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]

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.

"Tyranny of the majority" isn't talking about "protected minorities". What it is talking about is oppressive government. In fact, the government using it's power to force all baker's to sell "gay" cakes is tyranny. It is tyranny in the name of the minority.

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.

Yes, it is different. The question is whether the difference is significant. In this case, to the vendor it is. Barring an overarching government interest or contractual obligation, requiring the vendor to provide the service is tyranny.

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

That's why there have to be strong regulations.

Yes, regulations on government. "Congress shall make no law . . . "

[Bust Nak]

"Tyranny of the majority" isn't talking about "protected minorities". What it is talking about is oppressive government. In fact, the government using it's power to force all baker's to sell "gay" cakes is tyranny. It is tyranny in the name of the minority.

What makes this different from any other legislation where the government using it's power to force its citizens to do or refrain from certain behaviour? Is enforcing minimum wage tyranny? Or indeed any other law designed to protect minorities?

Yes, it is different. The question is whether the difference is significant. In this case, to the vendor it is. Barring an overarching government interest or contractual obligation, requiring the vendor to provide the service is tyranny.

Sounds like you accept that this would not tyranny IF there is an overarching government interest. So, in what sense is protecting its citizens from discrimination, not an overarching government interest?

Yes, regulations on government. "Congress shall make no law . . . "

Congress shall make no laws what so ever? What are you trying to say here?

[bluethread]

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.

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.

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?

Yes, but would one call that a "black" cake? The fact is that no one is refusing to sell cakes to anyone. 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.

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?

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?

Only certain types of discrimination are illegal now. Refusing to sell a gun to someone who has not had a background check is not only legal discrimination, in the state of Washington, it is legally mandated discrimination. The sale of cigarettes and alcohol to minors is not only legal discrimination, it is legally mandated discrimination. The question is not whether or not it is discrimination. The question is whether it should be legal or illegal.

[bluethread]

"Tyranny of the majority" isn't talking about "protected minorities". What it is talking about is oppressive government. In fact, the government using it's power to force all baker's to sell "gay" cakes is tyranny. It is tyranny in the name of the minority.

What makes this different from any other legislation where the government using it's power to force its citizens to do or refrain from certain behaviour? Is enforcing minimum wage tyranny? Or indeed any other law designed to protect minorities?

Yes, minimum wage laws are tyranny. They violate the principle of arms length negotiation in contract law. Laws "designed to protect minorities" is a rather broad concept. The devil is in the details. For example, I believe "affirmative action" is tyranny, equal protection when applied to legislation is not. Legislating equality in all things is draconian tyranny.

Yes, it is different. The question is whether the difference is significant. In this case, to the vendor it is. Barring an overarching government interest or contractual obligation, requiring the vendor to provide the service is tyranny.

Sounds like you accept that this would not tyranny IF there is an overarching government interest. So, in what sense is protecting its citizens from discrimination, not an overarching government interest?

As I pointed out, it is impossible to protect the citizenry from all discrimination and, in many cases, the government mandates discrimination under the guise of "protecting its citizens". The problem with that argument is that it treats the citizenry as wards of the state. As has been said, those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.

Yes, regulations on government. "Congress shall make no law . . . "

Congress shall make no laws what so ever? What are you trying to say here?

I am quoting the Bill of Rights. We need legislation against government to limit crony capitalism, and thus protect the citizenry from the government. If it were not for government interference, there would be no monopolies. In the open market, innovation and competition serve as checks on monopolies, not legislation.

[Bust Nak]

Yes, minimum wage laws are tyranny. They violate the principle of arms length negotiation in contract law.

How so? Arms length principle stops you from playing favouritism, I don't see how this applies to minimum wage.

Laws "designed to protect minorities" is a rather broad concept. The devil is in the details. For example, I believe "affirmative action" is tyranny, equal protection when applied to legislation is not. Legislating equality in all things is draconian tyranny.

Sounds reasonable to me. But how is protecting citizens against discriminations not an example of "equal protection when applied to legislation?"

As I pointed out, it is impossible to protect the citizenry from all discrimination and, in many cases, the government mandates discrimination under the guise of "protecting its citizens".

I suppose it could be, but you seemed to have accepted that the real life example I linked to wasn't a miscarriage of justice, so how is selling gay cakes mandated discrimination in disguise?

The problem with that argument is that it treats the citizenry as wards of the state. As has been said, those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.

But we ARE dependent of the state for security. The saying is good but hardly absolute, otherwise we wouldn't have any laws.

I am quoting the Bill of Rights. We need legislation against government to limit crony capitalism, and thus protect the citizenry from the government. If it were not for government interference, there would be no monopolies. In the open market, innovation and competition serve as checks on monopolies, not legislation.

I don't believe that for one second. Money makes money, they naturally flow towards a single point.

[bluethread]

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.

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

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?

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

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 10 by Tired of the Nonsense]

S&M is a "participatory sport." Those involved in S&M are doing it of their own free will. Otherwise what is occurring is assault. Assault clearly is NOT covered by the golden rule.

Yeah, I meant that S&M people might want to treat me the SAME as they want to be... I don't want to be a Sadist OR a Masochist, thank you.

Maybe THEY want to be treated that way... I don't.

I prefer the Platinum rule, where I get to say no.

IF they go ahead and follow the GOLDEN rule, I might be in for a golden shower.. or worse.

[bluethread]

Yes, minimum wage laws are tyranny. They violate the principle of arms length negotiation in contract law.

How so? Arms length principle stops you from playing favouritism, I don't see how this applies to minimum wage.

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.

Laws "designed to protect minorities" is a rather broad concept. The devil is in the details. For example, I believe "affirmative action" is tyranny, equal protection when applied to legislation is not. Legislating equality in all things is draconian tyranny.

Sounds reasonable to me. But how is protecting citizens against discriminations not an example of "equal protection when applied to legislation?"

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.

As I pointed out, it is impossible to protect the citizenry from all discrimination and, in many cases, the government mandates discrimination under the guise of "protecting its citizens".

I suppose it could be, but you seemed to have accepted that the real life example I linked to wasn't a miscarriage of justice, so how is selling gay cakes mandated discrimination in disguise?

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

The problem with that argument is that it treats the citizenry as wards of the state. As has been said, those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.

But we ARE dependent of the state for security. The saying is good but hardly absolute, otherwise we wouldn't have any laws.

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"?

I am quoting the Bill of Rights. We need legislation against government to limit crony capitalism, and thus protect the citizenry from the government. If it were not for government interference, there would be no monopolies. In the open market, innovation and competition serve as checks on monopolies, not legislation.

I don't believe that for one second. Money makes money, they naturally flow towards a single point.

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

[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.

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.

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

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?

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.

[Zzyzx]

.
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.

Regarding monopolies: When a given business is monopolized by a single or a limited number of providers, there tends to be a minimization of competition. This tends to work against the best interests of citizens -- particularly regards price and service.

Restricting entry into the business through legislation (legalized monopoly) is a preferred means to keeping others from becoming competitors.

Minor example: A small town barber might prefer that others not open a competing barber shop nearby. One way to keep that from happening might be to agitate for licensing laws that require graduation from a barber school -- a ONE YEAR course. Does it take a year to teach someone to cut hair? Unless they are uncommonly stupid it shouldn't take more than a week or so. What's the worst that could happen with an unskilled barber -- a bad haircut? Unsanitary tools (how long does it take to teach people to sanitize equipment?).

Many trades and professions utalize the semi-monopoly via legislation route to keep others out of their business (or make entry difficult and expensive).

This doesn't even touch on the BIG monopoly problem with oil companies, banks, communication media, etc, etc.