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?

[bluethread]

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.

Well, it provides for specialization, which makes the product or service better suited to the desires of the customer. In the case of the government, it isolates constituents to more precisely direct regulations and subsidies. I do not think that government regulations and subsidies are good thing in general, but discrimination does make them more effective.

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.

Yes, I do like buying and investment opportunities.

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?

They are being penalized for not working against their will. They did not refuse to sell them the products they made. In your example, yes, they are being forced to work, or be subject to fine and/or imprisonment. Also, your example is narrowing the argument to a single factor. The incident in question involves not only that nature of the customer, but the nature and location of the goods and services provided. To be an apples to apples comparison, it would be a pacifist owner of a paint store, being required to paint a Black Panther emblem on the side of a building. Better yet, it is like asking a black paint store owner to paint a KKK emblem on the side of a building.

[Clownboat]

Well, it provides for specialization, which makes the product or service better suited to the desires of the customer. In the case of the government, it isolates constituents to more precisely direct regulations and subsidies. I do not think that government regulations and subsidies are good thing in general, but discrimination does make them more effective.

So you think society would benefit if a bakery for example treated more groups of people unjustly and with prejudice?
What would benefit society more, if McDonalds stopped serving religious people or black people, or both?

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.

Yes, I do like buying and investment opportunities.

I asked if you would be OK if Walmart started to treat Christians for example unjustly and with prejudice. I did not ask if you like buying and investment opportunities. What is the ideal amount of groups that a given company should treat unjustly and with prejudice?

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

They are being penalized for not working against their will. They did not refuse to sell them the products they made. In your example, yes, they are being forced to work, or be subject to fine and/or imprisonment. Also, your example is narrowing the argument to a single factor. The incident in question involves not only that nature of the customer, but the nature and location of the goods and services provided. To be an apples to apples comparison, it would be a pacifist owner of a paint store, being required to paint a Black Panther emblem on the side of a building. Better yet, it is like asking a black paint store owner to paint a KKK emblem on the side of a building.

No. It is not automatically like this.
Is this black, paint store owner willing to paint KKK emblems on the side of a building for black patrons, but not white patrons? I would assume that said store owner will refuse to paint a KKK emblem no matter if its a white guy, black guy or gay guy asking for it. You know, like how we don't allow anyone, no matter what to by cigarettes if they are under 18 yrs of age. It is not discrimination because all groups are being treated equally. There is not one group of under 18 year olds that are being treated unfairly or with prejudice. Same with a black guy that refuses to paint racist emblems for all groups of humans.

[tam]

Is this black, paint store owner willing to paint KKK emblems on the side of a building for black patrons, but not white patrons? I would assume that said store owner will refuse to paint a KKK emblem no matter if its a white guy, black guy or gay guy asking for it. You know, like how we don't allow anyone, no matter what to by cigarettes if they are under 18 yrs of age. It is not discrimination because all groups are being treated equally. There is not one group of under 18 year olds that are being treated unfairly or with prejudice. Same with a black guy that refuses to paint racist emblems for all groups of humans.

I just read an article on this issue that explained this very thing. If anyone is interested in the article:

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the- ... appearance



Peace again!

[bluethread]

Well, it provides for specialization, which makes the product or service better suited to the desires of the customer. In the case of the government, it isolates constituents to more precisely direct regulations and subsidies. I do not think that government regulations and subsidies are good thing in general, but discrimination does make them more effective.

So you think society would benefit if a bakery for example treated more groups of people unjustly and with prejudice?
What would benefit society more, if McDonalds stopped serving religious people or black people, or both?

I don't think it would benefits society at all to require McDonald's to serve me Kosher beef. I also do not require all bakers to make matzah for Pesach, let alone serve it to my family at a Seder. I simply do not believe it is unjust or prejudice for them to refuse to do so.

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.

Yes, I do like buying and investment opportunities.

I asked if you would be OK if Walmart started to treat Christians for example unjustly and with prejudice. I did not ask if you like buying and investment opportunities. What is the ideal amount of groups that a given company should treat unjustly and with prejudice?

I do not think it is unjust for businesses to limit their customer bases. Now, I do think it is helpful to society to have a variety of options. So unless no one is allowed to set up a "Christians Welcome" store next door, I have no problem with that.

No. It is not automatically like this.
Is this black, paint store owner willing to paint KKK emblems on the side of a building for black patrons, but not white patrons? I would assume that said store owner will refuse to paint a KKK emblem no matter if its a white guy, black guy or gay guy asking for it. You know, like how we don't allow anyone, no matter what to by cigarettes if they are under 18 yrs of age. It is not discrimination because all groups are being treated equally. There is not one group of under 18 year olds that are being treated unfairly or with prejudice. Same with a black guy that refuses to paint racist emblems for all groups of humans.

I didn't say it was automatically like that. If we are going to nit pick the analogy, let's be very precise regarding what you think is the case. Presuming these bakers do cater weddings, which we do not know do to the judges gag order, it would be like a painter who is a member of the Black Panther's being required to paint a KKK symbol on the side of a building, simply because he has painted Black Panther symbols on the side of buildings. So, are you really insisting that the KKK start taking Black Panthers who happen to be painters to court because they will not paint KKK symbols on their buildings?

Regarding government age discrimination, yes that is treating people under 18 with prejudice. In fact, that was the argument when the age to vote was 21. Not all 17 year olds are incapable of making adult decisions. However, you are again mixing apples and oranges. We are talking about a vendors right to deny products and/or services, not governments making it illegal to sell. Now, if the government made it illegal for a black painter to paint a white man's house, that is wrong.

[Bust Nak]

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.

Sure, but what makes that a violation of the principle of arm's length?

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.

Doesn't that mean the principle of risk and reward is maintained?

Not according to bakery owners. They said they did not refuse to sell the products. In fact, these were frequent customers.

Right, and that changes when ordered cakes for their marriage. Sounds very much like an open and shut case against the bakery.

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.

Well that's not what is being reported, they were fined for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.

If stopping discrimination is a good thing, then the government should not be engaging in it.

This made no sense, why shouldn't the government be engaging in a good thing? Why shouldn't anyone and everyone be engaging in a good things?

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.

Start from the biggest example - racial discrimination. How is it a bad thing for the government to step in.

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?

I am sure there are many, but there should not be any bakeries that will not "take part" in a gay wedding. If there is not government mandate, it will take that much longer to happen. Just look at how much support Sweet Cakes got from the population.

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.

Right, so the government stepping in here, was that a good thing or a bad thing? What do you think antitrust laws are for, if not to stop monopolies?

That said, even then, Microsoft did not have a software monopoly, they only had a market advantage.

Okay, then what did you have in mind, you mentioned something about buses?

[Clownboat]

So you think society would benefit if a bakery for example treated more groups of people unjustly and with prejudice?
What would benefit society more, if McDonalds stopped serving religious people or black people, or both?

I don't think it would benefits society at all to require McDonald's to serve me Kosher beef.

Why are you here? Why bother posting? No one asked you about McDonald's serving Kosher beef.
Would society benefit more if McDonald's stopped serving religious people or black people, or both? Will you not debate?

I also do not require all bakers to make matzah for Pesach

Once again... why are you here and why bother typing these words? Do you not care about debate? I don't ask you questions so you can then avoid them and then make these strawmen statements that seem quite random in nature.

I do not think it is unjust for businesses to limit their customer bases.

Not what I asked. Gah!!!!!!!!!!!! Again... would you be OK if Walmart started to treat Christians for example unjustly and with prejudice.

Now, I do think it is helpful to society to have a variety of options.

Come back please... come back. You and I are talking about discrimination.

No. It is not automatically like this.
Is this black, paint store owner willing to paint KKK emblems on the side of a building for black patrons, but not white patrons? I would assume that said store owner will refuse to paint a KKK emblem no matter if its a white guy, black guy or gay guy asking for it. You know, like how we don't allow anyone, no matter what to by cigarettes if they are under 18 yrs of age. It is not discrimination because all groups are being treated equally. There is not one group of under 18 year olds that are being treated unfairly or with prejudice. Same with a black guy that refuses to paint racist emblems for all groups of humans.

I didn't say it was automatically like that. If we are going to nit pick the analogy, let's be very precise regarding what you think is the case. Presuming....

No need to presume. If you offer a good or service to our fellow humans, you cannot select a group of humans to then treat unjustly and with prejudice by saying I do "X" for humans, except for the Jewish ones for example.
Nope. I think we need to limit discrimination. You are on record saying it can be a good thing. However, when I ask you how much discrimination should be aimed for, you fail to address the point.

Regarding government age discrimination, yes that is treating people under 18 with prejudice.

I feel you are wrong, but you can show that I am wrong if you can answer this question: Which race, age, or sex of 18 yr olds are being treated unjustly and with prejudice by not allowing all 18 yr olds to all equally not purchase cigarettes?

In fact, that was the argument when the age to vote was 21. Not all 17 year olds are incapable of making adult decisions. However, you are again mixing apples and oranges.

Please don't bring up government age discrimination and then pretend that I brought this up. That is dishonest.

We are talking about a vendors right to deny products and/or services, not governments making it illegal to sell. Now, if the government made it illegal for a black painter to paint a white man's house, that is wrong.

Yes, we agree, that is wrong. I also find treating a group of humans based on race, age, or sex unjustly and with prejudice to be wrong. You seem to disagree and even equate treating certain groups of people unjustly and with prejudice as good for society. Does that mean, the more discrimination, the better? What is the optimal amount of groups to treat unjustly and with prejudice for a given company?

[bluethread]

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.

Sure, but what makes that a violation of the principle of arm's length?

The government is tipping the scales. Is there such a thing as a minimum work law. No, in fact on the other side the government is paying people for doing nothing.

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.

Doesn't that mean the principle of risk and reward is maintained?

No, because the employee has no say in the transaction. It is the government that is putting the employment at risk. If the employee is free to work for less than minimum wage, then that employee is rewarded with income.

Not according to bakery owners. They said they did not refuse to sell the products. In fact, these were frequent customers.

Right, and that changes when ordered cakes for their marriage. Sounds very much like an open and shut case against the bakery.

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.

Well that's not what is being reported, they were fined for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.

On what that reporting based? There is a gag order.

If stopping discrimination is a good thing, then the government should not be engaging in it.

This made no sense, why shouldn't the government be engaging in a good thing? Why shouldn't anyone and everyone be engaging in a good things?

The government should not be engaged in discrimination and they are.

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.

Start from the biggest example - racial discrimination. How is it a bad thing for the government to step in.

I didn't say it was a bad thing. I said it is not the best way of dealing with it. I believe the government should not recognize "race" at all. As Martin Luther King Jr. said, everyone should be judged by the content of one's character, not by the color of one's skin. If one person refuses to sell something to another person, that should be based on the merits of the transaction.

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?

I am sure there are many, but there should not be any bakeries that will not "take part" in a gay wedding. If there is not government mandate, it will take that much longer to happen. Just look at how much support Sweet Cakes got from the population.

So, is everyone required to take part in a gay wedding? Again, that brings us back to the kosher deli being forced to serve pulled pork sandwiches at a voodoo ritual.

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.

Right, so the government stepping in here, was that a good thing or a bad thing? What do you think antitrust laws are for, if not to stop monopolies?

They are not to stop monopolies, they are designed to limit market collusion. If Microsoft were correct and program software was an integral part of the operating system, they would have prevailed. However, the windows operating system can work with a multitude of non-Microsoft software. Like the cake example, Microsoft is not required to provide "gay" software with it's windows operating system. If someone wants "gay" software they can get it some where else or develop it oneself.

That said, even then, Microsoft did not have a software monopoly, they only had a market advantage.

Okay, then what did you have in mind, you mentioned something about buses?

I don't recall saying anything about buses. I think Wootah might have noted that municipal transit systems are not free market entities, so they are constrained by equal access. However, charter buses should be permitted to specialize, if they wish.

[bluethread]

So you think society would benefit if a bakery for example treated more groups of people unjustly and with prejudice?
What would benefit society more, if McDonalds stopped serving religious people or black people, or both?

I don't think it would benefits society at all to require McDonald's to serve me Kosher beef.

Why are you here? Why bother posting? No one asked you about McDonald's serving Kosher beef.
Would society benefit more if McDonald's stopped serving religious people or black people, or both? Will you not debate?

I am providing a specific example of how what you propose would effect me personally and in a way that is related to the wedding cake case, which is what we were talking about. I am debating. You just want to generalize the argument in a way that makes it easier to demagogue. The bakery did not stop providing it's products to those customers. They just refused to alter what they do to cater a particular kind of customer.

I also do not require all bakers to make matzah for Pesach

Once again... why are you here and why bother typing these words? Do you not care about debate? I don't ask you questions so you can then avoid them and then make these strawmen statements that seem quite random in nature.

Well, the issue is making "gay" wedding cakes. How is that different from having to make matzah for Pesach?

I do not think it is unjust for businesses to limit their customer bases.

Not what I asked. Gah!!!!!!!!!!!! Again... would you be OK if Walmart started to treat Christians for example unjustly and with prejudice.

Well, I do not consider refusing service in an open market society to be unjust. So, from a legal prospective, Walmart can refuse to sell to Christians, if they like, as long as someone is allowed to build a "Christians Welcome" store across the street.

Now, I do think it is helpful to society to have a variety of options.

Come back please... come back. You and I are talking about discrimination.

So, am I. Discrimination is what buyers do every day. Do you think boycotts should be outlawed? That is discrimination. Why is the buyer allowed to discriminate and the seller is not?

I didn't say it was automatically like that. If we are going to nit pick the analogy, let's be very precise regarding what you think is the case. Presuming....

No need to presume. If you offer a good or service to our fellow humans, you cannot select a group of humans to then treat unjustly and with prejudice by saying I do "X" for humans, except for the Jewish ones for example.
Nope. I think we need to limit discrimination. You are on record saying it can be a good thing. However, when I ask you how much discrimination should be aimed for, you fail to address the point.

So, what makes something "unjust" or "prejudice". Maybe we should be stick to specifics, referring to something as "unjust" or "prejudice" out of the box.

Regarding government age discrimination, yes that is treating people under 18 with prejudice.

I feel you are wrong, but you can show that I am wrong if you can answer this question: Which race, age, or sex of 18 yr olds are being treated unjustly and with prejudice by not allowing all 18 yr olds to all equally not purchase cigarettes?

In fact, that was the argument when the age to vote was 21. Not all 17 year olds are incapable of making adult decisions. However, you are again mixing apples and oranges.

Please don't bring up government age discrimination and then pretend that I brought this up. That is dishonest.

I didn't do that. You divided what I said up to make it appear that way. Your are mixing general discrimination (apples) with specific cases that are not isolated to a particular characteristic. Specifically what 18 year olds olds are being treated unjustly and with prejudice by not allowing all 18 yr olds to all equally not purchase cigarettes? Mature ones. A thirty year old with the maturity of a 10 year old can buy cigarettes until the cows come home. However, a 16 year old Rhodes scholar can't. That is discrimination in favor of the immature, event though the stated purpose of the age restriction is because it is presumed that people under the age of 18 are immature.

We are talking about a vendors right to deny products and/or services, not governments making it illegal to sell. Now, if the government made it illegal for a black painter to paint a white man's house, that is wrong.

Yes, we agree, that is wrong. I also find treating a group of humans based on race, age, or sex unjustly and with prejudice to be wrong. You seem to disagree and even equate treating certain groups of people unjustly and with prejudice as good for society. Does that mean, the more discrimination, the better? What is the optimal amount of groups to treat unjustly and with prejudice for a given company?

No I never said that treating people unjustly was good for society. Nor did I say that discrimination was always good. In fact, I explicitly said that I do not think that discrimination is always good. I just don't believe it is always bad. Regarding the optimal amount of discrimination, that depends on the society. That is why I prefer to let the free market decide these things, instead of trying to micromanage specific businesses.

[Bust Nak]

The government is tipping the scales. Is there such a thing as a minimum work law. No, in fact on the other side the government is paying people for doing nothing.

I have no idea what you are talking about here, got any example? Who is being paid for doing nothing? Are you referring to unemployment benefits?

No, because the employee has no say in the transaction.

Sure he does, he can take the job or not take the job. He can negotiate the detail of the contract just like every other worker.

It is the government that is putting the employment at risk. If the employee is free to work for less than minimum wage, then that employee is rewarded with income.

One that isn't sustainable, not much of a reward is it?

On what that reporting based? There is a gag order.

Based on 1) what the owners said before the gag order is put forward. 2) the document of the complaint. More to the point, the gag order was put in place to stop them from repeating their continual intent to break the law, not from report the detail of their case.

The government should not be engaged in discrimination and they are.

That doesn't tell me why you think the government should not be engaged in a good thing, given you've accepted stopping discrimination is a good thing.

I didn't say it was a bad thing. I said it is not the best way of dealing with it. I believe the government should not recognize "race" at all. As Martin Luther King Jr. said, everyone should be judged by the content of one's character, not by the color of one's skin. If one person refuses to sell something to another person, that should be based on the merits of the transaction.

Right, but why shouldn't the government do its part to ensure that happens?

So, is everyone required to take part in a gay wedding?

Everyone is absolutely required to "take part" in a gay wedding, where "take part" means providing a business service that they already provide for opposite sex wedding.

Again, that brings us back to the kosher deli being forced to serve pulled pork sandwiches at a voodoo ritual.

Why should they be allowed to discriminate against people based on their religion? Given that they already provide pork sandwiches to non voodoo participants, they must also provide pork sandwiches to voodoo participants. Anything less is religious discrimination.

They are not to stop monopolies, they are designed to limit market collusion.

You say that like they are separate things. What is the problem with monopolies, if not their complete control over the market?

If Microsoft were correct and program software was an integral part of the operating system, they would have prevailed. However, the windows operating system can work with a multitude of non-Microsoft software. Like the cake example, Microsoft is not required to provide "gay" software with it's windows operating system. If someone wants "gay" software they can get it some where else or develop it oneself.

You are once again trying to create a distinction where there is none. The only thing that makes software "gay" is sexual orientation of the operator, the code itself is identical between the "straight" and "gay" version. You are continually trying to paint a picture where a business is forced to provide special treatment for gay people, when all that is required of them by law, is to provide equal treatment for gay people.

I don't recall saying anything about buses. I think Wootah might have noted that municipal transit systems are not free market entities, so they are constrained by equal access. However, charter buses should be permitted to specialize, if they wish.

A bus service where black people were compelled to sit at the back is specialized, isn't it?

[Kenisaw]

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!

Hello again tam.

It does not matter what label or group we are talking about, no one has the right to expect another person to change their opinion on something in order to conduct a business transaction.