Author Topic: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.  (Read 5773 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #150 on: August 20, 2018, 10:51:46 PM »

Offline More Banners

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3770
  • Tommy Points: 250
Quote
At least  don't make wedding cakes at all if a baker won't be able to do so for all customers.  Make pies.  I like a good fruit tart.  My Pepere liked creme puffs.  There is plenty of other niches in the culinary profession.

Or, you could just find a new baker.  What right do we have to tell somebody what they must and mustn’t bake?

Imagine the slippery slope. “Sorry, Mormon Tabernacle choir. Either you perform pro-Satan songs or you need to disband. But hey, you can still sing. Perhaps non-denominational advertising jingles”.

Ah, you find the most irrelevant examples. Law training at its best.

nobody telling anyone what to bake/say. It's someone deciding to hang out their shingle saying I make wedding cake. The person deciding is the baker. My case is he made the choice to make LGBT wedding cakes simply by being in the wedding cake business.  He made his choice.

If there is a slippery slope, even though we all know slippery slope arguments are garbage,  it's how much discrimination is okay.

Then again, in a country where the thieves, fraudsters, and the KKK is 'good people,' perhaps this baker who manages to only be an **** toward a mere 10% of the population might really be a genuine religious figure.
 

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #151 on: August 20, 2018, 10:54:49 PM »

Online gouki88

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3948
  • Tommy Points: 105
Quote
At least  don't make wedding cakes at all if a baker won't be able to do so for all customers.  Make pies.  I like a good fruit tart.  My Pepere liked creme puffs.  There is plenty of other niches in the culinary profession.

Or, you could just find a new baker.  What right do we have to tell somebody what they must and mustn’t bake?

Imagine the slippery slope. “Sorry, Mormon Tabernacle choir. Either you perform pro-Satan songs or you need to disband. But hey, you can still sing. Perhaps non-denominational advertising jingles”.

Ah, you find the most irrelevant examples. Law training at its best.

nobody telling anyone what to bake/say. It's someone deciding to hang out their shingle saying I make wedding cake. The person deciding is the baker. My case is he made the choice to make LGBT wedding cakes simply by being in the wedding cake business.  He made his choice.

If there is a slippery slope, even though we all know slippery slope arguments are garbage,  it's how much discrimination is okay.

Then again, in a country where the thieves, fraudsters, and the KKK is 'good people,' perhaps this baker who manages to only be an **** toward a mere 10% of the population might really be a genuine religious figure.
Uhh, what? That's a really weird leap, and one that I do not understand at all

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #152 on: August 20, 2018, 10:55:02 PM »

Online nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33487
  • Tommy Points: 5524
Quote
At least  don't make wedding cakes at all if a baker won't be able to do so for all customers.  Make pies.  I like a good fruit tart.  My Pepere liked creme puffs.  There is plenty of other niches in the culinary profession.

Or, you could just find a new baker.  What right do we have to tell somebody what they must and mustn’t bake?

This is what I don't understand. If consumers can "discriminate" by choosing which sellers to buy goods and services from, for whatever reason, why can't businesses "discriminate" by choosing their clientele? If I, as a Celtics fan, don't want to do business with a Lakers fan, what's wrong with that? What if I'm a short person with an inferiority complex and don't want to do business with tall people?

I'm not trying to make light of the LGBT situation, but I don't think there's anything inherent in owning a business that equates to, or necessitates, having to do business with anyone who walks through my door.

And I'm being perfectly honest when I say that if I walk into a business, and they refuse to do business with me, for whatever reason, I have no problem turning around and walking away and finding another business that'll work with me, without suing the place that refused me and trying to make an example of them.

So are you saying businesses should be able to refuse any and all service to someone simply because of their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, among other things?

That's something I just don't agree with.

I only side with the baker in this case merely because of the element of speech.  Denying someone common service in your restaurant, bar, comic book shop, ect is different and wrong.

I'm saying two things:

1) As someone with a bit of a libertarian streak, I dislike the general notion of telling businesses what they can and can't do (outside of obvious business-related no-nos, like fraud, for example).

2) The principles of discrimination (or antidiscrimination, depending on how you look at it) are not uniformly applied. Why can consumers discriminate without any restriction whatsoever, but businesses can't? Why is it wrong to refuse service to a black person, but it's (apparently) okay to refuse service to, say, short people, or red-haired people?

Again, I'm not trying to be a smartaleck, or to downplay LGBT concerns, with those examples; I'm also not saying it's okay to refuse service to someone because of their skin color, or because of the simple fact that they're gay. But consistency is a big thing with me, in every facet of my life, and I see it as inconsistent to say that certain types of "discrimination" are wrong and others aren't. It just doesn't make sense. And it doesn't make sense that consumers can make whatever decisions they want, for whatever reasons they want, but businesses can't. What is it about being a business, or owning a business, that "requires" one to not discriminate in certain narrowly defined situations? Private citizens can discriminate regarding whom they let into their homes; so if I'm the owner of a privately funded business, why can't I do business, or not do business, with whomever I choose, for whatever reason?
Because it is against the law. People have rights. Businesses don't. They must conform to certain laws to stay in business and one of those laws is not to discriminate against people who have rights.

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #153 on: August 21, 2018, 12:04:05 AM »

Offline rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5947
  • Tommy Points: 24
Quote
At least  don't make wedding cakes at all if a baker won't be able to do so for all customers.  Make pies.  I like a good fruit tart.  My Pepere liked creme puffs.  There is plenty of other niches in the culinary profession.

Or, you could just find a new baker.  What right do we have to tell somebody what they must and mustn’t bake?

This is what I don't understand. If consumers can "discriminate" by choosing which sellers to buy goods and services from, for whatever reason, why can't businesses "discriminate" by choosing their clientele? If I, as a Celtics fan, don't want to do business with a Lakers fan, what's wrong with that? What if I'm a short person with an inferiority complex and don't want to do business with tall people?

I'm not trying to make light of the LGBT situation, but I don't think there's anything inherent in owning a business that equates to, or necessitates, having to do business with anyone who walks through my door.

And I'm being perfectly honest when I say that if I walk into a business, and they refuse to do business with me, for whatever reason, I have no problem turning around and walking away and finding another business that'll work with me, without suing the place that refused me and trying to make an example of them.

So are you saying businesses should be able to refuse any and all service to someone simply because of their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, among other things?

That's something I just don't agree with.

I only side with the baker in this case merely because of the element of speech.  Denying someone common service in your restaurant, bar, comic book shop, ect is different and wrong.

I'm saying two things:

1) As someone with a bit of a libertarian streak, I dislike the general notion of telling businesses what they can and can't do (outside of obvious business-related no-nos, like fraud, for example).

2) The principles of discrimination (or antidiscrimination, depending on how you look at it) are not uniformly applied. Why can consumers discriminate without any restriction whatsoever, but businesses can't? Why is it wrong to refuse service to a black person, but it's (apparently) okay to refuse service to, say, short people, or red-haired people?

Again, I'm not trying to be a smartaleck, or to downplay LGBT concerns, with those examples; I'm also not saying it's okay to refuse service to someone because of their skin color, or because of the simple fact that they're gay. But consistency is a big thing with me, in every facet of my life, and I see it as inconsistent to say that certain types of "discrimination" are wrong and others aren't. It just doesn't make sense. And it doesn't make sense that consumers can make whatever decisions they want, for whatever reasons they want, but businesses can't. What is it about being a business, or owning a business, that "requires" one to not discriminate in certain narrowly defined situations? Private citizens can discriminate regarding whom they let into their homes; so if I'm the owner of a privately funded business, why can't I do business, or not do business, with whomever I choose, for whatever reason?
Because it is against the law. People have rights. Businesses don't. They must conform to certain laws to stay in business and one of those laws is not to discriminate against people who have rights.

I understand that it's against the law; what I'm asking is for someone to give a logical explanation of why certain types of "discrimination" are against the law and others aren't, and why consumers can "discriminate" but businesses can't. Businesses are made up of people, and those people have as many rights as consumers do.

And in this baker case and others like it, the people being sued are standing on rights clearly enumerated in the First Amendment, whereas many aspects of the LGBT movement are not. This is not to say that there are no such things as unenumerated rights, but when something is clearly spelled out—as freedom of religion and freedom of speech are—that should take precedence over something that is not clearly spelled out, such as the so-called right to buy a cake for a same-sex wedding.
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

— C.S. Lewis

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #154 on: August 21, 2018, 07:39:15 AM »

Offline RockinRyA

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3421
  • Tommy Points: 442
Quote
At least  don't make wedding cakes at all if a baker won't be able to do so for all customers.  Make pies.  I like a good fruit tart.  My Pepere liked creme puffs.  There is plenty of other niches in the culinary profession.

Or, you could just find a new baker.  What right do we have to tell somebody what they must and mustn’t bake?

This is what I don't understand. If consumers can "discriminate" by choosing which sellers to buy goods and services from, for whatever reason, why can't businesses "discriminate" by choosing their clientele? If I, as a Celtics fan, don't want to do business with a Lakers fan, what's wrong with that? What if I'm a short person with an inferiority complex and don't want to do business with tall people?

I'm not trying to make light of the LGBT situation, but I don't think there's anything inherent in owning a business that equates to, or necessitates, having to do business with anyone who walks through my door.

And I'm being perfectly honest when I say that if I walk into a business, and they refuse to do business with me, for whatever reason, I have no problem turning around and walking away and finding another business that'll work with me, without suing the place that refused me and trying to make an example of them.

So are you saying businesses should be able to refuse any and all service to someone simply because of their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, among other things?

That's something I just don't agree with.

I only side with the baker in this case merely because of the element of speech.  Denying someone common service in your restaurant, bar, comic book shop, ect is different and wrong.

I'm saying two things:

1) As someone with a bit of a libertarian streak, I dislike the general notion of telling businesses what they can and can't do (outside of obvious business-related no-nos, like fraud, for example).

2) The principles of discrimination (or antidiscrimination, depending on how you look at it) are not uniformly applied. Why can consumers discriminate without any restriction whatsoever, but businesses can't? Why is it wrong to refuse service to a black person, but it's (apparently) okay to refuse service to, say, short people, or red-haired people?

Again, I'm not trying to be a smartaleck, or to downplay LGBT concerns, with those examples; I'm also not saying it's okay to refuse service to someone because of their skin color, or because of the simple fact that they're gay. But consistency is a big thing with me, in every facet of my life, and I see it as inconsistent to say that certain types of "discrimination" are wrong and others aren't. It just doesn't make sense. And it doesn't make sense that consumers can make whatever decisions they want, for whatever reasons they want, but businesses can't. What is it about being a business, or owning a business, that "requires" one to not discriminate in certain narrowly defined situations? Private citizens can discriminate regarding whom they let into their homes; so if I'm the owner of a privately funded business, why can't I do business, or not do business, with whomever I choose, for whatever reason?
Because it is against the law. People have rights. Businesses don't. They must conform to certain laws to stay in business and one of those laws is not to discriminate against people who have rights.

I understand that it's against the law; what I'm asking is for someone to give a logical explanation of why certain types of "discrimination" are against the law and others aren't, and why consumers can "discriminate" but businesses can't. Businesses are made up of people, and those people have as many rights as consumers do.

And in this baker case and others like it, the people being sued are standing on rights clearly enumerated in the First Amendment, whereas many aspects of the LGBT movement are not. This is not to say that there are no such things as unenumerated rights, but when something is clearly spelled out—as freedom of religion and freedom of speech are—that should take precedence over something that is not clearly spelled out, such as the so-called right to buy a cake for a same-sex wedding.

Wow I can't believe Murica has really become this worse against discrimination. Consumers and Businesses have different rights. Its disgusting.

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #155 on: August 21, 2018, 08:36:05 AM »

Offline eja117

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19146
  • Tommy Points: 1249
Quote
At least  don't make wedding cakes at all if a baker won't be able to do so for all customers.  Make pies.  I like a good fruit tart.  My Pepere liked creme puffs.  There is plenty of other niches in the culinary profession.

Or, you could just find a new baker.  What right do we have to tell somebody what they must and mustn’t bake?

Imagine the slippery slope. “Sorry, Mormon Tabernacle choir. Either you perform pro-Satan songs or you need to disband. But hey, you can still sing. Perhaps non-denominational advertising jingles”.

Ah, you find the most irrelevant examples. Law training at its best.

nobody telling anyone what to bake/say. It's someone deciding to hang out their shingle saying I make wedding cake. The person deciding is the baker. My case is he made the choice to make LGBT wedding cakes simply by being in the wedding cake business.  He made his choice.

If there is a slippery slope, even though we all know slippery slope arguments are garbage,  it's how much discrimination is okay.

Then again, in a country where the thieves, fraudsters, and the KKK is 'good people,' perhaps this baker who manages to only be an **** toward a mere 10% of the population might really be a genuine religious figure.
The entire basis of progressivism is the slippery slope. 

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #156 on: August 21, 2018, 10:48:03 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19547
  • Tommy Points: 927
Quote
At least  don't make wedding cakes at all if a baker won't be able to do so for all customers.  Make pies.  I like a good fruit tart.  My Pepere liked creme puffs.  There is plenty of other niches in the culinary profession.

Or, you could just find a new baker.  What right do we have to tell somebody what they must and mustn’t bake?

This is what I don't understand. If consumers can "discriminate" by choosing which sellers to buy goods and services from, for whatever reason, why can't businesses "discriminate" by choosing their clientele? If I, as a Celtics fan, don't want to do business with a Lakers fan, what's wrong with that? What if I'm a short person with an inferiority complex and don't want to do business with tall people?

I'm not trying to make light of the LGBT situation, but I don't think there's anything inherent in owning a business that equates to, or necessitates, having to do business with anyone who walks through my door.

And I'm being perfectly honest when I say that if I walk into a business, and they refuse to do business with me, for whatever reason, I have no problem turning around and walking away and finding another business that'll work with me, without suing the place that refused me and trying to make an example of them.

So are you saying businesses should be able to refuse any and all service to someone simply because of their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, among other things?

That's something I just don't agree with.

I only side with the baker in this case merely because of the element of speech.  Denying someone common service in your restaurant, bar, comic book shop, ect is different and wrong.

I'm saying two things:

1) As someone with a bit of a libertarian streak, I dislike the general notion of telling businesses what they can and can't do (outside of obvious business-related no-nos, like fraud, for example).

2) The principles of discrimination (or antidiscrimination, depending on how you look at it) are not uniformly applied. Why can consumers discriminate without any restriction whatsoever, but businesses can't? Why is it wrong to refuse service to a black person, but it's (apparently) okay to refuse service to, say, short people, or red-haired people?

Again, I'm not trying to be a smartaleck, or to downplay LGBT concerns, with those examples; I'm also not saying it's okay to refuse service to someone because of their skin color, or because of the simple fact that they're gay. But consistency is a big thing with me, in every facet of my life, and I see it as inconsistent to say that certain types of "discrimination" are wrong and others aren't. It just doesn't make sense. And it doesn't make sense that consumers can make whatever decisions they want, for whatever reasons they want, but businesses can't. What is it about being a business, or owning a business, that "requires" one to not discriminate in certain narrowly defined situations? Private citizens can discriminate regarding whom they let into their homes; so if I'm the owner of a privately funded business, why can't I do business, or not do business, with whomever I choose, for whatever reason?
Because it is against the law. People have rights. Businesses don't. They must conform to certain laws to stay in business and one of those laws is not to discriminate against people who have rights.

I understand that it's against the law; what I'm asking is for someone to give a logical explanation of why certain types of "discrimination" are against the law and others aren't, and why consumers can "discriminate" but businesses can't. Businesses are made up of people, and those people have as many rights as consumers do.

And in this baker case and others like it, the people being sued are standing on rights clearly enumerated in the First Amendment, whereas many aspects of the LGBT movement are not. This is not to say that there are no such things as unenumerated rights, but when something is clearly spelled out—as freedom of religion and freedom of speech are—that should take precedence over something that is not clearly spelled out, such as the so-called right to buy a cake for a same-sex wedding.
Choice and discrimination are not the same thing. 

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #157 on: August 21, 2018, 11:02:25 AM »

Offline rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5947
  • Tommy Points: 24
Choice and discrimination are not the same thing.

Choice IS discrimination. Each of us discriminates every day, with every choice we make. I know that may not be a popular opinion, because a lot of people like to think of themselves as tolerant, but it's the truth.

Quote
At least  don't make wedding cakes at all if a baker won't be able to do so for all customers.  Make pies.  I like a good fruit tart.  My Pepere liked creme puffs.  There is plenty of other niches in the culinary profession.

Or, you could just find a new baker.  What right do we have to tell somebody what they must and mustn’t bake?

Imagine the slippery slope. “Sorry, Mormon Tabernacle choir. Either you perform pro-Satan songs or you need to disband. But hey, you can still sing. Perhaps non-denominational advertising jingles”.

Ah, you find the most irrelevant examples. Law training at its best.

nobody telling anyone what to bake/say. It's someone deciding to hang out their shingle saying I make wedding cake. The person deciding is the baker. My case is he made the choice to make LGBT wedding cakes simply by being in the wedding cake business.  He made his choice.

If there is a slippery slope, even though we all know slippery slope arguments are garbage,  it's how much discrimination is okay.

Then again, in a country where the thieves, fraudsters, and the KKK is 'good people,' perhaps this baker who manages to only be an **** toward a mere 10% of the population might really be a genuine religious figure.

I disagree. I think there's a lot of truth in the idea of slippery slopes. How do you think American society got to the point of allowing same-sex marriage? It took a lot of baby steps to get there. Whether you see that as good or bad isn't the point; the point is that it didn't happen overnight. America didn't go from Ward & June Cleaver to Will & Grace in the blink of an eye.

Wow I can't believe Murica has really become this worse against discrimination. Consumers and Businesses have different rights. Its disgusting.

Still no one has offered a logical, well-reasoned answer to my question: Why should businesses have different rights than consumers? Businesses are made up of people—people who have the same rights as people who are consumers. Why does setting up a business (that is not publicly funded) mean that the owners have to check their rights at the door?
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

— C.S. Lewis

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #158 on: August 21, 2018, 11:02:25 AM »

Offline gift

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1522
  • Tommy Points: 142
Quote
At least  don't make wedding cakes at all if a baker won't be able to do so for all customers.  Make pies.  I like a good fruit tart.  My Pepere liked creme puffs.  There is plenty of other niches in the culinary profession.

Or, you could just find a new baker.  What right do we have to tell somebody what they must and mustn’t bake?

This is what I don't understand. If consumers can "discriminate" by choosing which sellers to buy goods and services from, for whatever reason, why can't businesses "discriminate" by choosing their clientele? If I, as a Celtics fan, don't want to do business with a Lakers fan, what's wrong with that? What if I'm a short person with an inferiority complex and don't want to do business with tall people?

I'm not trying to make light of the LGBT situation, but I don't think there's anything inherent in owning a business that equates to, or necessitates, having to do business with anyone who walks through my door.

And I'm being perfectly honest when I say that if I walk into a business, and they refuse to do business with me, for whatever reason, I have no problem turning around and walking away and finding another business that'll work with me, without suing the place that refused me and trying to make an example of them.

So are you saying businesses should be able to refuse any and all service to someone simply because of their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, among other things?

That's something I just don't agree with.

I only side with the baker in this case merely because of the element of speech.  Denying someone common service in your restaurant, bar, comic book shop, ect is different and wrong.

I'm saying two things:

1) As someone with a bit of a libertarian streak, I dislike the general notion of telling businesses what they can and can't do (outside of obvious business-related no-nos, like fraud, for example).

2) The principles of discrimination (or antidiscrimination, depending on how you look at it) are not uniformly applied. Why can consumers discriminate without any restriction whatsoever, but businesses can't? Why is it wrong to refuse service to a black person, but it's (apparently) okay to refuse service to, say, short people, or red-haired people?

Again, I'm not trying to be a smartaleck, or to downplay LGBT concerns, with those examples; I'm also not saying it's okay to refuse service to someone because of their skin color, or because of the simple fact that they're gay. But consistency is a big thing with me, in every facet of my life, and I see it as inconsistent to say that certain types of "discrimination" are wrong and others aren't. It just doesn't make sense. And it doesn't make sense that consumers can make whatever decisions they want, for whatever reasons they want, but businesses can't. What is it about being a business, or owning a business, that "requires" one to not discriminate in certain narrowly defined situations? Private citizens can discriminate regarding whom they let into their homes; so if I'm the owner of a privately funded business, why can't I do business, or not do business, with whomever I choose, for whatever reason?
Because it is against the law. People have rights. Businesses don't. They must conform to certain laws to stay in business and one of those laws is not to discriminate against people who have rights.

People have to follow the law in order to start in and stay in business. Requirements of lawfulness do not preclude rights. People need to follow laws, yet they still have rights. Why wouldn't businesses have rights? At issue is when a business' right can supplant its other lawful obligations. That question has not been fully answered, so the claim that it must follow the law not to discriminate cannot be used to justify itself.

Further thoughts: If we separate the rights and will of people from their own businesses, their own labor, we alienate them from their true essence. The business owner "does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind. The worker therefore only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself. He feels at home when he is not working, and when he is working he does not feel at home. His labor is therefore not voluntary, but coerced; it is forced labor."1

1https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htm
« Last Edit: August 21, 2018, 11:15:30 AM by gift »

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #159 on: August 21, 2018, 11:09:57 AM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35971
  • Tommy Points: -27665
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
At least  don't make wedding cakes at all if a baker won't be able to do so for all customers.  Make pies.  I like a good fruit tart.  My Pepere liked creme puffs.  There is plenty of other niches in the culinary profession.

Or, you could just find a new baker.  What right do we have to tell somebody what they must and mustn’t bake?

This is what I don't understand. If consumers can "discriminate" by choosing which sellers to buy goods and services from, for whatever reason, why can't businesses "discriminate" by choosing their clientele? If I, as a Celtics fan, don't want to do business with a Lakers fan, what's wrong with that? What if I'm a short person with an inferiority complex and don't want to do business with tall people?

I'm not trying to make light of the LGBT situation, but I don't think there's anything inherent in owning a business that equates to, or necessitates, having to do business with anyone who walks through my door.

And I'm being perfectly honest when I say that if I walk into a business, and they refuse to do business with me, for whatever reason, I have no problem turning around and walking away and finding another business that'll work with me, without suing the place that refused me and trying to make an example of them.

So are you saying businesses should be able to refuse any and all service to someone simply because of their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, among other things?

That's something I just don't agree with.

I only side with the baker in this case merely because of the element of speech.  Denying someone common service in your restaurant, bar, comic book shop, ect is different and wrong.

I'm saying two things:

1) As someone with a bit of a libertarian streak, I dislike the general notion of telling businesses what they can and can't do (outside of obvious business-related no-nos, like fraud, for example).

2) The principles of discrimination (or antidiscrimination, depending on how you look at it) are not uniformly applied. Why can consumers discriminate without any restriction whatsoever, but businesses can't? Why is it wrong to refuse service to a black person, but it's (apparently) okay to refuse service to, say, short people, or red-haired people?

Again, I'm not trying to be a smartaleck, or to downplay LGBT concerns, with those examples; I'm also not saying it's okay to refuse service to someone because of their skin color, or because of the simple fact that they're gay. But consistency is a big thing with me, in every facet of my life, and I see it as inconsistent to say that certain types of "discrimination" are wrong and others aren't. It just doesn't make sense. And it doesn't make sense that consumers can make whatever decisions they want, for whatever reasons they want, but businesses can't. What is it about being a business, or owning a business, that "requires" one to not discriminate in certain narrowly defined situations? Private citizens can discriminate regarding whom they let into their homes; so if I'm the owner of a privately funded business, why can't I do business, or not do business, with whomever I choose, for whatever reason?

I find some of this interesting on a philosophical level. A very brilliant Con Law professor of mine argued that private universities should be able to admit whomever they want, so long as they didn’t accept government funds.

But, on a legal basis, I think the 14th Amendment, and precedent set by the SC related to the Commerce Clause, give Congress broad discretion. As we escape the “state of nature” in favor of the convenience, stability and safety of government, we give up absolute liberty.  Figuring out the balancing test of individual liberty vs. the collective’s desire for security, etc. is a debate that will continue as long as we have a society.



Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #160 on: August 21, 2018, 11:42:54 AM »

Online nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33487
  • Tommy Points: 5524
Quote
At least  don't make wedding cakes at all if a baker won't be able to do so for all customers.  Make pies.  I like a good fruit tart.  My Pepere liked creme puffs.  There is plenty of other niches in the culinary profession.

Or, you could just find a new baker.  What right do we have to tell somebody what they must and mustn’t bake?

This is what I don't understand. If consumers can "discriminate" by choosing which sellers to buy goods and services from, for whatever reason, why can't businesses "discriminate" by choosing their clientele? If I, as a Celtics fan, don't want to do business with a Lakers fan, what's wrong with that? What if I'm a short person with an inferiority complex and don't want to do business with tall people?

I'm not trying to make light of the LGBT situation, but I don't think there's anything inherent in owning a business that equates to, or necessitates, having to do business with anyone who walks through my door.

And I'm being perfectly honest when I say that if I walk into a business, and they refuse to do business with me, for whatever reason, I have no problem turning around and walking away and finding another business that'll work with me, without suing the place that refused me and trying to make an example of them.

So are you saying businesses should be able to refuse any and all service to someone simply because of their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, among other things?

That's something I just don't agree with.

I only side with the baker in this case merely because of the element of speech.  Denying someone common service in your restaurant, bar, comic book shop, ect is different and wrong.

I'm saying two things:

1) As someone with a bit of a libertarian streak, I dislike the general notion of telling businesses what they can and can't do (outside of obvious business-related no-nos, like fraud, for example).

2) The principles of discrimination (or antidiscrimination, depending on how you look at it) are not uniformly applied. Why can consumers discriminate without any restriction whatsoever, but businesses can't? Why is it wrong to refuse service to a black person, but it's (apparently) okay to refuse service to, say, short people, or red-haired people?

Again, I'm not trying to be a smartaleck, or to downplay LGBT concerns, with those examples; I'm also not saying it's okay to refuse service to someone because of their skin color, or because of the simple fact that they're gay. But consistency is a big thing with me, in every facet of my life, and I see it as inconsistent to say that certain types of "discrimination" are wrong and others aren't. It just doesn't make sense. And it doesn't make sense that consumers can make whatever decisions they want, for whatever reasons they want, but businesses can't. What is it about being a business, or owning a business, that "requires" one to not discriminate in certain narrowly defined situations? Private citizens can discriminate regarding whom they let into their homes; so if I'm the owner of a privately funded business, why can't I do business, or not do business, with whomever I choose, for whatever reason?

I find some of this interesting on a philosophical level. A very brilliant Con Law professor of mine argued that private universities should be able to admit whomever they want, so long as they didn’t accept government funds.

But, on a legal basis, I think the 14th Amendment, and precedent set by the SC related to the Commerce Clause, give Congress broad discretion. As we escape the “state of nature” in favor of the convenience, stability and safety of government, we give up absolute liberty.  Figuring out the balancing test of individual liberty vs. the collective’s desire for security, etc. is a debate that will continue as long as we have a society.
Doesn't the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also apply here, meaning rockrollforyoursoul's scenario?

As a citizen, you can make choices about where you shop or who you like or who you let in your home. Those are choices not discrimination. Discrimination is prejudiced action against a person or things based on sex, race, color religion or sexual orientation. Choice is  just making a decision between different options. Now a person can choose to discriminate, which is their right, but in today's society, that only makes you a scumbag.

But as a business, you can not discriminate who you service based on sex, race, religion, or sexual orientation. Doing so also violates the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Besides paying taxes, not participating in illegal activities, reporting earnings if you are a publicly traded company, and adhering to employee rights laws, a business can not violate the above mentioned laws.

Is that about the right answer to his question?

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #161 on: August 21, 2018, 12:01:01 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35971
  • Tommy Points: -27665
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
Doesn't the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also apply here, meaning rockrollforyoursoul's scenario?

Yes.  The primary power there is found under the Commerce Clause, which in terms of plain language states that Congress regulates commerce between the states, but which has been interpreted essentially to allow Congress to regulate anything so long as it has a substantial effect on Commerce.

I would answer RRFYS's question two ways:

1.  Congress has the right to regulate businesses and who they can / cannot sell to.  The Constitution gives them that enumerated right, at least related to interstate commerce.  Arguably, there's no such corresponding right related to individuals.  It's the Obamacare argument:  the government can't tell consumers what they must buy, or where they must or must not shop.

2.  It's simply impossible to prove.  It's hard enough to prove that a business is discriminating based upon race / sex / religion, etc.  How would you ever enforce it upon consumers?  "I don't like the neighborhood".  "The store I shop at has better produce".  "Sorry, I just like the food better at my local restaurant".


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #162 on: August 21, 2018, 01:01:45 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19547
  • Tommy Points: 927
Choice and discrimination are not the same thing.

Choice IS discrimination. Each of us discriminates every day, with every choice we make. I know that may not be a popular opinion, because a lot of people like to think of themselves as tolerant, but it's the truth.

Quote
At least  don't make wedding cakes at all if a baker won't be able to do so for all customers.  Make pies.  I like a good fruit tart.  My Pepere liked creme puffs.  There is plenty of other niches in the culinary profession.

Or, you could just find a new baker.  What right do we have to tell somebody what they must and mustn’t bake?

Imagine the slippery slope. “Sorry, Mormon Tabernacle choir. Either you perform pro-Satan songs or you need to disband. But hey, you can still sing. Perhaps non-denominational advertising jingles”.

Ah, you find the most irrelevant examples. Law training at its best.

nobody telling anyone what to bake/say. It's someone deciding to hang out their shingle saying I make wedding cake. The person deciding is the baker. My case is he made the choice to make LGBT wedding cakes simply by being in the wedding cake business.  He made his choice.

If there is a slippery slope, even though we all know slippery slope arguments are garbage,  it's how much discrimination is okay.

Then again, in a country where the thieves, fraudsters, and the KKK is 'good people,' perhaps this baker who manages to only be an **** toward a mere 10% of the population might really be a genuine religious figure.

I disagree. I think there's a lot of truth in the idea of slippery slopes. How do you think American society got to the point of allowing same-sex marriage? It took a lot of baby steps to get there. Whether you see that as good or bad isn't the point; the point is that it didn't happen overnight. America didn't go from Ward & June Cleaver to Will & Grace in the blink of an eye.

Wow I can't believe Murica has really become this worse against discrimination. Consumers and Businesses have different rights. Its disgusting.

Still no one has offered a logical, well-reasoned answer to my question: Why should businesses have different rights than consumers? Businesses are made up of people—people who have the same rights as people who are consumers. Why does setting up a business (that is not publicly funded) mean that the owners have to check their rights at the door?
Choice is not discrimination.  The choice can certainly be because of discrimination, but they are no where near the same thing. 

Businesses are open to the public.  They sell to the public.  They invite the public in to make money off of them.  A consumer is none of those things.  I find it really strange that you can't see the distinction between the two. 

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #163 on: August 21, 2018, 01:22:11 PM »

Offline rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5947
  • Tommy Points: 24
Choice and discrimination are not the same thing.

Choice IS discrimination. Each of us discriminates every day, with every choice we make. I know that may not be a popular opinion, because a lot of people like to think of themselves as tolerant, but it's the truth.

Quote
At least  don't make wedding cakes at all if a baker won't be able to do so for all customers.  Make pies.  I like a good fruit tart.  My Pepere liked creme puffs.  There is plenty of other niches in the culinary profession.

Or, you could just find a new baker.  What right do we have to tell somebody what they must and mustn’t bake?

Imagine the slippery slope. “Sorry, Mormon Tabernacle choir. Either you perform pro-Satan songs or you need to disband. But hey, you can still sing. Perhaps non-denominational advertising jingles”.

Ah, you find the most irrelevant examples. Law training at its best.

nobody telling anyone what to bake/say. It's someone deciding to hang out their shingle saying I make wedding cake. The person deciding is the baker. My case is he made the choice to make LGBT wedding cakes simply by being in the wedding cake business.  He made his choice.

If there is a slippery slope, even though we all know slippery slope arguments are garbage,  it's how much discrimination is okay.

Then again, in a country where the thieves, fraudsters, and the KKK is 'good people,' perhaps this baker who manages to only be an **** toward a mere 10% of the population might really be a genuine religious figure.

I disagree. I think there's a lot of truth in the idea of slippery slopes. How do you think American society got to the point of allowing same-sex marriage? It took a lot of baby steps to get there. Whether you see that as good or bad isn't the point; the point is that it didn't happen overnight. America didn't go from Ward & June Cleaver to Will & Grace in the blink of an eye.

Wow I can't believe Murica has really become this worse against discrimination. Consumers and Businesses have different rights. Its disgusting.

Still no one has offered a logical, well-reasoned answer to my question: Why should businesses have different rights than consumers? Businesses are made up of people—people who have the same rights as people who are consumers. Why does setting up a business (that is not publicly funded) mean that the owners have to check their rights at the door?
Choice is not discrimination.  The choice can certainly be because of discrimination, but they are no where near the same thing. 

Businesses are open to the public.  They sell to the public.  They invite the public in to make money off of them.  A consumer is none of those things.  I find it really strange that you can't see the distinction between the two.

I find it strange that a large number of people in our society can't wrap their minds around the plain language of the First Amendment.
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

— C.S. Lewis

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #164 on: August 21, 2018, 01:24:45 PM »

Online nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33487
  • Tommy Points: 5524
Choice and discrimination are not the same thing.

Choice IS discrimination. Each of us discriminates every day, with every choice we make. I know that may not be a popular opinion, because a lot of people like to think of themselves as tolerant, but it's the truth.

Quote
At least  don't make wedding cakes at all if a baker won't be able to do so for all customers.  Make pies.  I like a good fruit tart.  My Pepere liked creme puffs.  There is plenty of other niches in the culinary profession.

Or, you could just find a new baker.  What right do we have to tell somebody what they must and mustn’t bake?

Imagine the slippery slope. “Sorry, Mormon Tabernacle choir. Either you perform pro-Satan songs or you need to disband. But hey, you can still sing. Perhaps non-denominational advertising jingles”.

Ah, you find the most irrelevant examples. Law training at its best.

nobody telling anyone what to bake/say. It's someone deciding to hang out their shingle saying I make wedding cake. The person deciding is the baker. My case is he made the choice to make LGBT wedding cakes simply by being in the wedding cake business.  He made his choice.

If there is a slippery slope, even though we all know slippery slope arguments are garbage,  it's how much discrimination is okay.

Then again, in a country where the thieves, fraudsters, and the KKK is 'good people,' perhaps this baker who manages to only be an **** toward a mere 10% of the population might really be a genuine religious figure.

I disagree. I think there's a lot of truth in the idea of slippery slopes. How do you think American society got to the point of allowing same-sex marriage? It took a lot of baby steps to get there. Whether you see that as good or bad isn't the point; the point is that it didn't happen overnight. America didn't go from Ward & June Cleaver to Will & Grace in the blink of an eye.

Wow I can't believe Murica has really become this worse against discrimination. Consumers and Businesses have different rights. Its disgusting.

Still no one has offered a logical, well-reasoned answer to my question: Why should businesses have different rights than consumers? Businesses are made up of people—people who have the same rights as people who are consumers. Why does setting up a business (that is not publicly funded) mean that the owners have to check their rights at the door?
Choice is not discrimination.  The choice can certainly be because of discrimination, but they are no where near the same thing. 

Businesses are open to the public.  They sell to the public.  They invite the public in to make money off of them.  A consumer is none of those things.  I find it really strange that you can't see the distinction between the two.

I find it strange that a large number of people in our society can't wrap their minds around the plain language of the First Amendment.
First Amendment does not pertain to businesses. Roy pointed out the laws that govern businesses.