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, 07:01 AM   #21
Living For Love
Live To Tell
 
Living For Love's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: August 22, 2013
Age: 21
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 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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
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".

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
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?


Retired H&A Moderator

~Mike was here~
Living For Love is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2017, 07:20 AM   #22
maddogmj77
Nice Poster
 
maddogmj77's Forum Picture
 
Name: Matthew
Join Date: February 14, 2014
Location: California, USA
Age: 18
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
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".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
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.

Matthew - 18 - 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 07:25 AM.
maddogmj77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2017, 07:28 AM   #23
Vlerchan
unadulteratedReason
 
Vlerchan's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: August 31, 2013
Location: Ireland
Age: 22
Gender: Cisgender Male
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

".... 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.]"
Likes: (1)
Vlerchan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2017, 07:49 AM   #24
maddogmj77
Nice Poster
 
maddogmj77's Forum Picture
 
Name: Matthew
Join Date: February 14, 2014
Location: California, USA
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
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)

Matthew - 18 - 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 08:03 AM.
maddogmj77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2017, 09:19 AM   #25
Vlerchan
unadulteratedReason
 
Vlerchan's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: August 31, 2013
Location: Ireland
Age: 22
Gender: Cisgender Male
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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?

".... 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, 09:39 AM   #26
maddogmj77
Nice Poster
 
maddogmj77's Forum Picture
 
Name: Matthew
Join Date: February 14, 2014
Location: California, USA
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
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).

Matthew - 18 - 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 01:00 PM.
maddogmj77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2017, 09:45 AM   #27
Living For Love
Live To Tell
 
Living For Love's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: August 22, 2013
Age: 21
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 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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
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...

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
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 would simply stop to exist.


Retired H&A Moderator

~Mike was here~

Last edited by Living For Love; September 8th, 2017 at 09:49 AM.
Living For Love is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2017, 09:51 AM   #28
maddogmj77
Nice Poster
 
maddogmj77's Forum Picture
 
Name: Matthew
Join Date: February 14, 2014
Location: California, USA
Age: 18
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
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
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.

Matthew - 18 - 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 09:55 AM.
maddogmj77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2017, 10:04 AM   #29
Vlerchan
unadulteratedReason
 
Vlerchan's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: August 31, 2013
Location: Ireland
Age: 22
Gender: Cisgender Male
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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?

".... 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, 10:44 AM   #30
Living For Love
Live To Tell
 
Living For Love's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: August 22, 2013
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
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?


Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
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?


Retired H&A Moderator

~Mike was here~
Living For Love is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2017, 11:43 AM   #31
maddogmj77
Nice Poster
 
maddogmj77's Forum Picture
 
Name: Matthew
Join Date: February 14, 2014
Location: California, USA
Age: 18
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 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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
You support discrimination against non-kids in amusement parks?
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."

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
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.

Matthew - 18 - 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 11:53 AM.
maddogmj77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2017, 11:54 AM   #32
mattsmith48
VT Voice of reason
 
Name: matt
Join Date: March 8, 2014
Location: canada
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

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.

Straight Canadian boy
feel free to pm me will talk about anything
mattsmith48 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2017, 12:08 PM   #33
maddogmj77
Nice Poster
 
maddogmj77's Forum Picture
 
Name: Matthew
Join Date: February 14, 2014
Location: California, USA
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsmith48 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsmith48 View Post
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)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsmith48 View Post
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.

Matthew - 18 - 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, 12:16 PM   #34
Living For Love
Live To Tell
 
Living For Love's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: August 22, 2013
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
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_...s_Constitution

Quote:
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-decla...-human-rights/

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
So to both of you: Should private businesses be allowed to discriminate, yes or no.
Yes, in case this wasn't obvious by now.


Retired H&A Moderator

~Mike was here~
Living For Love is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2017, 12:32 PM   #35
maddogmj77
Nice Poster
 
maddogmj77's Forum Picture
 
Name: Matthew
Join Date: February 14, 2014
Location: California, USA
Age: 18
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
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.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
There is, the right to freedom of association that has been mentioned in this thread.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_...s_Constitution


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

http://www.un.org/en/universal-decla...-human-rights/
Yes, but do you actually know what Freedom of Association does or protects?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_...s_Constitution

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
Yes, in case this wasn't obvious by now.
And I disagree for all the reasons I've mentioned so far.

Matthew - 18 - 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 12:35 PM.
maddogmj77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2017, 12:59 PM   #36
Vlerchan
unadulteratedReason
 
Vlerchan's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: August 31, 2013
Location: Ireland
Age: 22
Gender: Cisgender Male
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

".... 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 01:06 PM.
Vlerchan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2017, 01:11 PM   #37
maddogmj77
Nice Poster
 
maddogmj77's Forum Picture
 
Name: Matthew
Join Date: February 14, 2014
Location: California, USA
Age: 18
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 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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
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 is? I don't think it means what you think it means.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
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", which doesn't exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
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.

Matthew - 18 - 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 01:15 PM.
maddogmj77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2017, 01:32 PM   #38
Vlerchan
unadulteratedReason
 
Vlerchan's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: August 31, 2013
Location: Ireland
Age: 22
Gender: Cisgender Male
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

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

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

".... 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 01:36 PM.
Vlerchan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2017, 01:33 PM   #39
Living For Love
Live To Tell
 
Living For Love's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: August 22, 2013
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
Any case in which there is a valid safety concern (pedophilia, felons)
https://www.channel4.com/news/factch...s-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 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 - skip to page 11).



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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
time constrictions
What do you mean by time constrictions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
Yes, but do you actually know what Freedom of Association 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.


Retired H&A Moderator

~Mike was here~
Living For Love is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8th, 2017, 09:40 PM   #40
Dalcourt
VT Lover
 
Dalcourt's Forum Picture
 
Name: Peanut
Join Date: February 25, 2014
Location: Crescent City
Gender: Neutral
Blog Entries: 4
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

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.
Dalcourt 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 06:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright©2000 - 2018
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2018, VirtualTeen.org