Virtual Teen Forums
 

Go Back   Virtual Teen Forums > >
Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read Chat Room

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 8th, 2017, 04:24 AM   #1
maddogmj77
Nice Poster
 
maddogmj77's Forum Picture
 
Name: Matthew
Join Date: February 14, 2014
Location: California, USA
Age: 17
Gender: Male
Default Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding cake

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/09/07...-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?

Matthew - 17 - Gay
Feel free to message me

"Is this a test? It has to be, otherwise I can't go on."

Last edited by maddogmj77; September 8th, 2017 at 07:01 AM.
maddogmj77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2017, 04:34 AM   #2
Living For Love
VT Lover
 
Living For Love's Forum Picture
 
Name: Tiago
Join Date: August 22, 2013
Location: Portugal
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

"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"


Tiago | ♂ | 20 | PM | VM | Ask Me | Lonely Hearts Club

Help and Advice Moderator

~Mike was here~
Likes: (1)
Living For Love is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2017, 04:35 AM   #3
maddogmj77
Nice Poster
 
maddogmj77's Forum Picture
 
Name: Matthew
Join Date: February 14, 2014
Location: California, USA
Age: 17
Gender: Male
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
"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.

Matthew - 17 - Gay
Feel free to message me

"Is this a test? It has to be, otherwise I can't go on."
maddogmj77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2017, 04:42 AM   #4
Living For Love
VT Lover
 
Living For Love's Forum Picture
 
Name: Tiago
Join Date: August 22, 2013
Location: Portugal
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
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.


Tiago | ♂ | 20 | PM | VM | Ask Me | Lonely Hearts Club

Help and Advice Moderator

~Mike was here~
Living For Love is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2017, 04:43 AM   #5
maddogmj77
Nice Poster
 
maddogmj77's Forum Picture
 
Name: Matthew
Join Date: February 14, 2014
Location: California, USA
Age: 17
Gender: Male
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
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.

Matthew - 17 - Gay
Feel free to message me

"Is this a test? It has to be, otherwise I can't go on."
maddogmj77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2017, 04:47 AM   #6
Vlerchan
Globalist Shill
 
Vlerchan's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: August 31, 2013
Location: Ireland
Age: 21
Gender: Cisgender Male
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

Quote:
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.)

".... the result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lie will now be accepted as truth, and truth be defamed as lie, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world - and the category of truth versus falsehood is among the mental means to this end - is being destroyed ... [H.A.]"
Vlerchan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2017, 04:50 AM   #7
maddogmj77
Nice Poster
 
maddogmj77's Forum Picture
 
Name: Matthew
Join Date: February 14, 2014
Location: California, USA
Age: 17
Gender: Male
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
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?

Matthew - 17 - Gay
Feel free to message me

"Is this a test? It has to be, otherwise I can't go on."
maddogmj77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2017, 04:53 AM   #8
Vlerchan
Globalist Shill
 
Vlerchan's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: August 31, 2013
Location: Ireland
Age: 21
Gender: Cisgender Male
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77
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.

".... the result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lie will now be accepted as truth, and truth be defamed as lie, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world - and the category of truth versus falsehood is among the mental means to this end - is being destroyed ... [H.A.]"
Vlerchan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2017, 04:57 AM   #9
maddogmj77
Nice Poster
 
maddogmj77's Forum Picture
 
Name: Matthew
Join Date: February 14, 2014
Location: California, USA
Age: 17
Gender: Male
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
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.

Matthew - 17 - Gay
Feel free to message me

"Is this a test? It has to be, otherwise I can't go on."

Last edited by maddogmj77; September 8th, 2017 at 05:00 AM.
maddogmj77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2017, 05:01 AM   #10
Vlerchan
Globalist Shill
 
Vlerchan's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: August 31, 2013
Location: Ireland
Age: 21
Gender: Cisgender Male
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77
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.

".... the result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lie will now be accepted as truth, and truth be defamed as lie, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world - and the category of truth versus falsehood is among the mental means to this end - is being destroyed ... [H.A.]"

Last edited by Vlerchan; September 8th, 2017 at 05:11 AM.
Likes: (1)
Vlerchan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2017, 05:02 AM   #11
Living For Love
VT Lover
 
Living For Love's Forum Picture
 
Name: Tiago
Join Date: August 22, 2013
Location: Portugal
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
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?


Tiago | ♂ | 20 | PM | VM | Ask Me | Lonely Hearts Club

Help and Advice Moderator

~Mike was here~
Living For Love is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2017, 05:14 AM   #12
maddogmj77
Nice Poster
 
maddogmj77's Forum Picture
 
Name: Matthew
Join Date: February 14, 2014
Location: California, USA
Age: 17
Gender: Male
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
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...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
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.

Matthew - 17 - Gay
Feel free to message me

"Is this a test? It has to be, otherwise I can't go on."

Last edited by maddogmj77; September 8th, 2017 at 06:02 AM.
maddogmj77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2017, 05:23 AM   #13
Living For Love
VT Lover
 
Living For Love's Forum Picture
 
Name: Tiago
Join Date: August 22, 2013
Location: Portugal
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
"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?


Tiago | ♂ | 20 | PM | VM | Ask Me | Lonely Hearts Club

Help and Advice Moderator

~Mike was here~
Living For Love is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2017, 05:47 AM   #14
maddogmj77
Nice Poster
 
maddogmj77's Forum Picture
 
Name: Matthew
Join Date: February 14, 2014
Location: California, USA
Age: 17
Gender: Male
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

[I replied to your message 3 up by adding on to my message 2 up]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
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...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
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.

Matthew - 17 - Gay
Feel free to message me

"Is this a test? It has to be, otherwise I can't go on."

Last edited by maddogmj77; September 8th, 2017 at 06:19 AM.
maddogmj77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2017, 06:07 AM   #15
Living For Love
VT Lover
 
Living For Love's Forum Picture
 
Name: Tiago
Join Date: August 22, 2013
Location: Portugal
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
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).


Tiago | ♂ | 20 | PM | VM | Ask Me | Lonely Hearts Club

Help and Advice Moderator

~Mike was here~
Living For Love is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2017, 06:18 AM   #16
maddogmj77
Nice Poster
 
maddogmj77's Forum Picture
 
Name: Matthew
Join Date: February 14, 2014
Location: California, USA
Age: 17
Gender: Male
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
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."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
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.

Matthew - 17 - Gay
Feel free to message me

"Is this a test? It has to be, otherwise I can't go on."
maddogmj77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2017, 06:39 AM   #17
Vlerchan
Globalist Shill
 
Vlerchan's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: August 31, 2013
Location: Ireland
Age: 21
Gender: Cisgender Male
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
"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.

".... the result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lie will now be accepted as truth, and truth be defamed as lie, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world - and the category of truth versus falsehood is among the mental means to this end - is being destroyed ... [H.A.]"

Last edited by Vlerchan; September 8th, 2017 at 06:45 AM.
Likes: (1)
Vlerchan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2017, 06:43 AM   #18
maddogmj77
Nice Poster
 
maddogmj77's Forum Picture
 
Name: Matthew
Join Date: February 14, 2014
Location: California, USA
Age: 17
Gender: Male
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
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.

Matthew - 17 - Gay
Feel free to message me

"Is this a test? It has to be, otherwise I can't go on."

Last edited by maddogmj77; September 8th, 2017 at 11:45 AM.
maddogmj77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2017, 06:47 AM   #19
Living For Love
VT Lover
 
Living For Love's Forum Picture
 
Name: Tiago
Join Date: August 22, 2013
Location: Portugal
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
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.


Tiago | ♂ | 20 | PM | VM | Ask Me | Lonely Hearts Club

Help and Advice Moderator

~Mike was here~
Living For Love is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2017, 06:51 AM   #20
maddogmj77
Nice Poster
 
maddogmj77's Forum Picture
 
Name: Matthew
Join Date: February 14, 2014
Location: California, USA
Age: 17
Gender: Male
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
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.

Matthew - 17 - Gay
Feel free to message me

"Is this a test? It has to be, otherwise I can't go on."

Last edited by maddogmj77; September 8th, 2017 at 07:02 AM.
maddogmj77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright©2000 - 2017
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2017, VirtualTeen.org