Virtual Teen Forums
 

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 11th, 2017, 10:29 AM   #61
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
Nobody's going to go bankrupt from not serving gay people (a very small minority), but gay people will feel the effect of it.
Ok, just a last question before I leave you in peace, you might feel a bit fed up already of me asking questions to you, but I think this will be the last one. (: Imagine the following scenario:

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

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


Retired H&A Moderator

~Mike was here~
Living For Love is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2017, 02:42 PM   #62
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
Ok, just a last question before I leave you in peace, you might feel a bit fed up already of me asking questions to you, but I think this will be the last one. (: Imagine the following scenario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 11th, 2017 at 03:11 PM.
maddogmj77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2017, 03:05 PM   #63
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
He wouldn't be forced to move to another town. He would be forced to serve everybody.
But by forcing him to serve everybody you're forcing him to change his beliefs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
Nope. Restaurant owner is still a KKK supporter, we're not asking him to change that.
We're simply asking that he doesn't discriminate against non-KKK supporters.
Nope. His belief is that non-KKK supporters are inferior people, and hence he doesn't want to be around them in his restaurant. By forcing him to allow non-KKK supporters, you're forcing him to think "I'm allowing these inferior people in my restaurant, meaning I'm going against my own beliefs by having them socialise with me in my restaurant".

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
If someone has the belief that the Jewish race should be exterminated, should we let them do it?
What if it's someone's belief that Black people should be subservient to White people; should we let them do it?
It's fine if you have that belief. Putting it into practice is a totally different thing.


Retired H&A Moderator

~Mike was here~
Living For Love is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2017, 03:13 PM   #64
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
But by forcing him to serve everybody you're forcing him to change his beliefs.
By not allowing the Nazis exterminate the Jews, you're forcing them to change their beliefs.
By not allowing the KKK to enslave Black people, you're forcing them to change their beliefs.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
It's fine if you have that belief. Putting it into practice is a totally different thing.
Exactly.
The owner has the belief that Non-KKK supporters are inferior. But he's not allowed to act on those beliefs.

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 11th, 2017 at 03:27 PM.
maddogmj77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2017, 03:28 PM   #65
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
And by not allowing the Nazis to exterminate the Jews, you're forcing them to change their beliefs.
Yes, you are, although that's totally understandable and desirable since no one has the right to take another person's life over sharing different opinions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
By not letting Nazis kill Jews, we're making them think "I'm allowing these Jews to live. I'm going against my own beliefs by letting these Jewish people live."
That's correct. But like I said above, that's justifiable. Also, pretty much everything you said in your reply above can also be said so that we're forcing customers to change instead of the owner of the restaurant to change. In bold is what you said, underlined is what I could say as well (in an example where certain customers are denied service).

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

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

Nope. Customers are still gay/non-KKK supporters, we're not asking them to change that
We're simply asking them not to enter in our restaurant.


Because I'm not asking anybody to change their beliefs. I'm not asking the owner to support gay-rights, or support gay marriage.
I'm simply asking the owner to serve everybody, regardless of his discriminatory beliefs.

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


Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
Exactly.
The owner has the belief that Non-KKK supporters are inferior. But he's not allowed to act on those beliefs.
The customer has the belief that by being gay/non-KKK supporter he has the right to enter wherever he wants. But he's not allowed to act on those beliefs.


Retired H&A Moderator

~Mike was here~
Living For Love is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2017, 03:35 PM   #66
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
Yes, you are, although that's totally understandable and desirable since no one has the right to take another person's life over sharing different opinions.
Yes, and not letting private businesses discriminate is totally understandable and desirable since private businesses are the only way anyone can buy goods or services.

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

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

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

Nope. Customers are still gay/non-KKK supporters, we're not asking them to change that
We're simply asking them not to enter in our restaurant.


Because I'm not asking anybody to change their beliefs. I'm not asking the owner to support gay-rights, or support gay marriage.
I'm simply asking the owner to serve everybody, regardless of his discriminatory beliefs.

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

You support business rights.
I support individual rights.


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

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

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 11th, 2017 at 03:44 PM.
maddogmj77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2017, 03:56 PM   #67
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
Yes, and not letting private businesses discriminate is totally understandable and desirable since private businesses are the only way anyone can buy goods or services.
Right. I just don't think that reason is strong enough not to allow discrimination.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
It will be a minor inconvenience to force businesses to serve everybody equally.
It will be detrimental to the people who buy those goods and services.
Not really. I want to avoid employers to have certain beliefs forced upon themselves, you want to avoid customers to have certain beliefs forced upon themselves. The inconvenience is the same, we're just on different sides.


Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
No. The customer has the right (not a belief) as a consumer (not by being gay or non-KKK) to buy from whatever store they want.
[At least that's what I believe]
I totally disagree with this. Customers have the right to offer to pay for a certain product/service. Private companies have the right to offer to sell a certain product/service. It's like a contract that it's being established. Both can and have the right to refuse to participate in such business/trade (the customer refusing to buy, the private company refusing to sell, for whatever reasons).


Retired H&A Moderator

~Mike was here~
Living For Love is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2017, 04:09 PM   #68
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
Right. I just don't think that reason is strong enough not to allow discrimination.
Well I believe it is, and I've provided my reasoning for why I believe so.

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

The inconvenience is not the same
  • If the businesses are forced to sell to everybody, they receive more money, and may be uncomfortable.
  • If the businesses are allowed to discriminate, consumers are wasting time, gas-money, and may be unable to buy food, clothes, houses or other bare necessities.

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

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

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

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 11th, 2017 at 04:13 PM.
maddogmj77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2017, 05:22 PM   #69
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
The employers are not having certain beliefs forced on them anymore than Nazis who aren't allowed to kill Jews.
You can't compare discrimination to mass genocide.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
Nobody's belief is being changed. We're simply asking that for the sake of the free-market, we need people to put down their beliefs.
I know you're referring to private companies, but this sentence could perfectly be used in reference to customers as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
The inconvenience is not the same
If the businesses are forced to sell to everybody, they receive more money, and may be uncomfortable.
It's just as uncomfortable for a gay person to be refused service as it is to FORCE a restaurant owner to serve a gay person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
[*]If the businesses are allowed to discriminate, consumers are wasting time, gas-money, and may be unable to buy food, clothes, houses or other bare necessities.
This is not private companies fault. I'm not responsible for other people's actions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
I believe that people's ability to buy food, clothes, houses & bare necessities, are more important than a business owners' belief or comfort level.
Would you disagree with that?
Yep, totally disagree with that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
When the customer refuses to buy, that makes little difference to the company, just one sale.
When the business refuses to sell, that causes a huge difference for the customer because now they've just wasted time, and gas money coming over there.
What if the store is literally around the corner and they waste only 30 seconds on the trip? They wouldn't even need gas.

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


Retired H&A Moderator

~Mike was here~
Living For Love is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2017, 05:45 PM   #70
Uniquemind
VT Lover
 
Join Date: April 1, 2015
Location: USA
Gender: Other
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

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

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


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


---

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

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

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


So when people claim "you can't choose your orientation" that's a hurtle even the segregation era discrimination didn't have to face.
Uniquemind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11th, 2017, 09:50 PM   #71
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
Me: "Nobody's belief is being changed. We're simply asking that for the sake of the free-market, we need people to put down their beliefs."
LfL: I know you're referring to private companies, but this sentence could perfectly be used in reference to customers as well.
No. Because it's not that simple.

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

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
It's just as uncomfortable for a gay person to be refused service as it is to FORCE a restaurant owner to serve a gay person.
No. This is a completely false equivalence. I'll try to explain it one more time.

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
Yep, totally disagree with that.
So you would let someone go unfed, unclothed, and unhoused, just because you didn't wanna hurt a business owners feelings.
At least I know where you stand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
What if the store is literally around the corner and they waste only 30 seconds on the trip? They wouldn't even need gas.
And what if it's not?! What if it's 4 hours away?
It's never okay.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Living For Love View Post
Also, why are we talking about basic necessities? We could be talking about a Cartier store.
We could be....
We could (and are) also talking about basic necessities. Food, Clothes, Houses, etc..

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uniquemind View Post
The inner lawyer in me now wants to create a law that puts a legal definition to a "belief" that can then carry legal weight and foundation to trigger a legal claim against infringing on "religious freedom".
Hitler used the term "Positive Christianity" in order to sell Nazism.
For Nazis, it was a religious belief that Jews should be exterminated.

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

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

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 12th, 2017 at 05:14 PM.
maddogmj77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2017, 01:27 AM   #72
Uniquemind
VT Lover
 
Join Date: April 1, 2015
Location: USA
Gender: Other
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
No. Because it's not that simple.

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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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


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

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



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

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

"Religious freedoms" shouldn't provide extra rights. You shouldn't get more rights just because you have a religion & have "beliefs"
You should be able to practice your religion in anyway you want without government interference; so long as it doesn't go against currently established laws.
The problem is there are many passages in the bible that say things to the effect that God's laws are above man's law, and when man's law contradicts God's law, God's law is the higher authority.

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

My point is the situation resides in the nuances of these kinda of situations.
Uniquemind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2017, 03:00 PM   #73
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 Uniquemind View Post
The problem is there are many passages in the bible that say things to the effect that God's laws are above man's law, and when man's law contradicts God's law, God's law is the higher authority.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 12th, 2017 at 05:17 PM.
maddogmj77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 12th, 2017, 09:11 PM   #74
Uniquemind
VT Lover
 
Join Date: April 1, 2015
Location: USA
Gender: Other
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

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


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


I personally believe a business itself cannot have religious inspired moralistic views on social issues. A business has no chance of ascending to an afterlife, it's existence is tied to earth-existence economically.
Uniquemind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 20th, 2017, 04:32 AM   #75
Stronk Serb
Kebab Remover
 
Stronk Serb's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: November 3, 2012
Location: Serbia (FYR)
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Blog Entries: 2
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

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

Male/Serb nationalist/Centrist Authoritarian /Straight/Heliphobe
VT's most likely to become president of 2017
VT's leading expert on Slavology and anything Slavic-related, if you have some questions of Slavic nature, just send me a VM or a PM
Likes: (1)
Stronk Serb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 20th, 2017, 07:21 PM   #76
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 Stronk Serb View Post
Okay, why get all pissy about O N E baker not wanting to bake you a cake, find another one? Or just buy the two dudes/gals separately and plant them on the cake yourself?
Because you are making that couple waste time & gas-money by going there. Then if the store refuses to serve them, they're wasting more time and more gas-money to go somewhere else. That second place could cost more, or it may not even exist. You have now left this couple down money, down time, and possibly without a good or service they were looking to buy. (food, clothes, apartment room, house etc.)

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stronk Serb View Post
Besides, if he does not want your money, why FORCE YOUR MONEY INTO HIS HANDS.
Because those people need to buy FOOD, CLOTHES, AN APARTMENT, A HOUSE.

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

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

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

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

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 20th, 2017 at 07:27 PM.
maddogmj77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 22nd, 2017, 05:32 AM   #77
Stronk Serb
Kebab Remover
 
Stronk Serb's Forum Picture
 
Join Date: November 3, 2012
Location: Serbia (FYR)
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Blog Entries: 2
Default Re: Trump Administration & DOJ sides with Cake-baker who refused to make gay wedding

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
Because you are making that couple waste time & gas-money by going there. Then if the store refuses to serve them, they're wasting more time and more gas-money to go somewhere else. That second place could cost more, or it may not even exist. You have now left this couple down money, down time, and possibly without a good or service they were looking to buy. (food, clothes, apartment room, house etc.)
Most of that stuff except things like the cake can be bought without the business knowing you are gay. It's not like gay people go around with the gay symbol on their forehead. Also usually the business has a phone so call in advance to ask?

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
Because it is in the interest of the consumer to be able to buy goods and services from any private business. You are restricting their ability to buy food, clothes etc., simply because they are an oppressed minority.
Like I said, the gay detector has not been invented yet. If you didn't tell me you were gay, I never would guess it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
So you would kill people who make an opinion statement about a country or it's people? Well now we can jail you for that.
But it's still in the interest of the consumer to not restrict their ability to buy from any given business.
No, but if I was forced to cater to their needs of making a statement which would make me uncomfortable as a Serb, I would resist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
Because those people need to buy FOOD, CLOTHES, AN APARTMENT, A HOUSE.
The homo detector has not been invented yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
That is an irrational belief. We can't let people act on such irrational beliefs.
Nazis have the irrational belief that the Jewish race should be exterminated for the greater good. We don't let them do that in the interests of the Jewish people & human life.
We don't let store owners discriminate in the interest of the consumers.
You don't get it. I absolutely don't care that someone denies me service. I was denied service several times, and never I complained, I always went to the competing business to satisfy my consumer needs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
It isn't just the business owner who's effected. You're completely disregarding the person who just got refused service. They are down time, down money, and now possibly unable to buy a bare necessity such as food, clothes, a house etc. All because they are part of an oppressed minority
The homo detector has not been invented yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
Maybe. But if this happened out in a rural area, where most discrimination takes place. The next store could be 100 miles away. That oppressed minority is going to have nowhere to go to now.
You think? Rural areas are sometimes poor ones too. Someone will do it because he lacks money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maddogmj77 View Post
No other business is going to be interested in setting up shop in the middle of nowhere, with an already established competition.
Well, if the competition buries it self with things like these, another business will take it's place.

Male/Serb nationalist/Centrist Authoritarian /Straight/Heliphobe
VT's most likely to become president of 2017
VT's leading expert on Slavology and anything Slavic-related, if you have some questions of Slavic nature, just send me a VM or a PM
Stronk Serb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 22nd, 2017, 06:49 AM   #78
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 Stronk Serb View Post
Most of that stuff except things like the cake can be bought without the business knowing you are gay. It's not like gay people go around with the gay symbol on their forehead.

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

The homo detector has not been invented yet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stronk Serb View Post
You think? Rural areas are sometimes poor ones too. Someone will do it because he lacks money.

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

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 22nd, 2017 at 07:02 AM.
maddogmj77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 22nd, 2017, 08:07 AM   #79
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
So you're using a hypothetical scenario in which the person is able to phone ahead to ask, and will have another store that will sell to him at the same price, and is the same distance away.
Yes, but in this scennario, would it be acceptable for the store to discriminate?

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

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

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

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

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


Retired H&A Moderator

~Mike was here~
Living For Love is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 22nd, 2017, 10:10 AM   #80
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
Yes, but in this scennario, would it be acceptable for the store to discriminate?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 22nd, 2017 at 10:16 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 12:47 AM.


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