Virtual Teen Forums
 

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 9th, 2017, 05:57 AM   #41
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 Dalcourt View Post
This whole thread is an interesting read...it's especially interesting to see how a thread that originally was about discrimination against gay people shifted to discuss Muslims and especially blacks and even promoting a new racial segregation. I used to be accused to be "obsessed with race issues" by people on here just because of the color of my skin. Therefore it is really interesting to see how white people make things a race issues when it was simply a sexual orientation issue.
Actually, the OP had already mentioned Muslims in his first post, and he was also the first one to come up with the racial segregation example in the 40s. I just followed up those examples. And I also didn't know you were black.

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


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

Help and Advice Moderator

~Mike was here~

Last edited by Living For Love; September 9th, 2017 at 06:07 AM.
Living For Love is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2017, 07:46 AM   #42
Dalcourt
VT Lover
 
Dalcourt's Forum Picture
 
Name: Peanut
Join Date: February 25, 2014
Location: Crescent City
Gender: Male
Blog Entries: 4
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
Actually, the OP had already mentioned Muslims in his first post, and he was also the first one to come up with the racial segregation example in the 40s. I just followed up those examples. And I also didn't know you were black.


Right, but still, the reason I refuse to bake the cake can be completely independent of my religion. I'm not sure why people think that just because I have a religion, all my opinions, stances and perspectives must be derived from it, or in some way related to it.
Why do you feel so attacked? I referred to the whole discussion not to you.
It's not relevant if you knew about my skin color or not I just generally stated that white people seem to be as, or even more obsessed with race issues than colored people are. Nevertheless they always accuse the coloreds of this matter.

I don't know what you do out of religious or other beliefs but the OP posted this article where it is said that this baker refused out of religious motifs. And I stated that I as a Christian learned different than to judge people like that.
Dalcourt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2017, 12:32 PM   #43
lliam
Awesome Poster
 
lliam's Forum Picture
 
Name: Liam
Join Date: July 29, 2015
Location: South-Hesse, Germany
Age: 17
Gender: Male
Blog Entries: 7
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

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


And I can choose my target group. eg:


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


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


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


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


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


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


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




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





"Life is that prison you'll never leave alive."



Likes: (1)
lliam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2017, 01:21 PM   #44
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
One store discriminating does not have a material effect on the victims of that discrimination.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
This suggests that you believe that the anti discrimination act was introduced because business leaders wanted it to be introduced.

Do you genuinely believe that the will of the electorate has no impact on policy selection?
Fair point. But I have a graph to show you that says public opinion makes almost no difference on what Congress decides to pass.

The bottom 90% of people according to wealth have had absolutely no effect on Congress in the past 20 years. Only what the top 10% want matters.
Corruption is legal in America

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
2. From your link:
Freedom of association encompasses both an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, and the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members.
In this instance the group is the business and the interest is the non-endorsement of same-sex marriage through the production of a product equivalent of that extended to opposite-sex couples.
From my link: "Freedom of association is manifested through the right to join a trade union, to engage in free speech or to participate in debating societies, political parties, or any other club or association, including religious denominations and organizations, fraternities, and sport clubs."

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

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
This is equivalent to claiming its a safety concern for heterosexual men to work alongside women.

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

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
Suspending their license under what law?
Under current Anti-Discrimination laws that already exist, and for the possible new ones to include sexual orientation & gender identity.

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

image

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

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

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
What do you mean by time constrictions?
You're unable to do something because the store is closing? I don't know, that seems pretty niche. The other ones are more relevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
Does IQ count here? Like, a company refusing to hire people below a certain IQ score? Or are you talking about physical handicap?
If someone is unable to do the job you are hiring them to do, it's completely logical to not hire them.

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by lliam View Post
There may be anti-discrimination laws.
But when I run a business, I'm not forced to sell my stuff to everyone.


And I can choose my target group. eg:


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


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


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


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


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


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


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




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

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

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 9th, 2017 at 04:26 PM.
maddogmj77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2017, 03:19 PM   #45
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
You really think stores discriminating will have absolutely no effect on those who are discriminate? That is absurd. The discriminated will have to travel further and/or spend more.
It happened to black people in the 40's. It just happened to this gay couple trying to get a wedding cake.
If there are 1000 clothes shops in New York City and only one of them refuses to serve black people, how exactly will black people feel the effect of discrimination?

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
Fair point. But I have a graph to show you that says public opinion makes almost no difference on what Congress decides to pass.
The bottom 90% of people according to wealth have had absolutely no effect on Congress in the past 40 years. Only what the top 10% wants matters.
Corruption is legal in America

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
No, they will end up having to travel further, and spend more. Just like I said above.
But imagine if in NYC there are 100 clothes shops and only one of them refuses to serve black people, and that store is right next to another better store which serves any kind of people. What difference does it make?

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
Yes. Working as an employee is different than just purchasing goods/service from that business.
By working for them you agree to the rules and regulations that they set.
It's not discrimination either. There's a legitimate concern of safety (safety boots, long-pants, hard-hats). It also helps with recognition & consistency, to make sure that a customer doesn't mistake some random person as an actual worker.
In my restaurant, you can only be hired if you wear this uniform and if you are heterosexual. Is this ok to you?

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
No, unless they are a convicted felon of murder, rape, etc. there is no safety concern and it's just discrimination.
I would like to point out though, that White & Black juveniles do drugs at almost exactly the same rate. But Black juveniles are 2x more likely to get arrested. It's not that they do more crime, it's that they get arrested more.
What if he's only a suspect? What if a man decides to get a job in a restaurant but members of his family swear he's a paedophile, although no evidence has yet be found by authorities?

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
No, personal experiences do not count.
Why not?


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

Help and Advice Moderator

~Mike was here~

Last edited by Living For Love; September 9th, 2017 at 03:23 PM.
Living For Love is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2017, 03:49 PM   #46
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
If there are 1000 clothes shops in New York City and only one of them refuses to serve black people, how exactly will black people feel the effect of discrimination?
If there's one cake store for a hundred miles around in Kentucky, and a gay couple is refused service, where do they go?

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

Even ONE store is too much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
I know this is not related to the debate, but who are the elites exactly? Who are the lobbies?
The Elites in that graph, are the top 10% according to wealth. (The top 10% wealthiest Americans)

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

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

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

ONE store is too much

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
In my restaurant, you can only be hired if you wear this uniform and if you are heterosexual. Is this ok to you?
Uniform is safety, consistency, and recognition (Like I've said). Heterosexual is discrimination.

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

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
Why not?
Because then anyone could claim anything to discriminate against anybody.

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 9th, 2017 at 04:36 PM.
maddogmj77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2017, 03:50 PM   #47
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 really think stores discriminating will have absolutely no effect on those who are discriminate? That is absurd. The discriminated will have to travel further and/or spend more.
It happened to black people in the 40's. It just happened to this gay couple trying to get a wedding cake.
You seem to be forgetting the argument you initially made. It was this.
In a Capitalistic economy, where private businesses are the ONLY way to obtain goods. Private businesses can not be allowed to discriminate; they are restricting other people's means of obtaining goods.
Please note the language I bolded.

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

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

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

Then there's Branham et al. (2016) which used the same data and found that about fifty percent of the proposals which the middle class supported and elites didn't, passed. There was no statistical difference between that and the percent of proposals which elites supported, and the middle class didn't, which passed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

".... 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 9th, 2017, 04:24 PM   #48
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
You seem to be forgetting the argument you initially made. It was this.
In a Capitalistic economy, where private businesses are the ONLY way to obtain goods. Private businesses can not be allowed to discriminate; they are restricting other people's means of obtaining goods.
Please note the language I bolded.

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

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

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

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

ONE store is too much"

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

Then there's Branham et al. (2016) which used the same data and found that about fifty percent of the proposals which the middle class supported and elites didn't, passed. There was no statistical difference between that and the percent of proposals which elites supported, and the middle class didn't, which passed.

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

It's not media, it's an actual study done by Princeton University.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, I call bullshit that you were just talking about the "philosophical freedom of association". Here's a quote from you:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
"2. From your link:
Freedom of association encompasses both an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, and the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members.
In this instance the group is the business and the interest is the non-endorsenent of same-sex marriage through the production of a product equivalent of that extended to opposite-sex couples."
You were talking about Freedom of Association as stated in the First Amendment. Not the "philosophical freedom of association" like you are claiming now.

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

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
Lol. Don't tell me you don't disagree with any point in the history of your nation's jurisprudence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
In my the office I work in, we dress business casual. That is neither for safety reasons or so we aren't mistaken for some random person - we aren't client facing.

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
So if the peadophile doesn't have a criminal record, the school should be forced to let them work with children?

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

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

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

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 9th, 2017 at 04:56 PM.
maddogmj77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2017, 04:56 PM   #49
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
If there's one cake store for a hundred miles around in Kentucky, and a gay couple is refused service, where do they go?

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
The Elites in that graph, are the top 10% according to wealth. (The top 10% wealthiest Americans)

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
Uniform is safety, consistency, and recognition (Like I've said). Heterosexual is discrimination.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
Because then anyone could claim anything to discriminate against anybody.
And wouldn't that be fair? If all Muslim clients insulted you at your restaurant after you've served them, isn't that a "clear logical argument which can be shown and demonstrated" in favour of refusing to serve any more Muslims?

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
People will be effected, it is ridiculous to say that not one single person will be effected in some way.
Do you think the fact that one people is discriminated is enough to strip millions of employers of their right not to employ someone?

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
No, I don't believe it's moral.
So, why is it okay not to hire a convicted paedophile but it's not okay not to hire a convicted marijuana possessor?


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

Help and Advice Moderator

~Mike was here~
Living For Love is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2017, 05:18 PM   #50
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:
I will repeat my argument that I have just made to the other person, as I believe you missed it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But a small minority holding an abhorrent opinion is no reason to terminate the entire community's right to free association.
You're nevertheless dodging the point I made, it's that these sort of protections are only significant when there is limited discrimination. It lets whites/straights/whoever feel good about themselves and avoids the sort of battles which actually need to happen: in the case of discrimination of homosexual people, letting straight people pretend it's all hunky-dorey because they passed some basic legislation, as will actually happen, is terrible strategy-wise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please see Agan (2016).

Do you think it should be illegal?

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Nice debating with you, anyways.

Otherwise, see you next year, ROTW.

".... 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 9th, 2017 at 05:28 PM.
Vlerchan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2017, 05:23 PM   #51
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
So is the location of the store relevant, in your opinion? If a store that discriminates is right next to another store that doesn't discriminate, would it be fine?
No, it's not okay, like I've said for the 10th time.

ONE store is too much

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

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

It also has to do with how our voting system is organized to make 2-party systems inevitable.
First-Past the Post voting system

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
So, why is it okay not to hire a convicted pedophile but it's not okay not to hire a convicted marijuana possessor?
It's okay to not hire the convicted pedophile because they present a safety concern.

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

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 9th, 2017, 06:00 PM   #52
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 they spend millions of dollars running ads on TV & social media, rallying both sides against each other. Slandering, mud-slinging, building hope for one candidate, and disdain for the other.
Lobbyists own the Democrats & Republicans.

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
No, you agree to wear their uniform when deciding to work for them.
Goths can change clothes.
Heterosexual men can't stop being heterosexual man.
We've already been through this argument. It's only discrimination if I can't change the aspect that's causing the discrimination?

Let me rephrase my example, then:

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
It's okay to not hire the convicted pedophile because they present a safety concern.

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


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

Help and Advice Moderator

~Mike was here~
Living For Love is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2017, 06:21 PM   #53
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
Ecommerce will cover almost everything. Where I live you can go to customcakes.ie.
So your argument is that they should just buy online? They don't have a computer, they don't have a credit card. People will be effected.

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
I am aware it's an actual study. I meant to suggest that the results from that study - as the media reported them - are highly overblown.
Except that graph is actually from the study...

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
Please note the claim I made earlier:
There will still be people who still discriminate.

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

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

Well played sir... well played.

It appears your ideology is "morally untenable".

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
Please note that the extract you cited read 'including religious denominations and organizations, fraternities, and sport clubs' which suggests that it is not limited to these bodies.

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
:O

Perhaps I shall rephrase. I am referring to that princepal in terms of its philosophical sense, and not it's current legally-embodied sense.
Nope, I'm calling you on your bullshit (I already added this to my previous response as you were responding).
"Also, I call bullshit that you were just talking about the "philosophical freedom of association". Here's a quote from you:"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
"2. From your link:
Freedom of association encompasses both an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, and the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members.
In this instance the group is the business and the interest is the non-endorsenent of same-sex marriage through the production of a product equivalent of that extended to opposite-sex couples."
"You were talking about Freedom of Association as stated in the First Amendment. Not the "philosophical freedom of association" like you are claiming now."


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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
No, not at all.

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

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
Why should it be discrimination?

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

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

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

Please see Agan (2016).

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlerchan View Post
I asked why you think it's so different and you never gave me an answer. You just re-asserted the claim.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
We've already been through this argument. It's only discrimination if I can't change the aspect that's causing the discrimination?

Let me rephrase my example, then:

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
Why do you think they don't pose a safety concern? If marijuana is illegal in a certain state and if that person is a marijuana possessor, it means that person is breaking the law.
Appeal to authority fallacy.

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

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

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

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 9th, 2017 at 08:16 PM.
maddogmj77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2017, 06:50 PM   #54
lliam
Awesome Poster
 
lliam's Forum Picture
 
Name: Liam
Join Date: July 29, 2015
Location: South-Hesse, Germany
Age: 17
Gender: Male
Blog Entries: 7
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
Sorry, but what you would be doing is illegal. It is Illegal in America to refuse service to someone based on their race, sex, religion, or national origin. (Some states have added sexual orientation & gender identity, but it's not on the federal level yet.)

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

sorry, you didn't get the message.





"Life is that prison you'll never leave alive."



Likes: (1)
lliam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2017, 07:24 PM   #55
BlackParadePixie
Awesome Poster
 
BlackParadePixie's Forum Picture
 
Name: Fiona
Join Date: September 22, 2014
Location: San Diego, CA
Gender: Female
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

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

17 - f - Wes Anderson fan


BlackParadePixie is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2017, 08:09 PM   #56
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 lliam View Post
sorry, you didn't get the message.
Yes, I understood that it was sarcasm, but couldn't quite figure out what your point was I'm dumb XD

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

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

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 9th, 2017 at 08:13 PM.
maddogmj77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 9th, 2017, 08:40 PM   #57
BlackParadePixie
Awesome Poster
 
BlackParadePixie's Forum Picture
 
Name: Fiona
Join Date: September 22, 2014
Location: San Diego, CA
Gender: Female
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

if wishes were horses...

17 - f - Wes Anderson fan


BlackParadePixie is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2017, 05:13 AM   #58
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
Yes, it is, because those people who get discriminated against are effected. (4 hours +$20)
Just because the store refuses to serve someone doesn't mean that person is forced to drive somewhere else in search of that product.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
It should be discrimination because people who identify as a different gender will be forced to wear clothes that go completely against their gender, when it is very easy to let them wear the other uniform.
But discriminating against goths is fine?

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
Uniform is for safety, upholding an image, consistency, and recognition. It's also a very easy thing to do.

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

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7489596.html

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

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


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

Help and Advice Moderator

~Mike was here~
Living For Love is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2017, 07:14 AM   #59
lliam
Awesome Poster
 
lliam's Forum Picture
 
Name: Liam
Join Date: July 29, 2015
Location: South-Hesse, Germany
Age: 17
Gender: Male
Blog Entries: 7
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
I'm dumb XD

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





"Life is that prison you'll never leave alive."



Likes: (1)
lliam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 10th, 2017, 03:39 PM   #60
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
Just because the store refuses to serve someone doesn't mean that person is forced to drive somewhere else in search of that product.
[Edited: Don't know how I completely misread what you put]
So then they are unable to obtain their product, great. That could be food, clothes, a hotel room, a house.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
Also, what if in my restaurant I refuse to serve gay people and there aren't any gay people in a 1,000,000 mile radius? Is it okay?
No. Like I have said for the 5th time.

One store is too much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
But discriminating against goths is fine?
This is clothing.
Not a characteristic like being Transgender or another gender.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
Check this link:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7489596.html

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

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

You can ask someone to change their clothes.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

His Campaign Contributions look like this:
  • 00.66% Small Individual Contributions
  • 29.54% Large Individual Contributions
  • 56.27% PAC Contributions
  • 13.53% Other/Unkown

He's received money from Industries like:
  • Defense Aerospace manufacturers (Benefits from war)
  • Oil & Gas Companies (Benefits From Destroying Regulations)
  • Railroad Companies (Benefits From Passing Their Laws & Permits)
  • Real Estate (Benefits From Passing Their Laws & Permits)
  • Lawyers/Law firms (Benefits From Sending People To Court)
  • Commercial Banks (Benefits From Passing Their Laws; Corporate Welfare)
Money from Contributors like:
  • Balch & Bingham (Law Firm)
  • Bradley, Arant (Law Firm)
  • BGR Group (Lobbyists)
  • American Bankers Association (Bank lobbyists)
  • Southern Co. (Natural Gas Company)
  • Koch Industries (Oil Industry Company)
  • Drummond Co (Coal Mining/Products & Real Estate)
  • Lockheed Martin (Aerospace, Defense, Security)
  • Northrop Grumman (Aerospace, Defense, Security)
  • Airbus Group (Aerospace, Defense, Security)
  • BAE Systems (Aerospace, Defense, Security)
  • AFLAC (Insurance Company)
  • HealthSouth Corp (Healthcare Provider)
  • Blue Cross/Blue Shield (Health Insurance)
  • CSX Corp (Real Estate & Railroads)
  • International Paper (Large Global Paper Manufacturer)
  • Vulcan Materials (Construction Company)
  • FedEx Corp (Multinational Postal Service)
  • WPP Group (Multinational Advertising)
  • Honeywell International (Multinational Conglomerate)
  • Harbert Management (Investment Management Company)
The list goes on...and on.

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



But what about someone like Bernie Sanders?


His Campaign Contributions look like this:
  • 82.20% Small individual contributions
  • 15.05% Large Individual Contributions
  • 2.83% PAC Contributions
  • Negative 0.09% other/unknown

Of the very few PAC Contributors he does have, they're organizations like:
  • Teachers' Federation of America (Non-Profit Labor Union)
  • Communication Workers of America (Non-Profit Labor Union)
  • American Postal Workers Union (Non-Profit Labor Union)
  • National Union of Healthcare Workers (Non-Profit Labor Union)
  • Amalgamated Transit Union (Non-Profit Labor Union)
  • UNITE HERE (Non-Profit Labor Union)
  • American Nurses Association (Non-Profit Labor Union)
  • National Association of Letter Carriers (Non-Profit Labor Union)
  • National Air Traffic Controllers Association (Non-Profit Labor Union)
  • American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (Non-Profit Labor Union)
  • Bristol Bay Native Assn (Non-Profit Native Association)
  • Moveon.org (Non-Profit Democratic Activist Organization)
  • Climate Change Champions (Climate Change Prevention)
  • America Works (Employment Agency)
  • Rkb Enterprises (Small Local metal-hinge/sheet-metal making business)
  • University of California
  • Personal friends of Bernie Sanders
And about 15 or so other Non-Profit Labor Unions.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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 11th, 2017 at 12:30 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 03:41 PM.


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