djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 5, 2016 23:26:07 GMT -5
One could literally perform either of those services without even meeting the couple involved, or at the very least not after the initial ordering. Even if you set up at the venue you are finished and gone long before it starts, and possibly before anyone even shows up. How can that qualify as active participation? Those services are exactly the same for a straight wedding, and you are not "actively involved" in the event. If they feel that providing their product or service makes them a part of the event, it is what it is and the only time people have an issue with it is when certain groups of people are affected. for the last time, a baker is not providing a service to a reception. he is proving a PRODUCT. unfortunately for him, it qualifies as FOOD. and the fact that it is offered to the PUBLIC means that he is subject to the same access laws that govern hospitals. it is an unfortunate part of being a baker that anyone considering that trade should not overlook, if they happen to have strong religious convictions that would prevent them in carrying out the DUTIES that the trade requires.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 5, 2016 23:31:17 GMT -5
How many times does it become an issue because straight white people are denied service? Can you think of any? Denying any event could be denying products or services to straight white people, and while that is not the point you are trying to make, it is the point you are missing. I already said that in theory I have no real issue with protecting people from discrimination on an individual basis, but I don't think that same protection should extend to providing products or service to events...who is asking for the product or service is irrelevant. it isn't. caterers don't need to cater private events that they disagree with. neither do florists. nor photographers. are you just worried about that poor Oregon lady? she made more money off that deal than many people will see in a lifetime.
|
|
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 Jun 6, 2016 7:08:56 GMT -5
If they feel that providing their product or service makes them a part of the event, it is what it is and the only time people have an issue with it is when certain groups of people are affected. for the last time, a baker is not providing a service to a reception. he is proving a PRODUCT. unfortunately for him, it qualifies as FOOD. and the fact that it is offered to the PUBLIC means that he is subject to the same access laws that govern hospitals. it is an unfortunate part of being a baker that anyone considering that trade should not overlook, if they happen to have strong religious convictions that would prevent them in carrying out the DUTIES that the trade requires. Even with providing food, there is a difference between providing food for individual consumption and use and providing food for events. As I said, just as people believe the rights of the individual business owner do not extend to the business, the rights of individuals should not extend to the events they attend and as such, any business should be able to deny any product or service to any event regardless of the person asking for it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 6, 2016 10:47:31 GMT -5
for the last time, a baker is not providing a service to a reception. he is proving a PRODUCT. unfortunately for him, it qualifies as FOOD. and the fact that it is offered to the PUBLIC means that he is subject to the same access laws that govern hospitals. it is an unfortunate part of being a baker that anyone considering that trade should not overlook, if they happen to have strong religious convictions that would prevent them in carrying out the DUTIES that the trade requires. Even with providing food, there is a difference between providing food for individual consumption and use and providing food for events. As I said, just as people believe the rights of the individual business owner do not extend to the business, the rights of individuals should not extend to the events they attend and as such, any business should be able to deny any product or service to any event regardless of the person asking for it. correct, and the baker was supplying food for individual consumption. that is the problem. the INDIVIDUAL was taking the food to an event. the baker supplied to the INDIVIDUAL. you are actually conceding the point, yet you continue to argue. i find that very confusing.
|
|
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 Jun 6, 2016 12:30:26 GMT -5
Even with providing food, there is a difference between providing food for individual consumption and use and providing food for events. As I said, just as people believe the rights of the individual business owner do not extend to the business, the rights of individuals should not extend to the events they attend and as such, any business should be able to deny any product or service to any event regardless of the person asking for it. correct, and the baker was supplying food for individual consumption. that is the problem. the INDIVIDUAL was taking the food to an event. the baker supplied to the INDIVIDUAL. you are actually conceding the point, yet you continue to argue. i find that very confusing. The baker was asked to make a wedding cake for a wedding receptions, that is the problem that you want to ignore. IMO, at that point the baker or any other business should be able to refuse service or products. You see it differently? If you are a business and a person is requesting products or services that you know are going to be used for an event you disagree with, you feel that business should still have to provide it even if the owner knows what it will be used for?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 6, 2016 12:36:01 GMT -5
correct, and the baker was supplying food for individual consumption. that is the problem. the INDIVIDUAL was taking the food to an event. the baker supplied to the INDIVIDUAL. you are actually conceding the point, yet you continue to argue. i find that very confusing. The baker was asked to make a wedding cake for a wedding receptions, that is the problem that you want to ignore. i am not ignoring it. it is actually central to the discussion, and i have, in fact, brought it up, several times, in reference to catering (which was not done, in this case).IMO, at that point the baker or any other business should be able to refuse service or products. that is actually NOT your position. you have already stated that you don't think that an ER surgeon should be able to deny emergency services. so, it is not "any other business" for you, and most other people here (including Virgil).You see it differently? If you are a business and a person is requesting products or services that you know are going to be used for an event you disagree with, you feel that business should still have to provide it even if the owner knows what it will be used for? if it is food, housing, or medical care, YES. i think the businessperson has a DUTY to provide those things WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION. i think the alternative is immoral, untenable, and engenders grave public harm. what we are arguing here is a matter of degrees, PI. again, cake is a fatuous example. but if you want to keep using it, i will keep giving you the same reply.
|
|
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 Jun 7, 2016 15:30:29 GMT -5
The baker was asked to make a wedding cake for a wedding receptions, that is the problem that you want to ignore. i am not ignoring it. it is actually central to the discussion, and i have, in fact, brought it up, several times, in reference to catering (which was not done, in this case).IMO, at that point the baker or any other business should be able to refuse service or products. that is actually NOT your position. you have already stated that you don't think that an ER surgeon should be able to deny emergency services. so, it is not "any other business" for you, and most other people here (including Virgil).You see it differently? If you are a business and a person is requesting products or services that you know are going to be used for an event you disagree with, you feel that business should still have to provide it even if the owner knows what it will be used for? if it is food, housing, or medical care, YES. i think the businessperson has a DUTY to provide those things WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION. i think the alternative is immoral, untenable, and engenders grave public harm. what we are arguing here is a matter of degrees, PI. again, cake is a fatuous example. but if you want to keep using it, i will keep giving you the same reply.Yes, I've very well aware we are arguing a matter of degrees. My issues is that the degrees many on here believe negates the rights of others at all cost. You might think the cake example is silly, but the reality is that is what is being argued and as for the ER surgeon, he/she is providing service directly to the consumer and that is the end of it, he/she is not being forced to provide medical coverage at a specific event. Coming through the ER for service, no issues with preventing any kind of discrimination, forcing a doctor to provide medical coverage at an event that he/she has a moral object to on the other hand is taking that too far...even if that same doctor has moonlighted and offered his/her service at other events and that is the point you are not seeming to get in my argument. As I said before, there is a difference between the rights and protections we give people and those same protections should not extend to providing PRODUCTS or SERVICES at those events. As for doctors, even they have limitations. Doctors have an obligation to respect the wishes of their patients, and honestly if a doctor doesn't feel he or she can respect those wishes, I have no issue with them opting out in non-emergent situations. Emergent and critical situations are different than non-emergent ones, but people want to act like they aren't different and should be treated the same way in who is forced to do whatever.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,646
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 7, 2016 16:41:05 GMT -5
... the baker or any other business ... A baker is not a business. A baker is an individual who has individual rights. A business is not an individual and thus does not (or at least should not IM(not so)HO) have individual rights. So, again in IM(not so)HO, no baker should be forced to bake a cake against their personal values. I also feel that the act of opening a public business is inadequate for society to impose its will on an individual business owner to go against their personal values. It is only when that individual asks society for the advantages of incorporation that society should be able to ask for anything in return. I believe it is the responsibility of emergency room management to provide doctors who will meet the needs of any patient who comes through the door. Individual doctors should be able to make their choice of who they serve. And they need to make it clear to a potential employer who they will and will not serve.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 7, 2016 17:23:11 GMT -5
if it is food, housing, or medical care, YES. i think the businessperson has a DUTY to provide those things WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION. i think the alternative is immoral, untenable, and engenders grave public harm. what we are arguing here is a matter of degrees, PI. again, cake is a fatuous example. but if you want to keep using it, i will keep giving you the same reply.Yes, I've very well aware we are arguing a matter of degrees. My issues is that the degrees many on here believe negates the rights of others at all cost. You might think the cake example is silly, but the reality is that is what is being argued and as for the ER surgeon, he/she is providing service directly to the consumer and that is the end of it, he/she is not being forced to provide medical coverage at a specific event. my point is that both are governed by accommodation laws. if you think the baker should be excepted, then by all means, lobby to have the law changed. until then, however, they are absolutely no different in the eye of the law. i know that is hard to accept, but it is a fact.Coming through the ER for service, no issues with preventing any kind of discrimination, forcing a doctor to provide medical coverage at an event that he/she has a moral object to on the other hand is taking that too far...even if that same doctor has moonlighted and offered his/her service at other events and that is the point you are not seeming to get in my argument. what makes you think that? here is your argument:
you think that anyone should be able to act according to their beliefs at their place of work, so long as they are not endangering the lives of others.
there. do you still think that i don't get your argument? if NOT, please stop saying that. TYIA.
As I said before, there is a difference between the rights and protections we give people and those same protections should not extend to providing PRODUCTS or SERVICES at those events. agreed. but public accommodation covers both. are you objecting to the fact that SERVICES are covered? ER is a service, PI, so that half of your argument makes no sense.As for doctors, even they have limitations. Doctors have an obligation to respect the wishes of their patients, and honestly if a doctor doesn't feel he or she can respect those wishes, I have no issue with them opting out in non-emergent situations. we were not talking about non-emergent situations in terms of medical care. i bring that up because i think we agree that they should be governed by public accommodation. let me know if i am wrong.Emergent and critical situations are different than non-emergent ones, but people want to act like they aren't different and should be treated the same way in who is forced to do whatever. this is precisely the point you are NOT getting. the PRINCIPLE of "being free to discriminate" covers BOTH emergent and non-emergent situations. if you are trying to make a "carve out" for emergent situations, that's fine. abortion generally contains such a carve-out, even where it is largely illegal. so, let's discuss what we are left with. would you be in favor of allowing landlords to not provide housing to Caucasians? would you be in favor of your local grocery store chain not serving Christians? how about the only fast food place open after midnight not serving women?
|
|
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 Jun 7, 2016 18:44:02 GMT -5
... the baker or any other business ... A baker is not a business. A baker is an individual who has individual rights. A business is not an individual and thus does not (or at least should not IM(not so)HO) have individual rights. So, again in IM(not so)HO, no baker should be forced to bake a cake against their personal values. I also feel that the act of opening a public business is inadequate for society to impose its will on an individual business owner to go against their personal values. It is only when that individual asks society for the advantages of incorporation that society should be able to ask for anything in return. I believe it is the responsibility of emergency room management to provide doctors who will meet the needs of any patient who comes through the door. Individual doctors should be able to make their choice of who they serve. And they need to make it clear to a potential employer who they will and will not serve. And neither should events have the guaranteed right of products or service in the same way as individuals.
|
|
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 Jun 7, 2016 18:53:55 GMT -5
Yes, I've very well aware we are arguing a matter of degrees. My issues is that the degrees many on here believe negates the rights of others at all cost. You might think the cake example is silly, but the reality is that is what is being argued and as for the ER surgeon, he/she is providing service directly to the consumer and that is the end of it, he/she is not being forced to provide medical coverage at a specific event. my point is that both are governed by accommodation laws. if you think the baker should be excepted, then by all means, lobby to have the law changed. until then, however, they are absolutely no different in the eye of the law. i know that is hard to accept, but it is a fact.Coming through the ER for service, no issues with preventing any kind of discrimination, forcing a doctor to provide medical coverage at an event that he/she has a moral object to on the other hand is taking that too far...even if that same doctor has moonlighted and offered his/her service at other events and that is the point you are not seeming to get in my argument. what makes you think that? here is your argument:
you think that anyone should be able to act according to their beliefs at their place of work, so long as they are not endangering the lives of others.
there. do you still think that i don't get your argument? if NOT, please stop saying that. TYIA.
As I said before, there is a difference between the rights and protections we give people and those same protections should not extend to providing PRODUCTS or SERVICES at those events. agreed. but public accommodation covers both. are you objecting to the fact that SERVICES are covered? ER is a service, PI, so that half of your argument makes no sense.As for doctors, even they have limitations. Doctors have an obligation to respect the wishes of their patients, and honestly if a doctor doesn't feel he or she can respect those wishes, I have no issue with them opting out in non-emergent situations. we were not talking about non-emergent situations in terms of medical care. i bring that up because i think we agree that they should be governed by public accommodation. let me know if i am wrong.Emergent and critical situations are different than non-emergent ones, but people want to act like they aren't different and should be treated the same way in who is forced to do whatever. this is precisely the point you are NOT getting. the PRINCIPLE of "being free to discriminate" covers BOTH emergent and non-emergent situations. if you are trying to make a "carve out" for emergent situations, that's fine. abortion generally contains such a carve-out, even where it is largely illegal. so, let's discuss what we are left with. would you be in favor of allowing landlords to not provide housing to Caucasians? would you be in favor of your local grocery store chain not serving Christians? how about the only fast food place open after midnight not serving women? You say we are not talking about non-emergent situations, but you are using the ER (something set up for emergent situations) as your examples to say that since I think that service should be covered, all of them should be covered. As for your examples, I've already said I would have issue with any business saying "no whites, blacks, gays, Christians, Republicans, Democrats, etc allowed," but I have no issue with businesses limiting their service for any of those reasons (i.e. providing products or services only the Democratic conventions and not Republican ones, only Islamic social or political events but not Christian ones, etc).
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 7, 2016 20:09:55 GMT -5
this is precisely the point you are NOT getting. the PRINCIPLE of "being free to discriminate" covers BOTH emergent and non-emergent situations. if you are trying to make a "carve out" for emergent situations, that's fine. abortion generally contains such a carve-out, even where it is largely illegal. so, let's discuss what we are left with. would you be in favor of allowing landlords to not provide housing to Caucasians? would you be in favor of your local grocery store chain not serving Christians? how about the only fast food place open after midnight not serving women? You say we are not talking about non-emergent situations, but you are using the ER (something set up for emergent situations) as your examples i do so because the law covers both of these cases. but for now, since we actually AGREE on the emergent situations (at least i think we do), let's MOVE ON. to say that since I think that service should be covered, all of them should be covered. no, i was arguing that it is "logically consistent" to think that.As for your examples, I've already said I would have issue with any business saying "no whites, blacks, gays, Christians, Republicans, Democrats, etc allowed," but I have no issue with businesses limiting their service for any of those reasons (i.e. providing products or services only the Democratic conventions and not Republican ones, only Islamic social or political events but not Christian ones, etc). that last bit seems contradictory to me. you say you have "issue" with businesses barring protected classes, but no "issue" with them not serving them? how are those different?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,266
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 7, 2016 21:09:33 GMT -5
Appears to me that there is no issue serving anyone on an individual and personal level, but not necessarily the same consideration in an organized, group setting if he doesn't approve of the setting (event) itself. I can see his point, but do not agree that it is important enough to grant a right to refuse service in a public business absent other relevant factors. Providing a product is not an endorsement of the event.
|
|
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 Jun 9, 2016 15:03:30 GMT -5
Appears to me that there is no issue serving anyone on an individual and personal level, but not necessarily the same consideration in an organized, group setting if he doesn't approve of the setting (event) itself. I can see his point, but do not agree that it is important enough to grant a right to refuse service in a public business absent other relevant factors. Providing a product is not an endorsement of the event. That pretty much sums it up, and just as people are arguing the business owner's protections/rights should be extended to the business because they don't consider that to be an extension of the owner, events should not be an extension of those individuals and as such, should not have those same rights and protections give to individuals.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 25, 2024 20:41:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2016 18:13:20 GMT -5
Appears to me that there is no issue serving anyone on an individual and personal level, but not necessarily the same consideration in an organized, group setting if he doesn't approve of the setting (event) itself. I can see his point, but do not agree that it is important enough to grant a right to refuse service in a public business absent other relevant factors. Providing a product is not an endorsement of the event. That pretty much sums it up, and just as people are arguing the business owner's protections/rights should be extended to the business because they don't consider that to be an extension of the owner, events should not be an extension of those individuals and as such, should not have those same rights and protections give to individuals. So when Mary and Jane want a wedding cake, but will pick it up themselves... you agree that they should have to be served... right? Because that's not "catering an event", that's "selling a product to individuals".
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,266
|
Post by tallguy on Oct 8, 2016 3:50:32 GMT -5
(Because I like the way they wrote it....) From the Bureau Of Labor and Industries Final Order in the bakery case: If anyone is interested (and at the risk of resurrecting the discussion), the bakery has closed. From Willamette Week: Just as an aside, can you tell you are reading a small-town source if they include as a descriptor, "next to the good chicken place"?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 25, 2024 20:41:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2016 5:43:24 GMT -5
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Oct 8, 2016 7:57:26 GMT -5
DJ, with you vast business empire, (No, i am not trying to be funny) Don't you have something more important to do than to spend all this effort
arguing mute point, If you have this much time O.C. could use some of your expertise1
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 8, 2016 11:27:31 GMT -5
DJ, with you vast business empire, (No, i am not trying to be funny) Don't you have something more important to do than to spend all this effort arguing mute point, If you have this much time O.C. could use some of your expertise1 i haven't posted on this thread since June 7th, OC. i don't owe you an answer to your question, but i will give you one any way. i cut my hours back to 30/week this year. i am going part time next year. and no, i am not interested in taking on any consulting. i am doing just fine without the extra income. edit: oh, and fyi, it is MOOT, not MUTE. common mistake.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,266
|
Post by tallguy on Oct 8, 2016 11:47:19 GMT -5
I'll offer some advice for you, O.C.:
1. Have a good product or service. 2. Maximize revenue by selling to everyone who wants to buy from you. 3. Don't get stuck with legal costs and sanctions when the simple act of NOT being a bigot (and breaking the law because of it) would have prevented them.
At least those seem to be the lessons of the bakery case.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,266
|
Post by tallguy on Oct 8, 2016 11:55:28 GMT -5
I do not celebrate the closure of the bakery. Yes, we have proven that there are consequences for bigotry, for breaking the law, and for endangering other citizens. Those are all good things. Better, though, for the bigotry to be expunged. This way, it yet lives.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 25, 2024 20:41:45 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2016 23:09:41 GMT -5
I do not celebrate the closure of the bakery. Yes, we have proven that there are consequences for bigotry, for breaking the law, and for endangering other citizens. Those are all good things. Better, though, for the bigotry to be expunged. This way, it yet lives. I agree. I don't celebrate it's closure either. All my applause upthread was for the ruling. And while agree that this wasn't the best outcome and yes, the bigotry does "yet live"... It's wounded and weakened. (but you know what they say about wounded animals... well... the same goes for bigots)
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Oct 9, 2016 7:22:52 GMT -5
I do not celebrate the closure of the bakery. Yes, we have proven that there are consequences for bigotry, for breaking the law, and for endangering other citizens. Those are all good things. Better, though, for the bigotry to be expunged. This way, it yet lives. I agree. I don't celebrate it's closure either. All my applause upthread was for the ruling. And while agree that this wasn't the best outcome and yes, the bigotry does "yet live"... It's wounded and weakened. (but you know what they say about wounded animals... well... the same goes for bigots) Is it really wounded and weakened? I'm not a bigot nor do I care who marries whom. I would have made the cake without an issue and wished the couple well. I'm saying that so what I say next doesn't get me accused of being a bigot! If I were a bigot, I have just learned what being open with my reasons would be. All I'm going to do now is either come up with seemingly valid reasons why I can't make the cake or better, make the cake and totally screw it up. Oops, forgot the sugar! Or something like that I don't think they went after these people to actually have a cake made. They were out for blood and now these people lost their livelihoods all over a cake. So that has taught me to respect my principals but be smart about it.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Oct 9, 2016 8:23:25 GMT -5
DJ, with you vast business empire, (No, i am not trying to be funny) Don't you have something more important to do than to spend all this effort arguing mute point, If you have this much time O.C. could use some of your expertise1 i haven't posted on this thread since June 7th, OC. i don't owe you an answer to your question, but i will give you one any way. i cut my hours back to 30/week this year. i am going part time next year. and no, i am not interested in taking on any consulting. i am doing just fine without the extra income. edit: oh, and fyi, it is MOOT, not MUTE. common mistake.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Oct 9, 2016 8:43:39 GMT -5
I'll offer some advice for you, O.C.: 1. Have a good product or service. 2. Maximize revenue by selling to everyone who wants to buy from you. 3. Don't get stuck with legal costs and sanctions when the simple act of NOT being a bigot (and breaking the law because of it) would have prevented them. At least those seem to be the lessons of the bakery case. 1. I must have something, more work than we can take care of. 2. No. you select the customers that are the easiest to work with, have the most profit potential with the least amount of problems. Also take on the most difficult jobs that your competition have turned down, you have more expertise than your competitors. There was a note in O.C. 2015 Income Tax, under Tax Analysis, Net Profit is 116% higher than the average for a business of this type with similar gross receipts. I might know something. 3. My business has never been sued. 4. Good business advise, Never own a bakery.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Oct 9, 2016 9:20:06 GMT -5
I will also point out As a white senior male, there is nothing that I can be discriminated against, So if some one or a business doesn't want to serve me or do business with me,,,, It just means I go down the road to a place that does want my business if no one wants to business with me , I do without real simple! Do you think that there are Koreans or Indians out there that do not do business with O.C. because I am white! you bet there are! Do I care? Hell no! They would go out of their way to look for problems. I will tell you an experience I had with a long time Jewish customer, almost always He would call back the next day, Some thing just is not right, OK, I'd go back, nothing wrong, I would go on my way. On day I was in his store when an older Jewish customer came in complaining about something, Greg said no problem we'll take care of it, pick it up tomorrow. As soon as the man left, Greg put back in the box, put it on the shelf of pickup, I said are you going to fix it? Greg said there is nothing wrong with it, He didn't think that he had gotten this money worth the first time! I now realized Greg didn't think he got his moneys worth the first time either, So I added a couple of dollars to my bill after that for the second trip. I like Greg, he was a good person,,,,, Had a heart attack in his store, died! he will be missed.
|
|
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 Oct 9, 2016 11:23:48 GMT -5
I'll offer some advice for you, O.C.: 1. Have a good product or service. 2. Maximize revenue by selling to everyone who wants to buy from you. 3. Don't get stuck with legal costs and sanctions when the simple act of NOT being a bigot (and breaking the law because of it) would have prevented them. At least those seem to be the lessons of the bakery case. I'll offer my own advice, coyote: - Have a good product or service.
- Abandon all moral principles; the real world has no use for them, nor can the majority of people distinguish them from bigotry when they pertain to privileged classes.
- When belligerent customers of a privileged legal class demand service, lie through your teeth, or, barring that, urinate in their cake batter and take their money with a smile.
- Engage in whatever perverse behaviour suits you, lobby the government long and hard, and one day you too may qualify for your own privileged status, complete with Hollywood endorsement, grade school curriculum, and message board apology club.
Those are the lessons to be learned from a little bakery in Oregon.
|
|
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 Oct 9, 2016 11:25:14 GMT -5
I like Greg, he was a good person,,,,, Had a heart attack in his store, died! he will be missed. You're saying you knew Greg in real life and he died of a heart attack?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,266
|
Post by tallguy on Oct 9, 2016 11:27:15 GMT -5
![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/secret.png) Pretty sure it's not the same Greg.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,266
|
Post by tallguy on Oct 9, 2016 11:32:42 GMT -5
I'll offer some advice for you, O.C.: 1. Have a good product or service. 2. Maximize revenue by selling to everyone who wants to buy from you. 3. Don't get stuck with legal costs and sanctions when the simple act of NOT being a bigot (and breaking the law because of it) would have prevented them. At least those seem to be the lessons of the bakery case. I'll offer my own advice, coyote: - Have a good product or service.
- Abandon all moral principles; the real world has no use for them, nor can the majority of people distinguish them from bigotry when they pertain to privileged classes.
- When belligerent customers of a privileged legal class demand service, lie through your teeth, or, barring that, urinate in their cake batter and take their money with a smile.
- Engage in whatever perverse behaviour suits you, lobby the government long and hard, and one day you too may qualify for your own privileged status, complete with Hollywood endorsement, grade school curriculum, and message board apology club.
Those are the lessons to be learned from a little bakery in Oregon. Well, if we're going that way.... 1. If you are going to open a business, FOLLOW THE LAW! 2. If someone complains that you are not following the law, DON'T publish their private information opening them up to threats and harassment.
|
|