tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on May 23, 2016 11:29:33 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? True. If I wished to do so I could probably without really trying come up with several different and legal ways to end up doing exactly what I wished. You almost have to think that anyone stupid enough to get caught up in this is too stupid to be in business in the first place.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2016 11:31:27 GMT -5
For the love of God enough of his topic.
Oh wait, I think I will go to the thread about it and post.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2016 12:13:38 GMT -5
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? True. If I wished to do so I could probably without really trying come up with several different and legal ways to end up doing exactly what I wished. You almost have to think that anyone stupid enough to get caught up in this is too stupid to be in business in the first place. So your answer to anti religious bigotry is for the religious person to hide his beliefs.
|
|
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 12:26:30 GMT -5
For the love of God enough of his topic. Oh wait, I think I will go to the thread about it and post. nobody replied to that post. no likes, no responses. therefore, i presumed that nobody was interested in that. i am not going to miss out on the most active thread on the board if everyone wants to do this, bro.
|
|
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 12:27:47 GMT -5
True. If I wished to do so I could probably without really trying come up with several different and legal ways to end up doing exactly what I wished. You almost have to think that anyone stupid enough to get caught up in this is too stupid to be in business in the first place. So your answer to anti religious bigotry is for the religious person to hide his beliefs. that is the least clever possibility. there are more clever possibilities that require no "hiding" whatsoever. but, just like bigotry, it is best to not mention them in a public forum.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on May 23, 2016 12:32:06 GMT -5
So your answer to anti religious bigotry is for the religious person to hide his beliefs. that is the least clever possibility. there are more clever possibilities that require no "hiding" whatsoever. but, just like bigotry, it is best to not mention them in a public forum. Very true.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on May 23, 2016 13:51:40 GMT -5
If your religion tells you to hate, shun or discriminate against another human being, guess what - you need a new religion.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on May 23, 2016 14:04:02 GMT -5
There's public and private in terms of business ownership and public and private in terms of customers. They are completely independent of one another.
Just because a business is privately owned does not make it open to only private customers.
(Though I think the SEC requires all public companies to be open to the public, but that's a guess and I'm not sure)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2016 16:17:56 GMT -5
If your religion tells you to hate, shun or discriminate against another human being, guess what - you need a new religion. Someone else's religion isn't your business. Whether or not he/she needs a new religion is not for you to decide.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on May 23, 2016 16:31:53 GMT -5
If your religion tells you to hate, shun or discriminate against another human being, guess what - you need a new religion. Someone else's religion isn't your business. Whether or not he/she needs a new religion is not for you to decide. It absolutely IS my business if I'm being discriminated against because of the way I was born.
It absolutely IS my business when I stand up for others who cannot stand up for themselves because they are being shunned or discriminated against because of who they are or how they were born.
It absolutely IS my business if you (the "Big You") try to make rules and laws in this country that are based on your religious beliefs that have the effect of deliberately (or even inadvertently) hurting/disenfranchising someone else because of who they are. The last time I checked, no religion is allowed to run this country.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2016 16:40:33 GMT -5
Someone else's religion isn't your business. Whether or not he/she needs a new religion is not for you to decide. It absolutely IS my business if I'm being discriminated against because of the way I was born.
It absolutely IS my business when I stand up for others who cannot stand up for themselves because they are being shunned or discriminated against because of who they are or how they were born.
It absolutely IS my business if you (the "Big You") try to make rules and laws in this country that are based on your religious beliefs. The last time I checked, no religion is allowed to run this country.
You and people like you are wanting laws that say what religion is allowed to do and force those who believe that religion to abide by your values not theirs. You and people like you are the ones that want government and law to combine to force your view onto others. No one was born deserving to be able to force someone else to bake them a cake. No one was born with the right to force others to do what they want. You and people like you are the ones wanting laws to initiate force against someone you disagree with. I do not believe it is any of your business what I or anyone else believes. Unless I or someone else force you to do against your will, it is not your place to force me or anyone else against their will.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on May 23, 2016 16:52:05 GMT -5
It absolutely IS my business if I'm being discriminated against because of the way I was born.
It absolutely IS my business when I stand up for others who cannot stand up for themselves because they are being shunned or discriminated against because of who they are or how they were born.
It absolutely IS my business if you (the "Big You") try to make rules and laws in this country that are based on your religious beliefs. The last time I checked, no religion is allowed to run this country.
You and people like you are wanting laws that say what religion is allowed to do and force those who believe that religion to abide by your values not theirs. You and people like you are the ones that want government and law to combine to force your view onto others. No one was born deserving to be able to force someone else to bake them a cake. No one was born with the right to force others to do what they want. You and people like you are the ones wanting laws to initiate force against someone you disagree with. I do not believe it is any of your business what I or anyone else believes. Unless I or someone else force you to do against your will, it is not your place to force me or anyone else against their will. And yet the Religious Right (and other fundies) go right on promulgating laws (or attempting to promulgate them) that run EXACTLY contrary to what you have stated here (see bold above).
Do you not see the disconnect? Do you not see the logical dissonance?
Also chew on this: there is a HUGE difference between "values" and "laws."
And while you're at it, consider this: LOTS of people are forced to do LOTS of things "against their will" every day in the country. It's called - wait for it - - -
obeying the laws of this country.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2016 17:00:01 GMT -5
You and people like you are wanting laws that say what religion is allowed to do and force those who believe that religion to abide by your values not theirs. You and people like you are the ones that want government and law to combine to force your view onto others. No one was born deserving to be able to force someone else to bake them a cake. No one was born with the right to force others to do what they want. You and people like you are the ones wanting laws to initiate force against someone you disagree with. I do not believe it is any of your business what I or anyone else believes. Unless I or someone else force you to do against your will, it is not your place to force me or anyone else against their will. And yet the Religious Right (and other fundies) go right on promulgating laws (or attempting to promulgate them) that run EXACTLY contrary to what you have stated here (see bold above). They are wrong to do so. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Do you not see the disconnect? Do you not see the logical dissonance? I am not sure what you are asking, but if it is about the hypocrisy of the religious right. I think many of them are huge hypocrites. I think they want to deny just as many rights as the do gooder progressives. Everyone wants to tell everyone else what to do.
Also chew on this: there is a HUGE difference between "values" and "laws."
And while you're at it, consider this: LOTS of people are forced to do LOTS of things "against their will" every day in the country. It's called - wait for it - - -
obeying the laws of this country. unbolded yours so I could bold mine, sorry . A whole bunch of laws are immoral.
|
|
Kolt!
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2016 17:45:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by Kolt! on May 23, 2016 17:39:55 GMT -5
You seem to go by "Just because one person does it doesn't make it okay," as long as that person is of the Christian belief.
Also you want to say that nobody was born with the right to force anybody to do something they don't want to?
Nobody was born with the right to have the religion they want either.
But the United States allows people to pick their religion. Some place do not. Some places force people to have a specific religion and practice that religion rather you want to or not.
It's a two way street.
You're living in the United States and you have to follow the United States laws when running a business.
Your religious rights don't give you the free will to do anything you want which some people seem to think they do.
You're free to go to church. You're free to pray. You're free to think what you want. You're free to believe what you want. You're free to wear what you want when it comes to your religious rights. You're free to not eat fish. You're free to participate in lint. You're free to participate in Easter. You're free to close your business on Sunday. You're free to celebrate Christmas. You're free to pray around your table. You're free to say you think that's a sin. You're free to spill out hate.
Heck, you're even free to stand outside with a sign saying "Hate the gays" "You're going to hell"
But when you open up a business to serve the entire public that includes people that are not part of your religious beliefs. You're choosing to live in the United States where all religions are to be accepted and even non-religions. This is part of the reason I personally like living in the United States compared to other countries that would force their religion upon me. Part of living in the United States is if you run a business open to the public you serve them. It's pretty simple. They walk away after and you walk away. You can continue to go to church and then can continue not to go to church. If you don't want to serve the public don't open a business that serves the public.
|
|
Kolt!
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2016 17:45:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by Kolt! on May 23, 2016 17:44:46 GMT -5
So I guess if people want to only serve Christians why don't they put up "Christian Only" because they'd fear they wouldn't get enough business?
They want to essentially have that business open to everyone but the lgbtq but not let people passing by know this because it'd hurt their business.
Or I don't know "Christian's Only" looks a lot like "Whites Only" they want to say it isn't the same thing but as soon as you're denying a member of the lgbtq you are doing exactly what a person did in denying a black person in their shop. It is NO different. It is no more justifiable then that was.
|
|
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 17:48:39 GMT -5
It absolutely IS my business if I'm being discriminated against because of the way I was born.
It absolutely IS my business when I stand up for others who cannot stand up for themselves because they are being shunned or discriminated against because of who they are or how they were born.
It absolutely IS my business if you (the "Big You") try to make rules and laws in this country that are based on your religious beliefs. The last time I checked, no religion is allowed to run this country.
You and people like you are wanting laws that say what religion is allowed to do and force those who believe that religion to abide by your values not theirs. You and people like you are the ones that want government and law to combine to force your view onto others. No one was born deserving to be able to force someone else to bake them a cake. No one was born with the right to force others to do what they want. You and people like you are the ones wanting laws to initiate force against someone you disagree with. I do not believe it is any of your business what I or anyone else believes. Unless I or someone else force you to do against your will, it is not your place to force me or anyone else against their will. no, him and other people like him are wanting laws that say that NO religion is allowed to do ANYTHING which is not in the interests of the general public. actually, that protects the religious just as much as it protects the agnostic. if this country were, for example to become a Catholic Majority (it's GOING to happen, imo), we could not have a Catholic Republic that would force you (and everyone not Catholic) to play by Catholic rules. you could continue playing by your own rules, privately, just like you do now, and they would have to continue playing by their rules, privately, just as they do now. the negative view on this is very shortsighted. Neimoeller could explain it better than me.
|
|
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 17:51:36 GMT -5
i disagree with many members on this board when i say this, but i say that if you disagree with a law, go ahead and violate it, and turn yourself in. challenge the legality, and see how that goes for you. if you win, you change the law for yourself and everyone else. bully for you. and bully for us, if we agree with you.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2016 18:12:58 GMT -5
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. Wow. That was a long winded waste of free flowing electrons (I only got about three paragraphs in before my eyes glazed over and the whole thing just ran together). I'm really only going to comment on the bolded (mostly because I caught someone else quote it and could read it there!) I don't want to "punish" or "marginalize" anyone. Not for any thing. What I would like people to do is keep their religion out of their business unless their business IS their religion. This is NOT a religious theocracy, and there are laws against discrimination in the public sector. Wanna be a religious baker... GREAT. Be one. But be a private one that only serves sinless Christians (no, you can't pick and choose which sins you approve of and which you don't) all you like. If you are going to blame your bigotry on your religion, make sure you include all of it's bigotry.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on May 23, 2016 18:15:18 GMT -5
i disagree with many members on this board when i say this, but i say that if you disagree with a law, go ahead and violate it, and turn yourself in. challenge the legality, and see how that goes for you. if you win, you change the law for yourself and everyone else. bully for you. and bully for us, if we agree with you. Lol! I'd LOVE to see how THAT goes, just sayin' . . . .
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2016 18:16:02 GMT -5
If your religion tells you to hate, shun or discriminate against another human being, guess what - you need a new religion. Someone else's religion isn't your business. Whether or not he/she needs a new religion is not for you to decide. Up until they make it my business by denying someone services that they provide... you are correct. However... Once they cross that line it becomes everyone's business.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2016 18:18:50 GMT -5
It absolutely IS my business if I'm being discriminated against because of the way I was born.
It absolutely IS my business when I stand up for others who cannot stand up for themselves because they are being shunned or discriminated against because of who they are or how they were born.
It absolutely IS my business if you (the "Big You") try to make rules and laws in this country that are based on your religious beliefs. The last time I checked, no religion is allowed to run this country.
You and people like you are wanting laws that say what religion is allowed to do and force those who believe that religion to abide by your values not theirs. You and people like you are the ones that want government and law to combine to force your view onto others. No one was born deserving to be able to force someone else to bake them a cake. No one was born with the right to force others to do what they want. You and people like you are the ones wanting laws to initiate force against someone you disagree with. I do not believe it is any of your business what I or anyone else believes. Unless I or someone else force you to do against your will, it is not your place to force me or anyone else against their will. Wrong. No one wants to say what religion is or is not allowed. And no one wants to force anyone to abide by anyone else's beliefs. BUT... if you open a PUBLIC BUSINESS you have to SERVE THE PUBLIC... all of them. Not just the ones you like or agree with.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2016 18:25:56 GMT -5
i disagree with many members on this board when i say this, but i say that if you disagree with a law, go ahead and violate it, and turn yourself in. challenge the legality, and see how that goes for you. if you win, you change the law for yourself and everyone else. bully for you. and bully for us, if we agree with you. Lol! I'd LOVE to see how THAT goes, just sayin' . . . . Me too!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2016 18:35:17 GMT -5
You seem to go by "Just because one person does it doesn't make it okay," as long as that person is of the Christian belief. Also you want to say that nobody was born with the right to force anybody to do something they don't want to? Nobody was born with the right to have the religion they want either. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -----You can believe or not believe that we do not have inherent rights. I believe we do and freedom of religion is one such right.But the United States allows people to pick their religion. Some place do not. Some places force people to have a specific religion and practice that religion rather you want to or not. Those places are wrong in my opinion. Everyone is born with an inherent right to choose what relgion to believe or not to believe any religion. That is my belief, you are free to have another. I argue my beliefs.
It's a two way street. You're living in the United States and you have to follow the United States laws when running a business. I argue the law is not moral.Your religious rights don't give you the free will to do anything you want which some people seem to think they do. I think freedom of religion is a negative right.You're free to go to church. You're free to pray. You're free to think what you want. You're free to believe what you want. You're free to wear what you want when it comes to your religious rights. You're free to not eat fish. You're free to participate in lint. You're free to participate in Easter. You're free to close your business on Sunday. You're free to celebrate Christmas. You're free to pray around your table. You're free to say you think that's a sin. You're free to spill out hate. Heck, you're even free to stand outside with a sign saying "Hate the gays" "You're going to hell" But when you open up a business to serve the entire public that includes people that are not part of your religious beliefs. You're choosing to live in the United States where all religions are to be accepted and even non-religions. This is part of the reason I personally like living in the United States compared to other countries that would force their religion upon me. Part of living in the United States is if you run a business open to the public you serve them. It's pretty simple. They walk away after and you walk away. You can continue to go to church and then can continue not to go to church. If you don't want to serve the public don't open a business that serves the public. All religions are not to be accepted in America. You can accept or reject whatever religion you want. My opinion you are not free to force your religion onto someone else. It is posters like you that want to initiate force, not the business owner who wants to reject certain customers or acts.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on May 23, 2016 18:46:35 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. The close down every fucking Curves for Women gym because they refuse to allow men in them. Right?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2016 18:52:27 GMT -5
It is my understanding that Curves operates as a private social club to which you can only access through membership. Ie. if you are not a member of the private club, you cannot expect service, and as a private club they can deny or approve membership by their own bylaws.
Ie. they are NOT open to the public. They are open to members. Members who have applied to and been accepted to a private club...
|
|
Kolt!
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2016 17:45:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by Kolt! on May 23, 2016 18:52:51 GMT -5
Of course you find the freedom of religion to be a right because it's a right that benefits you. I do believe anyone can have their own religion, and they should be allowed to do so.
However, my point was not every country is lucky enough to be able to express their freedom of religion. It isn't a right for everyone, everywhere.
It's a poster like me that wants public shops to be open for the public, if you're serving someone, serve them. They don't need to be told they're not going to be served because someone thinks it's a sin. If you're serving the person behind them you serve them too. You don't know their life, you don't know their beliefs, you don't know everyone's sins. You're condemning this sin because you see it when the person behind them could have a worse sin. You're discriminating simply because you can see that person's sin and not the others.
People should have the same rights in the public. They should be treated equally. Nobody should be treated better. Yes, they are, but the law shouldn't condone for that behavior and so if someone wants to treat someone unequal then take the consequences.
Some business owners want to reject certain customers or acts. This wouldn't be an issue if this weren't the case.
Why is it that religious people can discriminate against customers but they're not to be discriminated against? You never hear about Christians being denied service because they're Christian, or whites because they're white.
Why is the LGBTQ the only class of people that are allowed to have this happen to?
-- You may think that anyone can reject and discriminate against anyone but that isn't how it is. To discriminate against the LGBTQ is considered a religious belief but to discriminate against any other class of people now it couldn't be considered a religious belief.
When denying blacks service they said it was a religious belief, how is this any different?
|
|
Kolt!
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2016 17:45:32 GMT -5
Posts: 1,311
|
Post by Kolt! on May 23, 2016 18:56:21 GMT -5
It is my understanding that Curves operates as a private social club to which you can only access through membership. Ie. if you are not a member of the private club, you cannot expect service, and as a private club they can deny or approve membership by their own bylaws. Ie. they are NOT open to the public. They are open to members. Members who have applied to and been accepted to a private club... Yes, this is why. ^ I and many people have no issues if it's something set up like this where it requires specifics for a membership and it's private. This means you have to do research and look more into the place before deciding you want to be a member. But when you're open to the public you need to be open for the public which includes everyone.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on May 23, 2016 18:56:54 GMT -5
Does it seem to anyone else that the people most interested in proclaiming their religious beliefs are the people least interested in living by them? Wonder why that is?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2016 19:03:13 GMT -5
Does it seem to anyone else that the people most interested in proclaiming their religious beliefs are the people least interested in living by them? Wonder why that is? maybe they are hypocrites. Should hypocrisy be a reason to end the idea of freedom of religion? eta: you said you were done with me on this subject, if you would rather me not reply to your posts, let me know and I won't.
|
|
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 19:28:04 GMT -5
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. It really isn't. You have to scour the bottom of the philosophical barrel to make it anything 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? Yes. We're still only looking at inconvenience and hurt feelings. 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? We don't need to. The US Founding Fathers had no qualms with businesses discriminating on any basis, and neither do I. 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? Absolutely. I'm not a hypocrite. The one exception I'd be willing to discuss is if refusal of service presents an imminent foreseeable risk of death or severe bodily harm, but I can't think of a single retail service this would apply to. So they paid the government for a better spot but the government didn't organize things? I'll clarify: In theory, a few merchants banding together to form a guild and hiring some guards for protection is "government". I'm saying that citywide trade can and has taken place with government no more organized than this. No district laws, city laws, state laws, federal laws, international laws are required. 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. We're talking about businesses that sell goods and services here. In 300+ pages over 10+ threads, we've never once been talking about any other kind of business. You're telling me that I can put my private, not-open-to-the-public business that sells goods and services on the best corner in town? So I sell goods and services, I just... don't let anybody into my store. I pay my landlord top dollar for the privilege of doing absolutely squat on the best corner in town. The feds will probably come after me for money laundering. Thank you for making me aware of the option. Second, no one here or likely anywhere else has ever argued that a businessman goes into business because they wish to serve the public. The argument has been made dozens of times in the OB threads. It's usually followed up by "I don't understand why if they want to serve the public, they don't serve the entire public. They don't want to make money?" and variants. If you haven't made this particular argument: good for you. 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. We're discussing whether the laws that merchants "at least tacitly if not explicitly agreeing to follow" are good and just laws. We've never been discussing anything besides this. Where is Captain Hyperbole when you need him? I will admit: the assessment might be hyperbole in your case. I can't remember enough of your specific arguments. It is not hyperbole for certain unnamed individuals that largely share your viewpoint. I lumped you in with them. Sorry. You don't support the laws listed? Or do you just reject the claim that you're "consistently aboard the GGB"? Utterly ridiculous, and totally unworthy of you. (Or at least of who I think you are.) He's either being malevolent or irrational, and I'm going with the former. We'll see what he says.
|
|