Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on May 21, 2016 22:17:11 GMT -5
I guess you can just accept the fine, lawsuit, and/or go out of business, but yeah "technically" nobody is being "forced." They weren't/aren't being "forced" because no one MADE THEM become bakers of wedding cakes. So it's not "technically" anything. Show me one... just one... instance where the US government or even a group of citizens ever FORCED anyone to become a baker, and specifically forced them to freely offer for sale, wedding cakes. Go ahead... I'll wait for you to find one. (I won't hold my breath though) You really can't see the forest through the trees. No matter what type of service you want to offer, business owners have been allowed to refuse service to customers unless for some reason a group of people are appointed this magical "protected status" and then all of a sudden it's an issue. Had these bakers refused to cater a Republican convention after catering a Democratic convention....no issues. A persons beliefs don't stop at they church or house, and that fact that you want them to stop there is an issue. Although I'm guessing you already know that, but I won't hold my breath waiting for you to admit issues that arise when forcing one group of people to cater events they have issues with for whatever reason. Don't even start with the "it's a public business and you have to offer service to everybody nonsense" because that's simply not true either.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on May 21, 2016 22:24:32 GMT -5
I guess you can just accept the fine, lawsuit, and/or go out of business, but yeah "technically" nobody is being "forced." no, i think Richard's argument is that a baker WILLINGLY bakes. if he does so in a public enterprise then he WILLINGLY abides by the rules associated with serving FOOD to the public. if he does not wish to WILLINGLY serve the public, he can sell his goods privately, and not be governed by public accommodation. you CHOOSE your rules. you don't get to have your cake and eat it too, tho. So basically anybody who feels strongly about their religious beliefs shouldn't be allowed to own a business that serves the public? Sounds to me a lot like other laws passed in the past to prevent certain groups from being able to vote....the fact that people don't have or even see an issue in this instance is baffling and scary at the same time. People can still freely practice their religious beliefs as long at it is only limited to their home or church while at the same time not realizing that by having that limitation, they are actually discriminating against that same group of people in favor of those who disagree with those religious beliefs. So people feel that they shouldn't be affected by another person's religious beliefs, in turn argue that those with religious beliefs they disagree with should be affected by those without the same beliefs?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2016 22:57:04 GMT -5
no, i think Richard's argument is that a baker WILLINGLY bakes. if he does so in a public enterprise then he WILLINGLY abides by the rules associated with serving FOOD to the public. if he does not wish to WILLINGLY serve the public, he can sell his goods privately, and not be governed by public accommodation. you CHOOSE your rules. you don't get to have your cake and eat it too, tho. So basically anybody who feels strongly about their religious beliefs shouldn't be allowed to own a business that serves the public? Sounds to me a lot like other laws passed in the past to prevent certain groups from being able to vote....the fact that people don't have or even see an issue in this instance is baffling and scary at the same time. People can still freely practice their religious beliefs as long at it is only limited to their home or church while at the same time not realizing that by having that limitation, they are actually discriminating against that same group of people in favor of those who disagree with those religious beliefs. So people feel that they shouldn't be affected by another person's religious beliefs, in turn argue that those with religious beliefs they disagree with should be affected by those without the same beliefs? That's not even remotely close to what was said. They are more than welcome to own a business that serves the public... but if they choose to do so, they have to actually SERVE THE PUBLIC as they freely chose to do. "The public" sometimes includes gay people.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2016 14:08:39 GMT -5
They are open to the public. They serve the public.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2016 14:19:54 GMT -5
Omg. The whole point is that what they think, what they believe has rat fuck to do with them selling me a product. The two things are unrelated. I would never ever expect to force anyone to carry for sale anything they don't carry. I expect that if they carry something for sale to the public, they will sell it to me.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on May 22, 2016 14:42:41 GMT -5
Omg. The whole point is that what they think, what they believe has rat fuck to do with them selling me a product. The two things are unrelated. I would never ever expect to force anyone to carry for sale anything they don't carry. I expect that if they carry something for sale to the public, they will sell it to me. Why did you include "they don't care" if it has rat fuck to do with them selling you a product? Apparently you thought it mattered enough to mention it. I would guess it was to help point out the difference between those who are MUCH more religiously observant (than the ones using their "religion" to discriminate) NOT choosing to discriminate.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2016 14:43:59 GMT -5
English isn't your first language is it?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on May 22, 2016 14:51:31 GMT -5
If they don't want the business, then don't go into the business. Pretty simple, huh?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on May 22, 2016 14:58:35 GMT -5
Neither is following the law. If you choose to go into business, you agree to either follow the law or risk the consequences of not following the law.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on May 22, 2016 15:10:42 GMT -5
And you are wrong, every time. I do have to ask, though. Is there any thread that you are not willing to hijack into a polemic on this subject? How many are we up to now? 40? 50? Will you ever tire of making yourself look silly by turning everything into this AGAIN? What is your limit so the rest of us know?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on May 22, 2016 15:31:51 GMT -5
It actually precedes oped's post. But either way, this: was nothing less than another attempt to throw gas on the fire. And no, you are wrong. In more ways than one. Either way, I'm done with this. We have already determined that you do not "get" the argument, yet are still continually and insultingly dismissive of it. Good luck to you though. I can't imagine going through life as thickle-headed as that.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on May 22, 2016 16:03:26 GMT -5
And you are wrong, every time. I do have to ask, though. Is there any thread that you are not willing to hijack into a polemic on this subject? How many are we up to now? 40? 50? Will you ever tire of making yourself look silly by turning everything into this AGAIN? What is your limit so the rest of us know? he even tried to hijack the "Non-Political Chit Chat" thread with talk of politics and negative rights.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 22, 2016 16:20:44 GMT -5
i think i get this argument. i have gotten it for some time. let's see if anyone disagrees with this. if NOBODY disagrees, then let's, FTLOG, PLEASE, move on?
the basic argument is "the first amendment supersedes all other rights".
have i got that correctly?
the rest of us are arguing "first amendment guarantees your rights so long as the exercise of those rights is not harming the person or property of non-consenting others".
those two positions are fundamentally at odds, and if we all just recognize that, we can go on living our lives, comfortable in the knowledge that there are those that see things differently.
this does NOT mean that one side is unaware of the position that the other has taken. we just disagree. and no matter how many illustrations, hijacked threads, etc, are used to illustrate these two positions, they are fundamentally irreconcilable, and should be seen as such.
if that is NOT a correct statement of one or the other position, please, by all means, correct me. if it is, then let's stop arguing this point endlessly. we all get it, have gotten it for months or more, and we are not changing our minds.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2016 18:19:41 GMT -5
If they don't want the business, then don't go into the business. Pretty simple, huh?Too simple for some.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2016 18:53:51 GMT -5
Sign says Open to public. I'm part of the public. My expectation is its open to me. Nothing simpler. You don't want to serve the public. Don't open a business to the public.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 22, 2016 18:56:16 GMT -5
you were doing fine until the last sentence. it has nothing to do with "what I want" for anyone here.
of course, being a Christian white male, i really don't have much to be concerned about. i can take my shirt off in public, i can go into any restaurant, and i can get a cake from any baker from coast to coast without having them tell me NO because they don't like my color, sex, or preference in mates. i don't have to worry about being denied service, essential or otherwise, from anyone.
lucky me.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2016 19:00:59 GMT -5
If their sign says Open for business.. I have every right to expect that they want to sell me something.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2016 19:06:20 GMT -5
Want to do business with someone, find someone who wants to do business with you. That is a pretty simple concept. Open for business = I want to do business.Want to interact with someone, have it be something both parties want to do. Pretty simple concept. Open for business = I want your business. Asking in an initiating busines = I want to do business. Don't like what someone thinks of your lifestyle, accept that not everyone is going to agree with you. Pretty simple concept. Don't give a shit what they think. Has nothng to do with a business transaction.
Don't like someone's religious view, accept that not everyone is going to agree with you. Pretty simple concept. dont give a shit. Has nothing to do with a business transaction.None of these concepts are any harder to understand then, Absolutely. Nothing there is hard to understand.
|
|
Pants
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 19:26:44 GMT -5
Posts: 7,579
|
Post by Pants on May 22, 2016 19:21:09 GMT -5
Oh for fucks sake. NOBODY CARES ABOUT THE DAMN CAKE ANYMORE. PLEASE STOP.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,612
|
Post by Tennesseer on May 22, 2016 19:35:32 GMT -5
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on May 22, 2016 19:37:49 GMT -5
Yum, cake....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2016 20:03:45 GMT -5
Sign says Open to public. I'm part of the public. My expectation is its open to me. Nothing simpler. You don't want to serve the public. Don't open a business to the public. Want to buy something go to someone who wants to sell to you is just as simple You may be on to something there! Want to buy something available to the public... go to someone that's open to the public to sell to the public! What a novel concept. I'm glad you figured it out for us!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2016 20:06:12 GMT -5
Absolutely. Nothing there is hard to understand. "I don't want your business" is not rocket science to understand. It is when the business says "I'm open to the public". The two are in direct opposition to each other in some cases.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2016 20:07:05 GMT -5
Absolutely. Nothing there is hard to understand. "I disagree with what you are wanting from me" is not hard to understand. Then "don't sell what they are wanting from you". It's not hard to understand.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2016 20:13:05 GMT -5
Oh for fucks sake. NOBODY CARES ABOUT THE DAMN CAKE ANYMORE. PLEASE STOP. "the cake is a lie."
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2016 20:18:46 GMT -5
I believe (but could be wrong) that Virgil Showlion is working his way backwards in the other thread. The content of the OP will adjust as posts are ALWAYS arranged in chronological order. ETA: when I first opened this thread, I was the "OP"... and it was only one page long. Now we're at page 2 (so far) and Politically_Incorrect12 is the (current, as of when I started to post this edit) OP.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 22, 2016 20:19:25 GMT -5
The first post in the thread is by PI.
I don't care who started it. If you want to continue it--and I have no problem if you do--do it in this thread.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 22, 2016 20:19:52 GMT -5
I believe (but could be wrong) that Virgil Showlion is working his way backwards in the other thread. The content of the OP will adjust as posts are ALWAYS arranged in chronological order. That is correct.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2016 20:23:43 GMT -5
If future threads will post be moved here even if no one on my side of the argument replies?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 22, 2016 20:28:23 GMT -5
If future threads will post be moved here even if no one on my side of the argument replies? If they grow to the point where they totally supplant the intended thread topic, yes. Personally I don't mind if the subject is mentioned in a few posts here or there, especially if it ties in with the intended topic of discussion in some respects. When it grows to nearly two pages, it deserves its own thread. It's obviously a topic that people want to discuss, much as everyone grumbles and groans about it, so... here's the forum for it.
|
|