasting time, money, and being unable to buy goods or services. Protecting Consumers ability to buy goods/services as equally as everybody else.
The business owners will be uncomfortable, but that's just too bad.

Uniquemind
September 12th, 2017, 09:11 PM
Well the LGBTQ community needs to mobilize then. They do have support from people not within their community, so it's hopeful: but change is hard I'm not saying it isn't.


And there is always gonna be some smart entrepreneur willing to provide the service that another business won't.


I personally believe a business itself cannot have religious inspired moralistic views on social issues. A business has no chance of ascending to an afterlife, it's existence is tied to earth-existence economically.

Stronk Serb
September 20th, 2017, 04:32 AM
Okay, why get all pissy about O N E baker not wanting to bake you a cake, find another one? Or just buy the two dudes/gals separately and plant them on the cake yourself? I mean I would be pissed too. But why force him? The guy is obviously disgusted by the LGBT so why force him to bake a pro-LGBT cake? For all you could know, he could mess it up. Also if somebody forced me to bake a cake with anti-Serb slogans, I would put rodent poison in it or laxatives. Why buy a cake from such a lunatic? Besides, if he does not want your money, why FORCE YOUR MONEY INTO HIS HANDS. I mean he probably thinks it is going to infect him with the homo if he touches it.
If this was done by a public service as in public-owned (state-owned for non-Serbs), I would be all for criminal prosecution of the involved, but this is a private business. If hi wants to lose profits now and later when he gets called out as a homophobe, sure, let him. The beautiful thing about capitalism is that whenever one business goes down, another takes it's place.

maddogmj77
September 20th, 2017, 07:21 PM
Okay, why get all pissy about O N E baker not wanting to bake you a cake, find another one? Or just buy the two dudes/gals separately and plant them on the cake yourself?
Because you are making that couple waste time & gas-money by going there. Then if the store refuses to serve them, they're wasting more time and more gas-money to go somewhere else. That second place could cost more, or it may not even exist. You have now left this couple down money, down time, and possibly without a good or service they were looking to buy. (food, clothes, apartment room, house etc.)

I mean I would be pissed too. But why force him? The guy is obviously disgusted by the LGBT so why force him to bake a pro-LGBT cake?
Because it is in the interest of the consumer to be able to buy goods and services from any private business. You are restricting their ability to buy food, clothes etc., simply because they are an oppressed minority.

For all you could know, he could mess it up. Also if somebody forced me to bake a cake with anti-Serb slogans, I would put rodent poison in it or laxatives. Why buy a cake from such a lunatic?
So you would kill people who make an opinion statement about a country or it's people? Well now we can jail you for that.
But it's still in the interest of the consumer to not restrict their ability to buy from any given business.

Besides, if he does not want your money, why FORCE YOUR MONEY INTO HIS HANDS.
Because those people need to buy FOOD, CLOTHES, AN APARTMENT, A HOUSE.

I mean he probably thinks it is going to infect him with the homo if he touches it.
That is an irrational belief. We can't let people act on such irrational beliefs.
Nazis have the irrational belief that the Jewish race should be exterminated for the greater good. We don't let them do that in the interests of the Jewish people & human life.
We don't let store owners discriminate in the interest of the consumers.

If this was done by a public service as in public-owned (state-owned for non-Serbs), I would be all for criminal prosecution of the involved, but this is a private business. If hi wants to lose profits now and later when he gets called out as a homophobe, sure, let him.
It isn't just the business owner who's effected. You're completely disregarding the person who just got refused service. They are down time, down money, and now possibly unable to buy a bare necessity such as food, clothes, a house etc. All because they are part of an oppressed minority

The beautiful thing about capitalism is that whenever one business goes down, another takes it's place.
Maybe. But if this happened out in a rural area, where most discrimination takes place. The next store could be 100 miles away. That oppressed minority is going to have nowhere to go to now.

No other business is going to be interested in setting up shop in the middle of nowhere, with an already established competition.

Stronk Serb
September 22nd, 2017, 05:32 AM
Because you are making that couple waste time & gas-money by going there. Then if the store refuses to serve them, they're wasting more time and more gas-money to go somewhere else. That second place could cost more, or it may not even exist. You have now left this couple down money, down time, and possibly without a good or service they were looking to buy. (food, clothes, apartment room, house etc.)

Most of that stuff except things like the cake can be bought without the business knowing you are gay. It's not like gay people go around with the gay symbol on their forehead. Also usually the business has a phone so call in advance to ask?

Because it is in the interest of the consumer to be able to buy goods and services from any private business. You are restricting their ability to buy food, clothes etc., simply because they are an oppressed minority.

Like I said, the gay detector has not been invented yet. If you didn't tell me you were gay, I never would guess it.

So you would kill people who make an opinion statement about a country or it's people? Well now we can jail you for that.
But it's still in the interest of the consumer to not restrict their ability to buy from any given business.

No, but if I was forced to cater to their needs of making a statement which would make me uncomfortable as a Serb, I would resist.

Because those people need to buy FOOD, CLOTHES, AN APARTMENT, A HOUSE.

The homo detector has not been invented yet.

That is an irrational belief. We can't let people act on such irrational beliefs.
Nazis have the irrational belief that the Jewish race should be exterminated for the greater good. We don't let them do that in the interests of the Jewish people & human life.
We don't let store owners discriminate in the interest of the consumers.

You don't get it. I absolutely don't care that someone denies me service. I was denied service several times, and never I complained, I always went to the competing business to satisfy my consumer needs.

It isn't just the business owner who's effected. You're completely disregarding the person who just got refused service. They are down time, down money, and now possibly unable to buy a bare necessity such as food, clothes, a house etc. All because they are part of an oppressed minority

The homo detector has not been invented yet.

Maybe. But if this happened out in a rural area, where most discrimination takes place. The next store could be 100 miles away. That oppressed minority is going to have nowhere to go to now.

You think? Rural areas are sometimes poor ones too. Someone will do it because he lacks money.

No other business is going to be interested in setting up shop in the middle of nowhere, with an already established competition.

Well, if the competition buries it self with things like these, another business will take it's place.

maddogmj77
September 22nd, 2017, 06:49 AM
Most of that stuff except things like the cake can be bought without the business knowing you are gay. It's not like gay people go around with the gay symbol on their forehead.

Like I said, the gay detector has not been invented yet. If you didn't tell me you were gay, I never would guess it.

The homo detector has not been invented yet.

The homo detector has not been invented yet.
So your entire argument is to hide the fact that you're an oppressed minority? That just strengthens oppression; Way to push us back into the shadows.

What if it was black discrimination? Now answer all of my responses again.

Also usually the business has a phone so call in advance to ask?
So you're using a hypothetical scenario in which the person is able to phone ahead to ask, and will have another store that will sell to him at the same price, and is the same distance away.

So I'm going to use the hypothetical scenario in which they don't have a phone, the next store is 50 miles away, and it's going to cost more money.

You don't get it. I absolutely don't care that someone denies me service. I was denied service several times, and never I complained, I always went to the competing business to satisfy my consumer needs.
You're a Straight White-Skinned Male living in his native country. You have no idea what it's like to be oppressed.

You had the opportunity to walk a couple blocks down the street to another store. Many people don't have that luxury.

You think? Rural areas are sometimes poor ones too. Someone will do it because he lacks money.

Well, if the competition buries it self with things like these, another business will take it's place.
If a business set up a store in the Southern United States, they would have absolutely no problem staying afloat while denying service to black people. Racism is still rampant there.

Living For Love
September 22nd, 2017, 08:07 AM
So you're using a hypothetical scenario in which the person is able to phone ahead to ask, and will have another store that will sell to him at the same price, and is the same distance away.
Yes, but in this scennario, would it be acceptable for the store to discriminate?

If your answer is yes, you'd have to add that up to your list of exceptions and you'd also have to make clear what would be a reasonable distance, a reasonable waste of gas money, a reasonable waste of time, etc. Or you could narrow it down to a "can't be arsed to travel x miles and waste x money to go to another store" sort of law.

If your answer is no because "one store is too much", then your entire logic is flawed, because your arguments that...

- "In a Capitalistic economy, where private businesses are the ONLY way to obtain goods. Private businesses can not be allowed to discriminate; they are restricting other people's means of obtaining goods."

- "When businesses 'were' allowed to discriminate (against black people), the amount of stores that black people could buy from were extremely limited.
They could hardly get anything they needed or wanted, and it was usually over-priced. Even bare necessities like food, clothes, & houses were hard to find or over-priced.
[I don't want to see that happen again to anybody]"

... are simply invalid, as that wouldn't happen in Stronk Serb's scenario.

maddogmj77
September 22nd, 2017, 10:10 AM
Yes, but in this scennario, would it be acceptable for the store to discriminate?

If your answer is yes, you'd have to add that up to your list of exceptions and you'd also have to make clear what would be a reasonable distance, a reasonable waste of gas money, a reasonable waste of time, etc. Or you could narrow it down to a "can't be arsed to travel x miles and waste x money to go to another store" sort of law.

If your answer is no because "one store is too much", then your entire logic is flawed, because your arguments that...

- "In a Capitalistic economy, where private businesses are the ONLY way to obtain goods. Private businesses can not be allowed to discriminate; they are restricting other people's means of obtaining goods."

- "When businesses 'were' allowed to discriminate (against black people), the amount of stores that black people could buy from were extremely limited.
They could hardly get anything they needed or wanted, and it was usually over-priced. Even bare necessities like food, clothes, & houses were hard to find or over-priced.
[I don't want to see that happen again to anybody]"

... are simply invalid, as that wouldn't happen in Stronk Serb's scenario.
The answer is no, obviously.

Stronk Serb's scenario is a "perfect-world" scenario in which everybody has a phone, and everybody has a store within the same distance that will sell to them at the same price.
That's pretty unrealistic.

Why do you think Stronk Serb's perfect-world scenario makes my logic flawed, or my argument invalid?

Living For Love
September 22nd, 2017, 10:14 AM
Stronk Serb's scenario is a "perfect world" scenario in which everybody has a phone, everybody has a store within the same distance that will sell to them at the same price
That's pretty unrealistic.
That's irrelevant. How realistic is someone to discriminate against men, white people, cigender people, Christian people, people whose favourite colour is red, N.Y. Yankees fans?

Why do you think Stronk Serb's perfect-world scenario makes my logic flawed, or my argument invalid?
Because your argument is based on the fact that by discriminating, private businesses restrict other people's means of obtaining goods (in Serb's scenario, this doesn't happen).

maddogmj77
September 22nd, 2017, 10:28 AM
That's irrelevant. How realistic is someone to discriminate against men, white people, cisgender people, Christian people, people whose favourite colour is red, N.Y. Yankees fans?
So you only care about White Cis-Male Christians?

How realistic is someone to discriminate against Women, Black people, Gay people, Transgender people, Muslims, Atheists?

It's pretty realistic because it's HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.
[Go read the very first post again]

Because your argument is based on the fact that by discriminating, private businesses restrict other people's means of obtaining goods (in Serb's scenario, this doesn't happen).
Serb's scenario requires that every single person on Earth have a phone.[Unrealistic]

Serb's scenario requires that every single person on Earth have a store the exact same distance away, offering the exact same goods, at the exact same price, and that won't refuse service to them.[Unrealistic]

His scenario doesn't matter because it's unrealistic.

Living For Love
September 22nd, 2017, 10:38 AM
So you only care about White Cis-Male Christians?

How realistic is someone to discriminate against Women, Black people, Transgender people, Muslims, Atheists?

It's pretty realistic because it's HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.
[Go read the very first post again]
Can you please answer my question? How realistic it is that a bakery will refuse to serve people whose favourite colour is red? Please answer this question, I beg you.

maddogmj77
September 22nd, 2017, 10:40 AM
Can you please answer my question? How realistic it is that a bakery will refuse to serve people whose favourite colour is red? Please answer this question, I beg you.
Completely unrealistic.

Can you please answer my question? How realistic it is that a bakery will refuse to serve a gay couple? Please answer this question, I beg you.
[Hint: It's already happened]

Living For Love
September 22nd, 2017, 10:45 AM
Completely unrealistic.

Can you please answer my question? How realistic it is that a bakery will refuse to serve a gay couple? Please answer this question, I beg you.
[Hint: It's already happened]
So, if it's unrealistic, you won't mind that stores are able to discriminate against people whose favourite colour is red? Answer this question please.

It's quite realistic that a bakery will refuse to serve a gay couple.

maddogmj77
September 22nd, 2017, 10:47 AM
So, if it's unrealistic, you won't mind that stores are able to discriminate against people whose favorite color is red? Answer this question please.
I do mind. No-one should be discriminated against.

Where is this going? Are you trying to use some False Equivalence Logical Fallacy?

Living For Love
September 22nd, 2017, 10:53 AM
I do mind. No-one should be discriminated against.
Why?

Please note that if you use these initial arguments in your answer:

- "In a Capitalistic economy, where private businesses are the ONLY way to obtain goods. Private businesses can not be allowed to discriminate; they are restricting other people's means of obtaining goods."

- "When businesses 'were' allowed to discriminate (against black people), the amount of stores that black people could buy from were extremely limited.
They could hardly get anything they needed or wanted, and it was usually over-priced. Even bare necessities like food, clothes, & houses were hard to find or over-priced.

...we will go back to Serb's scenario, meaning that this debate will go around in circles, meaning that you are unable to justify your own theory.

So, please answer: why shouldn't stores be able to discriminate?

maddogmj77
September 22nd, 2017, 11:02 AM
So, please answer: why shouldn't stores be able to discriminate?
Because...
In a Capitalistic economy, where private businesses are the ONLY way to obtain goods. Private businesses can not be allowed to discriminate; they are restricting other peoples' means of obtaining goods.

...we will go back to Serb's scenario, meaning that this debate will go around in circles,
How on Earth do you think Serb's scenario is a good representation of reality? It requires uniformity across the entire Earth and circumstances to be so astronomically perfect, that it's just completely impossible.

---Serb's scenario requires that every single person on Earth have a phone.
(This is provably wrong)

---Serb's scenario requires that every single person on Earth have a store the exact same distance away, offering the exact same goods, at the exact same price, and that won't refuse service to them.
(This is so astronomically impossible, it is basically 100% guaranteed to not exist right now)

You can't go around in circles with fallacious logic like that.

meaning that you are unable to justify your own theory.

I have justified my theory. Just because Serb came up with some perfect-world scenario where everything is juuuuuust perfect, doesn't mean my argument is invalid.

It means yours is.

Living For Love
September 22nd, 2017, 11:14 AM
Because...
In a Capitalistic economy, where private businesses are the ONLY way to obtain goods. Private businesses can not be allowed to discriminate; they are restricting other peoples' means of obtaining goods.
So, here's how the discussion will go...

I reply - you're not restricting other people's means of obtaining goods if another store that doesn't discriminate is right next to one that discriminates.
You reply - That's unrealistic, so it's irrelevant
I reply - someone discriminating against people whose favourite colour is red is realistic?
You reply - no
I reply - so it's irrelevant, it's unrealistic, it won't happen no matter what, zero chance of happening, so people can discriminate against people whose favourite colour is red.

Do you understand now?

maddogmj77
September 22nd, 2017, 11:25 AM
So, here's how the discussion will go...

I reply - you're not restricting other people's means of obtaining goods if another store that doesn't discriminate is right next to one that discriminates.
You reply - That's unrealistic, so it's irrelevant
I reply - someone discriminating against people whose favorite color is red is realistic?
You reply - no
I reply - so it's irrelevant, it's unrealistic, it won't happen no matter what, zero chance of happening, so people can discriminate against people whose favorite color is red.

Do you understand now?
False Equivalence.
There it is, I knew it was coming.

So by your logic, because there's no chance that anyone will discriminate against people who's favorite color is red, it's okay to discriminate against them?

And somehow that's related to the impossible idea that there's another store next to every single one that discriminates???

You're trying to make an equivalence where none exists.

Living For Love
September 22nd, 2017, 11:32 AM
So by your logic, because there's no chance that anyone will discriminate against people who's favorite color is red, it's okay to discriminate against them?
By your logic, because there's no chance that two stores right next to each other, one that discriminates and another that doesn't, is impossible to happen, it's okay not to discriminate against people whose favourite colour is red.

I think it's okay to discriminate no matter what, but yes.

maddogmj77
September 22nd, 2017, 11:34 AM
By your logic, because there's no chance that two stores right next to each other, one that discriminates and another that doesn't, is impossible to happen, it's okay not to discriminate against people whose favourite colour is red.
Do you even understand what you're saying anymore?

My logic has always been, it's never okay to discriminate no matter what.

How is this EVEN relevant?

Living For Love
September 22nd, 2017, 11:40 AM
Do you even understand what you're saying anymore?

My logic has always been, it's never okay to discriminate no matter what.

How is this EVEN relevant?
Because you can't justify why it's never okay to discriminate no matter what. If I live in a house, and on the right side of my house there's a store that discriminates and on the left side there's the same store that doesn't discriminate, and I know that the one on the right discriminates, then why shouldn't the right side store be able to discriminate if they are not stopping me from getting goods since I can go to the store on the left?

maddogmj77
September 22nd, 2017, 11:42 AM
Because you can't justify why it's never okay to discriminate no matter what. If I live in a house, and on the right side of my house there's a store that discriminates and on the left side there's the same store that doesn't discriminate, and I know that the one on the right discriminates, then why shouldn't the right side store be able to discriminate if they are not stopping me from getting goods since I can go to the store on the left?
Because that situation doesn't exist for every human on Earth. Stop using perfect-world scenarios (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy).

What is MUCH more likely, is that the next store is further away or costs more money. You will be down time, down money, and possibly unable to buy your goods.

Living For Love
September 22nd, 2017, 11:50 AM
Because that situation doesn't exist for every human on Earth. Stop using perfect-world scenarios (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy)
But if it happens, is discrimination fine in that particular case? Please answer yes or no.

maddogmj77
September 22nd, 2017, 11:51 AM
But if it happens, is discrimination fine in that particular case? Please answer yes or no.
Nope.

Living For Love
September 22nd, 2017, 11:56 AM
Nope.
Why? (here we go again)

maddogmj77
September 22nd, 2017, 12:01 PM
Why? (here we go again)

Because, in a Capitalistic economy, where private businesses are the ONLY way to obtain goods. Private businesses can not be allowed to discriminate; they are restricting other peoples' means of obtaining goods.

This time, don't use a completely irrelevant perfect-world scenario in your response.

Living For Love
September 22nd, 2017, 12:09 PM
Because, in a Capitalistic economy, where private businesses are the ONLY way to obtain goods. Private businesses can not be allowed to discriminate; they are restricting other peoples' means of obtaining goods.

This time, don't use a completely irrelevant perfect-world scenario in your response.
In my example, there's no restriction, I can go to the store in the left, simple.

In that particular case, is discrimination allowed or not?

maddogmj77
September 22nd, 2017, 12:13 PM
In my example, there's no restriction, I can go to the store in the left, simple.

In that particular case, is discrimination allowed or not?
No; Because that would be ludicrously difficult to keep track of and enforce. It would then be discrimination to allow some stores to discriminate, and others to not.

The much simpler solution is ban discrimination all together.

Living For Love
September 22nd, 2017, 06:18 PM
No; Because that would be ludicrously difficult to keep track of and enforce. It would then be discrimination to allow some stores to discriminate, and others to not.
In my example, it's pretty obvious: there's absolutely no negative consequence to the person that's being discriminated. So I guess that's a valid reason to allow discrimination.

Isn't it discrimination against stores if you prohibit them from discriminating?

The much simpler solution is ban discrimination all together.
Why not allow everyone to discriminate instead?

maddogmj77
September 22nd, 2017, 08:53 PM
In my example, it's pretty obvious: there's absolutely no negative consequence to the person that's being discriminated. So I guess that's a valid reason to allow discrimination.
No, it's not. Just like it's not okay to discriminate against people who's favorite color is red. Or Anyone.

Isn't it discrimination against stores if you prohibit them from discriminating?
Nope. Just like it's not discrimination when we prohibit people from committing any other crime. They are inflicting harm on other people's general well-being.

Why not allow everyone to discriminate instead?
Because they're restricting people's ability to buy goods.

Just because you're a privileged Straight Cis-Male, and you can't possibly see how this would ever effect anyone, doesn't mean that it doesn't actually happen (Because it does, and it just did).

If you believe that stores should be able to discriminate freely, just remember that you're saying that from a place of privilege, where it would most likely never effect you.

But if you have any ability to feel empathy for those less fortunate than you, then just think about how this will effect oppressed minorities, especially in rural bigoted areas.

There's no point further arguing minor details or hypothetical scenarios. I don't think we're ever going to come to an agreement. So just agree to disagree.

PlasmaHam
September 22nd, 2017, 11:58 PM
I see why Vlerchan finally gave up here. This thread has become so nit-picking and repetitive it is rediculous. I honestly don't want to participate, but VT is so dead right now.

First, you said that the bakery is wrong here because it is breaking some law. The interpretation and consistutionality of such you are presenting is questionable, but let's pretend for a second that you are right. As your argument here is based upon the assumption that Federal law cannot be broken, how do you feel about your state's recent vote to ignore Federal immigration laws and become a sanctuary state? Are they in the wrong for breaking Federal law, just like you are claiming this bakery is? You, my friend, are committing a classic logical fallacy, so I suggest you re-evaluate your argument here.

Secondly, let's get to the real arguments. There is no right for a private entity to force another private entity to do something both parties have not consented to. That is essentially forced servitude, which is outlawed. Consistutionally, there is also no such thing as a right to not be offended or discriminated against by another private entity. In reality, it suggests the opposite via the First Amendment. As anti-PC as it may sound, I do believe that as Americans we do have the right to discriminate. You will probably need a few hours to recover from that.

Let's be realistic here. No minority is ever going to starve or actually suffer in America if companies had the right to refuse service. To insist such is just lies. Even at times when there was government enforced segregation and racism was an accepted thing, you didn't see people starving in the streets. You know why? Because in a capitalist society, there are numerous different providers. Each provider has differing stances, and in our day and age you are almost guaranteed to find a local provider you will serve your group. You and I both know that the vast majority of providers will gladly sell to minority groups. I am probably the most conservative American on the site, even I will gladly serve gays and Muslims. The combination of capitalism and our modern society has essentially guaranteed that all your "mass discrimination" claims are just baseless hyperbole.

And if you've noticed, all of these cases have been based more so around the action than the cucustomer. If you have noticed all these stories of bakeries, flower shops, etc, they are all based around partaking in a gay-wedding, even in an indirect way. These people don't care about serving the gay guy, they care about partaking in an action they see morally reprehensible i.e. gay unions. If you owned a t-shirt company, and some white extremists asked you to make a bunch of matching shirts, which you know that they are going to wear during a protest, would you want to make those shirts? Would you like to, as you liberals put it, "normalize" their behavior by servicing them?

Also, you have clearly never been to the South. Your statement that racism is prevalent in the South is laughable at best and offensive at worse. I've lived in the Old South all my life, in a rural, majority white area. I have never seen anyone even condone racism, nevermind actually engage in it.

I just wanted to say that, I'm not getting involved anymore than this. This thread should already be over honestly. Overall, I just want the choice that values liberty, and forcing others to do your business at government gun-point isn't valuing liberty in the slightest.

maddogmj77
September 23rd, 2017, 02:00 AM
First, you said that the bakery is wrong here because it is breaking some law. The interpretation and constitutionality of such you are presenting is questionable, but let's pretend for a second that you are right. As your argument here is based upon the assumption that Federal law cannot be broken,
Nope, my argument is not based on the law, because it's completely legal for this bakery to do so. I am arguing that we change the law.

You just committed, The Strawman Fallacy (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/169/Strawman-Fallacy)

how do you feel about your state's recent vote to ignore Federal immigration laws and become a sanctuary state? Are they in the wrong for breaking Federal law, just like you are claiming this bakery is? You, my friend, are committing a classic logical fallacy, so I suggest you re-evaluate your argument here.
I don't agree with the Federal immigration law. But yes, they are in the wrong for breaking federal law.

I have committed no logical fallacy.

YOU just committed the logical fallacy of ASSUMING my position, which is another Strawman Fallacy (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/169/Strawman-Fallacy), and Guilt by Association (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/10/Ad-Hominem-Guilt-by-Association) by assuming I agree with everything my state does.

Secondly, let's get to the real arguments. There is no right for a private entity to force another private entity to do something both parties have not consented to. That is essentially forced servitude, which is outlawed.
The government is not a private entity. The government is supposed to be of the people, by the people, for the people.
The government has the right to force private entities to serve everyone equally in order to protect consumers' ability to buy necessary goods and services which are only available on the private market.
[We're already doing it, it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional since it was implemented 53 years ago]

Constitutionally, there is also no such thing as a right to not be offended or discriminated against by another private entity. In reality, it suggests the opposite via the First Amendment. As anti-PC as it may sound, I do believe that as Americans we do have the right to discriminate. You will probably need a few hours to recover from that.
I never said that nobody has the right to offend. That's covered in our Freedom of Speech laws. You just made another Strawman Fallacy (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/169/Strawman-Fallacy)

The constitution also says that the government shall promote the general welfare of it's people, which should include protecting consumers from discriminatory private businesses.
If people are discriminated against by private businesses, they will be down time, down money, and possibly be unable to buy goods.
All because they are an oppressed minority, and this disadvantage will only further the oppression.

The government and it's people can not sit idly by, while systematic oppression is taking place.

Let's be realistic here. No minority is ever going to starve or actually suffer in America if companies had the right to refuse service. To insist such is just lies.
I know this is really hard to understand being a privileged Straight White Cis-Male Christian who's never been part of a minority or discriminated against his entire life.
But this actually does effect people, in one way or another. To insist it doesn't is just lies.

You cannot assume that every single person in the United States has a store that is the exact same distance away, that will sell them the exact same goods/services, at the exact same price.
You are assuming that Capitalism is perfect, and nobody is left behind, that's very naive.

Even at times when there was government enforced segregation and racism was an accepted thing, you didn't see people starving in the streets. You know why? Because in a capitalist society, there are numerous different providers. Each provider has differing stances, and in our day and age you are almost guaranteed to find a local provider you will serve your group. You and I both know that the vast majority of providers will gladly sell to minority groups. I am probably the most conservative American on the site, even I will gladly serve gays and Muslims. The combination of capitalism and our modern society has essentially guaranteed that all your "mass discrimination" claims are just baseless hyperbole.
So as long as people don't die, it's okay to oppress them?
You could care less about minorities having to spend more money, spend more time, and being unable to get what they need, because it will never effect you.

"Almost guaranteed" = Not guaranteed.
I know it's very easy for you to say that businesses should be able to discriminate, because you're not a minority, and you'll never be effected.

But I happen to have enough empathy to be sympathetic to those who will be left at a disadvantage because of someone else's bigotry.

And if you've noticed, all of these cases have been based more so around the action than the customer. If you have noticed all these stories of bakeries, flower shops, etc, they are all based around partaking in a gay-wedding, even in an indirect way. These people don't care about serving the gay guy, they care about partaking in an action they see morally reprehensible i.e. gay unions. If you owned a t-shirt company, and some white extremists asked you to make a bunch of matching shirts, which you know that they are going to wear during a protest, would you want to make those shirts? Would you like to, as you liberals put it, "normalize" their behavior by servicing them?
I wouldn't want to make them. But I would make them. Because I'm not a hypocrite who would restrict anybody's ability to buy goods or services. [And it's petty that you assume so]

Stop using Guilt by Association (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/10/Ad-Hominem-Guilt-by-Association) against Liberals.

Also, you have clearly never been to the South. Your statement that racism is prevalent in the South is laughable at best and offensive at worse. I've lived in the Old South all my life, in a rural, majority white area. I have never seen anyone even condone racism, nevermind actually engage in it.
I'm sorry, but there are still active KKK & Neo-Nazi groups in America.
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/the-kkk-today/18/ All of those photos are within the last 2 years.

Just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That's very narrow-minded.

You never heard someone talk about "the gays"? Never heard anybody talk about how "marriage should be between a man and a woman"?
I can guarantee you've heard someone use the word "trannie".

I just wanted to say that, I'm not getting involved anymore than this. This thread should already be over honestly. Overall, I just want the choice that values liberty, and forcing others to do your business at government gun-point isn't valuing liberty in the slightest.
Oh goodie. The old "gun-point" Libertarian appeal to emotion.

I want to take you on a thought experiment:
Our liberty & security is protected by our military & our police force, from threats both foreign and domestic.
Should we be allowed to collect the taxes that fund them "at government gun-point"?

If you answer no, you don't want a military & police, which means you don't value liberty or security.
If you answer yes, you are okay with "forcing others to do your business at government gun-point".

Pick one. You can't have both.

Living For Love
September 23rd, 2017, 03:42 AM
No, it's not. Just like it's not okay to discriminate against people who's favorite color is red. Or Anyone.
Why is it not okay to discriminate? (here we go... again)

Nope. Just like it's not discrimination when we prohibit people from committing any other crime. They are inflicting harm on other people's general well-being.
No harm is being done in my scenario.

Because they're restricting people's ability to buy goods.
Not in my scenario. You haven't given a single reason why discrimination shouldn't be allowed in my scenario. All you can say is that it's bad so it should be illegal.

Just because you're a privileged Straight Cis-Male, and you can't possibly see how this would ever effect anyone, doesn't mean that it doesn't actually happen (Because it does, and it just did).

If you believe that stores should be able to discriminate freely, just remember that you're saying that from a place of privilege, where it would most likely never effect you.

But if you have any ability to feel empathy for those less fortunate than you, then just think about how this will effect oppressed minorities, especially in rural bigoted areas.
Lol man, really?

What do you know about me or my life? Why do you assume I'm straight? Why do you assume I'm cisgender? Why do you assume I'm privileged? Isn't that a fallacy, assuming someone is something? Do you even realise I might have gone through really bad stuff during all my life? That I might have been discriminated, and oppressed? Do you realise how hypocritical you sound when you undermine my argument by saying I don't have the necessary empathy to realise how other people have it worse than me?

maddogmj77
September 23rd, 2017, 03:51 AM
Why is it not okay to discriminate? (here we go... again)
Because in a capitalistic economy, private businesses are the only way to obtain goods and services, they can not be allowed to discriminate; they would be restricting other people's means of obtaining goods.

You have yet to come up with any logical argument refuting this fundamental point.

You have only provided a perfect-world scenario in which my scenario "could" allow discrimination because "it wouldn't effect anyone".
That is not an argument, that is nit-picking.

No harm is being done in my scenario.

Not in my scenario. You haven't given a single reason why discrimination shouldn't be allowed in my scenario. All you can say is that it's bad so it should be illegal.
Your scenario is a Perfect-World Scenario (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/134/Nirvana-Fallacy) and would only apply to a store which has the EXACT same goods and services, at the EXACT same prices, and would only apply to people who the EXACT same distance away from each store. Even then, by getting refused, you will waste time going to the other store. No, not everyone has a phone to call ahead.

It's a ridiculous suggestion and the easier solution is to ban discrimination all together.

Lol man, really?

What do you know about me or my life? Why do you assume I'm straight? Why do you assume I'm cisgender? Why do you assume I'm privileged? Isn't that a fallacy, assuming someone is something? Do you even realize I might have gone through really bad stuff during all my life? That I might have been discriminated, and oppressed? Do you realize how hypocritical you sound when you undermine my argument by saying I don't have the necessary empathy to realize how other people have it worse than me?
I assumed nothing. Because you are a Straight Cis-gendered Christian Male, you are not an oppressed minority which this is most likely to effect. That is privilege.

Are you discriminated & oppressed? Have you ever been discriminated for being straight? For being a male? For being cisgendered? For being Christian?
...I don't think so.

I never said you didn't have empathy. I told you to use your empathy to put yourself in the shoes of the oppressed minority who will be discriminated against.
Something you've never had to do because of your privilege.

Living For Love
September 23rd, 2017, 04:06 AM
Because in a capitalistic economy, private businesses are the only way to obtain goods and services, they can not be allowed to discriminate; they would be restricting other people's means of obtaining goods.

You have yet to come up with any logical argument refuting this fundamental point.

You have only provided a perfect-world scenario in which my scenario "could" allow discrimination because "it wouldn't effect anyone".
That is not an argument, that is nit-picking.


Your scenario is a Perfect-World Scenario (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/134/Nirvana-Fallacy) and would only apply to a store which has the EXACT same goods and services, at the EXACT same prices, and would only apply to people who the EXACT same distance away from each store. Even then, by getting refused, you will waste time going to the other store. No, not everyone has a phone to call ahead.

It's a ridiculous suggestion and the easier solution is to ban discrimination all together.


I assumed nothing. Because you are a Straight Cis-gendered Christian Male, you are not an oppressed minority which this is most likely to effect. That is privilege.

Are you discriminated & oppressed? Have you ever been discriminated for being straight? For being a male? For being cisgendered? For being Christian?
...I don't think so.

I never said you didn't have empathy. I told you to use your empathy to put yourself in the shoes of the oppressed minority who will be discriminated against.
Something you've never had to do because of your privilege.
Whatever, I give up. You know what? You're right. It's just better if we agree to disagree. This debate ended in the worst possible manner, when you decided to assume my sexual orientation, my religion and my gender identity, and use that to attack me. This is ridiculous, and the blame is definitely on me because I decided to keep debating with you. Goodbye, you won't be quoted by me ever again.

maddogmj77
September 23rd, 2017, 04:26 AM
Whatever, I give up. You know what? You're right. It's just better if we agree to disagree. This debate ended in the worst possible manner, when you decided to assume my sexual orientation, my religion and my gender identity, and use that to attack me. This is ridiculous, and the blame is definitely on me because I decided to keep debating with you. Goodbye, you won't be quoted by me ever again.

I never assumed anything. You are straight. You are Christian. You are a Cisgendered Male. Those are easily obtainable from your profile and posts.
That gives you the privilege in this scenario because you are infinitely less likely to be discriminated against than an oppressed minority.

I NEVER used that to attack you, or to try to make your view-point null. And I'm sorry if you feel that way.
I simply asked that you realize you are talking from a place of privilege (because your suggestion will almost certainly never effect you), and that you should try to empathize with those less fortunate than you.

I'm glad we can finally agree to disagree. In more than 100 replies, you have yet to come up with a solid logical argument against my fundamental claim. I suggested on post 60 that we just stop.

Feel free to quote me again anytime if you have a good logical argument. I'm always glad to have a civil debate.

Stronk Serb
September 25th, 2017, 06:27 AM
So your entire argument is to hide the fact that you're an oppressed minority? That just strengthens oppression; Way to push us back into the shadows.

I was discriminated because of my political views etc. because I wore my uniform. I was a skinhead. You know when everyone started looking at me normally again? When I let my hair grow back and started dressing "normally".

What if it was black discrimination? Now answer all of my responses again.

Same. If it was black, white, Jewish, Christian, straight or any other kind if discrimination, I would not care. If you want to run your private business like that, sure, but do not complain if you are doing bad because of those policies.

So you're using a hypothetical scenario in which the person is able to phone ahead to ask, and will have another store that will sell to him at the same price, and is the same distance away.

No, I just make suggestions about what you can do to evade this problem.

So I'm going to use the hypothetical scenario in which they don't have a phone, the next store is 50 miles away, and it's going to cost more money.

A business that does not have a phone or any way of reaching them without actually going to it (e-mail, social media, phone...) is not a serious business.

You're a Straight White-Skinned Male living in his native country. You have no idea what it's like to be oppressed.

How do you know that? I was a skinhead and when I was attacked for who I was, the police thought I was the culprit just because of my shaved head and boots. Opression can be colorblind and blind to sexual orientation, you know?

You had the opportunity to walk a couple blocks down the street to another store. Many people don't have that luxury.

True, but my point was why would I force my hard-earned money into the hands of somebody who denied me service.

If a business set up a store in the Southern United States, they would have absolutely no problem staying afloat while denying service to black people. Racism is still rampant there.

Like I said if a business discriminates anyone, I don't care, just do not cry when it starts running you into the ground.

maddogmj77
September 25th, 2017, 09:37 AM
I was discriminated because of my political views etc. because I wore my uniform. I was a skinhead. You know when everyone started looking at me normally again? When I let my hair grow back and started dressing "normally".
So you should understand why we shouldn't force people to hide themselves in order to escape discrimination.

A business that does not have a phone or any way of reaching them without actually going to it (e-mail, social media, phone...) is not a serious business.
Not every consumer has a phone or computer. Nobody is going to expect to be discriminated against and call ahead to ask that.

How do you know that? I was a skinhead and when I was attacked for who I was, the police thought I was the culprit just because of my shaved head and boots. Oppression can be colorblind and blind to sexual orientation, you know?
I know that from your profile. I'm sorry. That is discrimination though, not oppression.

You were able to stop the discrimination by changing your hair-style and clothing, even if you didn't want to.

Black people, Women, Gay people, Trans people. They don't have that luxury.

True, but my point was why would I force my hard-earned money into the hands of somebody who denied me service.
You specifically? You have no reason, you can just walk around the block.
Other people can't do that.

Like I said if a business discriminates anyone, I don't care, just do not cry when it starts running you into the ground.
This isn't about the business losing money, this is about consumers not being able to get the shit they need or want at the same price as everyone else, with the same effort as everybody else.

Stronk Serb
September 26th, 2017, 08:40 AM
So you should understand why we shouldn't force people to hide themselves in order to escape discrimination.

Yes, but enforcing political correctness has the counter-effect.

Not every consumer has a phone or computer. Nobody is going to expect to be discriminated against and call ahead to ask that.

Payphones? I mean there are a million ways to communicate if you do not have the means in your home.

I know that from your profile. I'm sorry. That is discrimination though, not oppression.

Discrimination is a form of opression. In my case it was a form of institutional discrimination, where I was denied certain protections and rights by government institutions. Another state I can name which did that is South Africa, but their discrimination was based on racism and opressing blacks.

You were able to stop the discrimination by changing your hair-style and clothing, even if you didn't want to.

Black people, Women, Gay people, Trans people. They don't have that luxury.

Well, all ecept the blacks can do that. If you put me and you next to eachother, we are both human. The homo detector doesn't exist. Also I am pretty sure that in the most of the South racism is not a thing anymore or has been supressed into the shadows.



You specifically? You have no reason, you can just walk around the block.
Other people can't do that.

Yes because I live in the city, but if I lived in the rural areas, I would have to go elsewhere too. If I didn't live in the capital the things I could buy would be greatly reduced by a sharp drop in buying power and access to products.

This isn't about the business losing money, this is about consumers not being able to get the shit they need or want at the same price as everyone else, with the same effort as everybody else.

I agree with you that discrimination is a dumb thing, but if businesses want to deny service to someone, let them. This isn't a discussion about facts but a discussion about individual morality.

maddogmj77
September 26th, 2017, 10:30 PM
Yes, but enforcing political correctness has the counter-effect.
This is not political correctness. This is about securing the right of the consumer to be able to purchase goods & services without paying exorbitant prices, or being forced to go somewhere much further away.

Payphones? I mean there are a million ways to communicate if you do not have the means in your home.
So people who are discriminated will end up having to go to a payphone which takes time, pay for the payphone which costs money, and then maybe end up going to a different store which takes more time, and more money. Or they may not even be able to get what they were initially trying to get.

Well, all except the blacks can do that. If you put me and you next to each other, we are both human. The homo detector doesn't exist. Also I am pretty sure that in the most of the South racism is not a thing anymore or has been suppressed into the shadows.
Well let's just narrow this down to black discrimination then, because you have a hard time following it otherwise with your irrelevant "homo-detector".

Black people should not have to waste more time, pay more money, and possibly be unable to get what they want, just because they're black.

There are still 'many' active KKK, Neo-Nazi, Neo-Confederate, White Nationalist, Anti-LGBT, Anti-Muslim groups. Racism still exists.
https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map

Yes because I live in the city, but if I lived in the rural areas, I would have to go elsewhere too. If I didn't live in the capital the things I could buy would be greatly reduced by a sharp drop in buying power and access to products.
Exactly.

So you realize how if you lived in a rural area (where discrimination is more prevalent), then being discriminated against could have a very costly effect on you. It could be another 20 miles to the next store. It could cost an extra $10. You could be unable to get what you want. All because of a business owner's "individual morality".

I agree with you that discrimination is a dumb thing, but if businesses want to deny service to someone, let them. This isn't a discussion about facts but a discussion about individual morality.
So reject facts and appeal to individual morality. Okay.

Nazis believe in Positive Christianity. They see Jews as a parasite on the world, and evil. It is in their individual morality that they exterminate them.
Forget about the facts, we have to appeal to their individual morality. Let the Nazis exterminate!

That is where we get with your logic. Not quiet moral equivalent, but same idea.

We don't let Nazis exterminate because they're killing other people.
We protect Jews from Nazis' "individual morality".

We shouldn't let business owners discriminate, because they are making people waste more time, pay more money, and possibly be unable to obtain the goods or services that they're trying to get.
We should protect consumers from business owners' "individual morality".

Babs
September 26th, 2017, 10:34 PM
so go to a different bakery, big deal. it might not be right but what are you gonna stand there and say, "you HAVE to make me a cake you have no choice!!!!!!" there are 6 different bakeries in every city, christ.

maddogmj77
September 27th, 2017, 02:48 AM
so go to a different bakery, big deal. it might not be right but what are you gonna stand there and say, "you HAVE to make me a cake you have no choice!!!!!!" there are 6 different bakeries in every city, christ.
And if you're not in the city? If you're in a rural area (where most discrimination takes place)? This isn't just about bakeries, this is about private businesses discriminating.

What if the next bakery, store, restaurant, etc. was 20 miles away? And it was going to cost extra money. Now you may not even be able to get what you wanted to get.

Babs
September 27th, 2017, 01:54 PM
And if you're not in the city? If you're in a rural area (where most discrimination takes place)? This isn't just about bakeries, this is about private businesses discriminating.

What if the next bakery, store, restaurant, etc. was 20 miles away? And it was going to cost extra money. Now you may not even be able to get what you wanted to get.

man i live in a rural area, i know what it's like to drive 50 miles to buy jeans. it'd be very unfortunate for the darling couple but it's ridiculous to demand that someone make you a cake if they strictly don't want to. i'm all for anti-discrimination laws within government or public operations, but private businesses are a different story.

how would you legislate "YOU MUST BAKE CAKES TO EVERYONE WILLING TO PAY!!!!! >:("

maddogmj77
September 27th, 2017, 02:09 PM
How would you legislate "YOU MUST BAKE CAKES TO EVERYONE WILLING TO PAY!!!!! >:("
Hmm... Just like this: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-78/pdf/STATUTE-78-Pg241.pdf
Easier to read: http://civilrights.findlaw.com/enforcing-your-civil-rights/title-ii-of-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964-injunctive-relief.html

All you have to do is include Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity. Easy.

Living For Love
October 4th, 2017, 03:06 PM
Hmm... Just like this: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-78/pdf/STATUTE-78-Pg241.pdf
Easier to read: http://civilrights.findlaw.com/enforcing-your-civil-rights/title-ii-of-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964-injunctive-relief.html

All you have to do is include Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity. Easy.
I'm sorry for quoting you and bumping this thread again. I know I told you I wouldn't be quoting you anymore after you wrongly assumed I'm a straight white cisgender Catholic belonging-to-a-majority never-was-discriminated man, so I'm now publicly apologising for having broken my promise. Technically, I could have just replied without quoting you, but I wasn't sure if you'd see my post.

Anyway, a few days ago, while taking a shower, I thought of another scenario I could use to counter your arguments and I want to know your opinion on it (although I'm pretty sure what your answer will be).

So, imagine a small town in Mississippi that has a hypermarket (like Walmart, for instance) that sells a wide variety of products, from food, to houseware, to clothes, etc... Imagine that town has around 1000 inhabitants, and 100 of them are black people. That hypermarket decides to refuse service to black people. You are the governor of Mississippi and you create a law that states that absolutely no one can be discriminated for any reason whatsoever. However, the owner of that hypermarket refuses to sell their stuff to black people, so the police are on their way to shut down the hypermarket. What do you think of this?

maddogmj77
October 4th, 2017, 05:09 PM
I'm sorry for quoting you and bumping this thread again. I know I told you I wouldn't be quoting you anymore after you wrongly assumed I'm a straight white cisgender Catholic belonging-to-a-majority never-was-discriminated man, so I'm now publicly apologising for having broken my promise. Technically, I could have just replied without quoting you, but I wasn't sure if you'd see my post.
I think you completely missed the point of what I was trying to say. I didn`t say it in order to discredit you. I said it to make you think.

It`s easier for you to say that stores should be allowed to discriminate, because it would almost certainly never effect you.
If you were Black, Female, gay, transgendered, Muslim, etc. You would be much more likely to be discriminated against.

Anyway, a few days ago, while taking a shower, I thought of another scenario I could use to counter your arguments and I want to know your opinion on it (although I'm pretty sure what your answer will be).

So, imagine a small town in Mississippi that has a hypermarket (like Walmart, for instance) that sells a wide variety of products, from food, to houseware, to clothes, etc... Imagine that town has around 1000 inhabitants, and 100 of them are black people. That hypermarket decides to refuse service to black people. You are the governor of Mississippi and you create a law that states that absolutely no one can be discriminated for any reason whatsoever. However, the owner of that hypermarket refuses to sell their stuff to black people, so the police are on their way to shut down the hypermarket. What do you think of this?
That's perfectly fine. Either they sell to everybody, or they lose their business.

You're going to make the argument that the other 900 people won't have a store to go to now.

I will make the argument that the 100 people never had a store to go to in the first place.

If we let them discriminate, and a new store sets up to "fill the gap" as you say. That store will get less business, less customers, have less supplies, and have higher prices, all due to an already established competition.
That store can sell to the black people at whatever price they want because they have no other choice.
So the 100 people will get less of the stuff they need, and pay more.

If we don't let them discriminate, then the store has two options.
A.) They keep discriminating, and their business gets shut down. This is extremely unlinkely as they really don't want to lose their business. But even if they did, now new stores can set up without having a super strong competition already in place. Win-Win. Lose for the discriminatory business.

B.) They stop discriminating, keep their business, and everybody is allowed to shop there. This is the most likely situation, and the ultimate win-win.

Living For Love
October 4th, 2017, 06:29 PM
If we let them discriminate, and a new store sets up to "fill the gap" as you say. That store will get less business, less customers, have less supplies, and have higher prices, all due to an already established competition.
That store can sell to the black people at whatever price they want because they have no other choice.
So the 100 people will get less of the stuff they need, and pay more.
I wasn't going to mention there would be another store to fill the gap. Although, wouldn't that happen in any isolated community, regardless of discrimination or not? Imagine a hypermarket in a very populous city with lots of competition selling stuff at lower prices because, since it's a big city, they have lots of other hypermarkets and lots of competition. Now imagine an hypermarket that sells the same stuff, in a rural town, with 1000 inhabitants that have no other place to go other than that hypermarket, and they sell that stuff at higher prices because they know people from that town will have to go there. How do you feel about this?

If we don't let them discriminate, then the store has two options.
A.) They keep discriminating, and their business gets shut down. This is extremely unlinkely as they really don't want to lose their business. But even if they did, now new stores can set up without having a super strong competition already in place. Win-Win. Lose for the discriminatory business.

B.) They stop discriminating, keep their business, and everybody is allowed to shop there. This is the most likely situation, and the ultimate win-win.
You have come up with laws but you haven't come up with sanctions for people who break your laws, and I mean sanctions independent from people's freedom of choice which, by the way, is irrelevant. In the scenario I pictured, would you shut down the hypermarket? Please answer with yes or no.

Let me remind you that I don't know which one is the most racist US state. I mentioned Mississippi because that state would be the one I would pick as the most racist, but contrary to you, I'm not a US citizen. Regardless, imagine we're talking about a very racist conservative rural town in a Deep South state, do you think it's easy to convince someone who has lived all their life there not to be racist? Do you think there is no racism in the USA to the point that no one would discriminate against blacks, contrary to the discrimination against gays that you initially mentioned in the first post (the cake thing)?

BlackParadePixie
October 5th, 2017, 12:15 AM
curious to know if there are any actual documented statistics showing that discrimination takes place MORE in rural areas...

maddogmj77
October 7th, 2017, 09:36 PM
In the scenario I pictured, would you shut down the hypermarket? Please answer with yes or no.
If they chose to not serve everyone, yes. But they almost certainly will because they don't want to lose their entire business.

Let me remind you that I don't know which one is the most racist US state. I mentioned Mississippi because that state would be the one I would pick as the most racist, but contrary to you, I'm not a US citizen. Regardless, imagine we're talking about a very racist conservative rural town in a Deep South state, do you think it's easy to convince someone who has lived all their life there not to be racist? Do you think there is no racism in the USA to the point that no one would discriminate against blacks, contrary to the discrimination against gays that you initially mentioned in the first post (the cake thing)?
No, it's not easy to convince someone not to be racist. But we can limit the effect they have with their discrimination.

There's probably more discrimination against gay people, but still quite a lot against black people. Again, there's still active KKK & Neo-Nazi groups in America.
https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

curious to know if there are any actual documented statistics showing that discrimination takes place MORE in rural areas...
Go to this link: https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map
Look at how many hate-groups are in the South. Keep in mind that those areas are heavily rural and have very low population densities.
Compare that to California which has 1/10th of the whole United States population, and yet fairly few hate-groups.
Discrimination happens much more in rural areas. ESPECIALLY when you account for the disproportional amounts of population.

Also, sort it by "Ku Klux Klan" & "Neo-Confederate". Those are almost exclusive to the South.

Here's an interesting statistic from google searches: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/28/the-most-racist-places-in-america-according-to-google/?utm_term=.ed02687cb081

BlackParadePixie
October 7th, 2017, 11:28 PM
sorry, but the southern poverty law center is a joke. any organization that is just a tad right of their agenda is labeled as a hate group. you're going to have to do better than that. I'm talking some DOJ statistics, or something similar.

maddogmj77
October 7th, 2017, 11:50 PM
sorry, but the southern poverty law center is a joke. any organization that is just a tad right of their agenda is labeled as a hate group. You're going to have to do better than that. I'm talking some DOJ statistics, or something similar.
Uhm... Sorry, but they're talking about literal Ku Klux Klan's, Neo-Nazis, & Neo-Confederates. You can google search each one of them and they're all real.

Are you really saying the KKK & Neo-Nazis aren't hate-groups?

Here are links to active KKK groups in the south:
http://www.kuklosknights.com/
http://www.ikkkkk.org/
http://kkk.com/
https://twitter.com/militantknights?lang=en
http://www.resist.com/
http://www.theuka.us/
https://www.unskkkk.com/
https://www.georgiaknightriderskkk.com/nsdap--third-reich-post-cards.html
http://www.eastcoastknightsofthetrueinvisibleempire.com/

Here are links to active Neo-Nazi groups in the South:
https://www.sadisticsoulsmc.org/
http://www.nsm88.org/
https://natall.com/
https://aryansusan1219.tumblr.com/post/149982492419/afew-of-us-aryan-nations-worldwide-racialist?is_highlighted_post=1
http://www.endangerdsouls519.com/
http://www.americannaziparty.com/
http://www.pzg.biz/

Here are links to active Neo-Confederate groups in the South:
http://leagueofthesouth.com/
http://www.thesnc.org/www.thesnc.org/index.html
http://leagueofthesouth.com/the-mary-noel-kershaw-foundation/
https://www.facebook.com/paceconfederatedepot/
https://www.facebook.com/FreeMississippi.org/

-------------------------------------------------------

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/southern-poverty-law-center/
Southern Poverty Law Center has high factual reporting.

Dalcourt
October 8th, 2017, 12:39 AM
maddogmj77 BlackParadePixie

I don't really feel like taking part of discussions like that.
As a colored Louisiana native who also has spent a great deal of his childhood in rural Mississippi I just can't tell you that a statistic never will give you a real understanding of anything.
I assume you are both from the west coast and therefore grasping deep South mentality is a tad tricky for you.

I can just tell you that when I leave my hometown it is like going to a different world sometimes. It's not that there is KKK or anyone out to sting you up on the next tree like in the old days but there is places and people that you replay don't wanna be around when you are black or gay or both.

BlackParadePixie
October 8th, 2017, 01:30 AM
naturally, a left leaning person putting words in my mouth.

But to answer your question...no, I am not saying the KKK and neo-nazis are not hate groups, only a fool would think such a thing. I don't need to look at a map, or any of the links to know that groups like that exist all over the country. You either misunderstood my original question, or are just completely ignoring it on purpose.

posts merged. ~Endeavour

maddogmj77
October 8th, 2017, 01:36 AM
But to answer your question...no, I am not saying the KKK and Neo-Nazis are not hate groups, only a fool would think such a thing. I don't need to look at a map, or any of the links to know that groups like that exist all over the country. You either misunderstood my original question, or are just completely ignoring it on purpose.
Go to the website I linked you.

Sort it by Ku Klux Klan. Almost every single one is in the Southern Bible belt.
California has 3 KKK groups, while having 1/10th of the US population.
The Southern Bible Belt has a very low-density population, yet 100+ KKK groups.

Sort it by Neo-Confederate groups, and seriously... every single one is in the South.

Sort it by Neo-Nazis, and they're still disproportionately centered around the Southern Bible Belt.
Especially when you consider that area has a very low population, and 'should' have less.
California has 1/10th of the population; we should have 1/10th of the Neo-Nazi groups, yet it's not even close.

You also just got a first-hand account by Dalcourt. Most discrimination and racism is hard to actually document and put into statistics.

BlackParadePixie
October 8th, 2017, 01:39 AM
I don't know why you're hung up on the KKK and neo-nazi groups. I never mentioned them. I never said racism didn't exist in the south, I never said it never existed in rural areas. I'm well aware that it does.

Again, you're completely ignoring my original statement.

maddogmj77
October 8th, 2017, 01:40 AM
I don't know why you're hung up on the KKK and neo-nazi groups. I never mentioned them. I never said racism didn't exist in the south, I never said it never existed in rural areas. I'm well aware that it does.

Again, you're completely ignoring my original statement.
Discrimination (racial) is tied to racism, & racism is much more rampant in the South.

BlackParadePixie
October 8th, 2017, 01:43 AM
I can just tell you that when I leave my hometown it is like going to a different world sometimes. It's not that there is KKK or anyone out to sting you up on the next tree like in the old days but there is places and people that you replay don't wanna be around when you are black or gay or both.

and I respect your views and perspective, I'm not trying to deny any sort of racism at all.

That being said, yes, I am from the west coast. I can also say that there are areas of my own city that I wouldn't go walking through as a white female.

Discrimination (racial) is tied to racism, & racism is much more rampant in the South.
now you're focused on just the south. you keep moving the goal posts of the argument. If you're going to suddenly say all of the south is racist, that means it exists in alot of heavily populated areas as well, not just rural ones.

posts merged. ~Endeavour

maddogmj77
October 8th, 2017, 01:51 AM
now you're focused on just the south. you keep moving the goal posts of the argument. If you're going to suddenly say all of the south is racist, that means it exists in alot of heavily populated areas as well, not just rural ones.
No. the goalposts are the same. You wanted statistics of discrimination being more in the South. That's extremely hard to measure.

I linked you definitive proof, showing how there are many, MANY more racist groups in the South.
Where there's a lot of racism, there's going to be a lot of discrimination. That answers your question.

Racism exists in heavily-populated areas too. But in much smaller amounts comparatively.

I never said "all of the south is racist". Naturally, a Right-leaning person putting words in my mouth.
I said there's 'more' racism in the South. That is provable, statistically.

Now. Explain to me how I'm, "moving the goal-posts". I've answered your question the best I can.

BlackParadePixie
October 8th, 2017, 02:04 AM
lol, wow. I never originally mentioned the south at all. I said, rural areas. I live in a rural area, and I can tell you, there's not alot of discrimination going on here. But maybe that's just my white privilege blinding me.

maddogmj77
October 8th, 2017, 02:14 AM
lol, wow. I never originally mentioned the south at all. I said, rural areas. I live in a rural area, and I can tell you, there's not alot of discrimination going on here. But maybe that's just my white privilege blinding me.
Well I mean it's pretty hard to notice discrimination when it doesn't happen to you. That would be "White Privilege", yes.

I see what you're saying now. And it's really hard to calculate.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/23/hate-crime-rural-lgbt-people-study

Here's a person talking to LGBT-people in rural areas.
88% (44/50) of them said they've been the victim of a hate-crime.
That is a ridiculously high number. That alone should answer your question.

They describe how they're scared of being outed, with suspicion & distrust of the authorities.
There are 35,000 unreported hate-crimes against LGBT-people each year.

It's extremely difficult to calculate statistics in a situation like this.
When LGBT-people in rural areas hide themselves, it's much harder for hate-crimes to occur.
When LGBT-people in rural areas are scared to talk to the authorities, it's much harder for them to classify it as a hate-crime.

It's hard to put into a statistic. But, rural areas & isolation tend to lead to less exposure, and less tolerance. E.G. Racism, Homophobia, etc.

BlackParadePixie
October 8th, 2017, 02:17 AM
well, that makes more sense then. thank you.

Living For Love
October 8th, 2017, 05:47 AM
If they chose to not serve everyone, yes.
Do you feel comfortable in depriving everyone else from that town of using the hypermarket because you had it shut down? Because of your law, all those people now will have to travel elsewhere and waste gas money and travel time to acquire essential goods like food and clothes. Your law is discriminating against the non-Black people of that town.

Mars
October 8th, 2017, 08:18 AM
Keep the thread on topic. Future off topic posts will be deleted.

~Mars

maddogmj77
October 8th, 2017, 04:15 PM
Do you feel comfortable in depriving everyone else from that town of using the hypermarket because you had it shut down? Because of your law, all those people now will have to travel elsewhere and waste gas money and travel time to acquire essential goods like food and clothes. Your law is discriminating against the non-Black people of that town.
I already predicted this argument, and I've provided my response.

That's perfectly fine. Either they sell to everybody, or they lose their business.

You're going to make the argument that the other 900 people won't have a store to go to now.

I will make the argument that the 100 people never had a store to go to in the first place.

If we let them discriminate, and a new store sets up to "fill the gap" as you say. That store will get less business, less customers, have less supplies, and have higher prices, all due to an already established competition.
That store can sell to the black people at whatever price they want because they have no other choice.
So the 100 people will get less of the stuff they need, and pay more.

If we don't let them discriminate, then the store has two options.
A.) They keep discriminating, and their business gets shut down. This is extremely unlinkely as they really don't want to lose their business. But even if they did, now new stores can set up without having a super strong competition already in place. Win-Win. Lose for the discriminatory business.

B.) They stop discriminating, keep their business, and everybody is allowed to shop there. This is the most likely situation, and the ultimate win-win.

Living For Love
October 8th, 2017, 04:49 PM
I already predicted this argument, and I've provided my response.
Please answer my question objectively. In the case where the store owner says "I refuse to serve black people no matter what", do you feel confortable in depriving everyone else in that town of going to that hypermarket and acquiring essential goods?

Please answer the following question with yes or no: do you think it's worth it to deprive 900 people of having access to essential goods in order to avoid discrimination against 100 people?

maddogmj77
October 8th, 2017, 05:33 PM
Please answer my question objectively. In the case where the store owner says "I refuse to serve black people no matter what", do you feel confortable in depriving everyone else in that town of going to that hypermarket and acquiring essential goods?

Please answer the following question with yes or no: do you think it's worth it to deprive 900 people of having access to essential goods in order to avoid discrimination against 100 people?
Yes, it is.

It will be in the interest of everyone once that store is gone, because new stores will be able to set up and have a healthy competition.
In the mean-time, people will have to go somewhere else, and that sucks, but that's what the other 100 Black people have been doing all along.

I believe it is worth it overall, to protect the minority, and to push back oppression as much as possible.

Otherwise, those 100 Black people will be paying more money than their fellow White neighbors, wasting more time than their White neighbors; all because of the color of their skin.

Living For Love
October 8th, 2017, 05:55 PM
Yes, it is.

It will be in the interest of everyone once that store is gone, because new stores will be able to set up and have a healthy competition.
In the mean-time, people will have to go somewhere else, and that sucks, but that's what the other 100 Black people have been doing all along.
So you agree that, in this particular case, your law discriminates against non-black people? Because you're forcing them to drive many miles and waste lots of money only to acquire food, water, etc...

I believe it is worth it overall, to protect the minority, and to push back oppression as much as possible.
I'm all for protecting minorities as well, I just have a problem when minorities start to dictate what we should do and what we shouldn't do. In a Democracy, minorities are respected, but they don't get to tell the majority what to do or not to do, and that's what's happening here. You're basically forsaking the majority's rights over the minorities's rights, and I can't understand why you choose to do so. And I know you belong to a majority. Actually, if you and I played this whole "who is the most privileged" game, I bet we were tied: we're both gay white cisgender non-Muslim males who live in democratic countries with freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of association. So how exactly do you know better that me or anyone else in this forum what it is like to be oppressed or discriminated? And yes, we've had slavery in Europe as well.


Otherwise, those 100 Black people will be paying more money than their fellow White neighbors, wasting more time than their White neighbors
With you law, everyone's wasting time and money to buy products. Everyone's equal, yes, but everyone's miserable in the same way too. You see, your law only changed things for the worse because, before you closed the hypermarket, 900 people had access to stuff, but now, no one has access to anything due to the fact that 100 didn't have access to anything in the first place due to the colour of their skin. In this particular scenario, how exactly did your law changed things for the better?

maddogmj77
October 8th, 2017, 07:24 PM
So you agree that, in this particular case, your law discriminates against non-black people? Because you're forcing them to drive many miles and waste lots of money only to acquire food, water, etc...
No, it's not discriminating because everyone will be equal.

I'm all for protecting minorities as well, I just have a problem when minorities start to dictate what we should do and what we shouldn't do. In a Democracy, minorities are respected, but they don't get to tell the majority what to do or not to do, and that's what's happening here. You're basically forsaking the majority's rights over the minorities's rights, and I can't understand why you choose to do so.
You've turned this into a minority vs. majority issue when it really isn't. It's a human & consumer issue. Nobody is allowed to discriminate against anyone.

And I know you belong to a majority. Actually, if you and I played this whole "who is the most privileged" game, I bet we were tied: we're both gay white cisgender non-Muslim males who live in democratic countries with freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of association. So how exactly do you know better that me or anyone else in this forum what it is like to be oppressed or discriminated? And yes, we've had slavery in Europe as well.
No, now you're trying to turn it into a "privilege" issue when it never has been. Nobody's "privilege" makes their view any more or less valid.

When I said what I did about "privilege", I said it to try to make you realize that what you are suggesting will have a very minimal effect on you.
That you should try to sympathize with those less fortunate and more likely to be discriminated against.

With you law, everyone's wasting time and money to buy products. Everyone's equal, yes, but everyone's miserable in the same way too. You see, your law only changed things for the worse because, before you closed the hypermarket, 900 people had access to stuff, but now, no one has access to anything due to the fact that 100 didn't have access to anything in the first place due to the color of their skin. In this particular scenario, how exactly did your law changed things for the better?
My law will change things for the better, because there's a 99% chance the store will comply with the law in order to not lose it's business.

Even if it didn't, then the 900 people would now be equal with the 100 as the discriminatory hypermarket is gone.
That opens the doors to new stores to set up without a competition, and can start a healthy competition in this new gap, without discriminating.

So the end result would be more options/stores for everyone. And everyone will be able to shop equally.

Do you think those 100 Black people should have to pay more and waste more time, just because they're Black? When there is a perfectly reasonable law that can be implemented in order to stop this from happening. Something that has already been implemented in America and is working just fine.

AussieNicholas
October 9th, 2017, 01:40 AM
If you own a business, you're offering your service/product to somebody. Nobody is entitled to have you do business with them. If you're an employee of a company then it's different because you're representing the entire business, but business owners are offering their services. They have no moral obligation to do business with you or anyone. They have chosen to offer their services in exchange for payment. You're not entitled to their services.

PlasmaHam
October 9th, 2017, 10:40 AM
Here's a person talking to LGBT-people in rural areas.
88% (44/50) of them said they've been the victim of a hate-crime.
That is a ridiculously high number. That alone should answer your questionThis is yet another example of unsupported 'hate crime' statistics by the Left. There are people who interpret "looking at me the wrong way" as a hate crime. In Britain (where this study was done) a man was convicted of a hate crime for singing "Kung fu Fighting" for crying out loud! There is no definition here of what constitutes a hate crime, and added to the fact that your resource doesn't even source a direct link to the study, there is no reason for me to believe that there is actual oppression anywhere near that rate you claim.

It's extremely difficult to calculate statistics in a situation like this.
When LGBT-people in rural areas hide themselves, it's much harder for hate-crimes to occur.So, you admit that it is extremely difficult to calculate actual hate crime statistics, yet you just spouted out some unsupported statistics. You serious expect me to believe any of this?

It's hard to put into a statistic. But, rural areas & isolation tend to lead to less exposure, and less tolerance. E.G. Racism, Homophobia, etc.So, I should just trust your word on this? Statisticians are incapable of actually figuring this out, but I am expected to believe you when you claim there is mass oppression at work?

No, it's not discriminating because everyone will be equal.
Question: Do you value liberty or equality more?

Just because you are making people equal, does not mean you aren't discriminating. Affirmative Action policies for instance are clearly discriminatory towards whites and Asians. They may make black students "more equal" to their white peers, but it is nevertheless still discrimination. Companies employing women just so they can virtue signal about having a sizable female staff may be making them "more equal" with their male counterparts, but it is nevertheless discriminating against more trained males.

You've turned this into a minority vs. majority issue when it really isn't. It's a human & consumer issue. Nobody is allowed to discriminate against anyone.You are the one ranting about majority oppression of the minority, don't try to play it off to someone else. And yes, you are finally on topic, this an issue of a human supplier and a human consumer. And no human should be allowed to force another human to do something they find morally reprehensible. No human, black or white, female or male, consumer or supplier, should be granted more God-given rights than another, nor be allowed to infringe on the God-given rights of others.

...Nobody is allowed to discriminate against anyone.Ah, so you are legislating morality. It's funny how that is suddenly acceptable when Lefties are doing it.

My law will change things for the better, because there's a 99% chance the store will comply with the law in order to not lose it's business.Your 'law' will force individuals to perform acts they find morally reprehensible, because someone else was too entitled and lazy to drive a few extra miles to get a cake decorated. How is infringing on the liberties of individuals just so others don't get their feeling hurts going to change things for the better? How does this reflect liberty, the hallmark of America?

Even if it didn't, then the 900 people would now be equal with the 100 as the discriminatory hypermarket is gone.
That opens the doors to new stores to set up without a competition, and can start a healthy competition in this new gap, without discriminating.

So the end result would be more options/stores for everyone. And everyone will be able to shop equally.Hm... I don't even want to try to respond to this. Your law will hurt the economy, not grow it. Growth comes from competition, inequality spurs competition, not the other way around.




I believe it is worth it overall, to protect the minority, and to push back oppression as much as possible.This was the exact same mentality that pushed the Reconstruction Era. And you know what happened? People got tired of the government and law pushing other people's rights over their own. Minorities were given special privileges, given things at the expense of others. The people in power believed that this forced equality and anti-discrimination legislation would reduce discrimination. But guess what? As a result of the government valuing the rights of the minority over the majority, people got outraged, and that outrage lead to the worse era of discrimination and racism we have ever known, when blacks when routinely lynched and anti-immigrant sentiment grew wild. All this, was because the government felt like forcing 'equality' was the best route. If the government didn't get involved, I have a good feeling that race relations would be far better today than they are currently.


In short, in a free society, there is clearly only one answer to this question. No individual or business should be forced to provide services to another individual or business without consent. And I'm not just making that statement up out of thin air. It has long been generally accepted that capitalism is only ethical if there is a consensual exchange between individuals. Not forced, certainly not forced by government gunpoint.


EDIT: Just saw this. (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/gay-coffee-shop-owner-kicks-11310237)
You feel like infringing on the rights of this gay man? Because I am sure the KKK will be backing you up as you do it. Nothing quite as good as forcing a gay man into poverty, especially when you can do it legally!

Uniquemind
October 12th, 2017, 03:53 PM
I think that cafe owner shouldn't have kicked them out unless they were being a disturbance to other guests.


I strongly believe a business needs a strong dissociation between it's owner's personal beliefs and the business's goal's. The business's goals should be textbook business concerns only, like accounting, quality of product and service, accounting, profitability and safety.

Anything outside of those concerns, for a business, is extraneous and makes no sense even from a religious or counter-religious point of view.

In Revelation it says that all the former things of the previous world passes away, and I take that to mean all systems of society like monetary systems. Meaning there is no business that gets access to the pearly gates anyway, it's an entity without a soul.

And remember the premise behind many faiths: you want a good afterlife not a bad one.

Only individuals are based on their own book's works.