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]

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

I don't recall asking. You are dodging my question and for some reason talking about McDonald's serving kosher beef.
Now for the third time: Would society benefit more if McDonald's stopped serving religious people or black people, or both? Please answer this because you have claimed that discrimination can benefit society. I want to see how much discrimination you think is the ideal amount.

The bakery did not stop providing it's products to those customers.

I'm not asking you anything about a bakery right now. I'm addressing your claims about discrimination and trying to get you to expand on what you meant beyond 'providing options'.

They just refused to alter what they do to cater a particular kind of customer.

I disagree. I see a bakery that bakes cakes. Unless your gay that is, then they wont bake you a cake like they will white people. Either way, I'm beyond the bakery at this time.

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

Please define what you mean by a 'gay wedding cake'. I see a bakery that will sell cakes for weddings, except when it comes to one group of humans. They are being treated unjustly and with prejudice. All are worthy of the cakes, except for one group of humans in this case.

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.

Well it is. Let's look at an extreme. What if the fire department helped all groups of humans, except for one? This refusing of service would 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.

Why should Christians not be allowed to shop where all other humans are allowed to shop in this scenario? Who would support such intolerance?
Either way, lets bring this back to gays being treated unjustly. If Walmart refused to sell to gays, in most areas of the world, there would not be enough gays to justify opening a Walmart type store for gay people. It would not be a good business decision to open a store in this scenario. Therefore, gays would not have a place to make their purchases. Gay, Christians, Jew, whatever, this is not fair IMO.

So, am I. Discrimination is what buyers do every day.

I make purchased every day without discrimination. This claim of yours does not reflect the reality that I witness. Perhaps you surround yourself with people that don't have a problem treating other humans unjustly and with prejudice.

Do you think boycotts should be outlawed?

No. Do you have an argument for why they should be?

That is discrimination.

False, and demonstrably so.
boy·cott
ˈboiˌkät/Submit
verb
1.
withdraw from commercial or social relations

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.

Why is the buyer allowed to discriminate and the seller is not?

Withdrawing from commercial or social relations is not discrimination. You seem to be at war with the English language.

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.

Please look up the definitions. I have already supplied you with many.

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.

When you can come up with a way to measure maturity, you know, like we can someones age, please let us know. Until then, we limit all 18 yr olds in the same way.

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.

So, when discrimination is good (this is Bluethread calling discrimination good, not myself by the way), how much should be aimed for?

In fact, I explicitly said that I do not think that discrimination is always good.

So, when discrimination is good (this is Bluethread calling discrimination good, not myself by the way), how much should be aimed for?

Regarding the optimal amount of discrimination, that depends on the society.

I reject this scapegoat. Either show that society thinks discrimination is good, or provide us with some sort of guideline as to how unjust and prejudice a company should be. I keep asking you about McDonald's specifically. If your words were not empty, I would think you would be able to apply them to this scenario. I don't think you can, and I do think your words about optimal discrimination are empty, but I await being shown wrong.

That is why I prefer to let the free market decide these things, instead of trying to micromanage specific businesses.

You have been asked to micromanage specific businesses? Not by me. I'm just asking you questions for clarification. Is this just another dodge?

[bluethread]

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?

There is also "welfare", SSI and EBT. However, to avoid rabbit trails, let's just look at the private labor market. Unemployment insurance is an employer mandate. It is not negotiated severance, it is a government mandated benefit. The important thing is that the government dictates the price that the purchaser of labor must pay based on time, not productivity. So, whether the person stacks 50 lb. boxes or just answers the phone, it's the same amount.

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.

No, he can just negotiate up. What if he can't do that much work in an hour? In Washington State no one is allowed to do work that is worth less than $11.00 an hour to the employer. So, the employer buys a machine, up scales the workload, goes to the black market, or does it himself. Regardless the lawful job seeker is left pounding sand.

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?

I don't know what you mean. The argument for open borders is that immigrants are doing those jobs. How are they sustaining themselves? Why weren't all those people who were getting paid $9.54 and hour starving to death? Where are the stories of mass starvation, in the State of Washington?

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.

What law was it that they were intending on breaking and how does the gag order stop that??

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.

That is not what I was referring to. When I said they are doing it, I was referring to them discriminating. It probably should have read, If stopping discriminating is a good thing, why is the government still discriminating.

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?

Because the government is very bad at assessing the content of one's character. The market is much better at doing that.

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.

Nice dodge. Are all preachers required to officiate "gay" weddings on request? Are all caterers required to cater "gay" weddings? Should it be illegal to specialize in Catholic weddings, or Hindu weddings? Is it wrong to let someone specialize in "gay" weddings?

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.

Well, they wouldn't be a Kosher deli, if they provide pork sandwiches. However, let me help you out by changing it to a Glatt Kosher bakery serving cheeseburgers. They sell cheese and they sell hamburgers, but they do not sell cheeseburgers. That better fits your argument. They also would not serve cheese and hamburgers at the same time. This means nothing to the voodoo believers. However, it does mean something to the deli owners. Why can't someone else do that. Why must it be the deli owners.

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?

Collusion is not complete control over the market. It is cooperation between two or more entities to limit access to the market. The courts determined that operating system software and program software are two different products, so providing operating system information only to the in house program software developers violates the concept of a free market.

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.

No, the distinction is significant enough for the Supreme Court to force Microsoft to create a wall of separation between it's OP and program divisions. If the principle you are espousing holds, all software programs will be required to have "gay" characters in their video games and any other programs that one could interpret as indicating "sexual orientation".

UC Berkley just got hoisted on their own petard on that principle. They were providing hundreds of their courses on line at no cost to the public. They were forced to remove that free service, because they did not provide all of those courses with closed captioning. That is how silly things get, if one takes this principle to it's logical conclusion.

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?

Yes, however, as I stated, it was part of a municipal transit system. Also, it was not a system policy, but Alabama State law. There was no other option. Had Alabama not interfered in the market, integrated bus lines could have sprung up and solved the problem. It was the Montgomery Bus Boycott, discrimination on the part of consumers, that brought market pressure to bear and caused the policy to change.

[bluethread]

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

I don't recall asking. You are dodging my question and for some reason talking about McDonald's serving kosher beef.
Now for the third time: Would society benefit more if McDonald's stopped serving religious people or black people, or both? Please answer this because you have claimed that discrimination can benefit society. I want to see how much discrimination you think is the ideal amount.

There is no ideal amount of discrimination. Would society benefit more if McDonald's stopped serving religious people or black people, or both? I don't know? That depends on a lot of things. Just because discrimination does provide diversity in an open market does not mean that a specific vendor limiting it's customer base in a particular way would always lead to a better or worse society.

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

Please define what you mean by a 'gay wedding cake'. I see a bakery that will sell cakes for weddings, except when it comes to one group of humans. They are being treated unjustly and with prejudice. All are worthy of the cakes, except for one group of humans in this case.

What I have seen and heard, specifically from the defendants and their lawyer, it is not the cake per se. It is taking part in the wedding. However, even if it is just decorating it in a special way, why must every vendor, as a matter of law, provide a particular kind of product or service?

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.

Well it is. Let's look at an extreme. What if the fire department helped all groups of humans, except for one? This refusing of service would be unjust.

Is this a public or private fire department? There are farmer's out here who have their own fire trucks. Should they be obligated as a matter of law to come to town when my house catches fire?

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.

Why should Christians not be allowed to shop where all other humans are allowed to shop in this scenario? Who would support such intolerance?
Either way, lets bring this back to gays being treated unjustly. If Walmart refused to sell to gays, in most areas of the world, there would not be enough gays to justify opening a Walmart type store for gay people. It would not be a good business decision to open a store in this scenario. Therefore, gays would not have a place to make their purchases. Gay, Christians, Jew, whatever, this is not fair IMO.

People who believe in private property rights would support the right to use that property as they please, as long as that use does not endanger others. It could be said that opening a Kosher deli where I live would not be a good business decision. Should our local Carl's Jr. be required by law to have a Kosher kitchen? There are a lot of things that I don't think are fair, but I don't think local businesses should be legally micromanaged by government to meet my personal opinion of what is fair.

So, am I. Discrimination is what buyers do every day.

I make purchased every day without discrimination. This claim of yours does not reflect the reality that I witness. Perhaps you surround yourself with people that don't have a problem treating other humans unjustly and with prejudice.

So, you and everyone you know decide where to buy things and eat based on a flip of a coin?

Do you think boycotts should be outlawed?

No. Do you have an argument for why they should be?

Though I don't have problem with them, they are discrimination.

That is discrimination.

False, and demonstrably so.
boy·cott
ˈboiˌkät/Submit
verb
1.
withdraw from commercial or social relations

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.

Now, you are going to broadly define boycott and narrowly define discrimination, to make it appear that your view is a given? Let's look at a complete definition and I will give my source. (wiktionary)

Boycott

1. To abstain, either as an individual or a group, from using, buying, or dealing with someone or some organization as an expression of protest.

Discrimination

1. (intransitive) To make distinctions.

2. (intransitive, construed with against) To make decisions based on prejudice.

3. (transitive) To set apart as being different; to mark as different; to separate from another by discerning differences; to distinguish.

Using the narrow definition that you prefer for discrimination, a boycott is discrimination. If one uses the more general definition of discrimination, a boycott is one type of discriminating. By choosing a definition that frames the term according to current law, you are including the conclusion in the premise. That is fallacious. 

Why is the buyer allowed to discriminate and the seller is not?

Withdrawing from commercial or social relations is not discrimination. You seem to be at war with the English language.

No, I am not at war with anything, not even incendiary language. What I am opposed to is the fallasious practice of including the conclusion in the premise.

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.

Please look up the definitions. I have already supplied you with many.

You have provided me with definitions of boycott and discrimination in a biased fashion and repeatedly thrown out the terms "unjust" or "prejudice" to characterize all discrimination with out justification. My question is how is it you justify the use of those terms to characterize all discrimination.

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.

When you can come up with a way to measure maturity, you know, like we can someones age, please let us know. Until then, we limit all 18 yr olds in the same way.

It is not a matter of whether or not it is the best we can do. The point is that it is discrimination. You seem to think that only government approved discrimination is acceptable.

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.

So, when discrimination is good (this is Bluethread calling discrimination good, not myself by the way), how much should be aimed for?

Are you asking for a percentage? Regarding economic activity, which is what we are talking about, I don't aim for an amount of discrimination and I do not think that is what the government should be doing either. Buyers and seller discriminate in the market place. That is how commerce works. As long as there is open access to the market, the nature of social preferences becomes evident.

In fact, I explicitly said that I do not think that discrimination is always good.

So, when discrimination is good (this is Bluethread calling discrimination good, not myself by the way), how much should be aimed for?

Ibid.

Regarding the optimal amount of discrimination, that depends on the society.

I reject this scapegoat. Either show that society thinks discrimination is good, or provide us with some sort of guideline as to how unjust and prejudice a company should be. I keep asking you about McDonald's specifically. If your words were not empty, I would think you would be able to apply them to this scenario. I don't think you can, and I do think your words about optimal discrimination are empty, but I await being shown wrong.

You have right to your opinion, but that does not make it right. I personally do not think that excluding blacks and/or Christians fro their customer base is good discrimination. However, the solution to that is for me to discriminate against McDonald's by taking my business elsewhere and otherwise investing in alternative businesses.

That is why I prefer to let the free market decide these things, instead of trying to micromanage specific businesses.

You have been asked to micromanage specific businesses? Not by me. I'm just asking you questions for clarification. Is this just another dodge?

No, it is what government intervention in the market is doing. Apart from providing for open access to the market in general, the government is ineffectual in effecting change in the market. The market will always adjust.

[Bust Nak]

There is also "welfare", SSI and EBT. However, to avoid rabbit trails, let's just look at the private labor market. Unemployment insurance is an employer mandate. It is not negotiated severance, it is a government mandated benefit. The important thing is that the government dictates the price that the purchaser of labor must pay based on time, not productivity. So, whether the person stacks 50 lb. boxes or just answers the phone, it's the same amount.

Answering the phone isn't a job? Come on. You said they get pay for nothing.

No, he can just negotiate up. What if he can't do that much work in an hour?

Then he is not a suitable candidate for the job.

In Washington State no one is allowed to do work that is worth less than $11.00 an hour to the employer. So, the employer buys a machine, up scales the workload, goes to the black market, or does it himself. Regardless the lawful job seeker is left pounding sand.

That's where unemployment benefits comes in, for those who would otherwise be left pounding sand.

I don't know what you mean. The argument for open borders is that immigrants are doing those jobs. How are they sustaining themselves?

No idea what you are talking about here, immigrants are also paid the minimum wage. Are you referring to illegal workers?

What law was it that they were intending on breaking

Anti-discrimination laws.

and how does the gag order stop that??

It won't, just to stop them from talking about wanting to break it.

That is not what I was referring to. When I said they are doing it, I was referring to them discriminating. It probably should have read, If stopping discriminating is a good thing, why is the government still discriminating.

Ok, a case of miscommunication. Why is the government still discriminating, it is because the kind of discrimination in question are the good kind of discrimination.

Because the government is very bad at assessing the content of one's character. The market is much better at doing that.

History says otherwise, again I remind you "whites only" was still a thing not so long ago.

Nice dodge. Are all preachers required to officiate "gay" weddings on request?

No, since a) preachers are not required to officiate opposite sex weddings on request and b) he is not running a business.

Are all caterers required to cater "gay" weddings?

As long as they cater opposite sex weddings, yes, they are required to.

Should it be illegal to specialize in Catholic weddings, or Hindu weddings?

Depends if you are talking about a business or a religious ceremony. The former, yes, the latter, no.

Is it wrong to let someone specialize in "gay" weddings?

No, a business can specialize in "gay" weddings, but even if they are specialized in "gay" weddings, they are required to provide the same services for opposite sex weddings. This concept of "same treatment" isn't all that complicated, if one is not trying to twist one service into two based on the sexuality of the customer.

Well, they wouldn't be a Kosher deli, if they provide pork sandwiches.

Not my problem what they call themselves, they provide pork sandwiches to straight couples, therefore they are required to provide pork sandwiches to gay couples; they provide pork sandwiches to non voodoo believers, therefore they are required to provide pork sandwiches to voodoo believers.

However, let me help you out by changing it to a Glatt Kosher bakery serving cheeseburgers. They sell cheese and they sell hamburgers, but they do not sell cheeseburgers. That better fits your argument. They also would not serve cheese and hamburgers at the same time. This means nothing to the voodoo believers. However, it does mean something to the deli owners. Why can't someone else do that. Why must it be the deli owners.

It doesn't have to be them, anyone else could do it. But they are required to do so if someone choose to buy from them, anything less is religious discrimination. They sell cheese and they sell hamburgers to non voodoo believers, therefore they are compelled by law to sell cheese and sell hamburgers to voodoo believers. Pay particular attention of the fact that they are not required to sell cheeseburgers because that is not a product they already provides. It's time you accept that the nature of a product or service, does not change base on the sexuality or the religion of the customer.

Collusion is not complete control over the market. It is cooperation between two or more entities to limit access to the market. The courts determined that operating system software and program software are two different products, so providing operating system information only to the in house program software developers violates the concept of a free market.

Right, limited access is a bad thing, so complete control is a worse thing. The government is absolutely in the right to break up monopolies.

No, the distinction is significant enough for the Supreme Court to force Microsoft to create a wall of separation between it's OP and program divisions.

Right, but that has nothing to do with my point. The difference between "gay" Internet explorer and "straight" Internet explorer is the sexual orientation of the user, the code between the gay and straight version is exactly the same. It's not a new or separate product.

If the principle you are espousing holds, all software programs will be required to have "gay" characters in their video games and any other programs that one could interpret as indicating "sexual orientation".

No, if the principle I am espousing holds, then all software programs will be required to made available to be purchased by both gay users and straight users. Same treatment for all regardless of sexual orientation.

Had Alabama not interfered in the market, integrated bus lines could have sprung up and solved the problem.

Would it? Years after the ruling black people were still sitting at the back of the bus because of the backlash.

[Clownboat]

There is no ideal amount of discrimination.

I disagree. The ideal amount of injustice and prejudice is close to zero IMO.
Can you provide a scenario where treating people unjustly or with prejudice would be a good thing? I'm not talking about things like not allowing children to buy cigarettes. I'm talking about a scenario where a company is allowed to be unjust and/or prejudice against a specific group of humans due to race, religion or sex.

Would society benefit more if McDonald's stopped serving religious people or black people, or both? I don't know?

I don't believe you. I think you do know, you just know it would destroy your argument for businesses to discriminate against gays.
Do the ol pro/con column gig and see for yourself.
What pro's do you see if McDonald's were to stop serving blacks?

That depends on a lot of things. Just because discrimination does provide diversity in an open market does not mean that a specific vendor limiting it's customer base in a particular way would always lead to a better or worse society.

Discrimination is not limiting a customer base. It is treating a group of humans unjustly and/or with prejudice.
For example, an over 21 nightclub is not discriminating. It would need to allow all 21 year olds (and older), except for one group of humans based on religion, race or sex in order for it to be discriminating.
If all are welcome to a business, except for one small minority of people, it would in most cases be a poor business decision to open a business to cater to a small minority. For example, imagine trying to compete with a Mcdonald's in a small town that has very few black people. Basically, every human in town would have a place to buy a burger, well except for the black people, they don't get to go out for burgers. For this reason, your 'open market' argument is lost on me.

Please define what you mean by a 'gay wedding cake'. I see a bakery that will sell cakes for weddings, except when it comes to one group of humans. They are being treated unjustly and with prejudice. All are worthy of the cakes, except for one group of humans in this case.

What I have seen and heard, specifically from the defendants and their lawyer, it is not the cake per se. It is taking part in the wedding.

You can sell a cake without taking part in a wedding.

However, even if it is just decorating it in a special way, why must every vendor, as a matter of law, provide a particular kind of product or service?

Decorating cakes is decorating cakes. It is just hateful IMO to decorate cakes for white people but not black people.

Is this a public or private fire department? There are farmer's out here who have their own fire trucks. Should they be obligated as a matter of law to come to town when my house catches fire?

Well gee, you tell me. Let's say that you were a black man and your neighbor was a white guy. If both of your homes were on fire, would Jesus approve of the farmer only helping the white guy, or do you think he would encourage the farmer to help both humans?
As far as it being law or not, that would all depend on the funding. A farmer that simply owns a firetruck would be under no obligation.

Should our local Carl's Jr. be required by law to have a Kosher kitchen?

Please understand this. If your Carl's Jr. were to sell Kosher meat, it would need to sell Kosher meat justly and without prejudice to all humans. No one would be forcing them to sell Kosher meat. They can sell it or not sell it. But if they do sell it, they need to do it in a non discriminatory manner.

There are a lot of things that I don't think are fair, but I don't think local businesses should be legally micromanaged by government to meet my personal opinion of what is fair.

No one is arguing for fairness nor government micromanaging. Please stay on task.

So, you and everyone you know decide where to buy things and eat based on a flip of a coin?

That is not how I decide where to buy things.

Now, you are going to broadly define boycott and narrowly define discrimination

I have not been doing any defining. Sorry. Just linking to definitions of words.
You are the one that brought up boycotting anyway.

No, I am not at war with anything, not even incendiary language. What I am opposed to is the fallasious practice of including the conclusion in the premise.

What do you mean? Be specific. Perhaps you can cut and paste whatever it is you are referring to.

You have provided me with definitions of boycott and discrimination in a biased fashion and repeatedly thrown out the terms "unjust" or "prejudice" to characterize all discrimination with out justification. My question is how is it you justify the use of those terms to characterize all discrimination.

Those terms are in the definition, I did not put them there. There are more that I'll include and bold for you though.
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.
"victims of racial discrimination"
synonyms: prejudice, bias, bigotry, intolerance, narrow-mindedness, unfairness, inequity, favoritism, one-sidedness, partisanship, sexism, chauvinism, misogyny, racism, racialism, anti-Semitism, heterosexism, ageism, classism, casteism; historical apartheid

When you can come up with a way to measure maturity, you know, like we can someones age, please let us know. Until then, we limit all 18 yr olds in the same way.

It is not a matter of whether or not it is the best we can do. The point is that it is discrimination. You seem to think that only government approved discrimination is acceptable.

Show me that I'm wrong. Show me a group of humans that are being discriminated against due to race, age, or sex. You are claiming that there is a group of humans that fall under some maturity classification. Show that you speak the truth.

Are you asking for a percentage?

Not really, because I know you can't, so I'm just pointing it out to the readers.

As long as there is open access to the market, the nature of social preferences becomes evident.

And there is one of the issues. There would be many gays, especially in small towns that would not have access to a cake market.

I reject this scapegoat. Either show that society thinks discrimination is good, or provide us with some sort of guideline as to how unjust and prejudice a company should be. I keep asking you about McDonald's specifically. If your words were not empty, I would think you would be able to apply them to this scenario. I don't think you can, and I do think your words about optimal discrimination are empty, but I await being shown wrong.

However, the solution to that is for me to discriminate against McDonald's by taking my business elsewhere and otherwise investing in alternative businesses.

Readers, review the definition of discrimination and see if you can apply it to McDonalds in this scenario where the customer is choosing not to go. What group of humans is being treated with discrimination? Really, none? Hmmm.

[bluethread]

There is also "welfare", SSI and EBT. However, to avoid rabbit trails, let's just look at the private labor market. Unemployment insurance is an employer mandate. It is not negotiated severance, it is a government mandated benefit. The important thing is that the government dictates the price that the purchaser of labor must pay based on time, not productivity. So, whether the person stacks 50 lb. boxes or just answers the phone, it's the same amount.

Answering the phone isn't a job? Come on. You said they get pay for nothing.

Minimum wage is not getting paid for nothing. "Welfare", SSI and EBT are getting paid for doing nothing. That is what the government does in addition to the minimum wage that undermines the private economy.

No, he can just negotiate up. What if he can't do that much work in an hour?

Then he is not a suitable candidate for the job.

In Washington State no one is allowed to do work that is worth less than $11.00 an hour to the employer. So, the employer buys a machine, up scales the workload, goes to the black market, or does it himself. Regardless the lawful job seeker is left pounding sand.

That's where unemployment benefits comes in, for those who would otherwise be left pounding sand.

So, those who are not qualified for a job, get paid anyway, by state mandated insurance, paid for by the employer who the person is unqualified to work for. Does that make sense to you?

I don't know what you mean. The argument for open borders is that immigrants are doing those jobs. How are they sustaining themselves?

No idea what you are talking about here, immigrants are also paid the minimum wage. Are you referring to illegal workers?

Oh, sorry, I didn't put it that way, because we are repeatedly told that people are not illegal. Ok, yes, I am referring to illegal workers. How are they sustaining themselves?

What law was it that they were intending on breaking

Anti-discrimination laws.

and how does the gag order stop that??

It won't, just to stop them from talking about wanting to break it.

So, the gag order is designed to protect them from self incrimination? I thought that's what lawyers are for? Why should they be kept from confessing to a crime, if it indeed is one?

That is not what I was referring to. When I said they are doing it, I was referring to them discriminating. It probably should have read, If stopping discriminating is a good thing, why is the government still discriminating.

Ok, a case of miscommunication. Why is the government still discriminating, it is because the kind of discrimination in question are the good kind of discrimination.

But, I am being told on this thread that there are no good kinds of discrimination. In fact, I am being told that since I believe that not all discrimination is bad, I must also believe that all discrimination is good. I am glad you agree with what I am actually saying.

Because the government is very bad at assessing the content of one's character. The market is much better at doing that.

History says otherwise, again I remind you "whites only" was still a thing not so long ago.

It was maintained by legislation. After the revoking of Jim Crow laws, competition and innovation have pushed the behaviors out of the market. The legislation on private business in the "Civil Rights Act" did remove the signs. However, rather than remove the factors listed from transactions, it just created a grievance industry with a vested interest in stopping all discrimination. This of course is impossible and to the extent that it is possible, it undermines the private property basis of the economy.

Nice dodge. Are all preachers required to officiate "gay" weddings on request?

No, since a) preachers are not required to officiate opposite sex weddings on request and b) he is not running a business.

Well, bakers are not required to make wedding cakes either. If a preacher does officiate weddings, can he be forced to officiate "gay" weddings? Also, there are many threads on this site that argue that preaching is a business. Personally, I think they are in business, they are just in nonprofit businesses.

Are all caterers required to cater "gay" weddings?

As long as they cater opposite sex weddings, yes, they are required to.

Should it be illegal to specialize in Catholic weddings, or Hindu weddings?

Depends if you are talking about a business or a religious ceremony. The former, yes, the latter, no.

A wedding is a religious ceremony. If it is not, what's with the special cake? By the way, religion is explicitly mentioned in the civil rights act and sexual orientation is not, but you say a cake maker is obligated to recognize sexual orientation when making a wedding cake, but is not required to recognize a religion when making a wedding cake.

Is it wrong to let someone specialize in "gay" weddings?

No, a business can specialize in "gay" weddings, but even if they are specialized in "gay" weddings, they are required to provide the same services for opposite sex weddings. This concept of "same treatment" isn't all that complicated, if one is not trying to twist one service into two based on the sexuality of the customer.

That is a distinction without a difference. If one is required to do something that is not their specialty, they are not being allowed to specialize.

Well, they wouldn't be a Kosher deli, if they provide pork sandwiches.

Not my problem what they call themselves, they provide pork sandwiches to straight couples, therefore they are required to provide pork sandwiches to gay couples; they provide pork sandwiches to non voodoo believers, therefore they are required to provide pork sandwiches to voodoo believers.

Who said that they provide pork sandwiches to straight couples? They provide sandwiches, they just don't provide pork sandwiches.

However, let me help you out by changing it to a Glatt Kosher bakery serving cheeseburgers. They sell cheese and they sell hamburgers, but they do not sell cheeseburgers. That better fits your argument. They also would not serve cheese and hamburgers at the same time. This means nothing to the voodoo believers. However, it does mean something to the deli owners. Why can't someone else do that. Why must it be the deli owners.

It doesn't have to be them, anyone else could do it. But they are required to do so if someone choose to buy from them, anything less is religious discrimination. They sell cheese and they sell hamburgers to non voodoo believers, therefore they are compelled by law to sell cheese and sell hamburgers to voodoo believers. Pay particular attention of the fact that they are not required to sell cheeseburgers because that is not a product they already provides. It's time you accept that the nature of a product or service, does not change base on the sexuality or the religion of the customer.

No, the question is are they required to serve cheese burgers? They do not do that for anybody. They serve cheese and they serve burgers, but they do not serve them together. If cheese burgers were an integral part of a religious ceremony, would they be required to serve them?

Collusion is not complete control over the market. It is cooperation between two or more entities to limit access to the market. The courts determined that operating system software and program software are two different products, so providing operating system information only to the in house program software developers violates the concept of a free market.

Right, limited access is a bad thing, so complete control is a worse thing. The government is absolutely in the right to break up monopolies.

You are ignoring the fact that your example is not a monopoly. You have yet to provide an example of a monopoly that was not the result of government action. So, you are saying that government is absolutely in the right to break up something of their own making. I agree, however there would be no need for the monopoly having to be broken up, if the government did not create it in the first place.

No, the distinction is significant enough for the Supreme Court to force Microsoft to create a wall of separation between it's OP and program divisions.

Right, but that has nothing to do with my point. The difference between "gay" Internet explorer and "straight" Internet explorer is the sexual orientation of the user, the code between the gay and straight version is exactly the same. It's not a new or separate product.

However, Microsoft is not required to run the "gay" Internet explorer. Nor are they required to provide "gay" programs. Microsoft sells Internet explorer to the user and THE USER runs and/or modifies it to fit their needs.

If the principle you are espousing holds, all software programs will be required to have "gay" characters in their video games and any other programs that one could interpret as indicating "sexual orientation".

No, if the principle I am espousing holds, then all software programs will be required to made available to be purchased by both gay users and straight users. Same treatment for all regardless of sexual orientation.

No, if that were the case, the couple could have bought the cake, as they had many times before and modify it to suit their purposes or take it to whatever ceremony they wish, or they could get someone else to do it. This is not about not selling cake. It is about not modifying a product or provide an additional service. You are not requiring that of the software program developers.

Had Alabama not interfered in the market, integrated bus lines could have sprung up and solved the problem.

Would it? Years after the ruling black people were still sitting at the back of the bus because of the backlash.

If legislation is the solution, why didn't the legislation work? Why didn't the government transit systems stop the practice?

"In November 1955, just three weeks before Parks' defiance . . . The ICC prohibited individual carriers from imposing their own segregation rules on interstate travelers, declaring that to do so was a violation of the anti-discrimination provision of the Interstate Commerce Act. But neither the Supreme Court's Morgan ruling nor the ICC's Keys ruling addressed the matter of Jim Crow travel within the individual states."

In fact, during the Montgomery boycott, "(I)nstead of riding buses, boycotters organized a system of carpools, with car owners volunteering their vehicles or themselves driving people to various destinations. Some white housewives also drove their black domestic servants to work. When the city pressured local insurance companies to stop insuring cars used in the carpools, the boycott leaders arranged policies with Lloyd's of London, a company which once insured slave cargo ships.

Black taxi drivers charged ten cents per ride, a fare equal to the cost to ride the bus, in support of the boycott. When word of this reached city officials on December 8, the order went out to fine any cab driver who charged a rider less than 45 cents. In addition to using private motor vehicles, some people used non-motorized means to get around, such as cycling, walking, or even riding mules or driving horse-drawn buggies. Some people also hitchhiked. During rush hours, sidewalks were often crowded. As the buses received few, if any, passengers, their officials asked the City Commission to allow stopping service to black communities."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_bus_boycott

So, it was Jim Crow legislation, government action, that perpetuated the problem.

"Safe Bus Company, which operated in Winston-Salem from 1926 to 1972, was formed to provide African American workers in East Winston-Salem with transportation to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company plants. At that time, electric trolleys and other forms of public transportation did not operate near the eastern part of town where most African Americans lived. Over the next 40 years, Safe Bus Company’s riders and profits increased markedly, but eventually it was bought by the Winston Salem Transit Authority (WSTA) in an effort to expand integrated bus service. "
http://www.nctrans.org/Media/Releases/H ... any-o.aspx

Isn't this a better solution? A company caters to a market opportunity, customers seek out competition and innovate, and the problem gets solved. The reason the problem persisted was because of Jim Crow and government run bus lines, closing the market to competition and innovation. That's what government programs always do. They remove market opportunities, and stifle competition and innovation. I am not saying that there may not be a case here nd there, i.e. natural disasters, where government intrusion may be warranted. However, most of the time it just perpetuates the problems, or causes new ones.

[bluethread]

There is no ideal amount of discrimination.

I disagree. The ideal amount of injustice and prejudice is close to zero IMO.
Can you provide a scenario where treating people unjustly or with prejudice would be a good thing? I'm not talking about things like not allowing children to buy cigarettes. I'm talking about a scenario where a company is allowed to be unjust and/or prejudice against a specific group of humans due to race, religion or sex.

Again, you are defining discrimination as injustice and prejudice, and narrowing that even further by referring to federal civil rights legislation, which does not include gender identification, by the way. I do not think that a business should be unjust. I just think that some discrimination, as with the age example is not unjust.

Would society benefit more if McDonald's stopped serving religious people or black people, or both? I don't know?

I don't believe you. I think you do know, you just know it would destroy your argument for businesses to discriminate against gays.
Do the ol pro/con column gig and see for yourself.
What pro's do you see if McDonald's were to stop serving blacks?

That depends on a lot of things. Just because discrimination does provide diversity in an open market does not mean that a specific vendor limiting it's customer base in a particular way would always lead to a better or worse society.

Discrimination is not limiting a customer base. It is treating a group of humans unjustly and/or with prejudice.
For example, an over 21 nightclub is not discriminating. It would need to allow all 21 year olds (and older), except for one group of humans based on religion, race or sex in order for it to be discriminating.
If all are welcome to a business, except for one small minority of people, it would in most cases be a poor business decision to open a business to cater to a small minority. For example, imagine trying to compete with a Mcdonald's in a small town that has very few black people. Basically, every human in town would have a place to buy a burger, well except for the black people, they don't get to go out for burgers. For this reason, your 'open market' argument is lost on me.

Again, you are defining discrimination based on federal civil rights legislation. Regarding your specific example, do you actually believe that black people are incapable of starting a business to compete with McDonald's, or no one ele would do so? Barring government interference, there aren't many barriers to starting a burger joint.

What I have seen and heard, specifically from the defendants and their lawyer, it is not the cake per se. It is taking part in the wedding.

You can sell a cake without taking part in a wedding.

Then there is no case, because, according to the store owners, these are regular customers and they have never refused to sell them a cake.

However, even if it is just decorating it in a special way, why must every vendor, as a matter of law, provide a particular kind of product or service?

Decorating cakes is decorating cakes. It is just hateful IMO to decorate cakes for white people but not black people.

Even if they want you to decorate the cake in a way that you find personally repugnant? What if it was to be decorated with a penis or breasts, or better yet, a penis and breasts?

Is this a public or private fire department? There are farmer's out here who have their own fire trucks. Should they be obligated as a matter of law to come to town when my house catches fire?

Well gee, you tell me. Let's say that you were a black man and your neighbor was a white guy. If both of your homes were on fire, would Jesus approve of the farmer only helping the white guy, or do you think he would encourage the farmer to help both humans?
As far as it being law or not, that would all depend on the funding. A farmer that simply owns a firetruck would be under no obligation.

We are not talking about what Jesus would do. We are talking about being compelled to do something by law. Just so we are clear, are you saying that he can use his fire truck to put out the fire in my house and not my neighbors house, as long as he owns the fire truck?

Should our local Carl's Jr. be required by law to have a Kosher kitchen?

Please understand this. If your Carl's Jr. were to sell Kosher meat, it would need to sell Kosher meat justly and without prejudice to all humans. No one would be forcing them to sell Kosher meat. They can sell it or not sell it. But if they do sell it, they need to do it in a non discriminatory manner.

Hold it. We are talking about requiring people to modify the product they sell for a specific ceremony and/or take part in that ceremony. If they can be compelled to do that, why can't Carl's Jr. be compelled to modify their product for Pesach and/or take part in the Seder?

There are a lot of things that I don't think are fair, but I don't think local businesses should be legally micromanaged by government to meet my personal opinion of what is fair.

No one is arguing for fairness nor government micromanaging. Please stay on task.

No one? Well, if you're are not talking about fairness, you're use of the word unjust is new to me. Also, requiring a business to modify what they sell for a specific ceremony and/or take part in that ceremony sound a lot like micromanaging to me.

So, you and everyone you know decide where to buy things and eat based on a flip of a coin?

That is not how I decide where to buy things.

Then you are discriminating. It may be legal and/or moral discrimination, but it is discrimination none the less.

Now, you are going to broadly define boycott and narrowly define discrimination

I have not been doing any defining. Sorry. Just linking to definitions of words.
You are the one that brought up boycotting anyway.

No, I am not at war with anything, not even incendiary language. What I am opposed to is the fallasious practice of including the conclusion in the premise.

What do you mean? Be specific. Perhaps you can cut and paste whatever it is you are referring to.

You did not just link two definitions, you chose a broad definition for boycott and a narrow one for discrimination. You have also sought to establish a definition for discrimination by context, i.e. interchanging the term with another phrase.

In a discussion about whether discrimination is always bad, using "unjust and prejudiced" interchangeably with the term "discrimination" is including the conclusion in the premise. That is a fallacious argument. When referring to discrimination one should use the term discrimination and provide support for the argument that all discrimination is "unjust and prejudiced"

You have provided me with definitions of boycott and discrimination in a biased fashion and repeatedly thrown out the terms "unjust" or "prejudice" to characterize all discrimination with out justification. My question is how is it you justify the use of those terms to characterize all discrimination.

Those terms are in the definition, I did not put them there. There are more that I'll include and bold for you though.
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.
"victims of racial discrimination"
synonyms: prejudice, bias, bigotry, intolerance, narrow-mindedness, unfairness, inequity, favoritism, one-sidedness, partisanship, sexism, chauvinism, misogyny, racism, racialism, anti-Semitism, heterosexism, ageism, classism, casteism; historical apartheid

I noticed that you again gave a definition without attribution. It is interesting that you blew off the definitions that I provided with attribution. I suspect that you are quoting a specific use definition, since it uses the same terminology as federal civil rights legislation, which does not include gender identity, by the way.

When you can come up with a way to measure maturity, you know, like we can someones age, please let us know. Until then, we limit all 18 yr olds in the same way.

It is not a matter of whether or not it is the best we can do. The point is that it is discrimination. You seem to think that only government approved discrimination is acceptable.

Show me that I'm wrong. Show me a group of humans that are being discriminated against due to race, age, or sex. You are claiming that there is a group of humans that fall under some maturity classification. Show that you speak the truth.

No, I am not saying that maturity is a classification. Maturity is a characteristic that a law based on age classification is designed to emulate. Since, maturity and age do not always correlate, passing laws based on age is discrimination. I don't think that it necessarily bad discrimination, but it is discrimination none the less. In fact, the government has enacted laws against some age discrimination, while, at the same time, enacting other laws based on age discrimination. Go figure.

Are you asking for a percentage?

Not really, because I know you can't, so I'm just pointing it out to the readers.

As long as there is open access to the market, the nature of social preferences becomes evident.

And there is one of the issues. There would be many gays, especially in small towns that would not have access to a cake market.

So, are you now saying that "gays" don't know how to bake, or can't start a bakery? For someone who does not like prejudice, you don't seem to think very highly of blacks and "gays".

I reject this scapegoat. Either show that society thinks discrimination is good, or provide us with some sort of guideline as to how unjust and prejudice a company should be. I keep asking you about McDonald's specifically. If your words were not empty, I would think you would be able to apply them to this scenario. I don't think you can, and I do think your words about optimal discrimination are empty, but I await being shown wrong.

However, the solution to that is for me to discriminate against McDonald's by taking my business elsewhere and otherwise investing in alternative businesses.

Readers, review the definition of discrimination and see if you can apply it to McDonalds in this scenario where the customer is choosing not to go. What group of humans is being treated with discrimination? Really, none? Hmmm.

[/quote]

Yes, look back at the definition that I provide with attribution and double check my source. Is the definition of discrimination only the restrictions of federal civil rights legislation? If that is the case, "gender identity' is not included. I however, am not using a definition the excludes "gender identity". I am looking at discrimination of all kinds and examining what method or methods are best at preserving the rights of both parties in a transaction.

[Zzyzx]

.

"Welfare", SSI and EBT are getting paid for doing nothing. That is what the government does in addition to the minimum wage that undermines the private economy.

Let's interrupt this conservative dialogue with a dose of reality -- and a few words from a Non-Theist perspective.

Some conservative critics of federal social programs, including leading presidential candidates, are sounding an alarm that the United States is rapidly becoming an “entitlement society� in which social programs are undermining the work ethic and creating a large class of Americans who prefer to depend on government benefits rather than work.  A new CBPP analysis of budget and Census data, however, shows that more than 90 percent of the benefit dollars that entitlement and other mandatory programs[1] spend go to assist people who are elderly, seriously disabled, or members of working households — not to able-bodied, working-age Americans who choose not to work.  (See Figure 1.)  This figure has changed little in the past few years.
In a December 2011 op-ed, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney warned ominously of the dangers that the nation faces from the encroachment of the “Entitlement Society,� predicting that in a few years, “we will have created a society that contains a sizable contingent of long-term jobless, dependent on government benefits for survival.�  “Government dependency,� he wrote, “can only foster passivity and sloth.�[2]  Similarly, former Senator Rick Santorum said that recent expansions in the “reach of government� and the spending behind them are “systematically destroying the work ethic.�[3] 
The claim behind these critiques is clear: federal spending on entitlements and other mandatory programs through which individuals receive benefits is promoting laziness, creating a dependent class of Americans who are losing the desire to work and would rather collect government benefits than find a job.  
Such beliefs are starkly at odds with the basic facts regarding social programs, the analysis finds. Federal budget and Census data show that, in 2010, 91 percent of the benefit dollars from entitlement and other mandatory programs went to the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working households.  People who are neither elderly nor disabled — and do not live in a working household — received only 9 percent of the benefits. 
Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64.  Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.
http://www.cbpp.org/research/contrary-t ... fits-go-to

And

Children are more likely than adults to be on welfare, according to the report. In fiscal 2011, recipients included 38.0 percent of children 5 and under, 34.8 percent of children 6 to 10, and 32.0 percent of children 11 to 15.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ter ... orded-high

Those lazy children, old farts, disabled people should STARVE or DIE for lack of medical attention. Right?

That's where unemployment benefits comes in, for those who would otherwise be left pounding sand.

So, those who are not qualified for a job, get paid anyway, by state mandated insurance, paid for by the employer who the person is unqualified to work for. Does that make sense to you?

If a small town employer closes and there are no available jobs for former employees, they are qualified and have skills but no jobs are available. Should they STARVE or steal to survive until they find other employment?

No idea what you are talking about here, immigrants are also paid the minimum wage. Are you referring to illegal workers?

Oh, sorry, I didn't put it that way, because we are repeatedly told that people are not illegal. Ok, yes, I am referring to illegal workers. How are they sustaining themselves?

Immigrants, legal or illegal, are heavily employed in agricultural jobs (often migrant labor) or other jobs that 'regular citizens' WILL NOT DO. They sustain themselves on whatever wages they are paid.

Shall crops go unharvested when immigrants are eliminated from the workforce?

Brian Cash can put a figure to the cost of Alabama's new immigration law: at least $100,000. That's the value of the tomatoes he has personally ripening out in his fields and that are going unpicked because his Hispanic workforce vanished literally overnight.

For generations, Cash's family have farmed 125 acres atop the Chandler mountain, a plateau in the north of the state about nine miles long and two miles wide. It's perfect tomato-growing country – the soil is sandy and rich, and the elevation provides a breeze that keeps frost at bay and allows early planting.

For four months every year he employs almost exclusively Hispanic male workers to pick the harvest. This year he had 64 men out in the fields. Then HB56 came into effect, the new law that makes it a crime not to carry valid immigration documents and forces the police to check on anyone they suspect may be in the country illegally.

The provisions – the toughest of any state in America – were enforced on 28 September. By the next day Cash's workforce had dwindled to 11.

Today there is no-one left. The fields around his colonial-style farmhouse on top of a mountain are empty of pickers and the tomato plants are withering on the vine as far as the eye can see. The sweet, slightly acrid smell of rotting tomato flesh hangs in the air. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/ ... aw-workers

Georgia's tough new immigration laws may have worked too well, says Megan McArdle in The Atlantic: After no undocumented migrant workers showed up for the harvest, Georgia farmers left millions of dollars worth of fruits and vegetables rotting in the fields. Some economists have even pointed out that if the farmers had to hire legal pickers, they'd go bankrupt. But almost everyone is "wildly underestimating what's involved in becoming a skilled picker," McArdle says. If the U.S. actually seals off our southern border, "we will see a lot more ruined crops." Here's an excerpt:

Most fruits and vegetables require surprisingly skilled handling (which is why they still use pickers, instead of machines). Bad picking can easily destroy the profit margin on your crop, costing you more than you gain....

The illegal immigrants who harvest our crops have grown up doing this, learning the way my grandparents did. There are almost no Americans left who have either the painfully developed musculature or the painstakingly acquired knowledge to rapidly harvest a field without damaging the crop. And acquiring those skills is tricky, because the picking season for any one crop is very short... after which, it's time to start picking another crop that you don't know how to handle. And it's best done in a group of people who know what they're doing, not in a clueless mob that just got dumped in the fields for the first time. http://theweek.com/articles/483381/amer ... immigrants

Also
http://www.voanews.com/a/us-farmers-dep ... 62082.html

When factories in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois close, will the now-unemployed workers start harvesting fruits and vegetables?


I really appreciate the display of such Christian attitudes toward others in these debates for readers to compare to attitudes conveyed by Non-Christians. The 'love thy neighbor' crowd seems to be a bit hateful when they reveal their thoughts on matters such as this.

'Walk the talk' seems to be a foreign concept to the many of the self-righteous contingent. (Perhaps I should have said 'unfamiliar' rather than 'foreign' to avoid evoking displays of negative emotionalism toward foreigners that seems common in conservatism / nationalism).

[Bust Nak]

Minimum wage is not getting paid for nothing. "Welfare", SSI and EBT are getting paid for doing nothing. That is what the government does in addition to the minimum wage that undermines the private economy.

Given the private economy cares about the employer more than the employee, that's a bad thing, how?

So, those who are not qualified for a job, get paid anyway, by state mandated insurance, paid for by the employer who the person is unqualified to work for. Does that make sense to you?

Yes, it do not merely make sense, it's a good thing too.

Oh, sorry, I didn't put it that way, because we are repeatedly told that people are not illegal. Ok, yes, I am referring to illegal workers. How are they sustaining themselves?

They are not, it's just a better situation than their prior predicament.

So, the gag order is designed to protect them from self incrimination? I thought that's what lawyers are for? Why should they be kept from confessing to a crime, if it indeed is one?

Saying they want to discriminate isn't exactly an offence. It just encourages others to break the law.

But, I am being told on this thread that there are no good kinds of discrimination...

That depends on what definitions you use. Ideally you would stick to one so we don't end up debating semantics. Tell me which version you prefer: a) limited only to the wrong kind; or b) merely distinguishing between different entities? I prefer the former one, so I don't have to keep typing unjust discrimination.

It was maintained by legislation. After the revoking of Jim Crow laws, competition and innovation have pushed the behaviors out of the market. The legislation on private business in the "Civil Rights Act" did remove the signs. However, rather than remove the factors listed from transactions, it just created a grievance industry with a vested interest in stopping all discrimination. This of course is impossible and to the extent that it is possible, it undermines the private property basis of the economy.

Which is why government is required to step in. The market is only interested in making more money, even if it means screwing minorities over.

Well, bakers are not required to make wedding cakes either.

Sure, but that's moot since the bakers in question do make wedding cakes.

If a preacher does officiate weddings, can he be forced to officiate "gay" weddings?

Is he doing that as a business? If so then yes, he should be forced to.

Also, there are many threads on this site that argue that preaching is a business. Personally, I think they are in business, they are just in nonprofit businesses.

Okay, I will grant you there is wiggleroom there for what counts and does not count as running a business.

A wedding is a religious ceremony. If it is not, what's with the special cake?

1) It can be a religious occasion, but it can also be a secular one. 2) Not all religion discriminate against same sex couples. 3) Businesses provide for religious ceremony too. You have presented a red herring.

By the way, religion is explicitly mentioned in the civil rights act and sexual orientation is not, but you say a cake maker is obligated to recognize sexual orientation when making a wedding cake, but is not required to recognize a religion when making a wedding cake.

Correct. When human rights conflicts, some have to take preference.

That is a distinction without a difference. If one is required to do something that is not their specialty, they are not being allowed to specialize.

What made you say they required to do something that is not their specialty? I said they are required to provide the SAME services to everyone. More to the point, there is no difference between a gay wedding and a straight one wedding from the business point of view, if you can source a suit plus a dress, you can source two suits or two dresses. If you can source a car to carry a couple of different gender, the same car can carry a couple of the same gender.

Who said that they provide pork sandwiches to straight couples?

I made that assumption, I assumed you paid attention to my point that it was about equal treatment and not special treatment. I assumed you wanted to compare like with like, instead of apples to oranges - where the same product is to be sold to some customer but not to others, based on an aspect of the customer instead of the product being sold.

They provide sandwiches, they just don't provide pork sandwiches.

If that was the case, why did you ask if they are forced to serve pulled pork sandwiches in the first place, why would they be forced to do such a thing? Did I or did I not made it very explicit that I was talking about equal treatment, did I or did I not call you out for twisting one service into two based on the sexuality (or religion in this case) of the customer?

If they don't provide pork sandwiches for anyone then they are not required to provide pork sandwiches for voodoo believers. They are required to provide sandwiches for voodoo believers because it is already on their menu, they cannot discriminate against customers for their voodoo religion. What is so complicated about that?

No, the question is are they required to serve cheese burgers?

Asked and answered - and I quote "Pay particular attention of the fact that they are not required to sell cheeseburgers because that is not a product they already provides." The answer is still no, exactly because they do not do cheeseburgers for anybody. They serve cheese and they serve burgers, but they do not serve them together. That means they must serve cheese to voodoo believers and they must serve burgers to voodoo believers, just not serve them together. What significance cheeseburgers have for said voodoo believers is irrelevant.

I ask you again, what is so complicated about that? Let me suggest that there is nothing complicated about that, you created two products where there was only one to fit your narrative of a business being forced to do provide something extra, a special treatment for gay people.

You are ignoring the fact that your example is not a monopoly. You have yet to provide an example of a monopoly that was not the result of government action.

I don't know of any, that's why I asked you what you had in mind.

However, Microsoft is not required to run the "gay" Internet explorer. Nor are they required to provide "gay" programs. Microsoft sells Internet explorer to the user and THE USER runs and/or modifies it to fit their needs.

Yes, and that's why Microsoft are not being sued for discrimination - they sell to whomever wants to buy it regardless of their sexuality, unlike the two cases with the bakery. So what exactly is the point you are making here?

No, if that were the case, the couple could have bought the cake, as they had many times before and modify it to suit their purposes or take it to whatever ceremony they wish

No, they couldn't have bought the cake as they had many times before, because the baker wouldn't sell and that's the entire point of the law suit. It is absolutely about not selling cakes.

No, if what you said was the case, the couple wouldn't have sued, let alone win the case in a court of law.

If legislation is the solution, why didn't the legislation work? Why didn't the government transit systems stop the practice?

Enforcement wasn't strong enough, there black people felt unsafe.

"In November 1955, just three weeks before Parks' defiance..."

Isn't this a better solution?

It's a great solution to be implemented along side government mandates. The fact that some have to go as far as boycotts should have told you that the market (and indeed the general population) is slow to react on social issues.

A company caters to a market opportunity, customers seek out competition and innovate, and the problem gets solved.

That won't work when the customers in question are a minority.

The reason the problem persisted was because of Jim Crow and government run bus lines, closing the market to competition and innovation. That's what government programs always do. They remove market opportunities, and stifle competition and innovation.

That's a good thing when the innovation in question are related to how to screw over the workers and customers. I never understood why people would trust businesses whose mandate is profit, over government whose mandate is serving the people.

[bluethread]

Let's interrupt this conservative dialogue with a dose of reality -- and a few words from a Non-Theist perspective.

That is the prospective of many theist also, so I see no reason to bring theism into the discussion.

Those lazy children, old farts, disabled people should STARVE or DIE for lack of medical attention. Right?

Those are interesting statistics, however, the fact that children, the elderly and disabled people receive money, does not change the fact that they are not doing anything to earn it. You are making a zero sum argument, as if without the government everyone starves and dies. Charity is indeed a good thing, however, when money is taken from one person under threat of fine or imprisonment and given to another person, that is not charity. I would not say that those children are lazy, I would say that their parents are the one's who are responsible for them. I am also sorry that the elderly have gotten caught up in the Ponzi scheme call medicare, but that does justify extortion. Third, helping out the disabled is also admirable. However, when the payers is separated from the recipients of the goods or services Parkinson's law and inefficiencies of scale kick in. The fact that people get hungry and die does not justify the involuntary transfer of wealth, by a third party. Encouraging and strengthening social ties and placing to costs on the responsible parties is a much better solution.

That's where unemployment benefits comes in, for those who would otherwise be left pounding sand.

So, those who are not qualified for a job, get paid anyway, by state mandated insurance, paid for by the employer who the person is unqualified to work for. Does that make sense to you?

If a small town employer closes and there are no available jobs for former employees, they are qualified and have skills but no jobs are available. Should they STARVE or steal to survive until they find other employment?

I did not say that. You are agian making a zero sum argument. It is a mandated benefit and they do not just receive benefits until they find employment, they receive benefits until they find comparable employment. One of the good things about standard unemployment benefits is that they are calculated based on wages and hours from actual work and they are limited to 26 weeks.

According to a St. Louis Federal Reserve study of extended benefits; "In summary, we find that the extension of unemployment benefits affected the labor market status of long-term unemployed workers in late 2013. Without extended UI benefits, these unemployed workers would have been more likely to be employed, more likely to exit the labor force, and on average 1.9 percent less likely to remain unemployed in the following period. In short, our simulated early termination of the EUC program lowered the unemployment rate by 3 to 5 basis points, suggesting that the December 2013 expiration of the EUC program might have slightly lowered the unemployment rate in early 2014. "
https://research.stlouisfed.org/publica ... -benefits/

So, "hunger" is indeed a motivating factor and the possibility of decreased benefits does encourage a more extensive job search.

No idea what you are talking about here, immigrants are also paid the minimum wage. Are you referring to illegal workers?

Oh, sorry, I didn't put it that way, because we are repeatedly told that people are not illegal. Ok, yes, I am referring to illegal workers. How are they sustaining themselves?

Immigrants, legal or illegal, are heavily employed in agricultural jobs (often migrant labor) or other jobs that 'regular citizens' WILL NOT DO. They sustain themselves on whatever wages they are paid.

Shall crops go unharvested when immigrants are eliminated from the workforce?

That was not my point. My point is that they can sustain themselves on less than minimum wage. If 'regular citizens' would do those jobs, they could sustain themselves also. Thank you for helping me make my point.

When factories in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois close, will the now-unemployed workers start harvesting fruits and vegetables?

Why not?

I really appreciate the display of such Christian attitudes toward others in these debates for readers to compare to attitudes conveyed by Non-Christians. The 'love thy neighbor' crowd seems to be a bit hateful when they reveal their thoughts on matters such as this.

Again, there are atheists as well as theists on both sides of this issue. So, your swipe a Christians is really not justified. My point is that government transfer payments are not charity, they are legalized extortion. If you think that is moral, why is it a good thing when governments do it, but not when private businesses do?