Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2016 16:19:12 GMT -5
Melania can go out and purchase whatever designer clothes she wants to, she just won't be getting it for free. She can simply go elsewhere. No harm, no foul. Reasonable, right? I'm sorry, but the mustservers have got that base covered too. According to them, we can't consider the fact that there's a thousand other willing dress designers one phone call away. We must only consider the allcaps PRINCIPLE of denying service, which means quantifying the harm using the methodology I alluded to in the OP. Specifically, we need to imagine what would happen if every single dress designer in America refused service to every single person attached to a prominent political figure. This is what goes onto the balancing scale across from the rights of the dress designers to refuse service. Among other things, this means we must categorically reject statements like "Melania can go out and purchase whatever designer clothes she wants to". The allcaps PRINCIPLE dictates we can't rely on such statistical certainties. Hence you'll have to try again. You're being too reasonable here. No one is denying service. What is being denied is the opportunity to get designer clothing for free. I see the point you are trying to make, I just don't think you are correct here.
|
|
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 Dec 1, 2016 19:45:28 GMT -5
She can simply go elsewhere. No harm, no foul. Reasonable, right? I'm sorry, but the mustservers have got that base covered too. According to them, we can't consider the fact that there's a thousand other willing dress designers one phone call away. We must only consider the allcaps PRINCIPLE of denying service, which means quantifying the harm using the methodology I alluded to in the OP. Specifically, we need to imagine what would happen if every single dress designer in America refused service to every single person attached to a prominent political figure. This is what goes onto the balancing scale across from the rights of the dress designers to refuse service. Among other things, this means we must categorically reject statements like "Melania can go out and purchase whatever designer clothes she wants to". The allcaps PRINCIPLE dictates we can't rely on such statistical certainties. Hence you'll have to try again. You're being too reasonable here. No one is denying service. What is being denied is the opportunity to get designer clothing for free. I see the point you are trying to make, I just don't think you are correct here. What do you say to the enterprise I describe in Reply #59? The only thing being denied there is the opportunity to get designer cakes for free, but I have a hard time believing you'd approve of it.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Dec 1, 2016 20:53:09 GMT -5
Your moral code is irrelevant. If you want to run a wedding cake business you need to not run afoul of the law governing public businesses. If you can't or don't want to do that, you are perfectly free to do something else. THAT is about the sum of it. so business should only do what the law says with no regard for morality or "doing what's right"? I admire the effort it must have required to misconstrue something so simple. A business owner can run his business pretty much any way he wants, as long as he does not run afoul of the law. If he wants to run it according to his moral code or in a way that he believes is right, that's fine, as long as his actions comply with the laws applicable to his business. If he wants to run it in a way that screws everyone possible, we have to let him as long as his actions are legal. That is why his moral code or lack of one is irrelevant. What matters is the law. Individual consumers can judge differently, and reward a business with their patronage or punish the business by withholding it according to whatever standard they choose. That is a different matter.
|
|
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 Dec 1, 2016 21:28:18 GMT -5
so business should only do what the law says with no regard for morality or "doing what's right"? I admire the effort it must have required to misconstrue something so simple. A business owner can run his business pretty much any way he wants, as long as he does not run afoul of the law. If he wants to run it according to his moral code or in a way that he believes is right, that's fine, as long as his actions comply with the laws applicable to his business. If he wants to run it in a way that screws everyone possible, we have to let him as long as his actions are legal. That is why his moral code or lack of one is irrelevant. What matters is the law. Individual consumers can judge differently, and reward a business with their patronage or punish the business by withholding it according to whatever standard they choose. That is a different matter. And therein lies the problem and really is what the conversation hinges on....arguing that a "protected class" has to be served in anything that has to do with their "protected status" is a problem. Saying you will offer products and services to gay people, but are not wanting to do so in the case of a gay wedding is no different than saying you will provide products and services to "X" group but are not wanting to in "x" instance. The only difference is that you choose to see it differently because of who it is being done to and who is doing it. People have that problem with a lot of things, but react different based on who it is being done to and who is doing it. For example, many claim to be against racism but don't have the same reaction when a white person does it or versus when a non-white person does it....they claim to care about generational poverty but only want to focus on inner cities while ignoring the same issues in more rural areas that honestly have a lot less resources and opportunities available to them....and the list goes on and on. If a person was willing to serve Christians but didn't want to provide products or services to celebrate a Baptism or some other Christian activity, I'd have no problem with their right to do it and would argue that they have the right to do that without the state stepping in to fine them. In this particular case, we don't even have to compare the bakery to the dress maker, we can compare what we think would have been the responses to a designer publicly stating a refusal to make a dress for Melania Trump versus Michelle Obama. We can even compare the different reactions that would likely have occurred for anybody making fun of the way either of them talk or look. The reactions would not have been the same.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 2, 2016 11:02:38 GMT -5
... Should everything be either forbidden or mandatory? It seems like you are saying that anything society doesn't want to have happen, we need to write a law about, because a small amount of people might do something you don't like. this is the way to totalinarianism and I'm glad to see that we can finally admit that that's what this really is about This is why I support the use of incorporation laws in regards to certain business actions. Society gives to individuals certain advantages through incorporation. Society should ask that, in return, business owners agree to certain things. Then it is a voluntary if/then and not mandatory situation.
|
|