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?

[Clownboat]

That said, what about a customer that asks a clerk at a Catholic supply store to sell her a crucifix that she could use in preforming a sex act?

By this description, you clearly are not understanding what is going on.

If this clerk is willing to sell a crucifix to a straight person so it could be used in performing sex acts, then said clerk would need to sell a crucifix to a gay person for the exact same reason. However, you are changing the reason for the sale.

The point is, if said clerk would sell a crucifix to a straight person for reason 'A', then said clerk would need to sell a crucifix to a gay person for reason 'A'.

To help display your silliness. If my company would sell a piano to a gay person so it could be used for playing music, would you call it discrimination if I refused to sell a piano to a Christian so that they could drop it on a toddlers head?

[Kenisaw]

Example please?

Here is the latest example I found off the internet.

Based on the information in that article, I would say that it is illegal. However, since I believe in free markets, I do not think it is necessary.

If that is the case, I agree. However, if there was anything required beyond handing someone a generic wedding cake, that is not the case.

Does delivery to the venue crosses the line of handing over a generic wedding cake? Or perhaps writing the names of two chaps on it make it less than generic? Does sticking two male figurines on it crosses that line?

These are services that are not necessarily provided by the vendor. This also gets us close to creative license. Would it also be illegal discrimination for a song writer to refuse to write a song for a "gay" wedding? Can a singer be compelled to sing that song? Can a photographer be compelled to photograph the wedding? Can a painter be compelled to paint a portrait of the couple? Can a playwrite be compelled to write a play about the wedding? In any or all of these cases, can the professional be guilty of illegal discrimination, if the product is not specific to and/or supportive of the gender, race, sexuality, religion, and other protected status? Is a sculptor obligated to make and sell idols?

How is that the vendor knows where the cake is being consumed?

Don't know. Presumably the customer in question mentioned it.

Well, the customer could have been lying. As long as the customer is not confessing to doing something that is illegal, the vendor should have just blown it off and sold them the cake. That said, what about a customer that asks a clerk at a Catholic supply store to sell her a crucifix that she could use in preforming a sex act?

Blue and I rarely agree on things, but here I concur with him. It has been readily admitted by those involved that a bakery was searched for that would not make a wedding cake for a gay couple, so that a subsequent fuss could me made about it.

At one time I thought forcing the baker to make the cake was justified under the law, but upon further study of the matter I have decided that stance was wrong of me.

The confusion here is between public and private. A public entity, or individual representing a public entity, is not allowed to refuse service to someone. The basic reason for this is that the public entity is the ONLY place that certain services can be received (like applying for a marriage license). A private entity is not the same. In the case of a bakery, there are other bakeries to go to. If people do not like the stance of a bakery owner, they can boycott the business and protest it and so forth. If enough people agree, market forces will eventually force the business to close due to lack of revenue. This is democracy, and free market forces, in action.

And this happens all the time. Most of you are aware that your employer, if it is a private business, can legally restrict your freedom of speech. One example was the lady who had a John Kerry bumper sticker on her car and the owner of the business she worked at told her she had to remove it or would be fired. She didn't, and she was fired, and that was a legal action (although I will admit I have a huge problem with it, but everything I have read states that it is legal).

Point is, it is not the government's job to stick their nose into a business/customer dispute.

[bluethread]

That said, what about a customer that asks a clerk at a Catholic supply store to sell her a crucifix that she could use in preforming a sex act?

By this description, you clearly are not understanding what is going on.

If this clerk is willing to sell a crucifix to a straight person so it could be used in performing sex acts, then said clerk would need to sell a crucifix to a gay person for the exact same reason. However, you are changing the reason for the sale.

The point is, if said clerk would sell a crucifix to a straight person for reason 'A', then said clerk would need to sell a crucifix to a gay person for reason 'A'.

To help display your silliness. If my company would sell a piano to a gay person so it could be used for playing music, would you call it discrimination if I refused to sell a piano to a Christian so that they could drop it on a toddlers head?

The silliness is your ignoring my points. I stated illegal acts as an exception. Last time a checked dropping a piano on a toddler's head is illegal. Also, the particular cases involve being "gay", however, we were referring to discrimination in general as noted by Bust Nak referring to gender, race, sexuality, religion, and other protected status. 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. In that regard, use of a crucifix to perform a sex act is no different from using it to decorate a church, just as using a cake in a "gay" wedding is no different than using it in any other wedding, or for a door stop for that matter. One would not be permitted to deny sale or service based on any legal intended use, especially if that product or service involves sexuality and religion.

[shnarkle]

Example please?

Here is the latest example I found off the internet.

Based on the information in that article, I would say that it is illegal. However, since I believe in free markets, I do not think it is necessary.

If that is the case, I agree. However, if there was anything required beyond handing someone a generic wedding cake, that is not the case.

Does delivery to the venue crosses the line of handing over a generic wedding cake? Or perhaps writing the names of two chaps on it make it less than generic? Does sticking two male figurines on it crosses that line?

These are services that are not necessarily provided by the vendor. This also gets us close to creative license. Would it also be illegal discrimination for a song writer to refuse to write a song for a "gay" wedding? Can a singer be compelled to sing that song? Can a photographer be compelled to photograph the wedding? Can a painter be compelled to paint a portrait of the couple? Can a playwrite be compelled to write a play about the wedding? In any or all of these cases, can the professional be guilty of illegal discrimination, if the product is not specific to and/or supportive of the gender, race, sexuality, religion, and other protected status? Is a sculptor obligated to make and sell idols?

How is that the vendor knows where the cake is being consumed?

Don't know. Presumably the customer in question mentioned it.

Well, the customer could have been lying. As long as the customer is not confessing to doing something that is illegal, the vendor should have just blown it off and sold them the cake. That said, what about a customer that asks a clerk at a Catholic supply store to sell her a crucifix that she could use in preforming a sex act?

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.

While it may not be the best business practice to turn away customers, people shouldn't be forced to work against their will. In some societies this used to be considered slavery.

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.

[shnarkle]

Example please?

Here is the latest example I found off the internet.

Based on the information in that article, I would say that it is illegal. However, since I believe in free markets, I do not think it is necessary.

If that is the case, I agree. However, if there was anything required beyond handing someone a generic wedding cake, that is not the case.

Does delivery to the venue crosses the line of handing over a generic wedding cake? Or perhaps writing the names of two chaps on it make it less than generic? Does sticking two male figurines on it crosses that line?

These are services that are not necessarily provided by the vendor. This also gets us close to creative license. Would it also be illegal discrimination for a song writer to refuse to write a song for a "gay" wedding? Can a singer be compelled to sing that song? Can a photographer be compelled to photograph the wedding? Can a painter be compelled to paint a portrait of the couple? Can a playwrite be compelled to write a play about the wedding? In any or all of these cases, can the professional be guilty of illegal discrimination, if the product is not specific to and/or supportive of the gender, race, sexuality, religion, and other protected status? Is a sculptor obligated to make and sell idols?

How is that the vendor knows where the cake is being consumed?

Don't know. Presumably the customer in question mentioned it.

Well, the customer could have been lying. As long as the customer is not confessing to doing something that is illegal, the vendor should have just blown it off and sold them the cake. That said, what about a customer that asks a clerk at a Catholic supply store to sell her a crucifix that she could use in preforming a sex act?

Blue and I rarely agree on things, but here I concur with him. It has been readily admitted by those involved that a bakery was searched for that would not make a wedding cake for a gay couple, so that a subsequent fuss could me made about it.

At one time I thought forcing the baker to make the cake was justified under the law, but upon further study of the matter I have decided that stance was wrong of me.

The confusion here is between public and private. A public entity, or individual representing a public entity, is not allowed to refuse service to someone. The basic reason for this is that the public entity is the ONLY place that certain services can be received (like applying for a marriage license). A private entity is not the same. In the case of a bakery, there are other bakeries to go to. If people do not like the stance of a bakery owner, they can boycott the business and protest it and so forth. If enough people agree, market forces will eventually force the business to close due to lack of revenue. This is democracy, and free market forces, in action.

And this happens all the time. Most of you are aware that your employer, if it is a private business, can legally restrict your freedom of speech. One example was the lady who had a John Kerry bumper sticker on her car and the owner of the business she worked at told her she had to remove it or would be fired. She didn't, and she was fired, and that was a legal action (although I will admit I have a huge problem with it, but everything I have read states that it is legal).

Point is, it is not the government's job to stick their nose into a business/customer dispute.

Your points are well stated. This is such a bizarre issue to begin with, but the cat is out of the bag now, and it's only going to get more bizarre as time goes by.

A rancher wanted to obtain a permit to build some shade structures for his horses. He was denied his permit. He then inquired about obtaining a permit to build some chairs and a table. He was told that the county didn't require permits for furniture if he wasn't in business to build furniture. He proceeded to build two large chairs and a table. They were so large the horses were able to use them for shade. There were pictures of this dining room set as well.

There are two things I find strange about this whole issue. One is that we are now a society that wants permission from the State. We seek validation from the State, and when we don't get it we feel like we have been discriminated against, when the really sick thing about this is that we are allowing the State to validate and invalidate us.

The other issue is how we're redefining everything. Perhaps one of these days someone will sue the county for invalidating his request for a permit to marry his orange tree, or to build a chair. He want's validation for his permit to build a chair, and in the end I don't know why the local, county, or federal governments wouldn't love to have all that added revenue.

Making laws to force people to do anything against their will is ridiculous. This is what got us into this mess in the first place, and yet this is what government sees as the solution. There used to be laws forbidding marriages between races. Why? Because people of different races wanted to get married. There used to be laws that prevented people from going into business in certain areas, e.g. busing. Since certain bus companies had a monopoly, anyone caught doing business was prosecuted. Blacks weren't treated well on the only game in town so they had to force the issue eventually. The same thing has been going on with taxi cab badges. Taxi drivers don't want to drive into certain neighborhoods so people in those neighborhoods have to walk, or use the services of some enterprising people who just give them rides to and from home, work, etc. without obtaining a $30k badge. Get rid of these laws and the problems go away. That isn't going to happen anytime soon, people just aren't ready for a free market.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 65 by shnarkle]

Yes, that is my point. The statists want to argue that without regulation there would be monopolies everywhere. The fact is that, if there was no crony capitalism, there wouldn't be any monopolies. Competition and innovation are the bane of monopoly. Insisting that all baker's make "gay" wedding cakes encourages decreased market diversity and reduces competition. When one combines that with hundreds of other social engineering legislation monopoly becomes more likely, not less likely. Then we are told that we need even more legislation to break up those monopolies. It is nothing more than a legislation mill. The complaint of the OP is the libertarian mantra, "Leave us alone!"

[Bust Nak]

Based on the information in that article, I would say that it is illegal. However, since I believe in free markets, I do not think it is necessary.

Does "tyranny of the majority" mean anything to you? What if the free market doesn't care enough about a minority to adjust itself? It wasn't that long ago when "whites only" was a thing. The law is there to protect the minority.

These are services that are not necessarily provided by the vendor. This also gets us close to creative license. Would it also be illegal discrimination for a song writer to refuse to write a song for a "gay" wedding? Can a singer be compelled to sing that song? Can a photographer be compelled to photograph the wedding? Can a painter be compelled to paint a portrait of the couple? Can a playwrite be compelled to write a play about the wedding? In any or all of these cases, can the professional be guilty of illegal discrimination, if the product is not specific to and/or supportive of the gender, race, sexuality, religion, and other protected status? Is a sculptor obligated to make and sell idols? [...] What about a customer that asks a clerk at a Catholic supply store to sell her a crucifix that she could use in preforming a sex act?[/

If a baker offer delivery to a wedding party for a opposite gender couple, is delivery to a same sex wedding party a different service? If a baker offer a service for writing names of two opposite gender individuals on a cake, then is cake writing of two men's name a different service? If the baker offer to put two opposite sex figurines on a cake, then is putting tow male figurine a different service? If a song writer offer to write songs for wedding, is a song for a gay wedding a different service. If a singer offer to sing at weddings, is it a different service at a gay wedding? If a photographer offers to photograph weddings, is it a different is it a different service at a gay wedding as so on. This is where judgement call comes in, bearing in mind that only certain status are protected.

If there was no crony capitalism, there wouldn't be any monopolies

That's why there have to be strong regulations.

[Clownboat]

That said, what about a customer that asks a clerk at a Catholic supply store to sell her a crucifix that she could use in preforming a sex act?

By this description, you clearly are not understanding what is going on.

If this clerk is willing to sell a crucifix to a straight person so it could be used in performing sex acts, then said clerk would need to sell a crucifix to a gay person for the exact same reason. However, you are changing the reason for the sale.

The point is, if said clerk would sell a crucifix to a straight person for reason 'A', then said clerk would need to sell a crucifix to a gay person for reason 'A'.

To help display your silliness. If my company would sell a piano to a gay person so it could be used for playing music, would you call it discrimination if I refused to sell a piano to a Christian so that they could drop it on a toddlers head?

The silliness is your ignoring my points. I stated illegal acts as an exception. Last time a checked dropping a piano on a toddler's head is illegal.

Only if harm is done, these could be miniature after all, but at least you were able to avoid addressing my point.

Also, the particular cases involve being "gay", however, we were referring to discrimination in general as noted by Bust Nak referring to gender, race, sexuality, religion, and other protected status.

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?

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.

In that regard, use of a crucifix to perform a sex act is no different from using it to decorate a church, just as using a cake in a "gay" wedding is no different than using it in any other wedding, or for a door stop for that matter. One would not be permitted to deny sale or service based on any legal intended use, especially if that product or service involves sexuality and religion.

Do you have issues with this? Would you prefer that we legalize discrimination? What if we only allow people to discriminate against gays? Would that be just enough discrimination or would we still need more?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 65 by shnarkle]

Yes, that is my point. The statists want to argue that without regulation there would be monopolies everywhere. The fact is that, if there was no crony capitalism, there wouldn't be any monopolies. Competition and innovation are the bane of monopoly. Insisting that all baker's make "gay" wedding cakes encourages decreased market diversity and reduces competition. When one combines that with hundreds of other social engineering legislation monopoly becomes more likely, not less likely. Then we are told that we need even more legislation to break up those monopolies. It is nothing more than a legislation mill. The complaint of the OP is the libertarian mantra, "Leave us alone!"

So is your argument really that discrimination increased market diversity and increases competition? The more we discriminate, the better off we will be?

dis·crim·i·na·tion
dəˌskriməˈn�SH(ə)n/
noun
1.
the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

[Clownboat]

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.

Those poor snowflakes.

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

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

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?

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.