Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2016 20:32:02 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. I am tired of it, but do not want to let the view that people do not have a religious right when operating a business to go unanswered. It is a smug attitude that needs to be poked vigorously. imo
|
|
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 20:44:45 GMT -5
Here's an angle that hasn't been explored:
Through the Oregon bakery precedent, the courts established that hurting people's feelings is sufficiently harmful to offer privileged classes legal protection against discrimination on a religious basis. This much is obvious. The funds in the lawsuit were awarded for "emotional damages". Moreover, public accommodation laws don't include any kind of stipulation that harm needs to be more severe than hurt feelings in order for a tort to have been committed. Hurt feelings are ipso facto justification for shielding privileged classes.
We also know that topless women scandalize many of society's more conservative members, unsettling them and essentially hurting their feelings.
Finally, we've plainly witnessed the campaign to "free the nipple" here on YMAM, which is a moral determination that easily parallels a religious precept.
Hence, can we not argue that the nipplists, by exercising their religious freedom and in so doing hurting the feelings of sensible conservatives, ought to similarly be restrained by law from free exercise of their religion for the accommodation of the greater public?
I'd say it makes an airtight case for maintaining the laws banning toplessness. The desire to practice nipplism cannot override the rights of privileged classes in public places.
|
|
copperboxes
Initiate Member
Joined: Aug 22, 2015 9:16:33 GMT -5
Posts: 91
Location: 7a OK
|
Post by copperboxes on May 22, 2016 20:45:07 GMT -5
Hickle, in a reply to Oped, you said:
That is not fact, in my observations.
DH got refused service in Saudi.
He was a solo guy, traveling alone, so he was shooed away from family restaurants. He didn't realize that was a thing initially. He could only go to male only restaurants, which served men, and groups of men.
If I'd been there, we could've gone together to family restaurants, or I could've gone in alone to a family restaurant leaving a driver in the car, or gone in with other women or children, but I would've been barred from male only establishments no matter what.
It was discussed a bit on here; some larger businesses have divider walls for family/women and for single men/groups of men on the other. Double the number of cashiers and equipment required by businesses to cater to everyone.
Other, smaller places are male only during certain hours or days of the week, and they become family only during other hours or days.
Many small places pick one service group and are exclusively that, missing out totally on business, like when DH wanted dinner at nicer places. (Many really nice places to eat in Saudi are family only, from what he could tell, so he couldn't enter).
My personal thought is that that sounds far more complex for both businesses and individuals to navigate, to have to find who wants to sell to which gender/ethnicity, at what days of the week.
Seems way simpler in all directions for businesses to sell available items at available hours.
My observations, for what they're worth.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2016 20:47:57 GMT -5
The Oregon bakery, in addition to discrimination, published personal, private information of the customer publically which resulted in death threats and almost derailed their adoption. I'm sorry if i don't equate that with you seeing a nipple ....
|
|
Kolt!
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2016 17:45:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by Kolt! on May 22, 2016 20:49:11 GMT -5
Well Hickle how is it right that a religious person can deny someone service based on "religious beliefs,"
What about the lgbtq if they don't want to serve Christians? Or the atheist not wanting to serve Christians? Or everyone else in the world not wanting to serve Christians except Christians?
It's not right that anyone can deny anyone service, if they're open to the public.
And if we start allowing people to deny someone service based on discrimination of a person then what's to say other's wont want to do the same? What's to say someone doesn't start denying blacks again because people had at one point in time saying they're against their religious beliefs.
And then what? We start an all out war among groups of people. The LGBTQ denying all Christians, Christians denying all LGBTQ, Whites denying blacks, Whites denying Mexicans, Mexicans denying asians.
When will it end?
Were living in the United States... Do we really want another war among the United States? The Union against the Confederates? If this is how people choose to treat one another don't for a second think another war won't happen if people start treating people like they're less than them and don't deserve to be treated like the man behind them in line.
What's next? "Christian Only Bathrooms," "Christian only Restaurants," "Christian only Grocery Store" "Christian only bakery"
Because if you're denying someone based on religious beliefs you really ought to not be serving anyone that isn't christian because they're all testing your beliefs by not being Christian. If someone wants to only serve Christians then maybe they should go try to make their own little Christian Community. The amish can do it. But heck even when they come out into the public they serve to everyone and they live the bible life more than anyone else outside of the amish lifestyle.
-- And allowing these laws may make it very hard for a person to live anywhere. The lesbian walks around town trying to get a cake and EVERY SINGLE person denies her the cake because it's a small christian town, then other businesses all start denying that person, making it near impossible for that person to live in that town, essentially running them out of town.
Don't even for a second say this isn't a possibility if laws didn't help in trying to stop discrimination because essentially white people ran out blacks of towns quite often because they didn't have places to get groceries, or have places to eat, or people wouldn't let them rent from them.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2016 20:50:50 GMT -5
The Oregon bakery, in addition to discrimination, published personal, private information of the customer publically which resulted in death threats and almost derailed their adoption. I'm sorry if i don't equate that with you seeing a nipple .... If that is the argument argue that and do not conflate issues.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2016 20:51:59 GMT -5
lmao.
|
|
Kolt!
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2016 17:45:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by Kolt! on May 22, 2016 20:55:52 GMT -5
I just watched the Freakshow: The American Horror Story taking place in the 50s,
The people from the Freakshow all walked in scaring a child because of how they look, customers were repulsed because they weren't used to see a tiny woman, or a woman with no legs, or a really tall woman, or a man with no arms.
The restaurant clearly did not want to serve them at all. A customer even told them to leave. But the restaurant had to serve them even though they saw them as monsters. They were taking their orders and had the intention of serving them even as one waitress clearly stated she'd like them to leave. They stayed. They WERE going to serve.
But when it came down to it they got kicked out NOT because they looked different, or were living a lifestyle a person didn't approve but because a man from the freakshow came in and started a fight with another guy from the freakshow, they started a fight in the restaurant and THEN the owner had reason to kick them out as they were fighting with someone in the place and disrupting tables, and making a mess.
But even when they hated having to serve them before they couldn't simply on grounds of them looking funny to them. They had to treat these customers with the same respect and equal treatment as the people next to them, until they put others at danger by being there.
|
|
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 21:18:27 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. and the thousands of posts already laid down on this subject?
|
|
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 21:40:08 GMT -5
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. and the thousands of posts already laid down on this subject? I didn't want to spend time hunting down the original thread. ...series. ...serieses.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on May 22, 2016 21:42:36 GMT -5
With the great search function here that serves you so well in every other instance?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on May 22, 2016 21:53:00 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? Funny thing, though. Isn't it interesting that those "religious beliefs" consist of one thing and one thing only, when it comes to serving the public? "Gays are icky". That seems to be the only pertinent belief. They have no problem serving liars and cheaters, women with short hair, women wearing pants, gluttons, people with tattoos or several divorces under their belts, etc. Gosh, I wonder why that is? Could it be that these....cough, cough..."religious beliefs" are nothing more than their smokescreen for discrimination and bigotry?
|
|
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 22:02:02 GMT -5
and the thousands of posts already laid down on this subject? I didn't want to spend time hunting down the original thread. ...series. ...serieses.
|
|
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 22:21:48 GMT -5
I'll admit I'm surprised by @richardintn's defection to the nanny state side of the argument on this issue. Get government out of who can gamble, who can run naked, who can do drugs, who can commit suicide, who can stockpile weapons, who can drive a car, who can run a prostitution ring out of their house, who can wear seat belts, who can operate a backhoe in their front yard... but turning customers away from your store? Save us, o government! Got to love a guy that doesn't consider tens of thousands of fatalities per year harmful enough to warrant government intervention but does consider lesbians with hurt feelings harmful enough that government needs to step in for the good of us all. You guys are nuts. I'm surrounded by nuts. That's the sad, sad reality of Virgil.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:47 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2016 22:51:54 GMT -5
I'll admit I'm surprised by @richardintn 's defection to the nanny state side of the argument on this issue. Get government out of who can gamble, who can run naked, who can do drugs, who can commit suicide, who can stockpile weapons, who can drive a car, who can run a prostitution ring out of their house, who can wear seat belts, who can operate a backhoe in their front yard... but turning customers away from your store? Save us, o government! Got to love a guy that doesn't consider tens of thousands of fatalities per year harmful enough to warrant government intervention but does consider lesbians with hurt feelings harmful enough that government needs to step in for the good of us all. You guys are nuts. I'm surrounded by nuts. That's the sad, sad reality of Virgil. There's no "defection to the nanny state" in this case though. "nanny state" is wanting government to take care of you because you can't decide for yourself. Well... individuals that want to buy a product or service obviously CAN decide for themselves. They'd just like businesses (not individuals... for those of you out there that are confused about the differences and think businesses and people are the same thing) to treat all citizens equally under the law. A bakery isn't that person's "private property", unlike their house or yard. A bakery isn't that person's "private property", unlike their car or truck. A bakery isn't that person's "private property", unlike their own personal bodies are. It's a business open to and serving the PUBLIC. Some of whom are not going to be straight or Christian.
|
|
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 22:53:56 GMT -5
I'll admit I'm surprised by @richardintn 's defection to the nanny state side of the argument on this issue. Get government out of who can gamble, who can run naked, who can do drugs, who can commit suicide, who can stockpile weapons, who can drive a car, who can run a prostitution ring out of their house, who can wear seat belts, who can operate a backhoe in their front yard... but turning customers away from your store? Save us, o government! Got to love a guy that doesn't consider tens of thousands of fatalities per year harmful enough to warrant government intervention but does consider lesbians with hurt feelings harmful enough that government needs to step in for the good of us all. You guys are nuts. I'm surrounded by nuts. That's the sad, sad reality of Virgil. Richard has taken the anti-statist argument, actually. i know you will never see it that way. but only because we are 3000 posts into this, and you are still arguing like it is the libertarian side of this argument that are the "heavies".
|
|
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 22:56:29 GMT -5
I'll admit I'm surprised by @richardintn 's defection to the nanny state side of the argument on this issue. Get government out of who can gamble, who can run naked, who can do drugs, who can commit suicide, who can stockpile weapons, who can drive a car, who can run a prostitution ring out of their house, who can wear seat belts, who can operate a backhoe in their front yard... but turning customers away from your store? Save us, o government! Got to love a guy that doesn't consider tens of thousands of fatalities per year harmful enough to warrant government intervention but does consider lesbians with hurt feelings harmful enough that government needs to step in for the good of us all. You guys are nuts. I'm surrounded by nuts. That's the sad, sad reality of Virgil. There's no "defection to the nanny state" in this case though. "nanny state" is wanting government to take care of you because you can't decide for yourself. Well... individuals that want to buy a product or service obviously CAN decide for themselves. They'd just like businesses (not individuals... for those of you out there that are confused about the differences and think businesses and people are the same thing) to treat all citizens equally under the law. A bakery isn't that person's "private property", unlike their house or yard. A bakery isn't that person's "private property", unlike their car or truck. A bakery isn't that person's "private property", unlike their own personal bodies are. It's a business open to and serving the PUBLIC. Some of whom are not going to be straight or Christian. if you want, call yourself the Holy Church Of Chocolate Frosting Club, and sell cakes there. members only. by appointment. i am sure that you will have every loon in the country wanting to buy your stuff. heck, even those Westboro Folks would probably shop there.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on May 22, 2016 23:33:46 GMT -5
Don't even need to call yourself a church except for marketing purposes. Private business, not open to the public, you're fine.
|
|
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 23, 2016 7:07:37 GMT -5
I'll admit I'm surprised by @richardintn 's defection to the nanny state side of the argument on this issue. Get government out of who can gamble, who can run naked, who can do drugs, who can commit suicide, who can stockpile weapons, who can drive a car, who can run a prostitution ring out of their house, who can wear seat belts, who can operate a backhoe in their front yard... but turning customers away from your store? Save us, o government! Got to love a guy that doesn't consider tens of thousands of fatalities per year harmful enough to warrant government intervention but does consider lesbians with hurt feelings harmful enough that government needs to step in for the good of us all. You guys are nuts. I'm surrounded by nuts. That's the sad, sad reality of Virgil. There's no "defection to the nanny state" in this case though. "nanny state" is wanting government to take care of you because you can't decide for yourself. Well... individuals that want to buy a product or service obviously CAN decide for themselves. They'd just like businesses (not individuals... for those of you out there that are confused about the differences and think businesses and people are the same thing) to treat all citizens equally under the law. A bakery isn't that person's "private property", unlike their house or yard. A bakery isn't that person's "private property", unlike their car or truck. A bakery isn't that person's "private property", unlike their own personal bodies are. It's a business open to and serving the PUBLIC. Some of whom are not going to be straight or Christian. This is a lengthy missive, but hear me out. Firstly, some groundwork. Government is the entity that institutes an artificial distinction between 'public' and 'private'. Suppose you're a toymaker. You have a product or service you want to sell. Since the dawn of time, cities have naturally had zones: commercial, residential, industrial. Commercial zones--the marketplaces, bazaars, malls, agoras, call them what you will--are the zones of commerce. They're the areas where merchants and consumers come to transact in a common place of business. Commercial zones have no need of government to organize them. They've existed independently from government for millennia. Merchants set up stalls as they had need, usually paying a fee to the crown or a commerce guild for the more lucrative venues. Mankind has understood from the dawn of time that businesses succeed or fail based on location. Location is paramount. Along with a sensible business plan, it is the most important factor in determining the success of a retail business. A poorly located business will fail with near certainty, and in the rare event that it survives, its growth and profitability will be severely limited. Let's call this the "law of location". You may recall Dark fighting on the side of angels in past discussions, trying to get it through apologists' thick heads how true the law is. Hence, some points to consider: - Due to the law of location, "just set up your business in a private place" cannot reasonably be deemed a "compromise". Indeed, due to city ordinances (i.e. rules imposed by government), many types of businesses cannot even legally operate outside the commercial areas of a city, to say nothing of profitability. "Set up your business in a private place" is not an "out". It's apologism.
- A businessman locates in a commercial area because he wants his business to be profitable, not because he wants to "serve the public". In these discussions, I've noticed that many arguments start with the flawed premise that business owners wish to "serve the public" (..."ergo, why not serve the whole public?"). Here I plainly disclaim this flaw. Businesses do not exist for this reason, nor do they set up in areas of commerce for this reason. Businesses exist to make money. For any profit-generating enterprise, this is the only universally justifiable assumption. "A man opens a business in a commercial area to serve the public." is not a sound argument. Indeed, a business owner may abhor serving the public of any part of it.
- It is government, by fiat, not by any natural law or organizational principle, that dictates "areas of commerce are public places". It is government, by fiat, that dictates "businesses located in these 'public' areas of commerce must 'serve the public'". These are wholly artificial restrictions imposed by government, putatively "for the public good". They are not natural laws such as the law of location.
Hence my confusion about your position: The issue, like many in recent years, is one of "the greater good" versus the free conduct of men. On the "free conduct of men" side, we have the desire for business owners to run successful businesses, which (naturally) dictates they set up shop in areas of commerce. When they set up for businesses in these places, they wish to be free of artificial encumbrances (assumptions, if you will) on who they intend to serve. Indeed, for the vast majority of human history, up to and including the framing of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, the freedom of business owners to choose their associations (regardless of locale) was considered sacrosanct. It was an area where government ought not meddle. On the "greater good" side of the issue, we have the belief that government has the right to designate any zone 'public' by fiat; it has the right to designate all commercial land 'public'; it has the right to dictate that businesses located in 'public' zones "serve the public", and, on the presumption that denial of service to privileged groups is harmful "in principle" to these groups, it has the right to dictate that "serve the public" mean "serve the public, possibly excepting individuals, but without excepting privileged individuals". If we chain all of these artificial constructions together and combine it with the law of location, the result is to suppress the aforementioned free conduct of men "for the greater good". Tallguy and others are squarely aboard this "greater good" bandwagon (GGB), which they justify by amplifying the practical harm caused by the free conduct of men a thousandfold, extrapolating it to absurd ends, labeling it a "principle", and insisting the issue can't be a trade-off between the liberty of the business owner and the liberty of the consumer in the marketplace because the harm to the consumer is, in effect, infinite. They're content with these absurd values and I doubt anyone short of God Himself could change their minds. But (and here's the "but") this same cohort also believes that government should step in to prevent other behaviours it deems harmful. They support mandated seatbelt use, safety regulations, jaywalking laws, to name a few. In other words, they're consistently aboard the GGB. You aren't. In fact, of the litany of "free conduct of men vs. greater good" issues raised on our board, this is the only one where you've jumped aboard the GGB. You claim this is because you don't perceive harm to potential business owners but you do perceive harm to 'the public' as a result of discriminating businesses. What I find amazing (in addition to the fact that you perceive no harm to potential business owners) is that the magnitude of the harm to the consumer means nothing to you. It's an incredible values statement, if you think about it. You feel so strongly about external harm that you'll run into the arms of government to prevent a tort as inconsequential as hurt feelings or inconvenience, but at the same time are so permissive of self harm that tens of thousands of fatalities per year (which would be the practical effect of voiding all the self-harm laws you feel are burdensome) is insufficient justification for those laws. I marvel all the more given how closely intertwined external harm and self harm are in reality. It's as if you perceive the world to be a place where any harmful action can be neatly categorized as one of the two. As if you believe suicide harms only the individual who commits it and no one else. Gambling harms only the individual who engages in it and no one else. Drug abuse harms only the individual abusing the drugs and no one else. And not only this, your attitudes about the two "categories" of harm are 100% polar opposites. To be honest, I think your jumping aboard the GGB in this case is solely a reflection of your desire to punish and marginalize would-be business owners that dare stick to their religious guns. Given your philosophy and your writings, I'm convinced your position is motivated by sheer malevolence, and I don't use that word lightly. If we give you the benefit of the doubt vis a vis being rational, that's the only conclusion that makes sense. You may be perfectly comfortable with this. I don't know. Think about it, at any rate.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on May 23, 2016 8:42:22 GMT -5
Virgil, here is the bottom line. We aren't a theocracy. Reply 32 had a very interesting post describing what it is like to live in a theocracy - the religion in charge gets to set the rules that everyone, regardless of their religion, must comply with.
Our founding fathers deliberately set up a government that is NOT a theocracy. (Google the picture of Jefferson's grave marker to see the only accomplishment he felt was important enough to list on it - here's a hint, it wasn't being president).
Because we are not a theocracy, public decency laws have to be determined by what the general public determines to be acceptable. Therefore, back in Victorian times, ladies had to wear bathing costumes that covered the whole body. Gradually, one piece costumes became acceptable. Then, bikinis (I'm old enough I can remember the outrage that attending the appearance of those garments on our beaches). Maybe, in time, the general public will find that women's nipples are no more offensive than men's nipples - who knows. I only know it will be a determination not based on any particular religious bias.
However, because we are not a theocracy, discrimination based on religion is not allowed. If I go into a Jewish deli, I expect them to sell me the same corned beef sandwich they sell to the Jew behind me in line. However, I would not expect them to sell me a ham sandwich, because they don't make ham sandwiches there - for anyone.
I know this issue really bothers you. I know you view someone being told they can't buy something in a store because their lifestyle is offensive as a 'minor' problem of 'hurt feelings' - but it's more than that. If it was legal for me to claim I can't make wedding cakes for gays because I disapprove of their lifestyle, couldn't someone else claim that they can't allow Hispanics to sit in their café and order food because their religion says Hispanics shouldn't share chairs/plates/utensils with white people? How do we determine if someone is discriminating against a group of people they just don't like, or if they have really have a sincere religious objection to a certain group of people?
I think you have tunnel vision on this issue because you're looking at it from a perspective of what you, a conservative Christian, would like to see happen in our society, but you're forgetting that anyone can claim any type of religious belief to behave in a discriminatory manner against anyone else, if we go with your theory that people should not be obligated to violate their religious principles when running a business. Would you be comfortable with the Aryan brotherhood, Wiccans or Atheists being able to decide who they want to exclude from their business for religious reasons?
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,331
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on May 23, 2016 9:04:22 GMT -5
Don't even need to call yourself a church except for marketing purposes. Private business, not open to the public, you're fine. Not quite true. You can be a private business and be open to the public. Creighton is a private university. As far as I know they don't openly discriminate but you are expected to follow the rules of Catholic doctrine. They won't cover birth control for their employees, stem cell research is banned and there was a morality clause in my employee contract. What it means for Creighton is they cannot accept any state funds for the college. If they want to run on state funds then they will have to become secular like University of Nebraska. My mom wanted to look into selling her home made dog treats. If she wants to make them in her home kitchen then she has to run it as a private business. That does not mean she is being punished and driven out of business. It means her customers have to be aware she's not FDA inspected. If she wants to be listed as a public business then she'd have to work in an inspected commercial kitchen. If you want to have the right to discriminate based on your religious preferences then you're going to have to be a private business. That means *gasp* your right to discriminate against customers you don't like will be protected. Then it's up to your customer base if they want to utilize you or not. It's up to the precious "Free market" to decide if you are going to be able to generate a large enough customer base to stay in business while keeping your preferences in place. There is nothing about being listed as a private business that is meant to drive you out. Like any other business owner you have to find the format that will best suit the needs of you the business owner and your company. Then hope the "free market" supports your model.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on May 23, 2016 9:33:39 GMT -5
... Commercial zones have no need of government to organize them. They've existed independently from government for millennia. Merchants set up stalls as they had need, usually paying a fee to the crown ... the more lucrative venues. ... So they paid the government for a better spot but the government didn't organize things?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on May 23, 2016 10:51:03 GMT -5
None of those are actually true, nor are they legitimately part of the argument. It is not location that determines whether a business is public or private. You can put a private, not-open-to-the-public business on the best corner in town. It is how you choose to structure and operate your business that determines whether it is public or private. Second, no one here or likely anywhere else has ever argued that a businessman goes into business because they wish to serve the public. That is a silly premise and I cannot believe you think it true for anyone here. Having to serve the public is a consequence of choosing to open an open-to-the-public business. And yes, he can and is perfectly free to "abhor serving the public or any part of it." That does not obviate the requirement to do so. It does perhaps call into question whether running a business is a good fit for him. The point that IS relevant to the discussion is that by choosing to open a business you are at least tacitly if not explicitly (I don't know if it is specifically part of the process of obtaining a license) agreeing to follow the laws to which your business is subject. If you choose to discriminate you are morally wrong. If there are anti-discrimination laws in place then you are legally wrong as well. Violate them as you choose, but do not complain if you are sanctioned because of it. That is the trade-off and you made your choice.
|
|
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 23, 2016 10:58:30 GMT -5
None of those are actually true, nor are they legitimately part of the argument. It is not location that determines whether a business is public or private. You can put a private, not-open-to-the-public business on the best corner in town. It is how you choose to structure and operate your business that determines whether it is public or private. Second, no one here or likely anywhere else has ever argued that a businessman goes into business because they wish to serve the public. That is a silly premise and I cannot believe you think it true for anyone here. Having to serve the public is a consequence of choosing to open an open-to-the-public business. And yes, he can and is perfectly free to "abhor serving the public or any part of it." That does not obviate the requirement to do so. It does perhaps call into question whether running a business is a good fit for him. The point that IS relevant to the discussion is that by choosing to open a business you are at least tacitly if not explicitly (I don't know if it is specifically part of the process of obtaining a license) agreeing to follow the laws to which your business is subject. If you choose to discriminate you are morally wrong. If there are anti-discrimination laws in place then you are legally wrong as well. Violate them as you choose, but do not complain if you are sanctioned because of it. That is the trade-off and you made your choice. i don't know how it works in other places, but in CA, if you operate inside a city's jurisdiction, you have to obtain a business license. the business license doesn't specify which laws you have to obey, but it does say something about operating within the laws of the city and state. those would include accommodation laws. if you operate outside the city limits, like us, you have no business license. if you are a corporation, you have to abide by the state code for corporations, which is fairly stringent, actually (though widely ignored). if you are not incorporated (sole proprietership), which is, i can pretty much guarantee, what we are talking about in most cases, you are subject to the same laws as ordinary citizens, and there is nothing "called out" for you specifically in terms of accommodation. however, every business has it's own set of laws governing it, no matter what entity type. a taco truck is subject to food safety standards, for example. that is not specifically called out when you buy the truck, but it will be made abundantly clear to you after you do so. in short, there is a lot of public morality that must be LEARNED by business owners, and that is part of the curve. and yes, i am somewhat sympathetic to those that fall on the wrong side of it- but that is part of DD.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on May 23, 2016 10:59:35 GMT -5
Where is Captain Hyperbole when you need him? Also not true. Utterly ridiculous, and totally unworthy of you. (Or at least of who I think you are.)
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on May 23, 2016 11:02:23 GMT -5
I'll admit I'm surprised by @richardintn 's defection to the nanny state side of the argument on this issue. Get government out of who can gamble, who can run naked, who can do drugs, who can commit suicide, who can stockpile weapons, who can drive a car, who can run a prostitution ring out of their house, who can wear seat belts, who can operate a backhoe in their front yard... but turning customers away from your store? Save us, o government! Got to love a guy that doesn't consider tens of thousands of fatalities per year harmful enough to warrant government intervention but does consider lesbians with hurt feelings harmful enough that government needs to step in for the good of us all. You guys are nuts. I'm surrounded by nuts. That's the sad, sad reality of Virgil. If you aren't now, you soon will be. Men are going to start screaming for the right to walk around bottomless. Lot of sacs swinging in the wind. I can't wait.
|
|
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 23, 2016 11:09:40 GMT -5
I'll admit I'm surprised by @richardintn 's defection to the nanny state side of the argument on this issue. Get government out of who can gamble, who can run naked, who can do drugs, who can commit suicide, who can stockpile weapons, who can drive a car, who can run a prostitution ring out of their house, who can wear seat belts, who can operate a backhoe in their front yard... but turning customers away from your store? Save us, o government! Got to love a guy that doesn't consider tens of thousands of fatalities per year harmful enough to warrant government intervention but does consider lesbians with hurt feelings harmful enough that government needs to step in for the good of us all. You guys are nuts. I'm surrounded by nuts. That's the sad, sad reality of Virgil. If you aren't now, you soon will be. Men are going to start screaming for the right to walk around bottomless. Lot of sacs swinging in the wind. I can't wait. don't be silly. only Archie will do that.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on May 23, 2016 11:10:30 GMT -5
If you aren't now, you soon will be. Men are going to start screaming for the right to walk around bottomless. Lot of sacs swinging in the wind. I can't wait. don't be silly. only Archie will do that. lol....if that was meant to be comforting....
|
|
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 23, 2016 11:11:27 GMT -5
Where is Captain Hyperbole when you need him? nfk, right? we have even gone so far as to suggest that the baker can skirt the law by masking his bigotry...cough....religious beliefs in something as benign as a busy schedule. what more do you want from us?
|
|
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 23, 2016 11:11:50 GMT -5
don't be silly. only Archie will do that. lol....if that was meant to be comforting.... not especially, no.
|
|