PDA

View Full Version : Can a business refuse to serve Nazis?



Green Arrow
06-29-2015, 03:44 PM
I'd like to carry on a civil discussion with our forum's Democrats. I get the reasoning behind why a racist business owner can't refuse service to "them darkies" and a Christian business can't refuse service to hermershexurals, because it's a public business.

But how far does that go? Can a business refuse to serve Christians? Nazis? A guy with a Confederate flag t-shirt?

Cigar
06-29-2015, 03:51 PM
The one thing about a Racist Nazi's is they can't hide their Hate ... it's usually ... and literally written all over their face and bodies. So yes, why would any self respecting responsible business owner want to drive off all their business customers, with an Advertizing Racist Moron?

Green Arrow
06-29-2015, 03:56 PM
The one thing about a Racist Nazi's is they can't hide their Hate ... it's usually ... and literally written all over their face and bodies. So yes, why would any self respecting responsible business owner want to drive off all their business customers, with an Advertizing Racist Moron?

Why would a Christian-run business want to potentially scare away Christian customers by making gay cakes?

Cigar
06-29-2015, 03:59 PM
Why would a Christian-run business want to potentially scare away Christian customers by making gay cakes?

I just betting ... but I'm sure NO Christian-run Bakery ever invited it's customers in their Kitchen.

How the heel would any Anti-Gay Customer know what all the other Customers are getting?

Green Arrow
06-29-2015, 04:01 PM
I just betting ... but I'm sure NO Christian-run Bakery ever invited it's customers in their Kitchen.

How the heel would any Anti-Gay Customer know what all the other Customers are getting?

By being in the store when the cake is ordered or picked up? By seeing pictures of the cake on social media with the business's name on the post?

There are a lot of ways.

Ethereal
06-29-2015, 04:10 PM
The one thing about a Racist Nazi's is they can't hide their Hate ... it's usually ... and literally written all over their face and bodies. So yes, why would any self respecting responsible business owner want to drive off all their business customers, with an Advertizing Racist Moron?

So it's okay for business owners to discriminate against people based on their beliefs and political associations.

Ethereal
06-29-2015, 04:24 PM
And everyone knows that having someone else make you a cake is a sacred right that millions of Americans fought and died for... :laugh:

Cigar
06-29-2015, 04:27 PM
And everyone knows that having someone else make you a cake is a sacred right that millions of Americans fought and died for... :laugh:

... and Major Corporations have the Rigt to pull their business from Racist States $$ Money Talks; Bull-Shit Walks $$

Ethereal
06-29-2015, 04:31 PM
As the men of the US Army stood poised on the beaches of Normandy, ready to charge into a veritable hellfire, we all looked to our brave captain for inspirational words, and he did not fail to deliver.

"Remember, men," He began. "When the bullets are flying over your head, and the man next to you is shrieking in horror as his guts spill onto the sand, know that your sacrifice will not have been in vain, because back in America, our beloved homeland, gay people will have their right to have someone else make them a cake upheld and respected. Know that they will not be subjected to the gross indignity of having to find another bakery that is willing to make them a cake. No! They will be serviced regardless of the wishes of the baker, or anyone else, for that matter. Because that is what this fight is about, making sure that gay people can get a cake made for them at any bakery in the land!"

Bob
06-29-2015, 04:38 PM
... and Major Corporations have the Rigt to pull their business from Racist States $$ Money Talks; Bull-Shit Walks $$

Has it never came to your mind that your cars had racists making them?

Yet you drive them.

Amazing. You told us you drive a selection of 4 cars. How often have you sat in those cars, thinking of racism?

GrassrootsConservative
06-29-2015, 04:44 PM
I think all businesses should be able to serve/sell to whoever they want, at whatever time they want, for whatever price they wish to choose, and if the government doesn't fucking like it then that's their problem to get over. If someone wants to refuse service to a nazi, great. If someone wants to refuse service to a gay, great. If someone wants to refuse service to a black person, great. People should avoid the latter two if they disagree with their policies. That's how the free market works here in America. If you want something more authoritarian Communism is to the East across the Pacific and socialism is to the Northwest across the Atlantic in Europe.

Don't let the door hit your authoritarian ass on the way out, Anti-American know-nothings.

Peter1469
06-29-2015, 04:55 PM
Businesses that serve the public should serve the public.

I would draw the line this way:

If a gay couple wants a wedding cake make it. But there is no requirement to add stuff like two dudes on top. They can do that themselves.

If a gay couple wants you to make a wedding cake and serve it in person at the reception you can say no.

But this is largely a non issue. The wedding cake business was not the only wedding cake place around and was deliberately targeted by foot stompers. They ought to have been tared and feathered.

Chris
06-29-2015, 05:01 PM
Businesses that serve the public should serve the public.

I would draw the line this way:

If a gay couple wants a wedding cake make it. But there is no requirement to add stuff like two dudes on top. They can do that themselves.

If a gay couple wants you to make a wedding cake and serve it in person at the reception you can say no.

But this is largely a non issue. The wedding cake business was not the only wedding cake place around and was deliberately targeted by foot stompers. They ought to have been tared and feathered.


The one good argument I've heard for a "public" business have to serve the public is based on advertising they will. So if a bakery advertises they make cakes then they should have to or face false advertising charges. But this too would stop short of requiring cakes with gay symbols or messages as that's likely not advertised.

Peter1469
06-29-2015, 05:04 PM
Right. You have your designs in a book or website for people to choose from. If you don't like the choices go to another cake maker.

Bob
06-29-2015, 05:07 PM
As the men of the US Army stood poised on the beaches of Normandy, ready to charge into a veritable hellfire, we all looked to our brave captain for inspirational words, and he did not fail to deliver.

"Remember, men," He began. "When the bullets are flying over your head, and the man next to you is shrieking in horror as his guts spill onto the sand, know that your sacrifice will not have been in vain, because back in America, our beloved homeland, gay people will have their right to have someone else make them a cake upheld and respected. Know that they will not be subjected to the gross indignity of having to find another bakery that is willing to make them a cake. No! They will be serviced regardless of the wishes of the baker, or anyone else, for that matter. Because that is what this fight is about, making sure that gay people can get a cake made for them at any bakery in the land!"



Brilliant. Sheer brilliancy.

donttread
06-30-2015, 07:00 AM
I'd like to carry on a civil discussion with our forum's Democrats. I get the reasoning behind why a racist business owner can't refuse service to "them darkies" and a Christian business can't refuse service to hermershexurals, because it's a public business.

But how far does that go? Can a business refuse to serve Christians? Nazis? A guy with a Confederate flag t-shirt?

All or nothing. Either your business has a right to choose whom they serve ( as I believe) or they don't. Force the Christian bakery to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage and you are also forcing the Jewish Bagel shop to serve Nazi's in full uniform.

Common Sense
06-30-2015, 07:18 AM
The difference between being gay, black etc is that a person is born that way. Someone who is a Nazi has chosen that political affiliation.

It's like comparing apples to Ginsu knives or a tennis shoe.

domer76
06-30-2015, 07:36 AM
All or nothing. Either your business has a right to choose whom they serve ( as I believe) or they don't. Force the Christian bakery to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage and you are also forcing the Jewish Bagel shop to serve Nazi's in full uniform.

Is political party a protected group? Nope.

Next

Common
06-30-2015, 07:42 AM
If I were gay or black and I had to go to court to force a baker to bake me a cake. You had better believe I would NOT put a single spoonful of that cake in my mouth.

donttread
06-30-2015, 07:55 AM
The difference between being gay, black etc is that a person is born that way. Someone who is a Nazi has chosen that political affiliation.

It's like comparing apples to Ginsu knives or a tennis shoe.

Irrelevant. Either you must serve or you can choose. The control freaks cannot have this one both ways

Common Sense
06-30-2015, 07:59 AM
Irrelevant. Either you must serve or you can choose. The control freaks cannot have this one both ways

It's actually not irrelevant. It's fairly clear and logical.

Discriminate all you want regarding the choices people make. No shirt? Sorry you can't come in. That's the person's choice.

You can't, for instance say, I don't accept handicapped people in my business, because that person didn't choose to be disabled.

Do you think it's a businesses right to say, we don't serve the disabled?

domer76
06-30-2015, 08:08 AM
Irrelevant. Either you must serve or you can choose. The control freaks cannot have this one both ways

Wrong again

GrassrootsConservative
06-30-2015, 08:09 AM
Wrong again

No, he's 100% correct. You must be consistent. It sets a precedent. Look that up.

Safety
06-30-2015, 08:16 AM
The difference between being gay, black etc is that a person is born that way. Someone who is a Nazi has chosen that political affiliation.

It's like comparing apples to Ginsu knives or a tennis shoe.

Shhhh, they will have to google what common sense is now.

GrassrootsConservative
06-30-2015, 08:19 AM
Who decides what is predetermined and what is choice?

What if the disabled person is disabled because they were a Nazi and got shot by good ol' Uncle Sam's army?

It's much better to be consistent in your beliefs, leaves no room for questioning.

Chris
06-30-2015, 08:23 AM
It's actually not irrelevant. It's fairly clear and logical.

Discriminate all you want regarding the choices people make. No shirt? Sorry you can't come in. That's the person's choice.

You can't, for instance say, I don't accept handicapped people in my business, because that person didn't choose to be disabled.

Do you think it's a businesses right to say, we don't serve the disabled?


It should be their right to freely associate. I might not like them, might not do business with them, but they should have that right.

Chris
06-30-2015, 08:25 AM
Shhhh, they will have to google what common sense is now.

Quite often it's just rhetoric people use when they have no good argument.

Ravens Fan
06-30-2015, 08:29 AM
What happened to the argument that a "public business" MUST serve everybody?? I thought that was a fundamental part of doing business with the public... that you are not allowed to pick and choose your customers?

Safety
06-30-2015, 08:29 AM
It should be their right to freely associate. I might not like them, might not do business with them, but they should have that right.

When a municipality decides to issue business licenses, you agree to do business with the public. Now you can have certain caveats, like no shirt, no shoes, no service. Or if they are being an asshole you can refuse service for that. But in a multicultural society, it's not decent to refuse service to someone because of a condition they were born with.

It has happened in the past, we have learned from it, that's why there are public accommodation laws. People just didn't do the right thing when given the chance.

Common Sense
06-30-2015, 08:33 AM
TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION

OOOSEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

GrassrootsConservative
06-30-2015, 08:33 AM
What happened to the argument that a "public business" MUST serve everybody?? I thought that was a fundamental part of doing business with the public... that you are not allowed to pick and choose your customers?

Actually most establishments have signs posted that say they reserve the right to refuse service to anybody as they please, and other limitations ("No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service"), all which have been completely accepted up to this point. Now that it's happening to a "protected" class that Liberals wish to pander to, there is a problem.

Chris
06-30-2015, 08:35 AM
What happened to the argument that a "public business" MUST serve everybody?? I thought that was a fundamental part of doing business with the public... that you are not allowed to pick and choose your customers?

IMO, "public" in "open to the public" has a quite different meaning than "public" in "public park."

Common sense, who often uses that argument, says it's OK to not serve people for choices they make so therefore it cannot mean the same.

A public park is open to all by nature of rule of law just as a public office must be open to all.

(Unless you're K in The Trial or The Castle.)

GrassrootsConservative
06-30-2015, 08:35 AM
https://img0.etsystatic.com/000/0/5441659/il_570xN.153783102.jpg

http://www.mydoorsign.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/no-shirt-no-shoes-no-service.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/81tWqWEhYKL._SL1500_.jpg

Love America. Home of the Free. Only recently people have been trying to coerce, but some are fighting this true injustice.

GrassrootsConservative
06-30-2015, 08:37 AM
http://pixyink.com/images/detailed/1/SN-A091_12yp-bl.jpg


http://www.signs-unique.co.uk/ekmps/shops/autounique/images/we-reserve-the-right-to-refuse-service-uncle-sam-...rusted-metal-sign-pst-148--4381-p.jpg


ANYONE.

Common Sense
06-30-2015, 08:37 AM
Actually most establishments have signs posted that say they reserve the right to refuse service to anybody as they please, and other limitations ("No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service"), all which have been completely accepted up to this point. Now that it's happening to a "protected" class that Liberals wish to pander to, there is a problem.

People can put up signs that say anything. It doesn't mean they can legally discriminate.

What's really a shame is that laws like the civil rights act had to be in place. Unfortunate there are so many shit sipping assholes that they actually had to make a law that basically says "be a decent human being if you're operating a public business". It's as ridiculous as making a law saying "don't shit in the street", but unfortunately there are people so ignorant and just plain shitty that laws like this are necessary.

Chris
06-30-2015, 08:37 AM
When a municipality decides to issue business licenses, you agree to do business with the public. Now you can have certain caveats, like no shirt, no shoes, no service. Or if they are being an asshole you can refuse service for that. But in a multicultural society, it's not decent to refuse service to someone because of a condition they were born with.

It has happened in the past, we have learned from it, that's why there are public accommodation laws. People just didn't do the right thing when given the chance.


Let's not go to that old worn out positive law argument that because it's the law it is right and moral. Need I remind you slavery was legal, so was the Holocaust, and many other immoral laws.

Chris
06-30-2015, 08:38 AM
TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION

OOOSEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.



What is law is not necessarily what ought to be. Again, slavery, Holocaust, etc.

Common Sense
06-30-2015, 08:39 AM
What is law is not necessarily what ought to be. Again, slavery, Holocaust, etc.

Yeah, that's a pretty tired argument. You could use that same argument to justify rape and murder. It would be just as irrelevant then.

Chris
06-30-2015, 08:39 AM
People can put up signs that say anything. It doesn't mean they can legally discriminate.

What's really a shame is that laws like the civil rights act had to be in place. Unfortunate there are so many shit sipping assholes that they actually had to make a law that basically says "be a decent human being if you're operating a public business". It's as ridiculous as making a law saying "don't shit in the street", but unfortunately there are people so ignorant and just plain shitty that laws like this are necessary.



I agree, such laws are a shame. They deprive society the choice required to be moral.

Chris
06-30-2015, 08:41 AM
Yeah, that's a pretty tired argument. You could use that same argument to justify rape and murder. It would be just as irrelevant then.

You could. I wouldn't. Rape and murder cause harm. Ooops, now we're right back at having to show refusing service in a business causes harm.

Common Sense
06-30-2015, 08:41 AM
I agree, such laws are a shame. They deprive society the choice required to be moral.

We should probably get rid of laws against murder. People should have the choice to be moral or not.

Chris
06-30-2015, 08:43 AM
We should probably get rid of laws against murder. People should have the choice to be moral or not.

Already addressed murder. Murder does harm.



People should have the choice to be moral or not.

Unless it does harm.

Mister D
06-30-2015, 08:43 AM
We should probably get rid of laws against murder. People should have the choice to be moral or not.

I agree. They're racist. They put too many black men in prison.

Ravens Fan
06-30-2015, 08:44 AM
IMO, "public" in "open to the public" has a quite different meaning than "public" in "public park."

Common sense, who often uses that argument, says it's OK to not serve people for choices they make so therefore it cannot mean the same.

A public park is open to all by nature of rule of law just as a public office must be open to all.

(Unless you're K in The Trial or The Castle.)

That was kind of my point. The same people who want to say that a private business is required to be open to all public, now are being hypocrites.

Green Arrow
06-30-2015, 08:44 AM
The difference between being gay, black etc is that a person is born that way. Someone who is a Nazi has chosen that political affiliation.

It's like comparing apples to Ginsu knives or a tennis shoe.

So, a conservative business can refuse to serve liberals?

Common Sense
06-30-2015, 08:44 AM
You could. I wouldn't. Rape and murder cause harm. Ooops, now we're right back at having to show refusing service in a business causes harm.

If you were treated like a second class citizen due to the color of your skin and say were refused service at a hotel, restaurant etc... and you had to explain to your children how they aren't accepted because of the color of their skin, you might think differently. Particularly if you were only a small portion of society.

If you can't see how outright discrimination causes harm, then I can't help you. Perhaps the invisible hand can show you the way.

Common Sense
06-30-2015, 08:44 AM
So, a conservative business can refuse to serve liberals?

Yeah.

Common Sense
06-30-2015, 08:46 AM
That was kind of my point. The same people who want to say that a private business is required to be open to all public, now are being hypocrites.

I have never said that a business is required to be open to everyone. They can and do discriminate. However, that criteria can't be based on certain things like race, religion, creed etc...

Green Arrow
06-30-2015, 08:47 AM
TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION

OOOSEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Well, now, wait a minute. You just said it was about conditions you choose or do not choose. Yet the law lists religion as something you can't discriminate against. Is religion not a choice?

Common Sense
06-30-2015, 08:50 AM
Well, now, wait a minute. You just said it was about conditions you choose or do not choose. Yet the law lists religion as something you can't discriminate against. Is religion not a choice?

I guess. I didn't write the law, but religious freedom is always going to be in there as it was so instrumental in the founding of the nation.

Captain Obvious
06-30-2015, 08:50 AM
Sure, women bakers need to be forced to baking cakes for rapists.

Jews must serve Nazi's and skinheads.

Fundy christians must serve gays.

Walmart is exempt from serving cakes to hicks though.

Funny how that works.

PolWatch
06-30-2015, 08:51 AM
This issue seems to be one of convenience for both sides. Where are the rights of a business to require their employees say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas? That produces an annual War on Christmas, Christians are being discriminated against rant.

Common Sense
06-30-2015, 08:52 AM
It's really a simple concept...and in fact current law.

I really don't know why so many people have such a hard time understanding it.

If you want to see how Canada has codified it (probably a bit more succinctly), look into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Green Arrow
06-30-2015, 08:52 AM
I guess. I didn't write the law, but religious freedom is always going to be in there as it was so instrumental in the founding of the nation.

So, back to my original question, then. Where do we draw the line?

Safety
06-30-2015, 08:52 AM
Let's not go to that old worn out positive law argument that because it's the law it is right and moral. Need I remind you slavery was legal, so was the Holocaust, and many other immoral laws.

No need to remind me of anything, I am fully aware of what was legal and what was accepted. I can understand why you don't like that argument, but nonetheless, that has no bearing on how valid it is.

Captain Obvious
06-30-2015, 08:54 AM
It's really a simple concept...and in fact current law.

I really don't know why so many people have such a hard time understanding it.

If you want to see how Canada has codified it (probably a bit more succinctly), look into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

So you're cool with forcing Jews into serving Nazi's and skinheads and forcing women into serving rapists?

Nice.

Common Sense
06-30-2015, 08:54 AM
So, back to my original question, then. Where do we draw the line?

With the exception of religion, we should draw the line at things that people are powerless to change about themselves. Their color, their nationality, their disabilities and their sexual orientation.

Common Sense
06-30-2015, 08:55 AM
So you're cool with forcing Jews into serving Nazi's and skinheads and forcing women into serving rapists?

Nice.

No. Read the law or read my posts.

Chris
06-30-2015, 08:56 AM
If you were treated like a second class citizen due to the color of your skin and say were refused service at a hotel, restaurant etc... and you had to explain to your children how they aren't accepted because of the color of their skin, you might think differently. Particularly if you were only a small portion of society.

If you can't see how outright discrimination causes harm, then I can't help you. Perhaps the invisible hand can show you the way.



I wouldn't like it. My feelings would be hurt. And then I'd do everything I could to lift myself out of that situation, maybe work harder, or change jobs, so I could afford to go to another business--if I couldn't already do that. The last thing I'd want to do is business with a racist.



If you can't see how outright discrimination causes harm...

That's where you go every time. You can't explain it, so you shift the burden to me.


Perhaps the invisible hand can show you the way.

Do you think the visible hand of the government is going to show society how to be moral? By taking away it's freedom to choose?

Green Arrow
06-30-2015, 08:56 AM
With the exception of religion, we should draw the line at things that people are powerless to change about themselves. Their color, their nationality, their disabilities and their sexual orientation.

If that's the case, why exempt religion?

Captain Obvious
06-30-2015, 08:57 AM
No. Read the law or read my posts.

I am, you're a typical liberal, all over the place.

So in your reply right above this one, then I'm forced to bake cakes for gay people but I can refuse a straight person just because he's a gay sympathizer?

You liberals are out of your fucking minds.

Chris
06-30-2015, 08:57 AM
So, a conservative business can refuse to serve liberals?


Yeah.

There goes the entire argument it's a business open to public so must serve all.

Captain Obvious
06-30-2015, 08:57 AM
If that's the case, why exempt religion?

This is why our society and government is such a clusterfuck btw.

Common Sense
06-30-2015, 08:58 AM
I am, you're a typical liberal, all over the place.

So in your reply right above this one, then I'm forced to bake cakes for gay people but I can refuse a straight person just because he's a gay sympathizer?

You liberals are out of your fucking minds.

I've been quite clear and consistent.

I'm sorry you're having trouble understanding this very basic concept.

Common Sense
06-30-2015, 08:58 AM
There goes the entire argument it's a business open to public so must serve all.

Who ever said they have to serve all?

Common Sense
06-30-2015, 08:59 AM
Holy fuck some of you aren't very bright.

I think they cover basic stuff like this in 5th grade.

Captain Obvious
06-30-2015, 08:59 AM
I've been quite clear and consistent.

I'm sorry you're having trouble understanding this very basic concept.

:biglaugh:

I'm sure you don't see the irony in your opaque reply.

Brett Nortje
06-30-2015, 08:59 AM
There goes the entire argument it's a business open to public so must serve all.

Haven't you heard the term r.o.a.r.?

Chris
06-30-2015, 09:00 AM
No need to remind me of anything, I am fully aware of what was legal and what was accepted. I can understand why you don't like that argument, but nonetheless, that has no bearing on how valid it is.


Right, it was just to remind you that what the law is is not an argument for what it ought to be. That leave you to come up with an argument defending the law's validity. Validity? Odd word to use there. I think you mean just, right, moral. Not valid.

Common Sense
06-30-2015, 09:01 AM
:biglaugh:

I'm sure you don't see the irony in your opaque reply.

I'm sorry you're having trouble. Maybe you could find a child to explain it to you.

Captain Obvious
06-30-2015, 09:02 AM
I'm sorry you're having trouble. Maybe you could find a child to explain it to you.

whatever...

Chris
06-30-2015, 09:03 AM
Who ever said they have to serve all?


Then as Green asked, where do you draw the line? And as I ask, how do you justify that line?


What we have here is a group of people who look at rights as abstractions and as such absolutes. But rights exist in the context of other rights and often those rights clash.

Safety
06-30-2015, 09:03 AM
Right, it was just to remind you that what the law is is not an argument for what it ought to be. That leave you to come up with an argument defending the law's validity. Validity? Odd word to use there. I think you mean just, right, moral. Not valid.

Every time I hear someone say segregation was/is needed, that adds more validity to the law. Every time I hear someone say blacks this, or blacks that, muslims this, muslims that, hispanics this, hispanics that, it adds more validity to the law. Just because you may not say those things, does not wipe the slate clean because you are one person.

Chris
06-30-2015, 09:05 AM
Holy fuck some of you aren't very bright.

I think they cover basic stuff like this in 5th grade.



And here with ad hom we have the raising of the white flag. http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/fighting/waving-white-flag.gif

Chris
06-30-2015, 09:06 AM
Every time I hear someone say segregation was/is needed, that adds more validity to the law. Every time I hear someone say blacks this, or blacks that, muslims this, muslims that, hispanics this, hispanics that, it adds more validity to the law. Just because you may not say those things, does not wipe the slate clean because you are one person.


Who said segregation was needed? Don't put words in my mouth or thoughts in my head. Straw man.

Common Sense
06-30-2015, 09:06 AM
Then as Green asked, where do you draw the line? And as I ask, how do you justify that line?


What we have here is a group of people who look at rights as abstractions and as such absolutes. But rights exist in the context of other rights and often those rights clash.

I answered his question and I drew the line.

Common Sense
06-30-2015, 09:08 AM
And here with ad hom we have the raising of the white flag. http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/fighting/waving-white-flag.gif

I think it's out of frustration. I admit that I'm frustrated when this basic concept of decency is lost on people.

When i see people being either purposefully ignorant or just plain stupid, I react.

Interpret that the way you wish.

Common Sense
06-30-2015, 09:10 AM
Every time I hear someone say segregation was/is needed, that adds more validity to the law. Every time I hear someone say blacks this, or blacks that, muslims this, muslims that, hispanics this, hispanics that, it adds more validity to the law. Just because you may not say those things, does not wipe the slate clean because you are one person.

The fact is, allowing people to discriminate based on things like skin color, only perpetuates this learned behavior.

The laws are indeed valid. As I've said before, it's just a shame we need them.

Safety
06-30-2015, 09:11 AM
Who said segregation was needed? Don't put words in my mouth or thoughts in my head. Straw man.


Every time I hear someone say segregation was/is needed, that adds more validity to the law. Every time I hear someone say blacks this, or blacks that, muslims this, muslims that, hispanics this, hispanics that, it adds more validity to the law. Just because you may not say those things, does not wipe the slate clean because you are one person.

I didn't say you said it. It has been said, many times.

Chris
06-30-2015, 09:17 AM
I think it's out of frustration. I admit that I'm frustrated when this basic concept of decency is lost on people.

When i see people being either purposefully ignorant or just plain stupid, I react.

Interpret that the way you wish.


Here on the forum, it's just discussion.

Safety
06-30-2015, 09:18 AM
The fact is, allowing people to discriminate based on things like skin color, only perpetuates this learned behavior.

The laws are indeed valid. As I've said before, it's just a shame we need them.

Dr. King touched on that phenomenon when he spoke about Goldwater.

Chris
06-30-2015, 09:18 AM
I didn't say you said it. It has been said, many times.

Try arguing with what I say. Quoting and replying to me with what others might say is not all that intellectually honest.

Safety
06-30-2015, 09:19 AM
I think it's out of frustration. I admit that I'm frustrated when this basic concept of decency is lost on people.

When i see people being either purposefully ignorant or just plain stupid, I react.

Interpret that the way you wish.

Careful, when you speak like that, you are expressing your white lib guilt, or targeting whites....

Captain Obvious
06-30-2015, 09:22 AM
The fact is, allowing people to discriminate based on things like skin color, only perpetuates this learned behavior.

The laws are indeed valid. As I've said before, it's just a shame we need them.

So forcing people not to behave a certain way is the right thing to do.

You're getting reactions out of people for a reason, btw. Just a hint.

Safety
06-30-2015, 09:23 AM
Try arguing with what I say. Quoting and replying to me with what others might say is not all that intellectually honest.

It's part of the discussion. It counters your position.

Green Arrow
06-30-2015, 09:27 AM
Holy fuck some of you aren't very bright.

I think they cover basic stuff like this in 5th grade.

I apologize for trying to carry on a mature discussion with you. I won't make that mistake again.

Tahuyaman
06-30-2015, 09:35 AM
The one thing about a Racist Nazi's is they can't hide their Hate ... it's usually ... and literally written all over their face and bodies. So yes, why would any self respecting responsible business owner want to drive off all their business customers, with an Advertizing Racist Moron?

So, a business can refuse service to someone with any type of tattoo on their face? How about tattoos which show an individual's gang affiliation?

Chris
06-30-2015, 09:37 AM
It's part of the discussion. It counters your position.

I doubt you know my position. You never acknowledge it. Instead you quote me but your reply is always about something else. You have an agenda. I understand.

Common Sense
06-30-2015, 09:38 AM
So forcing people not to behave a certain way is the right thing to do.

You're getting reactions out of people for a reason, btw. Just a hint.

Society in general forces people to behave a certain way.

I'm getting the reactions that I have come to expect.

It seems that some Americans see freedom as the ability to be a racist backward fuck. They are indeed free to do that. They just have to leave it at home if they are running a business that is open to the public.

It's time to join the 21st century.

Common Sense
06-30-2015, 09:40 AM
I apologize for trying to carry on a mature discussion with you. I won't make that mistake again.

It wasn't directed at you.

Please don't give me this holier than thou line though.

Green Arrow
06-30-2015, 09:46 AM
It wasn't directed at you.

Care to answer my question, then?

Mister D
06-30-2015, 09:47 AM
It wasn't directed at you.

Please don't give me this holier than thou line though.

I'm much holier than you. You are an atheist after all.

donttread
06-30-2015, 09:52 AM
It's actually not irrelevant. It's fairly clear and logical.

Discriminate all you want regarding the choices people make. No shirt? Sorry you can't come in. That's the person's choice.

You can't, for instance say, I don't accept handicapped people in my business, because that person didn't choose to be disabled.

Do you think it's a businesses right to say, we don't serve the disabled?

Who says gay isn't a choice? Your control freaks can't have it both ways

Tahuyaman
06-30-2015, 09:55 AM
Who says gay isn't a choice? Your control freaks can't have it both ways

Sexuality can be very fluid in some, but you're not allowed to talk about that.

domer76
06-30-2015, 09:59 AM
No, he's 100% correct. You must be consistent. It sets a precedent. Look that up.

Pit gets wearisome trying to educate you on anti-discrimination laws. But, I must say, it's also amusing the lengths you go to to concoct an absurd "well, what if" scenario to try to make your point and see it consistently fall on its face.

One thing I do commend you for - effort. Not terribly bright, but persistent

Common Sense
06-30-2015, 09:59 AM
Who says gay isn't a choice? Your control freaks can't have it both ways

Basically everyone says it.

domer76
06-30-2015, 10:00 AM
Who decides what is predetermined and what is choice?

What if the disabled person is disabled because they were a Nazi and got shot by good ol' Uncle Sam's army?

It's much better to be consistent in your beliefs, leaves no room for questioning.

^ See what I mean about the absurd stretches?

Common Sense
06-30-2015, 10:00 AM
Care to answer my question, then?

Which one? Abut where to draw the line? I did answer it.

domer76
06-30-2015, 10:01 AM
What happened to the argument that a "public business" MUST serve everybody?? I thought that was a fundamental part of doing business with the public... that you are not allowed to pick and choose your customers?

You confuse that with "public accommodation" and illegal discrimination.

Cigar
06-30-2015, 10:02 AM
Basically everyone says it.

Gays have been among us all since the beginning of time ... and traditional marriage has not once suffered, based on the number of couple who's re-married several times over.

In reality, it's a non-issue in my world.

Common Sense
06-30-2015, 10:05 AM
I apologize if I come off as impatient or flippant over this issue.

Basically I see it like this...People who argue for the right to be racist in practice are similar to people who chose to be against things like school integration. Hiding behind separate but equal, freedom and religion...they ended up on the wrong side of history.

If you could travel back in time to talk to people picketing a school where children are integrated, would you be patient and understanding with them? They attempted to move society backwards.

In my opinion, people who advocate for the freedom to put up a sign like "no niggers" are no better than those people. Call it "freedom" or call it whatever you want. It's moving backwards and you will find yourself on the wrong side of history, again.

So forgive me if I don't have patients for ignorance.

domer76
06-30-2015, 10:06 AM
Let's not go to that old worn out positive law argument that because it's the law it is right and moral. Need I remind you slavery was legal, so was the Holocaust, and many other immoral laws.

It doesn't matter when it comes to anti-discrimination laws, Chris, whether YOU think they're moral or not. The laws are clear, and despite the dullards on this thread concocted bizarre "what if" scenarios, everybody has a good idea of what those are. Choose to obey them or not. It's your choice.

Safety
06-30-2015, 10:06 AM
I doubt you know my position. You never acknowledge it. Instead you quote me but your reply is always about something else. You have an agenda. I understand.

LoL.

I am answering what you are posting. If your position is different than what you post, let me know.

Ravens Fan
06-30-2015, 10:12 AM
You confuse that with "public accommodation" and illegal discrimination.

I am confusing nothing. I remember well what was used as an argument before. But if you really have a point to make, please elaborate, rather than just say I am wrong.

Chris
06-30-2015, 10:15 AM
LoL.

I am answering what you are posting. If your position is different than what you post, let me know.


I post asking for justification of laws and you go off on a tangent about people who argue segregation--that is not addressing what I post. My position is as stated, when you want to address, let me know.

Common Sense
06-30-2015, 10:15 AM
I am confusing nothing. I remember well what was used as an argument before. But if you really have a point to make, please elaborate, rather than just say I am wrong.

...but you are confusing it. No one has ever said that a public accommodation is anything like a public park or that all are welcome. It's a private business that is bound by laws but that can discriminate based on criteria not covered by said laws.

Just as a kitchen in a restaurant is bound by food safety regulations, it is also bound by the civil rights act.

Chris
06-30-2015, 10:18 AM
It doesn't matter when it comes to anti-discrimination laws, Chris, whether YOU think they're moral or not. The laws are clear, and despite the dullards on this thread concocted bizarre "what if" scenarios, everybody has a good idea of what those are. Choose to obey them or not. It's your choice.



Uh, the question is not what the laws are but are the laws just, right, moral?

Can you ever argue without the lazy ad hom. It only raises a white flag.

Ravens Fan
06-30-2015, 10:19 AM
...but you are confusing it. No one has ever said that a public accommodation is anything like a public park or that all are welcome. It's a private business that is bound by laws but that can discriminate based on criteria not covered by said laws.

Just as a kitchen in a restaurant is bound by food safety regulations, it is also bound by the civil rights act.

Actually, I was told that when you open a business, unless it is a private club, you must accommodate all of the public. I know that sounds absurd, btw. That is why I argued it then.

Sexual preference was not included in the Civil Rights Act.

Chris
06-30-2015, 10:20 AM
...but you are confusing it. No one has ever said that a public accommodation is anything like a public park or that all are welcome. It's a private business that is bound by laws but that can discriminate based on criteria not covered by said laws.

Just as a kitchen in a restaurant is bound by food safety regulations, it is also bound by the civil rights act.



If the purpose of discussion was what's the law I'd call a lawyer or look up the statute. Political discussion is not about what is but what should or ought to be. Arguing it is the law does not justify the law.

Chris
06-30-2015, 10:21 AM
Actually, I was told that when you open a business, unless it is a private club, you must accommodate all of the public. I know that sounds absurd, btw. That is why I argued it then.

Sexual preference was not included in the Civil Rights Act.

The "public" argument has been argued into the ground, no wonder people now steer clear of it.

Common Sense
06-30-2015, 10:25 AM
Actually, I was told that when you open a business, unless it is a private club, you must accommodate all of the public. I know that sounds absurd, btw. That is why I argued it then.

Sexual preference was not included in the Civil Rights Act.

When has someone said that? I recall the previous discussion and don't remember anyone stating that. That's why I have stated that you are confusing the issue.

Ravens Fan
06-30-2015, 10:30 AM
When has someone said that? I recall the previous discussion and don't remember anyone stating that. That's why I have stated that you are confusing the issue.

I may be a while if I have to provide quotes... there were actually several very long discussions about the issue. I never claimed you were the one who said it. But if you remember the discussions, you should remember that being said more than once.

texan
06-30-2015, 10:50 AM
One page of Cee'gar's reaching for BS has me not wanting to go further. His thoughts are about as deep as Jack Handy's.

Captain Obvious
06-30-2015, 10:52 AM
Society in general forces people to behave a certain way.

I'm getting the reactions that I have come to expect.

It seems that some Americans see freedom as the ability to be a racist backward fuck. They are indeed free to do that. They just have to leave it at home if they are running a business that is open to the public.

It's time to join the 21st century.

Again, many people reject the notion of "freedom by force". Including me.

Freedom no longer frees us.

texan
06-30-2015, 10:53 AM
Businesses that serve the public should serve the public.

I would draw the line this way:

If a gay couple wants a wedding cake make it. But there is no requirement to add stuff like two dudes on top. They can do that themselves.

If a gay couple wants you to make a wedding cake and serve it in person at the reception you can say no.

But this is largely a non issue. The wedding cake business was not the only wedding cake place around and was deliberately targeted by foot stompers. They ought to have been tared and feathered.

I think you have a right in a private business to serve whom you want, understand there could be circumstances. If you break any laws in the process then you should be charged. How about treat people the way you would like to for your family to be treated and this goes away. Such a beating! I do not like do-gooders instigating crap like we have today.

I view this like watching TV. You don't like it change the channel, consumers have a right to spend their money in places they want to do business with......

domer76
06-30-2015, 10:53 AM
Yeah, that's a pretty tired argument. You could use that same argument to justify rape and murder. It would be just as irrelevant then.

Chris is a one trick pony. But I do admire his ability to have laser-like focus on one thing and one thing only

domer76
06-30-2015, 10:55 AM
Well, now, wait a minute. You just said it was about conditions you choose or do not choose. Yet the law lists religion as something you can't discriminate against. Is religion not a choice?

A stupid one, but yes, a choice nonetheless

domer76
06-30-2015, 10:57 AM
So, back to my original question, then. Where do we draw the line?

The line has been drawn, GA. Unfortunately, there are many that can't see it

domer76
06-30-2015, 11:00 AM
And here with ad hom we have the raising of the white flag. http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/fighting/waving-white-flag.gif

If the shoe fits, Chris, put it on. People have gone down the same road innumerable times and you keep the same absurd mantra. Maybe not 5th grade, but you must have skipped the 8th grade classes.

domer76
06-30-2015, 11:02 AM
So, a business can refuse service to someone with any type of tattoo on their face? How about tattoos which show an individual's gang affiliation?


Keep the idiocies coming!

domer76
06-30-2015, 11:08 AM
I am confusing nothing. I remember well what was used as an argument before. But if you really have a point to make, please elaborate, rather than just say I am wrong.

Nobody has ever claimed you "have to serve everyone". That's where the dullards distort the issue. The meaning of "public accommodation" in the context of anti-discrimination laws is clear. If it's not, look it up. I won't do your homework for you.

But please refrain from making up all sorts of ridiculous scenarios. It makes all of you look desperate and silly. Or at least more desperate and silly than you already are.

domer76
06-30-2015, 11:09 AM
Uh, the question is not what the laws are but are the laws just, right, moral?

Can you ever argue without the lazy ad hom. It only raises a white flag.

nope. That's not THE question. It's YOUR question. Asked and answered.

Captain Obvious
06-30-2015, 11:12 AM
Ignoring domer at this point would be a good thing, he's doing nothing but disrupting the flow of conversation.

Chris
06-30-2015, 11:18 AM
Ignoring domer at this point would be a good thing, he's doing nothing but disrupting the flow of conversation.

Yes, he gets domer and domer.

magicmike
06-30-2015, 11:23 AM
I'd like to carry on a civil discussion with our forum's Democrats. I get the reasoning behind why a racist business owner can't refuse service to "them darkies" and a Christian business can't refuse service to hermershexurals, because it's a public business.

But how far does that go? Can a business refuse to serve Christians? Nazis? A guy with a Confederate flag t-shirt?

None of those are groups protected by government anti discrimation laws, so ban away!

Captain Obvious
06-30-2015, 11:23 AM
Yes, he gets domer and domer.

oh man...

Ravens Fan
06-30-2015, 11:25 AM
Nobody has ever claimed you "have to serve everyone". That's where the dullards distort the issue. The meaning of "public accommodation" in the context of anti-discrimination laws is clear. If it's not, look it up. I won't do your homework for you.

Yes, actually, they have claimed that. Yes, those who use that argument are dullards. I would never want you doing my homework, Domer. I like to have all the facts, not some distorted view of them, thank you.


But please refrain from making up all sorts of ridiculous scenarios. It makes all of you look desperate and silly. Or at least more desperate and silly than you already are.

I made up no scenarios, Domer. I stated what arguments have been used in the not too distant past right on this forum.

I am neither desperate, nor silly. I point out hypocrisy where I see it.

magicmike
06-30-2015, 11:29 AM
Nobody has ever claimed you "have to serve everyone". That's where the dullards distort the issue. The meaning of "public accommodation" in the context of anti-discrimination laws is clear. If it's not, look it up. I won't do your homework for you.

But please refrain from making up all sorts of ridiculous scenarios. It makes all of you look desperate and silly. Or at least more desperate and silly than you already are.


Ignoring domer at this point would be a good thing, he's doing nothing but disrupting the flow of conversation.

Why? His quote above is true and he contributes far more to the discussion than you with your trolling.

What we have here is another pseudo-intellectual attempt by republitarians and teatarians to make a nonexistent point. For a group that claims to know our laws, they're mighty ignorant.

magicmike
06-30-2015, 11:31 AM
Yes, actually, they have claimed that. Yes, those who use that argument are dullards. I would never want you doing my homework, Domer. I like to have all the facts, not some distorted view of them, thank you.



I made up no scenarios, Domer. I stated what arguments have been used in the not too distant past right on this forum.

I am neither desperate, nor silly. I point out hypocrisy where I see it.

I see. You don't believe in gay activism, but you're all hung up on republitarian activism. At least you didn't have to come out of the closet to be the latter. How courageous!

Ravens Fan
06-30-2015, 11:36 AM
I see. You don't believe in gay activism, but you're all hung up on republitarian activism. At least you didn't have to come out of the closet to be the latter. How courageous!

You don't see anything except what you want to.

I have never said that I don't believe in gay activism. I don't believe that "Republitarian" is an actual word. I think this was just an excuse for you to express your "tolerance" for others.

Chris
06-30-2015, 11:39 AM
oh man...

I know, pretty lame. But, as much as I desperately resisted, I just couldn't help myself.

Chloe
06-30-2015, 11:43 AM
Why would a Christian-run business want to potentially scare away Christian customers by making gay cakes?

A gay cake? And people think that I tend to anthropomorphize things :)

Captain Obvious
06-30-2015, 11:45 AM
A gay cake? And people think that I tend to anthropomorphize things :)

Bet if it were one of those Jew cakes you'd think differently.

Chloe
06-30-2015, 11:48 AM
Bet if it were one of those Jew cakes you'd think differently.

Does it wear a kippah????

Captain Obvious
06-30-2015, 11:50 AM
Does it wear a kippah????

Is this like one of those false word jokes, like what's a henway?

Chloe
06-30-2015, 11:51 AM
Is this like one of those false word jokes, like what's a henway?

it's another word for a yarmulke

The Xl
06-30-2015, 11:51 AM
I, and many other libertarians consider the discrimination of people based on superficial characteristics that are birth rights like race, sex, orientation, etc, to be ignorant and completely abhorrent, but it should be allowed in a free society. Freedom is messy, but in order to actually live in a free society, a few rights must be allowed to persist without interference, and private property rights is one of them. There are many ways the market can deal with these bigots anyhow, ways that don't involve government force.

Captain Obvious
06-30-2015, 11:53 AM
it's another word for a yarmulke

Oh, now it makes more sense...

:rolleyes:

That sounds like the noise you make when burping and throwing up a little bit at the same time.

Chloe
06-30-2015, 11:54 AM
Oh, now it makes more sense...

:rolleyes:

That sounds like the noise you make when burping and throwing up a little bit at the same time.

skull cap that guys wear

Captain Obvious
06-30-2015, 11:55 AM
skull cap that guys wear

Oh, yamaka (like Yamaha)

Captain Obvious
06-30-2015, 11:55 AM
I should know this shit since I'm Jewish

Chloe
06-30-2015, 11:55 AM
Oh, yamaka (like Yamaha)

yes, if that helps

Chloe
06-30-2015, 11:56 AM
I should know this shit since I'm Jewish

yes, yes you should

Chris
06-30-2015, 12:04 PM
A gay cake? And people think that I tend to anthropomorphize things :)

Might be gay...

http://i.snag.gy/vHmcB.jpg

Chloe
06-30-2015, 12:05 PM
Might be gay...

http://i.snag.gy/vHmcB.jpg

No that's just creepy

Chris
06-30-2015, 12:07 PM
Sorry, I'm coming up lame today. :rollseyes:

Captain Obvious
06-30-2015, 12:09 PM
Might be gay...

http://i.snag.gy/vHmcB.jpg

http://cdn2.mommyish.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/18344a3f79c91b22e41b0e656a2a1177.jpg

Captain Obvious
06-30-2015, 12:09 PM
It even has a little butthole made out of jimmies - lol!

Tricia
06-30-2015, 12:13 PM
http://cdn2.mommyish.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/18344a3f79c91b22e41b0e656a2a1177.jpg

Oh. My. God.

Chris
06-30-2015, 12:24 PM
Yea, really, I passed those baby cakes up for a lamer one.

Damn, probably killed the thread too. :cry:

Captain Obvious
06-30-2015, 12:27 PM
Yea, really, I passed those baby cakes up for a lamer one.

Damn, probably killed the thread too. :cry:

Dude, the thread's on nazi's and gays. It's got more lives than the cat lady's trailer.

Chris
06-30-2015, 12:34 PM
Dude, the thread's on nazi's and gays. It's got more lives than the cat lady's trailer.

Well, I can hope. :D

domer76
06-30-2015, 12:40 PM
Ignoring domer at this point would be a good thing, he's doing nothing but disrupting the flow of conversation.

There is no flow, O. Just entrenched ignorance.

Do I have to hold your hand as well? Or do you actually understand the context and choose to be an argumentative dickhead?

Safety
06-30-2015, 12:40 PM
I post asking for justification of laws and you go off on a tangent about people who argue segregation--that is not addressing what I post. My position is as stated, when you want to address, let me know.

Justification of the laws we were speaking about was shown to you numerous times. Laws created out of a need to ensure equal treatment based upon a bias or prejudice in the populace, is justified when examples of that bias or prejudice is shown.

Now, what position are you arguing this time?

domer76
06-30-2015, 12:41 PM
Yes, actually, they have claimed that. Yes, those who use that argument are dullards. I would never want you doing my homework, Domer. I like to have all the facts, not some distorted view of them, thank you.



I made up no scenarios, Domer. I stated what arguments have been used in the not too distant past right on this forum.

I am neither desperate, nor silly. I point out hypocrisy where I see it.

A one-eyed Nazi with a lisp walks into a bar.......

domer76
06-30-2015, 12:43 PM
Bet if it were one of those Jew cakes you'd think differently.

"If/would" = "I've lost"

Ravens Fan
06-30-2015, 12:44 PM
A one-eyed Nazi with a lisp walks into a bar.......

Yes, I realize that you are a joke...

domer76
06-30-2015, 12:45 PM
Sorry, I'm coming up lame today. :rollseyes:

Yes you are. No different than yesterday

domer76
06-30-2015, 12:47 PM
Yes, I realize that you are a joke...

That was an example of the lengths some of you are going to in order to make your point. And fail miserably.

But that one went over your head, too, didn't it?

Ravens Fan
06-30-2015, 12:50 PM
That was an example of the lengths some of you are going to in order to make your point. And fail miserably.

But that one went over your head, too, didn't it?

No. My answer was spot on.

domer76
06-30-2015, 12:52 PM
No. My answer was spot on.


Derp

Ravens Fan
06-30-2015, 12:54 PM
Derp

Lol

Chris
06-30-2015, 12:55 PM
Justification of the laws we were speaking about was shown to you numerous times. Laws created out of a need to ensure equal treatment based upon a bias or prejudice in the populace, is justified when examples of that bias or prejudice is shown.

Now, what position are you arguing this time?


So this desire for equal treatment is justified when it violates another's rights? That's the point you keep avoiding.

Chris
06-30-2015, 12:56 PM
"If/would" = "I've lost"


Oh, no, you're not returning to your if/would argument. :Doh!:

Safety
06-30-2015, 01:01 PM
So this desire for equal treatment is justified when it violates another's rights? That's the point you keep avoiding.

What right is it violating? If I'm avoiding it, that means it isn't clear.

Chris
06-30-2015, 01:03 PM
What right is it violating? If I'm avoiding it, that means it isn't clear.

The right of free association. Right to private property as well.

Not, reciprocate and tell me what right is violated if a business chooses not to serve someone.

Safety
06-30-2015, 01:27 PM
The right of free association. Right to private property as well.

Not, reciprocate and tell me what right is violated if a business chooses not to serve someone.

You have the right to free associate, you have the right to private property.

What you don't have the right, is to collect federal subsidies (business) or tax breaks (business) and then have the gall to not serve a citizen because they are ......... (you fill in the blank).

Chris
06-30-2015, 01:55 PM
You have the right to free associate, you have the right to private property.

What you don't have the right, is to collect federal subsidies (business) or tax breaks (business) and then have the gall to not serve a citizen because they are ......... (you fill in the blank).

Nor do you have a right to--well, you can't even name this right you supposedly have.

But I will agree that if I take assistance from the feds and in doing so agree to fed rules, then I should abide by them. I am not however clear on what the justification for that is otherwise.

So it seems then that I'm free to exercise my rights if I don't take fed assistance. There'd be no justification there.

domer76
06-30-2015, 04:02 PM
Oh, no, you're not returning to your if/would argument. :Doh!:

If a one-eyed neo-Nazi with a lisp and a unicorn walked into your store and demanded you bake a cake, you would probably refuse

CreepyOldDude
06-30-2015, 04:31 PM
I should know this shit since I'm Jewish

I was playing Scrabble with my Jewish girlfriend once, back in the late 60s. She spelled MITE, and I built on that for ANTISEMITE. She asked me what a Semite was.

Her Grandma was in the room, and looked at her for a minute, then looked at me and shook her head.

Green Arrow
06-30-2015, 05:04 PM
Which one? Abut where to draw the line? I did answer it.

Yes, you did, you said the line is drawn at choice. You can't deny someone service based on factors like race or sexual orientation, because those aren't things you choose. You can deny someone service based on factors like politics and religion, because those are things you do choose.

Then I pointed out that the law lists religion as something you can't deny service for, so that means the line can't be consistently drawn based on choice. So I asked a follow-up...where then do you draw the line if not at choice?

Green Arrow
06-30-2015, 05:05 PM
The line has been drawn, GA. Unfortunately, there are many that can't see it

The line is awfully squiggly.

Common Sense
06-30-2015, 05:05 PM
Yes, you did, you said the line is drawn at choice. You can't deny someone service based on factors like race or sexual orientation, because those aren't things you choose. You can deny someone service based on factors like politics and religion, because those are things you do choose.

Then I pointed out that the law lists religion as something you can't deny service for, so that means the line can't be consistently drawn based on choice. So I asked a follow-up...where then do you draw the line if not at choice?

I explained why religion was included.

Green Arrow
06-30-2015, 05:09 PM
I explained why religion was included.

Where? I might have missed it.

Common Sense
06-30-2015, 05:32 PM
Where? I might have missed it.

In my original response.

I said religion was included because of its fundamental role in the US and its importance and prevalence of religious freedom in the founding of America.

Safety
06-30-2015, 05:33 PM
The line is awfully squiggly.

I would say it like this...if Bob came into my restaurant I owned to order shark fin soup, in a full KKK outfit, I would serve him, because he is obviously looking for attention. The same should be for this nazi.

In my opinion, the only person I think should be discriminated against are assholes. But they are not a protected class....yet.

Redrose
06-30-2015, 05:34 PM
Why would a Christian-run business want to potentially scare away Christian customers by making gay cakes?


We had a bakery in Long Island 20+ years ago that made fantastic cakes and pastries. They started to get into the speciality cake business and I stopped going there. They made "sex cakes" with representations of penises, vaginas, boobs, two people 'doggie style' in any color you choose, and sample cakes were on display for all to see, even kids. I bought my cakes at another very good bakery.

Some like myself stopped going there, but the business continued with a specific cliental.

Free market. If a private business wants to limit their business or chase some people away that's their choice. If they survive so be it, if the fail, oh well.

Let the market decide, not government.

Safety
06-30-2015, 05:35 PM
We had a bakery in Long Island 20+ years ago that made fantastic cakes and pastries. They started to get into the speciality cake business and I stopped going there. They made "sex cakes" with representations of penises, vaginas, boobs, two people 'doggie style' in any color you choose, and sample cakes were on display for all to see, even kids. I bought my cakes at another very good bakery.

Some like myself stopped going there, but the business continued with a specific cliental.

Free market. If a private business wants to limit their business or chase some people away that's their choice. If they survive so be it, if the fail, oh well.

Let the market decide, not government.

I bet they made a great "whoopie" pie...

donttread
06-30-2015, 05:37 PM
I explained why religion was included.


By what authority can the state tell any business whom they may or may not serve?

Bob
06-30-2015, 05:38 PM
I would say it like this...if @Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013) came into my restaurant I owned to order shark fin soup, in a full KKK outfit, I would serve him, because he is obviously looking for attention. The same should be for this nazi.

In my opinion, the only person I think should be discriminated against are assholes. But they are not a protected class....yet.

First Bob only eats at safe restaurants. Second, Bob does not eat shark fins.

But carry on. And clean up that kitchen why don't cha?

Green Arrow
06-30-2015, 05:38 PM
In my original response.

I said religion was included because of its fundamental role in the US and its importance and prevalence of religious freedom in the founding of America.

Why wouldn't political ideology also be protected, then? It played just as important a role in the US and its founding.

Safety
06-30-2015, 05:41 PM
First Bob only eats at safe restaurants. Second, Bob does not eat shark fins.

But carry on. And clean up that kitchen why don't cha?


Can I use your sheet?

Redrose
06-30-2015, 05:50 PM
I bet they made a great "whoopie" pie...


I don't know, but from the samples, they paid a lot of attention to detail.

Peter1469
06-30-2015, 05:51 PM
By what authority can the state tell any business whom they may or may not serve?

Who issues the business license?

Bob
06-30-2015, 05:52 PM
Can I use your sheet?

It is a cheat sheet. I keep facts on it.

Safety
06-30-2015, 05:54 PM
It is a cheat sheet. I keep facts on it.

But I bet it's clean, you always did pay attention to detail. Do they give you the senior discount?

Green Arrow
06-30-2015, 05:54 PM
It is a cheat sheet. I keep facts on it.

Lord knows you need a cheat sheet just to get by.

domer76
06-30-2015, 05:55 PM
The line is awfully squiggly.

It's not very squiggly at all

donttread
06-30-2015, 05:57 PM
Who issues the business license?

And why do we need licences to conduct business?

domer76
06-30-2015, 05:57 PM
By what authority can the state tell any business whom they may or may not serve?

The laws are clear and have been tested. Don't like 'em? Seek a remedy

Bob
06-30-2015, 05:58 PM
Lord knows you need a cheat sheet just to get by.

Even for you that is weak.

Bob
06-30-2015, 06:00 PM
But I bet it's clean, you always did pay attention to detail. Do they give you the senior discount?

Again you are right. Keep this up and you may get your membership card in the Ken Hamblin Avenger club.

My senior pass to all national parks means I get in for free.

Safety
06-30-2015, 06:02 PM
Again you are right. Keep this up and you may get your membership card in the Ken Hamblin Avenger club.

My senior pass to all national parks means I get in for free.

Does it include aquariums?

Green Arrow
06-30-2015, 06:15 PM
Even for you that is weak.

It's still better than most of the comebacks you come up with.

Green Arrow
06-30-2015, 06:17 PM
It's not very squiggly at all

Yes, actually, it is. As I was discussing with Common Sense, if the line is drawn at aspects of yourself you have a choice over, then the law is inconsistent. The law protects discrimination against religion, but religion is a choice. If religion is protected, there's actually zero reason why political ideology shouldn't be protected. If religion and political ideology are protected, then philosophy should be protected, too.

So your Nazi and Confederate flag guy can't be discriminated against.

Private Pickle
06-30-2015, 06:17 PM
It's still better than most of the comebacks you come up with.

Bob doesn't have comebacks. He just takes your insult and sends it back. Bob is a big advocate of the "I'm rubber and you're glue" approach.

Private Pickle
06-30-2015, 06:20 PM
Does it include aquariums?

Only if you buy two. Then you get a 10 Gallon.

domer76
06-30-2015, 06:22 PM
Yes, actually, it is. As I was discussing with Common Sense, if the line is drawn at aspects of yourself you have a choice over, then the law is inconsistent. The law protects discrimination against religion, but religion is a choice. If religion is protected, there's actually zero reason why political ideology shouldn't be protected. If religion and political ideology are protected, then philosophy should be protected, too.

So your Nazi and Confederate flag guy can't be discriminated against.

So many ifs, so many shoulds, so little time.

Green Arrow
06-30-2015, 06:28 PM
So many ifs, so many shoulds, so little time.

Yep, it's all perfectly acceptable in the English language. I know you have this really irrational thing against hypothetical situations, but they have been perfectly acceptable arguments for the entire history of the craft.

In other words...get over it.

Bob
06-30-2015, 06:47 PM
Does it include aquariums?

It does not grant me that permission. Parks are free. The card states some things I get half off. It does not say aquariums?

You can't get one until age 62.

Were I you, I would sue them since it means separate but equal or at least not as good as you will be at age 62.

Safety
06-30-2015, 06:50 PM
It does not grant me that permission. Parks are free. The card states some things I get half off. It does not say aquariums?

You can't get one until age 62.

Were I you, I would sue them since it means separate but equal or at least not as good as you will be at age 62.

Press the reset button and try that snark again.

Or turn up the O2, either or.

Bob
06-30-2015, 06:52 PM
Press the reset button and try that snark again.

Or turn up the O2, either or.

Piss on this. There was no snark.

Safety
06-30-2015, 06:53 PM
Piss on this. There was no snark.

Shark then?

Bob
06-30-2015, 06:54 PM
Shark then?

After a dose of GA, I am in no mood for this.

I was trying to be helpful so you get the same thing I got.

Chris
06-30-2015, 06:55 PM
If the shoe fits, Chris, put it on. People have gone down the same road innumerable times and you keep the same absurd mantra. Maybe not 5th grade, but you must have skipped the 8th grade classes.

Thing is, domer, when you employ ad hom you admit you've run out of rational arguments. No matter what names you call me, it looks bad for you. It also tells us something about you, that perhaps you came close to failing 8th grade? Who knows, who cares, you lost the argument when you raise the white flag.

Safety
06-30-2015, 06:58 PM
After a dose of GA, I am in no mood for this.

I was trying to be helpful so you get the same thing I got.

Then you shouldn't start.

Bob
06-30-2015, 07:00 PM
Then you shouldn't start.

I know just how to solve your problems. [click]

Safety
06-30-2015, 07:03 PM
I know just how to solve your problems. [click]

......Did you turn the monitor off?

zelmo1234
06-30-2015, 07:30 PM
The difference between being gay, black etc is that a person is born that way. Someone who is a Nazi has chosen that political affiliation.

It's like comparing apples to Ginsu knives or a tennis shoe.

Well I believe that you are half right.

silvereyes
06-30-2015, 07:51 PM
Oh, no, you're not returning to your if/would argument. :Doh!:

Dont know if he is or not but your reply + that smilie cracked me up!

silvereyes
06-30-2015, 07:54 PM
I would say it like this...if Bob came into my restaurant I owned to order shark fin soup, in a full KKK outfit, I would serve him, because he is obviously looking for attention. The same should be for this nazi.

In my opinion, the only person I think should be discriminated against are assholes. But they are not a protected class....yet.
Not true. They are protected on XYZ (s) forum.

silvereyes
06-30-2015, 08:02 PM
Bob doesn't have comebacks. He just takes your insult and sends it back. Bob is a big advocate of the "I'm rubber and you're glue" approach.
No, hes not. I see him more a "im rubber and youre....OMG, you insulted my insult and im going to tell m--o--m!" type of guy.

silvereyes
06-30-2015, 08:06 PM
I know just how to solve your problems. [click]

"Crosses fingers*

Did bobbo leave?

domer76
06-30-2015, 08:16 PM
Yep, it's all perfectly acceptable in the English language. I know you have this really irrational thing against hypothetical situations, but they have been perfectly acceptable arguments for the entire history of the craft.

In other words...get over it.
Not hypotheticals per se. Just absurd ones.

GA, I'm not the one who needs to "get over it". I know perfectly well where the line is drawn for anti-discrimination laws. It's very clear to me without having to concoct "what if" scenarios ad nauseum. It's like talking with small children trying to explain what is really a very simple concept. Yet, it fails to sink in for so many

Chris
06-30-2015, 08:20 PM
Not hypotheticals per se. Just absurd ones.

GA, I'm not the one who needs to "get over it". I know perfectly well where the line is drawn for anti-discrimination laws. It's very clear to me without having to concoct "what if" scenarios ad nauseum. It's like talking with small children trying to explain what is really a very simple concept. Yet, it fails to sink in for so many



We understand you have an opinion on the matter, domer, we just wish you could articulate it without all the BS.

domer76
06-30-2015, 08:22 PM
Thing is, domer, when you employ ad hom you admit you've run out of rational arguments. No matter what names you call me, it looks bad for you. It also tells us something about you, that perhaps you came close to failing 8th grade? Who knows, who cares, you lost the argument when you raise the white flag.

What? No mythical "what if" this time? Amazing!

domer76
06-30-2015, 08:24 PM
We understand you have an opinion on the matter, domer, we just wish you could articulate it without all the BS.

I have, Chris. You just have these anarchist-colored glasses on that distorts your vision.

Green Arrow
06-30-2015, 08:26 PM
Not hypotheticals per se. Just absurd ones.

GA, I'm not the one who needs to "get over it". I know perfectly well where the line is drawn for anti-discrimination laws. It's very clear to me without having to concoct "what if" scenarios ad nauseum. It's like talking with small children trying to explain what is really a very simple concept. Yet, it fails to sink in for so many

And yet, you can't seem to defend it with any sort of rational argument.

Chris
06-30-2015, 08:31 PM
I have, Chris. You just have these anarchist-colored glasses on that distorts your vision.

All I've ever heard was it's law and law justifies law. You have never presented an argument beyond that mere opinion.

Chris
06-30-2015, 08:33 PM
And yet, you can't seem to defend it with any sort of rational argument.

I just don't understand that, and not just with domer, but one would expect when one has an opinion one can give argument to explain why one holds the opinion. It doesn't prove anything necessarily, doesn't mean one is right because one has a rational argument, but it gives depth of meaning to what is otherwise a superficial opinion, and it provides substance to discuss it further--perhaps that's why.

Green Arrow
06-30-2015, 08:47 PM
I just don't understand that, and not just with domer, but one would expect when one has an opinion one can give argument to explain why one holds the opinion. It doesn't prove anything necessarily, doesn't mean one is right because one has a rational argument, but it gives depth of meaning to what is otherwise a superficial opinion, and it provides substance to discuss it further--perhaps that's why.

Right. I don't understand it, either. When someone challenges my point of view, I try to approach that challenge in a way that might make them come to see my point of view and maybe even agree with it. I don't understand people that don't react the same way when their ideas are challenged.

Well...I do understand why they are that way, I just don't like it.

Peter1469
06-30-2015, 08:48 PM
Can a business refuse to serve modern American progressives, the decedents of the early fascist movement?

Mister D
06-30-2015, 09:01 PM
I just don't understand that, and not just with domer, but one would expect when one has an opinion one can give argument to explain why one holds the opinion. It doesn't prove anything necessarily, doesn't mean one is right because one has a rational argument, but it gives depth of meaning to what is otherwise a superficial opinion, and it provides substance to discuss it further--perhaps that's why.

I know you're an atheist but amen. :smiley:

domer76
06-30-2015, 09:05 PM
And yet, you can't seem to defend it with any sort of rational argument.

I can't help you on your comprehension skills, GA. The laws, their purpose and all of that is exceptionally clear to me. Why that evades you and others, I can't say. And why, since it's so clear, that you rely on me to explain it to you is equally a mystery.

domer76
06-30-2015, 09:06 PM
All I've ever heard was it's law and law justifies law. You have never presented an argument beyond that mere opinion.

That's what you've chosen to hear

Mister D
06-30-2015, 09:22 PM
That's what you've chosen to hear

It's really all you say.

del
06-30-2015, 09:23 PM
Can a business refuse to serve modern American progressives, the decedents of the early fascist movement?

i believe you mean descendants but in any case the description is risible.

lol

Peter1469
06-30-2015, 09:24 PM
i believe you mean descendants but in any case the description is risible.

lol

The American progressive movement (both the left and right of it) were directly influenced by the fascist movement from Europe.

del
06-30-2015, 09:26 PM
The American progressive movement (both the left and right of it) were directly influenced by the fascist movement from Europe.

mmm hmmmm

please, tell me more

Mister D
06-30-2015, 09:27 PM
mmm hmmmm

please, tell me more

That's really news to you?

Peter1469
06-30-2015, 09:31 PM
mmm hmmmm

please, tell me more


Critics of Roosevelt's New Deal often liken it to fascism. Roosevelt's numerous defenders dismiss this charge as reactionary propaganda; but as Wolfgang Schivelbusch makes clear, it is perfectly true. Moreover, it was recognized to be true during the 1930s, by the New Deal's supporters as well as its opponents.


The Nazi press (https://mises.org/library/three-new-deals-why-nazis-and-fascists-loved-fdr) enthusiastically hailed the early New Deal measures: America, like the Reich, had decisively broken with the "uninhibited frenzy of market speculation." The Nazi Party newspaper, the Völkischer Beobachter, "stressed 'Roosevelt's adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies,' praising the president's style of leadership as being compatible with Hitler's own dictatorial Führerprinzip" (p. 190).


Nor was Hitler himself lacking in praise for his American counterpart. He "told American ambassador William Dodd that he was 'in accord with the President in the view that the virtue of duty, readiness for sacrifice, and discipline should dominate the entire people. These moral demands which the President places before every individual citizen of the United States are also the quintessence of the German state philosophy, which finds its expression in the slogan "The Public Weal Transcends the Interest of the Individual"'" (pp. 19-20). A New Order in both countries had replaced an antiquated emphasis on rights.


Mussolini, who did not allow his work as dictator to interrupt his prolific journalism, wrote a glowing review of Roosevelt's Looking Forward. He found "reminiscent of fascism … the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices"; and, in another review, this time of Henry Wallace's New Frontiers, Il Duce found the Secretary of Agriculture's program similar to his own corporativism (pp. 23-24).

Cthulhu
06-30-2015, 11:19 PM
What happened to the argument that a "public business" MUST serve everybody?? I thought that was a fundamental part of doing business with the public... that you are not allowed to pick and choose your customers?
Little things like target markets are a lost concept on some.

I liken it to shopping for flowers in a mechanic's shop. A waste of time.

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.

Cthulhu
06-30-2015, 11:20 PM
TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION

OOOSEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
Take that private property rights! That'll teach'em!

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.

Cthulhu
06-30-2015, 11:31 PM
I think it's out of frustration. I admit that I'm frustrated when this basic concept of decency is lost on people.

When i see people being either purposefully ignorant or just plain stupid, I react.

Interpret that the way you wish.

A smug retreat only works when you either have a brilliant position, or your opponents are lumbering morons.

You have neither luxury.

Sent from my evil, kitten eating cell phone.