PDA

View Full Version : Farm owners fined for declining to host same-sex wedding



Captain Obvious
09-09-2014, 10:43 AM
Huckabee sighting also, he sure went from slightly irrelevant to wholly forgotten in a matter of a couple years.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3763793940001/farm-owners-fined-for-declining-to-host-same-sex-wedding/?intcmp=obnetwork#sp=show-clips

del
09-09-2014, 10:47 AM
it's expensive to be stupid

Mister D
09-09-2014, 10:47 AM
I've sat through part of his show on Fox just for the sheer awfulness of it.

Green Arrow
09-09-2014, 10:52 AM
He got fat off his Fox contract...literally.

del
09-09-2014, 10:53 AM
He got fat off his Fox contract...literally.

i thought it was the squirrels

Captain Obvious
09-09-2014, 10:55 AM
Nobody cares that this farm owner was fined like $10k for denying a gay couple wedding services?

I thought the resident religious wingnuts would be shitting their pants. Oh well...

Private Pickle
09-09-2014, 11:58 AM
Nobody cares that this farm owner was fined like $10k for denying a gay couple wedding services?

I thought the resident religious wingnuts would be shitting their pants. Oh well...

Well the government is forcing a morality upon the farm owner here....

Common Sense
09-09-2014, 12:07 PM
What if they had denied to allow a service for a black couple or a Jewish couple? Should that be their right as well?

The judge seems to be considering their venue as a public venue like a restaurant. That seems pretty reasonable to me. Could a restaurant legally decide not to serve gays?

Private Pickle
09-09-2014, 12:29 PM
What if they had denied to allow a service for a black couple or a Jewish couple? Should that be their right as well?

The judge seems to be considering their venue as a public venue like a restaurant. That seems pretty reasonable to me. Could a restaurant legally decide not to serve gays?

Slippery slope. Privately owned business should be given a choice with regard to who they serve. Tough one though.

Captain Obvious
09-09-2014, 12:34 PM
Slippery slope. Privately owned business should be given a choice with regard to who they serve. Tough one though.

Kinda like how they can hire/fire whoever they want regardless of race, gender, age, etc.

...oh wait

Polecat
09-09-2014, 01:26 PM
As a Christian myself I would be more interested to not offend someone then make a show of piety. Westboro Baptist tactics are not Christian at any level.

Matty
09-09-2014, 01:30 PM
Christians aren't allowed to be offended I suppose!

Captain Obvious
09-09-2014, 01:31 PM
Christians aren't allowed to be offended I suppose!

You do not have the right to not be offended.

Private Pickle
09-09-2014, 01:33 PM
Kinda like how they can hire/fire whoever they want regardless of race, gender, age, etc.

...oh wait

Right. But is denying someone employment the same as denying service?

Polecat
09-09-2014, 01:36 PM
Christians aren't allowed to be offended I suppose!

I did not say that. The thing is what do you do when you are offended? Do you froth at the mouth and behave like a heathen on the war path? I would choose not to oblige this sort of reaction personally. What you do is your own business.

Captain Obvious
09-09-2014, 01:36 PM
Right. But is denying someone employment the same as denying service?

Both are racial or whatever discrimination, no?

Alyosha
09-09-2014, 01:37 PM
Nobody cares that this farm owner was fined like $10k for denying a gay couple wedding services?

I thought the resident religious wingnuts would be shitting their pants. Oh well...

I do. I feel a business owner should be allowed for any reason whatsoever to deny service, if not that's slavery. I think homophobic people suck and I wouldn't serve them myself, but I also think we head into danger when we set a precedence that people have to be nice and fair.

I reserve the right to be an asshole legally if I want.

Alyosha
09-09-2014, 01:38 PM
I don't like racists or gay haters but I also don't like the government acting like my parent and telling me I have to play nice and what I should do with my time, labor, etc.

Polecat
09-09-2014, 01:41 PM
I do. I feel a business owner should be allowed for any reason whatsoever to deny service, if not that's slavery. I think homophobic people suck and I wouldn't serve them myself, but I also think we head into danger when we set a precedence that people have to be nice and fair.

I reserve the right to be an asshole legally if I want.

I agree with this sentiment as well. The state does not have the right to legislate morality or immorality or what flavor of ice cream you will prefer.

Captain Obvious
09-09-2014, 01:41 PM
I do. I feel a business owner should be allowed for any reason whatsoever to deny service, if not that's slavery. I think homophobic people suck and I wouldn't serve them myself, but I also think we head into danger when we set a precedence that people have to be nice and fair.

I reserve the right to be an asshole legally if I want.

So you feel you should have the right to deny employment to anyone simply because - hey, if you have to work with them then they should be people you like being around, no?

How is hiring any different than servicing someone (no wisecracks)?

Polecat
09-09-2014, 01:45 PM
So you feel you should have the right to deny employment to anyone simply because - hey, if you have to work with them then they should be people you like being around, no?

How is hiring any different than servicing someone (no wisecracks)?

Essentially the roles are reversed. Forcing someone to work when they don't want is called slavery.

Captain Obvious
09-09-2014, 01:47 PM
Essentially the roles are reversed. Forcing someone to work when they don't want is called slavery.

What?

Matty
09-09-2014, 01:49 PM
I did not say that. The thing is what do you do when you are offended? Do you froth at the mouth and behave like a heathen on the war path? I would choose not to oblige this sort of reaction personally. What you do is your own business.
Did they do any of that?

PolWatch
09-09-2014, 01:50 PM
If a business is open to the public, then its everyone. If a business doesn't want to serve everyone, then make it a private club...only members of certain religions allowed. That's what a lot of businesses in the south did for many years. Of course, they would have to be honest enough to admit that the purpose of the club was discrimination and most folks don't seem to be willing to do that now.

Carlsen
09-09-2014, 01:51 PM
Well the government is forcing a morality upon the farm owner here....


They should have host the wedding. They are real good looking queers :)


http://cdn.business2community.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Elton-John-with-David-Furnish-600x409.jpg

Polecat
09-09-2014, 01:52 PM
What?

Say I wanted to hire you to distribute republican literature on the street corner. Would rather have an option to turn down my offer of employment or do you think you should be required to accept my fair offer?

Captain Obvious
09-09-2014, 01:54 PM
Say I wanted to hire you to distribute republican literature on the street corner. Would rather have an option to turn down my offer of employment or do you think you should be required to accept my fair offer?

What's your point?

How does that prove or disprove the similarity between employment and buyer/seller?

Captain Obvious
09-09-2014, 01:55 PM
If a business is open to the public, then its everyone. If a business doesn't want to serve everyone, then make it a private club...only members of certain religions allowed. That's what a lot of businesses in the south did for many years. Of course, they would have to be honest enough to admit that the purpose of the club was discrimination and most folks don't seem to be willing to do that now.

That's kinda my point, I have a similar approach to organized religion in general.

Play by societies rules or get out of it.

Captain Obvious
09-09-2014, 01:55 PM
Well the government is forcing a morality upon the farm owner here....

Bullshit.

So you own a grocery store and now suddenly you adopt the morals of every customer who buys a loaf of bread off of you?

What a crock of shit!

Alyosha
09-09-2014, 01:56 PM
So you feel you should have the right to deny employment to anyone simply because - hey, if you have to work with them then they should be people you like being around, no?

How is hiring any different than servicing someone (no wisecracks)?


It's not about denying someone employment because that in itself is untrue. No one is denied employment when they aren't selected because they have no right to a job. They have a right to seek a job, and the right to work but they don't have an intrinsic right to a job at a specific company or else I should sue the Rutherford Institute for not hiring me.

People can go somewhere else and work, somewhere else and have a wedding. They just don't want to when they think they were turned down unfairly. Then it becomes I want to work THERE because they are assholes--brilliant logic. I want to have my damn wedding on those homophobes farm! Dammit!

Its just stupid. You can work for a known racist/homophobe/misogynist OR work for someone who knows you're black, gay, female and WANTS to hire you.

Duh! Any logical person would say fuck those assholes and have their wedding somewhere else.

Look everyone wants a job. If a company doesn't hire me because the owner went to Notre Dame and I went to Georgetown, oh well.

No one has a RIGHT to my time, property, or money but me. That's basic common sense. The second you force me to give you money, work, time that I don't want to give you for whatever reason that's robbery.

People want to work. The world would be a nice place if we could all have the jobs we want, but its not. I'm not Chris Hemsworth's personal assistant.

Shit happens.

Matty
09-09-2014, 01:58 PM
That's the answer. Post a sign that reads "weddings Hosted Here By Private Invitation Only."

Captain Obvious
09-09-2014, 01:58 PM
It's not about denying someone employment because that in itself is untrue. No one is denied employment when they aren't selected because they have no right to a job. They have a right to seek a job, and the right to work but they don't have an intrinsic right to a job at a specific company or else I should sue the Rutherford Institute for not hiring me.

People can go somewhere else and work, somewhere else and have a wedding. They just don't want to when they think they were turned down unfairly. Then it becomes I want to work THERE because they are assholes--brilliant logic. I want to have my damn wedding on those homophobes farm! Dammit!

Its just stupid. You can work for a known racist/homophobe/misogynist OR work for someone who knows you're black, gay, female and WANTS to hire you.

Duh! Any logical person would say fuck those assholes and have their wedding somewhere else.

Look everyone wants a job. If a company doesn't hire me because the owner went to Notre Dame and I went to Georgetown, oh well.

No one has a RIGHT to my time, property, or money but me. That's basic common sense. The second you force me to give you money, work, time that I don't want to give you for whatever reason that's robbery.

People want to work. The world would be a nice place if we could all have the jobs we want, but its not. I'm not Chris Hemsworth's personal assistant.

Shit happens.

So you ARE against hiring discrimination laws.

And I really don't have a problem with that and I do get your point, like I said earlier - don't want to play by societies rules? Get out of society. These institutions have other options. Making society adhere to their personal kookeries is called "wag the dog".

Captain Obvious
09-09-2014, 01:59 PM
That's the answer. Post a sign that reads "weddings Hosted Here By Private Invitation Only."

"Faggots need not apply"

We get it.

PolWatch
09-09-2014, 02:00 PM
I don't see how hiring practices would be the same as service restrictions. Hiring is based on requirements of the job, so its already restricted to those who meet the employers requirements. A business that sells services is open to anyone with the price of admission unless set up as a private club with restricted membership....or is there something I'm missing on the subject?

Private Pickle
09-09-2014, 02:02 PM
Both are racial or whatever discrimination, no?

Not sure. Too much grey.

Matty
09-09-2014, 02:02 PM
"Faggots need not apply"

We get it.
No need what so ever to add the last. Unless you (not you specifically ) just wanted to be an a hole.

Private Pickle
09-09-2014, 02:03 PM
I do. I feel a business owner should be allowed for any reason whatsoever to deny service, if not that's slavery. I think homophobic people suck and I wouldn't serve them myself, but I also think we head into danger when we set a precedence that people have to be nice and fair.

I reserve the right to be an asshole legally if I want.

This.

Private Pickle
09-09-2014, 02:04 PM
They should have host the wedding. They are real good looking queers :)


http://cdn.business2community.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Elton-John-with-David-Furnish-600x409.jpg

Elton John is a stud.

nathanbforrest45
09-09-2014, 02:04 PM
What if they had denied to allow a service for a black couple or a Jewish couple? Should that be their right as well?

The judge seems to be considering their venue as a public venue like a restaurant. That seems pretty reasonable to me. Could a restaurant legally decide not to serve gays?

A restaurant in Knoxville got away with not serving a local politician who was against gay marriage.

I would support anyone's right to run their business as they see fit. If they don't want to serve any group its their business. I also believe, like my father in law who owned a restaurant in Jacksonville FL, there is only one color and that is green, the color of money.

Private Pickle
09-09-2014, 02:05 PM
Bullshit.

So you own a grocery store and now suddenly you adopt the morals of every customer who buys a loaf of bread off of you?

What a crock of shit!

Wut?

del
09-09-2014, 02:06 PM
Nobody cares that this farm owner was fined like $10k for denying a gay couple wedding services?

I thought the resident religious wingnuts would be shitting their pants. Oh well...

it's not a church, it's a business

nathanbforrest45
09-09-2014, 02:06 PM
Did they do any of that?


No, they sued.

Alyosha
09-09-2014, 02:07 PM
What?

Yes. If I think you're a dick and I don't want to bake you a cake and you force me to, that's slavery. You're just placing a moral judgment against bigotry and applying that to law.

Laws are about logic and ethics, not morals. Else we should have everyone's moral apply. That's why defining marriage as man and woman is wrong. You're saying your morals win. Nope.

Government needs to stay out of these things and let the marketplace handle it. Boycott homophobes.

Polecat
09-09-2014, 02:07 PM
What's your point?

How does that prove or disprove the similarity between employment and buyer/seller?
Its about force. It is over used at every opportunity. Nobody likes it when they are forced to do something they would rather not. Irrational hatred and fear makes people act like rabid animals and whether it is justified or not such behavior is self maligning. My perception of this particular event (the gay marriage on the holy roller's property) is that all the parties involved are guilty.

Captain Obvious
09-09-2014, 02:08 PM
So I'm confused.

You people are ok with laws that say I have to hire the most qualified person regardless of their color, gender, etc. but I can turn down a potential customer based on their color, gender, etc.

And yet there's no arguable distinction between employer/employee and vendor/customer that logically supports this phenomenon.

ewwww-k

PolWatch
09-09-2014, 02:09 PM
If government had stayed out of it, we would still have Jim Crowe laws in the south...would this be a good thing? Religious objections were used to justify that too....

Private Pickle
09-09-2014, 02:10 PM
Wouldn't it be an infringement on the 1st? If the business owner couldn't say who he serves and who he doesn't?

Captain Obvious
09-09-2014, 02:10 PM
Its about force. It is over used at every opportunity. Nobody likes it when they are forced to do something they would rather not. Irrational hatred and fear makes people act like rabid animals and whether it is justified or not such behavior is self maligning. My perception of this particular event (the gay marriage on the holy roller's property) is that all the parties involved are guilty.

ok - now that's starting to make sense.

So where is all the angst over the fact that I have to hire a black person if they're the most qualified even though I really don't like black people?

Alyosha
09-09-2014, 02:11 PM
If government had stayed out of it, we would still have Jim Crowe laws in the south...would this be a good thing? Religious objections were used to justify that too....

Jim Crow laws were laws made by state government's. That's different. It's undoing laws.

Also you probably wouldn't still have them. Time marches on.

Captain Obvious
09-09-2014, 02:11 PM
it's not a church, it's a business

Yes, thank you for clarifying an existing known.

nathanbforrest45
09-09-2014, 02:14 PM
I don't see how hiring practices would be the same as service restrictions. Hiring is based on requirements of the job, so its already restricted to those who meet the employers requirements. A business that sells services is open to anyone with the price of admission unless set up as a private club with restricted membership....or is there something I'm missing on the subject?


Yes, its called a private business for a reason. Why do you or anyone else think you have the right to tell me how to run my business? Basically a customer is an employer. How can you justify forcing me to work for someone I don't want to work for? If I were a Born Again Christian would you force me to work for a grocery chain that sold alcohol?

Polecat
09-09-2014, 02:17 PM
ok - now that's starting to make sense.

So where is all the angst over the fact that I have to hire a black person if they're the most qualified even though I really don't like black people?
Again, I would find all three parties involved guilty. You for being more interested than hating a person for something he has no control over in the first place. The black man for wanting to work for someone that openly hates him for being black. And the government for interfering with a matter that they can only make worse.

PolWatch
09-09-2014, 02:18 PM
Yes, its called a private business for a reason. Why do you or anyone else think you have the right to tell me how to run my business? Basically a customer is an employer. How can you justify forcing me to work for someone I don't want to work for? If I were a Born Again Christian would you force me to work for a grocery chain that sold alcohol?

if you accepted a job with the grocery store chain & stocking was your job, then, yes...you would have to sell alcohol or quit.

nathanbforrest45
09-09-2014, 02:20 PM
If government had stayed out of it, we would still have Jim Crowe laws in the south...would this be a good thing? Religious objections were used to justify that too....

This is a good point. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 allowed stores who didn't not want to serve blacks the opportunity to do so. Before the law if they had served black customers their white customers (who outnumbered the blacks) would have gone elsewhere. After the law they could always blame serving blacks on the law and everyone had to do it so instead of losing business they gained it. The Civil Rights Act did serve a valid purpose but in my opinion it was still an infringement on the freedom of the diehard ignorant to remain so.

nathanbforrest45
09-09-2014, 02:21 PM
if you accepted a job with the grocery store chain & stocking was your job, then, yes...you would have to sell alcohol or quit.
Yes, I could quit but this farm owner is not allowed that same option is he?

PolWatch
09-09-2014, 02:30 PM
if he is operating a business that is open to the public, then no....imho. He can operate as a private club and specify who can be a member and admit/not admit anyone he wants. I don't have to allow everyone into my house for a Tupperware party because its a private building. If I hang a sign saying Tupperware store...then anyone is entitled to enter.

Polecat
09-09-2014, 02:30 PM
Yes, I could quit but this farm owner is not allowed that same option is he?

If he was really concerned with honoring Christ he would not have put himself in that position in the first place.

Bob
09-09-2014, 02:42 PM
Huckabee sighting also, he sure went from slightly irrelevant to wholly forgotten in a matter of a couple years.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3763793940001/farm-owners-fined-for-declining-to-host-same-sex-wedding/?intcmp=obnetwork#sp=show-clips

Mike sends me at least weekly notes so I have never forgotten him.
But this is about the citizen farmers.

Like it or not, NY has passed some law. And by law a commercial service includes all who seek such service.

They can change the service. They really can just kick weddings to the side unless they don't mind paying fines. Notice the homosexuals got no benefit. Just NY State since they collected the $13,000 fine.

This is what Democrats have been shoveling all along. The control of business by the state.

Bob
09-09-2014, 02:44 PM
if he is operating a business that is open to the public, then no....imho. He can operate as a private club and specify who can be a member and admit/not admit anyone he wants. I don't have to allow everyone into my house for a Tupperware party because its a private building. If I hang a sign saying Tupperware store...then anyone is entitled to enter.


I have not read the NY State law but believe that the lawyers crafting that law were up on private clubs and put in terms to block such clubs as well. The homosexuals would merely join such clubs.

Bob
09-09-2014, 02:47 PM
Wouldn't it be an infringement on the 1st? If the business owner couldn't say who he serves and who he doesn't?

Has any person posted the state law of NY that is used to fine the farm couple?

Polecat
09-09-2014, 02:49 PM
There were a few restaurants & bars that ried to get around the smoking laws that way too. New legislation about work place smoking shut that down within a year.

Alyosha
09-09-2014, 02:55 PM
if he is operating a business that is open to the public, then no....imho. He can operate as a private club and specify who can be a member and admit/not admit anyone he wants. I don't have to allow everyone into my house for a Tupperware party because its a private building. If I hang a sign saying Tupperware store...then anyone is entitled to enter.

Why?

First, you as a business owner are forced to pay taxes on that business to even do business, second you're saying its okay to also be forced to bake a cake, photograph a wedding, etc that you never wanted to do because you own a business?

It would be one thing if the government gave us money to run a business, but it doesn't. We pay to do business for some fucking reason. We all paying five times for the same roads, schools, etc. We pay as individuals, then as businesses, then through sales, etc.

Now in addition to taxes we are also told who we must serve and who we must hire? For what? Oh, because of roads? Well, tell me then do I not also pay for "roads" as an individual? I do.

This is a racket. I hate racists and homophobes as much as the next person but this isn't the way to go to stop that type of hatred.

del
09-09-2014, 03:02 PM
Wouldn't it be an infringement on the 1st? If the business owner couldn't say who he serves and who he doesn't?

no

del
09-09-2014, 03:05 PM
Yes, thank you for clarifying an existing known.

i'm here for you

if you want to serve the public, you don't get to define what the public is.

pretty simple.

as to employment laws, they're well meaning but ineffective, unless you're an idiot.

if i don't want to hire someone, i can come up with a million reasons not to without touching the third rail.

Alyosha
09-09-2014, 03:11 PM
i'm here for you

if you want to serve the public, you don't get to define what the public is.

Why are you serving "the public"? Why aren't you serving individuals? Where is it in the Constitution that people have to serve everyone in order to be a business?

Commerce and free commerce were tenets of basic liberty. The government did not permit you to run a business.

Today, you pay for a permit in accordance with local ordinances and you pay taxes. Your "duty" to the public is done.

Look I hate bigots and racists, too. I just don't like the idea that someone can tell me I have to bake a cake, have to do legal work, have to do something that I don't want to do. I also want to be able to tell a pedophile that I don't want to take his legal case. I don't want to be told what I have to do.

That's not freedom.

IF the government wants to control not only the public sector (which I am fine with them doing that) and who it serves but also private then the government should pay businesses or at the very least not charge them taxes because then that business is owned by the public.

Mister D
09-09-2014, 03:13 PM
Why are you serving "the public"? Why aren't you serving individuals? Where is it in the Constitution that people have to serve everyone in order to be a business?

Commerce and free commerce were tenets of basic liberty. The government did not permit you to run a business.

Today, you pay for a permit in accordance with local ordinances and you pay taxes. Your "duty" to the public is done.

Look I hate bigots and racists, too. I just don't like the idea that someone can tell me I have to bake a cake, have to do legal work, have to do something that I don't want to do. I also want to be able to tell a pedophile that I don't want to take his legal case. I don't want to be told what I have to do.

That's not freedom.

IF the government wants to control not only the public sector (which I am fine with them doing that) and who it serves but also private then the government should pay businesses or at the very least not charge them taxes because then that business is owned by the public.

Let me try and clarify for the membership so you don't talk passed each other. It's not a question of what the law is but what it ought to be and why.

del
09-09-2014, 03:15 PM
Why are you serving "the public"? Why aren't you serving individuals? Where is it in the Constitution that people have to serve everyone in order to be a business?

Commerce and free commerce were tenets of basic liberty. The government did not permit you to run a business.

Today, you pay for a permit in accordance with local ordinances and you pay taxes. Your "duty" to the public is done.

Look I hate bigots and racists, too. I just don't like the idea that someone can tell me I have to bake a cake, have to do legal work, have to do something that I don't want to do. I also want to be able to tell a pedophile that I don't want to take his legal case. I don't want to be told what I have to do.

That's not freedom.

IF the government wants to control not only the public sector (which I am fine with them doing that) and who it serves but also private then the government should pay businesses or at the very least not charge them taxes because then that business is owned by the public.

i get that you hate bigots and racists.

the rest of your post strikes me as bullshit. we have laws. if you want to open a business, you have to obey the laws.

if you're a public accomodation, you have to (gasp!) accommodate the public.

if you don't like the laws, either don't open a business or work to change the laws.

i'm sorry you don't like the idea, but that's just tough shit.



eof

Mister D
09-09-2014, 03:16 PM
Told ya...it's right because...well it's the law.

Bob
09-09-2014, 03:27 PM
Why?

First, you as a business owner are forced to pay taxes on that business to even do business, second you're saying its okay to also be forced to bake a cake, photograph a wedding, etc that you never wanted to do because you own a business?

It would be one thing if the government gave us money to run a business, but it doesn't. We pay to do business for some fucking reason. We all paying five times for the same roads, schools, etc. We pay as individuals, then as businesses, then through sales, etc.

Now in addition to taxes we are also told who we must serve and who we must hire? For what? Oh, because of roads? Well, tell me then do I not also pay for "roads" as an individual? I do.

This is a racket. I hate racists and homophobes as much as the next person but this isn't the way to go to stop that type of hatred.

Let's return to a public service form of business. Weddings are performed as a public service, normally for a fee.

A simple test would be

If the couple only served homosexuals and had a super beautiful setting, would they get flack from non homosexuals who wanted to marry at the beautiful site?

It would get a lot of resentment from the non homosexual crowd.

Captain Obvious
09-09-2014, 03:30 PM
Told ya...it's right because...well it's the law.

If a case is made that these laws have popular support would that make a difference?

Mister D
09-09-2014, 03:32 PM
If a case is made that these laws have popular support would that make a difference?

No, because 1) how could you establish that and 2) it's not a popularity contest. If it was the legislation never would have passed.

Captain Obvious
09-09-2014, 03:35 PM
No, because 1) how could you establish that and 2) it's not a popularity contest. If it was the legislation never would have passed.

Establishing support for issues is fairly easy, both gay rights issues and equal rights issues have popular support I believe.

Your second point baffles me a little. If laws are popularly supported and passed... then what's the problem? I could see a big problem if laws were unpopular but still passed.

Codename Section
09-09-2014, 03:36 PM
i get that you hate bigots and racists.

the rest of your post strikes me as bullshit. we have laws. if you want to open a business, you have to obey the laws.

if you're a public accomodation, you have to (gasp!) accommodate the public.

if you don't like the laws, either don't open a business or work to change the laws.

i'm sorry you don't like the idea, but that's just tough shit.



eof


We have laws that say you can't smoke pot, drive real fast, and some states you can't marry who you love. Laws doesn't equal right.

The principles of this are just wrong. You should not be able to force someone to labor against his or her will. Period. End of story.

I get that y'all hate fucking bigots and want to punish them but laws are made for specific "types" they are general and can be spread to mean things you never intended.

I don't like the government being able to force me to hire someone or work for someone just because of some greater public good. Fuck the public.

When the entire public is forced to use my services then I will work for the entire public. If they can discriminate so can I.

donttread
09-09-2014, 03:37 PM
Huckabee sighting also, he sure went from slightly irrelevant to wholly forgotten in a matter of a couple years.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3763793940001/farm-owners-fined-for-declining-to-host-same-sex-wedding/?intcmp=obnetwork#sp=show-clips


If true that is a horrible miscarriage of justice. It's their business they should be able to serve whom they choose to

nathanbforrest45
09-09-2014, 03:39 PM
If he was really concerned with honoring Christ he would not have put himself in that position in the first place.


He started when the company did not sell alcohol, it began after he had been working there for two years.

The point is that he has the right to choose if he would go against his religious principles or not. We don't allow the store owner that same choice. We make the owner the slave of the "public"

donttread
09-09-2014, 03:40 PM
Why?

First, you as a business owner are forced to pay taxes on that business to even do business, second you're saying its okay to also be forced to bake a cake, photograph a wedding, etc that you never wanted to do because you own a business?

It would be one thing if the government gave us money to run a business, but it doesn't. We pay to do business for some fucking reason. We all paying five times for the same roads, schools, etc. We pay as individuals, then as businesses, then through sales, etc.

Now in addition to taxes we are also told who we must serve and who we must hire? For what? Oh, because of roads? Well, tell me then do I not also pay for "roads" as an individual? I do.

This is a racket. I hate racists and homophobes as much as the next person but this isn't the way to go to stop that type of hatred.


Excellent post. If they were receiving any government assistance they should lose it immediately. But a fine? Remember this is still kinda , sorta, America. Isn't it?

Captain Obvious
09-09-2014, 03:40 PM
We have laws that say you can't smoke pot, drive real fast, and some states you can't marry who you love. Laws doesn't equal right.

The principles of this are just wrong. You should not be able to force someone to labor against his or her will. Period. End of story.

I get that y'all hate fucking bigots and want to punish them but laws are made for specific "types" they are general and can be spread to mean things you never intended.

I don't like the government being able to force me to hire someone or work for someone just because of some greater public good. Fuck the public.

When the entire public is forced to use my services then I will work for the entire public. If they can discriminate so can I.

If you enter the private sector there are tons of laws and regulations saying what you can and can't do.

You can always not enter the private sector, nobody's forcing you to do that.

Mister D
09-09-2014, 03:42 PM
Establishing support for issues is fairly easy, both gay rights issues and equal rights issues have popular support I believe.

Your second point baffles me a little. If laws are popularly supported and passed... then what's the problem? I could see a big problem if laws were unpopular but still passed.

You believe? I'm sure if I went around my town asking some poignant questions about race and gays I'd find that there isn't a racist to be found and everyone would just love if a homosexual couple moved next door.

Desegregation and the Civil Rights Act were intensely unpopular. So was forced busing in Boston which people like del and Sachem probably lived through but choose to forget. In any case, slavery was once legal, widely supported, and popular. Did that make it right?

nathanbforrest45
09-09-2014, 03:43 PM
Excellent post. If they were receiving any government assistance they should lose it immediately. But a fine? Remember this is still kinda , sorta, America. Isn't it?


I believe this happened in Canada

Codename Section
09-09-2014, 03:44 PM
If you enter the private sector there are tons of laws and regulations saying what you can and can't do.

You can always not enter the private sector, nobody's forcing you to do that.

And no one is forcing anyone to get married, are they? No. Your point?

There are tons of laws and regulations and when I think they suck I say so. This sucks.

Unless I can also force people to use my companies services, I shouldn't be forced to work for anyone.

Mister D
09-09-2014, 03:44 PM
If you enter the private sector there are tons of laws and regulations saying what you can and can't do.

You can always not enter the private sector, nobody's forcing you to do that.

This is just another legal argument. If it was suddenly legislated that private businesses could once again discriminate would that end the matter for our purposes? No. It's not about what is but what should be.

Cigar
09-09-2014, 03:45 PM
Just a few Dinosaurs remaining ... and they too will soon be Fuel for my Corvette :laugh:

Tick Tock

Codename Section
09-09-2014, 03:48 PM
Older people are so emotional about this stuff.

Either you have a choice to labor or you don't. If you don't then you also should benefit from a forced customer stream or else the law is just emotional gobbledygook that tries to force people to play nice.

I want the right to hire people that I want to work with, regardless of why. I should be able to hire women who look like Carrie Underwood only. Why is that wrong? Do guys deserve a job at my company? Why do they deserve one?

We don't have a moral right to work where we want just because we want to work there. We don't have a moral right to others labors.

Forcing people to do things against their will just because they're assholes makes you in their same category of asshole.

Bob
09-09-2014, 03:56 PM
i get that you hate bigots and racists.

the rest of your post strikes me as bullshit. we have laws. if you want to open a business, you have to obey the laws.

if you're a public accomodation, you have to (gasp!) accommodate the public.

if you don't like the laws, either don't open a business or work to change the laws.

i'm sorry you don't like the idea, but that's just tough shit.



eof

No, she is right.

It happens to be the law but then again you may hate some laws and explain why you hate them.

nathanbforrest45
09-09-2014, 03:57 PM
Just a few Dinosaurs remaining ... and they too will soon be Fuel for my Corvette :laugh:

Tick Tock


You really don't understand the issue or do you not care as long as you can force people to do your bidding?

Bob
09-09-2014, 04:07 PM
We have laws that say you can't smoke pot, drive real fast, and some states you can't marry who you love. Laws doesn't equal right.

The principles of this are just wrong. You should not be able to force someone to labor against his or her will. Period. End of story.

I get that y'all hate fucking bigots and want to punish them but laws are made for specific "types" they are general and can be spread to mean things you never intended.

I don't like the government being able to force me to hire someone or work for someone just because of some greater public good. Fuck the public.

When the entire public is forced to use my services then I will work for the entire public. If they can discriminate so can I.

This is what one gets for living in states like CA and NY.

del
09-09-2014, 04:20 PM
Told ya...it's right because...well it's the law.

show me where i said it's right

i'll wait

del
09-09-2014, 04:27 PM
We have laws that say you can't smoke pot, drive real fast, and some states you can't marry who you love. Laws doesn't equal right.

The principles of this are just wrong. You should not be able to force someone to labor against his or her will. Period. End of story.

I get that y'all hate fucking bigots and want to punish them but laws are made for specific "types" they are general and can be spread to mean things you never intended.

I don't like the government being able to force me to hire someone or work for someone just because of some greater public good. Fuck the public.

When the entire public is forced to use my services then I will work for the entire public. If they can discriminate so can I.

once again, i didn't say it was right

no one's forcing anyone to open a business. if you don't want to play by the rules, work to change the rules or don't play at all.

i don't hate anyone, that's a sucker's game

Chris
09-09-2014, 04:43 PM
This is just another legal argument. If it was suddenly legislated that private businesses could once again discriminate would that end the matter for our purposes? No. It's not about what is but what should be.

Yep, another argument based on legal positivism that confuses what is legal with what is socially acceptable.

Mister D
09-09-2014, 04:46 PM
show me where i said it's right

i'll wait

Sigh...

Del, she is trying to have a discussion about the law and whether or not the law is just. When you say 'it's the law, tough shit!' you are in essence saying the law is just because it's the law. Understand?

del
09-09-2014, 04:50 PM
Sigh...

Del, she is trying to have a discussion about the law and whether or not the law is just. When you say 'it's the law, tough shit!' you are in essence saying the law is just because it's the law. Understand?

no, in essence i'm saying if you don't like the law, work to have it changed.


i get that you hate bigots and racists.

the rest of your post strikes me as bullshit. we have laws. if you want to open a business, you have to obey the laws.

if you're a public accomodation, you have to (gasp!) accommodate the public.

if you don't like the laws, either don't open a business or work to change the laws.

i'm sorry you don't like the idea, but that's just tough shit.



eof

when i need words put in my mouth, i'll be sure to give you a call, though.

Guerilla
09-09-2014, 04:51 PM
If you enter the private sector there are tons of laws and regulations saying what you can and can't do.

You can always not enter the private sector, nobody's forcing you to do that.

Selling out your principles should not be a contingency for starting a business.

Also, the law doesn't need to be involved in this. If their is an intolerant business owner, and the people don't like it, then it doesn't fit the community and will go out of business. Simple. And if it doesn't go out of business, then obviously enough people agree, or don't care, so it really isn't a problem.

I think a possible result of this could be self-segregation, where people go to like-minded businesses. I think this will naturally turn the community into multiple communities, which would be good because these communities would be more adjusted to the people.

I think bringing government in just further polarizes the people as they argue over who will get what they want.

Codename Section
09-09-2014, 04:52 PM
once again, i didn't say it was right

no one's forcing anyone to open a business.

No one's forcing anyone to get married. No one's forcing anyone to have a reception. No one's forcing anyone to be a software developer.

...

Not seeing where your point applies using your same logic.




if you don't want to play by the rules, work to change the rules or don't play at all.

i don't hate anyone, that's a sucker's game

That's the whole point of making my feelings known and trying to influence public opinion.

I don't like the rules.

Mister D
09-09-2014, 04:54 PM
no, in essence i'm saying if you don't like the law, work to have it changed.



when i need words put in my mouth, i'll be sure to give you a call, though.

lol Del, she is trying to have a discussion about the law and whether or not the law is just. Do I need to post that in crayon for you?

Mister D
09-09-2014, 04:55 PM
No one's forcing anyone to get married. No one's forcing anyone to have a reception. No one's forcing anyone to be a software developer.

...

Not seeing where your point applies using your same logic.




That's the whole point of making my feelings known and trying to influence public opinion.

I don't like the rules.

It's not up for discussion because it's the law! but he didn't say that!, right? lol

Common Sense
09-09-2014, 04:55 PM
Selling out your principles should not be a contingency for starting a business.

Also, the law doesn't need to be involved in this. If their is an intolerant business owner, and the people don't like it, then it doesn't fit the community and will go out of business. Simple. And if it doesn't go out of business, then obviously enough people agree, or don't care, so it really isn't a problem.

I think a possible result of this could be self-segregation, where people go to like-minded businesses. I think this will naturally turn the community into multiple communities, which would be good because these communities would be more adjusted to the people.

I think bringing government in just further polarizes the people as they argue over who will get what they want.

Sorry but I think that's a horrible idea. It's rife for abuse of minorities. You can't deny service at say a restaurant because you don't like someone's ethnicity and just bank on the idea that if enough people disagree the restaurant will close.

del
09-09-2014, 04:56 PM
No one's forcing anyone to get married. No one's forcing anyone to have a reception. No one's forcing anyone to be a software developer.

...

Not seeing where your point applies using your same logic.




That's the whole point of making my feelings known and trying to influence public opinion.

I don't like the rules.

that's right; no one is forcing them, but if they decide that's what they want to do, they know going in how the game is played.

that's probably why same sex couples don't try to get married at westboro baptist church

Chris
09-09-2014, 04:58 PM
If a business is open to the public, then its everyone. If a business doesn't want to serve everyone, then make it a private club...only members of certain religions allowed. That's what a lot of businesses in the south did for many years. Of course, they would have to be honest enough to admit that the purpose of the club was discrimination and most folks don't seem to be willing to do that now.

Have to disagree with the distinction being made. They are public in the sense of being open to the public, but they are still privately owned, and should be able to discriminate and suffer any consequences. Public in my mind is what is owned by the public and managed by government, and rule of law demands non-discrimination equal treatment of all.

PolWatch
09-09-2014, 05:04 PM
Open to the public: pay the admission. Private: by invitation only...imho

I can understand the people who think the owners should be allowed to decide who uses their land and if they want to limit the use to folks they approve of...make it a private, my religion only, or invitation only site. Maybe I saw too many people who used any excuse to limit their businesses to white only to think this is right.

Matty
09-09-2014, 05:14 PM
What if 600 crazy drunk bikers drove up and demanded a wedding? Would they have to give it to them?

Chris
09-09-2014, 05:15 PM
Open to the public: pay the admission. Private: by invitation only...imho

I can understand the people who think the owners should be allowed to decide who uses their land and if they want to limit the use to folks they approve of...make it a private, my religion only, or invitation only site. Maybe I saw too many people who used any excuse to limit their businesses to white only to think this is right.


I understand the distinction you're making, but I just don't think government should be the one to choose for us. It's the same government after all that imposed and enforced discrimination. I'd prefer to trust people to choose.

Matty
09-09-2014, 05:15 PM
Bars have a right to refuse service to drunks, is that okay?

Matty
09-09-2014, 05:16 PM
Restaurants can refuse service if you don't have shoes on. Is that okay?

Guerilla
09-09-2014, 05:17 PM
Sorry but I think that's a horrible idea. It's rife for abuse of minorities. You can't deny service at say a restaurant because you don't like someone's ethnicity and just bank on the idea that if enough people disagree the restaurant will close.

If their is a community that is racist, and the race they don't like is indeed a minority, then it's probably best that the minority not live there in the first place. Laws don't change peoples attitudes they just piss each other off. Forcing a community to submit to a minorities will (racial minority or not) does not solve the problem, and only leads to atomization of the people.

If the race that the people dislike has a large enough number of people, then it will likely have enough people to self-segregate and then an area of multiple communities will form that are tailored to the people. Everyone get's what they want.

Take the issue of race or homos and replace it with a different issue. Do minorities still matter a lot for that issue? Answer is no, they get out voted.

kilgram
09-09-2014, 05:28 PM
Well the government is forcing a morality upon the farm owner here....
Let's change the characters of the story:

- Farm owner fined for declining to host a marriage of a black couple.

Or

- Black farm owner fined for declining ot host a marriage of white couple.

Codename Section
09-09-2014, 05:39 PM
that's right; no one is forcing them, but if they decide that's what they want to do, they know going in how the game is played.

that's probably why same sex couples don't try to get married at westboro baptist church

They do try to have Catholics take pictures of their weddings, bake their cakes, and hold their receptions.

Come on.

With a million other places this is not about sharing a happy day but sticking it to assholes.

We should reward immaturity with laws?

Codename Section
09-09-2014, 05:40 PM
Let's change the characters of the story:

- Farm owner fined for declining to host a marriage of a black couple.

Or

- Black farm owner fined for declining ot host a marriage of white couple.

Should a black person have to host a KKK wedding? Hell no.

Codename Section
09-09-2014, 05:43 PM
Sorry but I think that's a horrible idea. It's rife for abuse of minorities. You can't deny service at say a restaurant because you don't like someone's ethnicity and just bank on the idea that if enough people disagree the restaurant will close.

Abuse of minorities the Rwandan genocide. Not getting your cake at bakery A is not abuse, its an inconvenience. This is not 1960 Selma. This is an age where we have a black president, a lesbian with the highest rated talk show on TV, and the highest earning celebrities are both black.

Mister D
09-09-2014, 06:00 PM
If their is a community that is racist, and the race they don't like is indeed a minority, then it's probably best that the minority not live there in the first place. Laws don't change peoples attitudes they just piss each other off. Forcing a community to submit to a minorities will (racial minority or not) does not solve the problem, and only leads to atomization of the people.

If the race that the people dislike has a large enough number of people, then it will likely have enough people to self-segregate and then an area of multiple communities will form that are tailored to the people. Everyone get's what they want.

Take the issue of race or homos and replace it with a different issue. Do minorities still matter a lot for that issue? Answer is no, they get out voted.

Pro-lifers may like to know that "you can't legislate morality" was the rallying cry of segregationists.

Mister D
09-09-2014, 06:01 PM
Abuse of minorities the Rwandan genocide. Not getting your cake at bakery A is not abuse, its an inconvenience. This is not 1960 Selma. This is an age where we have a black president, a lesbian with the highest rated talk show on TV, and the highest earning celebrities are both black.

I was told earlier today that getting mean emails was a violation of human rights.

Codename Section
09-09-2014, 06:02 PM
I was told earlier today that getting mean emails was a violation of human rights.

It's hard to breed out stupidity when everyone's stupid.

donttread
09-09-2014, 06:10 PM
Wouldn't human rights by definition include the right to be human?

Polecat
09-09-2014, 06:11 PM
It's hard to breed out stupidity when everyone's stupid.

That's why I chose not to reproduce. I don't want to be part of the problem.

Mister D
09-09-2014, 06:11 PM
Wouldn't human rights by definition include the right to be human?

Human rights are liberal nonsense.