Leave us alone

[Youkilledkenny]

Big proponent here of 'live and let live'. So long as your actions don't directly impact me & my family in a negative way, I don't much care how you live your life.
If you want to talk to burning bushes, have at it.
If you want to shop only on Sunday, go for it.
Mary and Beth that lives on the other side of the country wants to get married? Better you than me so enjoy.
Want to smoke 172 packs of cigs a day? Gross but ok - just don't blow the smoke on me.
If you wasn't to stand on your roof on one leg in a purple dress waiting for the cashmul equinox knock yourself out.
Why is it that Christians find the need to make society that we all share (muslim, jew, agnostic, atheists, satanists, scientologists, worshippers of the blood diamond - whatever) try to fit their paradigm?
Is it arrogance in thinking your way is the only right way?
Are you trying to make the world a 'better place'?
Do you just like forcing your beliefs on others thinking it will but you into God's good graces and eventually heaven?
Or are you hiding behind a belief in order to be a jerk?

Why can't you, the Christian, live and answer for your life while allowing everyone else to do the same?
What makes your life and belief so special that it supersedes everyone else's?

[shnarkle]

Or a Jew who lost her family in the holocaust being forced to serve a Nazi who worked the gas chambers.

Or a PETA supporter being forced to serve someone who experiments on dogs.

Or a homosexual being forced to serve a gay-bashing homophobe.

You are arguing for discrimination. How does discrimination benefit our society? I must be missing something.

Yep. Allowing discrimination allows freedom. I'm not saying that I would personally discriminate based on race, gender, or sexual orientation because their money is still green. Forcing people, regardless of how stupid it might be; to work against their will is wrong; we used to recognized it as slavery.

If Walmart enacted a policy about not allowing in Christians, would you be OK with such a thing? I wouldn't personally.

I would not have a problem with that.

While it may not be the best business practice to turn away customers, people shouldn't be forced to work against their will.

Can you provide a realistic scenario where someone is working against their will?

One was already provided, the baker being forced to bake a cake or lose $250k. That is a prohibitive cost of doing business.

I thought it was a bit ironic when Indiana made their laws upholding the federal statute when some big businesses threatened to leave the state. These big businesses were free to leave, and could refuse to do business in an entire state if laws didn't force people to work against their will. I still wonder why no one was able to see the double standard.

I don't know what you are referring to here. Sorry.

It was the religious freedom bill which really didn't go far enough in that it only allowed those with some religious affiliation to discriminate. This is just creating yet another protected class. The bill should have just allowed anyone to discriminate against anyone else for any reason. A better option would be to just repeal all the legislation that forces people to work against their will, and prevents others from working for those who are being discriminated against.

[shnarkle]

.
Is it okay / acceptable in your (generic term) value system for a public business to deny service to people based upon them being:

Afro-Americans
Jews
Italians
Heterosexuals
Asians
Arabs
People in non-standard (but not indecent) clothing
People with long hair
Canadians
Short people
Conservatives (or Liberals)
Caucasian
Bald (or bearded)

Imagine going into a hardware store and being denied purchase of a screwdriver (or a hamburger at a restaurant) because you are a short, bald, Caucasian, Jew.

I wouldn't have a problem with it if deregulation occurred along with it. A person operating their own private business should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. As long as there are no government regulations preventing others from entering the economy and providing their competing services, I don't see a problem.

[bluethread]

The current case in Oregon is one. They are being fined $250,000 for NOT serving cake at a wedding.

I'm not really up to speed on this case. Given the facts you've stated so far, am I safe in assuming that this baker is no longer in business? My suspicion is that there is a gay couple that is $250k richer, and a neighborhood that no longer is able to purchase their cakes from that establishment anymore. So the gay couple comes out with a lot of money while the bakers lose their business, and the community loses a bakery. If the community had decided to take their business elsewhere because they didn't like this bakery refusing to serve certain customers, that wouldn't bother me much, but when two people put an enterprise out of business by themselves, this seems like a modern day Greek tragedy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/0 ... 18540.html

I sited a left leaning publication so detractors could not claim "fake news". The article says $135,000. I seem to recall the lawyer on Tucker Carlson saying $250,000. Maybe he is including legal fees. None the less, it is draconian and all they could say was that it was not about refusing to sell them a product, but refusing to take part in the festivities, because the judge has placed a gag order on them. The case is still pending and the lawyer said that he is pretty certain that regardless of the verdict this will probably be appealed all the way to the Supreme court. Congress needs to confirm Neil Gorsuch and others like him, and put this silliness to an end. :2gun: VIVA SCALIA :2gun:

[Bust Nak]

It show favoritism to high wage industries. Government interference in the negotiating process artificially raises the cost of certain goods and services, pricing them out of the market.

Don't see how. I could imagine that giving a higher wage to your family as employer would be a violation of the arm's length principle. Why is the mere fact that Government interference in the negotiating process artificially raises the cost of certain goods and services, pricing some out of the market, as violation of the arm's length principle? High wage industries also have to pay the minimum wage, just like any other industries.

When it is used to "protect citizens" from other things like business transactions. Equal protection in business transactions undermines the market principles of risk and reward.

How? Now a company will have to factor potentially higher wages into their risk. Same principle is still in play.

I was acknowledging that they may have been refusing to sell as opposed to refusing additional services, as in the Oregon case.

What additional services? The Oregon Bakery got done for refusing to sell, just like the case I linked to.

Now, since we are looking at the nature of the law, I am not saying that mandated sales are always discriminatory. My point is that the government does mandate discrimination in some cases and sells it as "protecting its citizens". Therefore, the government "protecting its citizens" does not mean stopping all discrimination.

Okay, but are you saying the government stopping discrimination is a good thing or a bad thing? If it is a good thing then why are we having this conversation?

Yes, but the opposite is not an absolute either. The question is why, in this case, is it necessary for the government to "protect its citizens"?

Because the market is slow to act, the minority in question is very unpopular with the majority (or is it just a plurality?)

Sorry, that is a platitude, not an argument. Name me a monopoly and I'll tell you how the government is causing it.

Microsoft?

Yep. Allowing discrimination allows freedom. I'm not saying that I would personally discriminate based on race, gender, or sexual orientation because their money is still green. Forcing people, regardless of how stupid it might be; to work against their will is wrong; we used to recognized it as slavery.

Slaves are not paid.

I would not have a problem with [Walmart banning Christians].

That's easy to say when you are still the majority. Again I point out "whites only" was still a thing not so long ago. It took the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and enforcement there of) to get rid of it.

[Kenisaw]

Yep. Allowing discrimination allows freedom. I'm not saying that I would personally discriminate based on race, gender, or sexual orientation because their money is still green. Forcing people, regardless of how stupid it might be; to work against their will is wrong; we used to recognized it as slavery.

I'd like to piggy back off this a little and bring up a point that is probably obvious to everyone, but worth noting anyway:

You can't legislate people into thinking a certain way.

Do I think it is right for someone to refuse business to a gay man just because they are gay? No. And I wouldn't frequent their establishment ever because of it. But I have no right to tell another American how to think. If someone is violating the rights of another, that is unacceptable. How is NOT selling a cake to someone a violation of their rights? I can't see how it is. If that is the only bakery in town, go to a different town. Or open up your own bakery business. Or protest outside that bakery until no one wants to go in there, and put them out of business.

The government needs to get out of the business of telling everyone how to think, and what is OK to think. Not their job.

[tam]

Peace to you all,


So... I am not American. I do not know the law of your country regarding these issues.


But it seems to me that all you have to do is replace gay with black (or with Muslim, or Jew, or unbeliever, or atheist, or wiccan, or Hindu, etc - or "interracial" in the case of wedding cakes for an "interracial" couple) and then see where you stand on the issue.





Peace again!

[Clownboat]

No, it is assault in either case. If you rare referring to a miniature piano, that is disingenuous, because your point was that harm is done.

You can drop this. You succeeded in avoiding addressing my point about how you were changing the purpose of the cross in your analogy. I trust the readers acknowledge this.

I'm not sure what you mean. If I sell cakes to straight people, is it not discrimination to refuse to sell cakes to let's say black people?

Yes, but would one call that a "black" cake?

No, now please stop referring to cakes that would be eaten at a gay wedding as 'gay cakes'. A cake is a cake no matter the wedding. Which is the point here. A bakery that is willing to sell a cake for a straight wedding should not be allowed to discriminate and not sell a cake to a black couple, whether gay or straight.

The fact is that no one is refusing to sell cakes to anyone.

Except for the bakeries that will sell a cake to a straight couple but not a gay couple.

I just saw an interview on this last night. All they were doing is refusing to be involved in the festivities. That said, I am not arguing that it is not discrimination. I am arguing that it is acceptable discrimination. Not all discrimination is wrong.

Would it benefit or not benefit society if I opened a drug store, but was only willing to sell my goods to white people? Would you argue that I should be allowed to openly discriminate like that? Should I be able to put a sign up saying 'whites only'? How about if I opened a bus company, would you really argue that I should be able to only reserve a few seats in the back for minorities, or not allow minorities at all to get on? 'Whites only public transportation perhaps'?

If it is not right to refuse sale or service based on the legal intended use of the purchaser, then it does not matter what that use is.

Correct, we are dealing with discrimination. You are the one that brought up a crucifix for a sex act. That was my point for bringing up the piano, to illustrate how you changed this from being about discrimination.

Using a crucifix in a sex act is not illegal. However, a vendor refusing to sell one to someone who says that is the intended use is discrimination. According to the definition Bust Nak provided, it would be illegal discrimination. Do you think it should be illegal to refuse such a sale?

Knowing the purpose of an item is not necessary in order to make a sale. Do you want the government involved now with our day to day purchases? You want this pineapple? Please fill out this form so we can know what you will be using it for.
Discrimination is bad, just like how opening an atheist only drug store would be. Or a whites only, etc...

Only certain types of discrimination are illegal now.

Nice try, but you miss the point. All races, religions, and sexes are equally being discriminated against when it comes to needing a background check. Which means they are not being discriminated against. What you seem to be arguing for is to allow a straight person with a background check to buy a gun, but not a gay or a minority even if they have a background check.

The question is not whether or not it is discrimination. The question is whether it should be legal or illegal.

Stop asking bad questions. Not selling cigarettes to all people under 18 years of age is not discrimination. All races, religions and sexes under 18 yrs of age are being treated equally.

What you are arguing for would be to allow a gas station to refuse to cell cigarettes to gays that are over 18 yrs of age. No... If you sell cigs to people over 18, you sell cigs to all people over 18.

[Clownboat]

Well, our government seems to think that discrimination benefits our society. There are several laws mandating discrimination.

Not what I asked. I am asking you how discrimination benefits our society.

If Walmart had a policy that it would not sell to Christians, I would seriously consider investing in a store that did sell the Christians. There is a buying opportunity.

Again, not what I asked. I asked if you would be OK with Walmart for example decided it didn't want to sell to Christians.

Can you provide a realistic scenario where someone is working against their will?

The current case in Oregon is one. They are being fined $250,000 for NOT serving cake at a wedding.

Fail. These people are not working against their will. They are being penalized for discrimination against one specific group of humans.

If someone paints houses, are they being 'forced to work' if they cannot discriminate against painting the home of a black man?

How does discrimination benefit our society?

[bluethread]

It show favoritism to high wage industries. Government interference in the negotiating process artificially raises the cost of certain goods and services, pricing them out of the market.

Don't see how. I could imagine that giving a higher wage to your family as employer would be a violation of the arm's length principle. Why is the mere fact that Government interference in the negotiating process artificially raises the cost of certain goods and services, pricing some out of the market, as violation of the arm's length principle? High wage industries also have to pay the minimum wage, just like any other industries.

High wage industries are already paying a wage in excess of the mandated minimum, so there is little or no effect. Low wage industries are forced to restructure their cost models or, if that is not possible, go out of business.

When it is used to "protect citizens" from other things like business transactions. Equal protection in business transactions undermines the market principles of risk and reward.

How? Now a company will have to factor potentially higher wages into their risk. Same principle is still in play.

The employee receives greater reward with no increase in risk, except the increased risk of loss of employment, because of the employer going out of business.

I was acknowledging that they may have been refusing to sell as opposed to refusing additional services, as in the Oregon case.

What additional services? The Oregon Bakery got done for refusing to sell, just like the case I linked to.

Not according to bakery owners. They said they did not refuse to sell the products. In fact, these were frequent customers. Those customers just decided to require the vendor to take part in the festivities in some way we can not know about, because the judge put a gag order on the bakery owners. So much for customer loyalty.

Now, since we are looking at the nature of the law, I am not saying that mandated sales are always discriminatory. My point is that the government does mandate discrimination in some cases and sells it as "protecting its citizens". Therefore, the government "protecting its citizens" does not mean stopping all discrimination.

Okay, but are you saying the government stopping discrimination is a good thing or a bad thing? If it is a good thing then why are we having this conversation?

If stopping discrimination is a good thing, then the government should not be engaging in it. I am not arguing that all discrimination is good. I am arguing that not all discrimination is bad, and even bad discrimination is not necessarily best dealt with through government mandate. In fact, I am hard pressed to think of any discrimination that is best dealt with through government mandate.

Yes, but the opposite is not an absolute either. The question is why, in this case, is it necessary for the government to "protect its citizens"?

Because the market is slow to act, the minority in question is very unpopular with the majority (or is it just a plurality?)

So, there are no bakeries that will take part in a gay wedding and there is no one who is willing to get into that business? Really?

Sorry, that is a platitude, not an argument. Name me a monopoly and I'll tell you how the government is causing it.

Microsoft?

Microsoft is not and never has been a monopoly. There have been other operating systems on the market, most notably Apple and Lexus, not counting the myriad of specialized operating systems for specific industries. In fact, Amazon is gaining ground in the operating system market. There was a problem when the Microsoft operating system division was working hand in hand with the software development division. However, this was determined by the Supreme court to be a violation of anti trust laws, and open access laws were put in place. That said, even then, Microsoft did not have a software monopoly, they only had a market advantage.

[Clownboat]

You are arguing for discrimination. How does discrimination benefit our society? I must be missing something.

Yep. Allowing discrimination allows freedom.

I find this silly. You see, if we allow people to murder others, we are allowing more freedoms by your logic.
Either way, I asked how discrimination benefits society. I reject the freedom angle, because it also applies to things like murder, so do you have any real examples? Something that might make me see the beauty in discriminating against certain groups of individuals?

Forcing people, regardless of how stupid it might be; to work against their will is wrong; we used to recognized it as slavery.

Please connect the dots for me. How is not allowing a business to discriminate against a group of humans equivalent of making them work against their will, much less slavery? I think actual slaves would find this comment insulting.

If Walmart enacted a policy about not allowing in Christians, would you be OK with such a thing? I wouldn't personally.

I would not have a problem with that.

Why? I find the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different groups of people abhorrent. Why are you OK with treating a group unjustly or with prejudice? What do you think Jesus would say about you as compared to me in this matter?

Can you provide a realistic scenario where someone is working against their will?

One was already provided, the baker being forced to bake a cake or lose $250k. That is a prohibitive cost of doing business.

Fail. You failed to provide a scenario where someone had to work against their will. You provided a scenario where someone wasn't able to discriminate. I don't see the beauty in discrimination. Please tell me what you find so great about treating our fellow humans differently depending on their race, age, religion, etc... I'm just not seeing it.

It was the religious freedom bill which really didn't go far enough in that it only allowed those with some religious affiliation to discriminate. This is just creating yet another protected class. The bill should have just allowed anyone to discriminate against anyone else for any reason. A better option would be to just repeal all the legislation that forces people to work against their will, and prevents others from working for those who are being discriminated against.

I ask the readers to read this twice and I would like to remind them that this person is a follower of Christ. You will know them by their fruits.

He has also, as of yet failed to show that anyone is a slave and being force to work against their will. Why? Perhaps he has no logical argument, so he must try emotion?