Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Opposing Views)   Baker who refused to make a cake for same sex couple says he prefers gay sex without the commitment   (opposingviews.com ) divider line 314
    More: Dumbass, Fox News, gay sex  
•       •       •

1179 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Dec 2013 at 9:06 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



314 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-11 12:41:18 PM  

Almost Everybody Poops: Guys, I think you should just agree to disagree with EWreckedSean,


Heaven forbid people have a discussion in a discussion forum.
 
2013-12-11 12:47:01 PM  

EWreckedSean: Almost Everybody Poops: Guys, I think you should just agree to disagree with EWreckedSean,

Heaven forbid people have a discussion in a discussion forum.


This is a discussion? All I've seen is:

You: "This is wrong for the businesses"

Everyone else: "No it isn't and here's the mountains of evidence and court cases to support"

You: "I don't care, it's still wrong"
 
2013-12-11 12:47:04 PM  

EWreckedSean: Zasteva: There are two problems with this:

1) There is no "right" to discrimination, so by enforcing a law against discrimination no rights were violated.

2) Your assumption that word of mouth would take care of this is false -- it certainly wouldn't have worked to end racial discrimination in the south, and there are plenty of parts of the country where the people would be rewarded by the community for their discrimination, rather than punished for it.

Your laissez faire solution does not support rights; it takes away the rights of those being discriminated against.

1) The 5th amendment gives me domain over my life, liberty and property. Choosing who and what I serve are clearly both rights to liberty and property.

2) Again this is not 1950s Deep South, and we should stop pretending it is.

3) You are suggesting that you have some right to make decisions about somebody else's labors and property.


All of that is covered in the distinction between a private person doing a service, and a public company providing a service.   When you become the second (even with yourself as the sole employee) you take on additional responsibilities that preclude rights that apply to individuals.    You are arguing that the baker ought to have these rights as a private person - and he does.   His public company is not a private person.

1) not applicable to a company in the way it is a person;
2) Colorado isn't the deep south; the event happened (I think) in 2012;
3) if the company is PUBLIC, then the PUBLIC has a right to shop there; a company is required to abide by laws pertaining to companies.
 
2013-12-11 12:47:25 PM  

EWreckedSean: Almost Everybody Poops: Guys, I think you should just agree to disagree with EWreckedSean,

Heaven forbid people have a discussion in a discussion forum.


I was more talking to the people who are accusing of supporting discrimination rather than the discussion itself.
 
2013-12-11 12:48:08 PM  

Zasteva: - This is a government taking of liberty and property on the part of the baker -- no dispute there.
- The 5th amendment prohibits such takings without due process of law -- there is no reasonable dispute here


Big dispute.
There is due process (courts, judges, all that stuff). The court isn't making him give the cake away, just to sell it like he does every day to lots of other people.
 
2013-12-11 12:50:13 PM  

maddogdelta: 2) actually talked to a poor black person.


I'm curious, why does the poor person you believe he should talk with need to be black?

maddogdelta: BTW, most poor people don't have drivers licenses.


I'm not convinced that this is true.
 
2013-12-11 12:50:44 PM  

scottydoesntknow: EWreckedSean: Almost Everybody Poops: Guys, I think you should just agree to disagree with EWreckedSean,

Heaven forbid people have a discussion in a discussion forum.

This is a discussion? All I've seen is:

You: "This is wrong for the businesses"

Everyone else: "No it isn't and here's the mountains of evidence and court cases to support"

You: "I don't care, it's still wrong"


Zavesta and I had a great conversation, and we'll hopefully have more of them in the future because I enjoyed the debate. We didn't agree, but hehad solid points and was capable of backing them up without resorting to the nonsense most of you seem to thrive on. I'm truly sorry you are incapable of participating. That my friend is your loss.
 
2013-12-11 12:53:51 PM  

EWreckedSean: Zasteva: dinomyar: give me doughnuts: No, they can't. And it's been thay way for the past half-century.


dinomyar: We don't sell our products in California due to tax rules and onerous laws that affect our business. Are you saying we can be forced to?

No, you can't be forced to. That's a business decision not based on race, creed, etc...

dinomyar: What if I go into McDonalds without shoes, can they refuse me? (Yes, even if I cant wear shoes due to a medical condition)

I agree. Again, that is not discrimination based on race, creed, etc...

How about ladies night, or 18 and up for women/21 and up for men clubs?


Ah - now THERE - perhaps not those particular examples (since the 21 thing largely applies to alcohol) - but other examples that I'm sure you could reproduce.

I completely admit that I find the legality of them somewhat hard to understand or reconcile.

(e.g., Women's health clubs and other "public" business that only will serve women... where in many cases if the corresponding "men's" business were created might get slapped with an anti-discrimination suit...)

(Someone brought up the YMCA and YWCA - but a) I think they're private; and b) I seem to recall that some?/many?/most? YMCA's allow women now (but not the other way around)...)
 
2013-12-11 12:58:13 PM  

runin800m: maddogdelta: 2) actually talked to a poor black person.

I'm curious, why does the poor person you believe he should talk with need to be black?


Mainly because the Voter ID laws are specifically targeted to eliminate poor black people from voting.  Poor white people in NC generally vote Republican.

maddogdelta: BTW, most poor people don't have drivers licenses.

I'm not convinced that this is true.


Here you go...  http://www.npr.org/2012/01/28/146006217/why-new-photo-id-laws-mean-so m e-wont-vote

And here    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/08/vot e r_id_laws_why_do_minorities_lack_id_to_show_at_the_polls_.html
And here
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/how-voter-id-law s- are-being-used-to-disenfranchise-minorities-and-the-poor/254572/

here...
http://www.alternet.org/story/151687/11_states_trying_really_hard_to _k eep_poor,_black,_and_student_voters_from_voting

yup... here too..
http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2005-09-30/294046/

and, you can still go back to the video I posted earlier of the Repube telling us all exactly why they passed the Voter ID laws...
 
2013-12-11 01:01:47 PM  

ursomniac: Ah - now THERE - perhaps not those particular examples (since the 21 thing largely applies to alcohol) - but other examples that I'm sure you could reproduce.

I completely admit that I find the legality of them somewhat hard to understand or reconcile.


One point someone brought up earlier that I thought was good was asking if a Jewish baker could refuse to bake a cake that was celebrating Hitler and the genocide. I feel like many of the same people who have a problem with the baker refusing to bake the wedding cake wouldn't have a problem with the Jewish baker refusing to bake the Hitler cake. I don't see how anyone could logically reconcile holding both of those positions.
 
2013-12-11 01:03:08 PM  

EWreckedSean: ursomniac: Yes, that's essentially the truth of it, though "in the South" isn't particularly necessary.

Do you honestly think (and I realize I'm using those words broadly) that if EO protections were rescinded tomorrow, that there would NOT be a noticeable increase in cases of discrimination?

Would you classify yourself more as stupid or naïve?

There would be some, not a lot. I worked 7 years in a rural part of the south in the utility industry (our regular lunch place was the cattle market diner). Are there still racists around? Sure. Predominate. Not a chance.

And by the way, thanks for it taking all of a handful of comments for you to lose this conversation. I'm talking, you are throwing insults. It makes it pretty clear who has a strong position.


Yes, you're talking, but not listening.   In the course of that "talking" you're saying things that make no logical sense unless you're either naïve about the issues, or incapable of grasping them.

I'm sorry that that reality bothers you, but perhaps instead of re-stating the same things over and over you could actually make an attempt to understand why those statements fail to convince anyone.

I find it amusing (sad - but amusing) that you believe your CSB experience completely overrides the actual experience of literally THOUSANDS of people around you.  How silly of them!   And (using your logic) how silly of Rosa to not just use another bus line!   And why didn't Mandela just go to another country?
 
2013-12-11 01:03:26 PM  

Fizpez: I think the guy is 110% WRONG but how can a judge order you to do business with someone?


Two words for you to look up in your history books, sir: "No Coloreds."
 
2013-12-11 01:04:03 PM  

EWreckedSean: scottydoesntknow: EWreckedSean: Almost Everybody Poops: Guys, I think you should just agree to disagree with EWreckedSean,

Heaven forbid people have a discussion in a discussion forum.

This is a discussion? All I've seen is:

You: "This is wrong for the businesses"

Everyone else: "No it isn't and here's the mountains of evidence and court cases to support"

You: "I don't care, it's still wrong"

Zavesta and I had a great conversation, and we'll hopefully have more of them in the future because I enjoyed the debate. We didn't agree, but hehad solid points and was capable of backing them up without resorting to the nonsense most of you seem to thrive on. I'm truly sorry you are incapable of participating. That my friend is your loss.


It has nothing to do with participation. You refuse to acknowledge fact and instead hold onto your opinion with nothing to back it up except your opinion.

And yes, I also understand you are not a bigot and don't like discrimination. I also understand you are playing devil's advocate for the business (much like a defense lawyer who knows his client is guilty but must defend him anyway). But when playing devil's advocate, you must have more than just your opinion to back up what you say. Otherwise it's just, like, your opinion, man.

You can keep repeating over and over that the "rights" of the businessman are being violated, when the law explicitly disagrees with you.

/And it's Zasteva, in case he wants to see your compliment (won't get a notification with a misspelling)
 
2013-12-11 01:06:27 PM  

ursomniac: Yes, you're talking, but not listening.   In the course of that "talking" you're saying things that make no logical sense unless you're either naïve about the issues, or incapable of grasping them.

I'm sorry that that reality bothers you, but perhaps instead of re-stating the same things over and over you could actually make an attempt to understand why those statements fail to convince anyone.

I find it amusing (sad - but amusing) that you believe your CSB experience completely overrides the actual experience of literally THOUSANDS of people around you.  How silly of them!   And (using your logic) how silly of Rosa to not just use another bus line!   And why didn't Mandela just go to another country?


I find it amusing that you are accusing me of something and doing the exact same thing. You obviously have no grasp of the point I was making, even though I've had to repeat it so many times apparently. You "examples" make it painfully obvious. Have a nice day.
 
2013-12-11 01:10:26 PM  

scottydoesntknow: EWreckedSean: scottydoesntknow: EWreckedSean: Almost Everybody Poops: Guys, I think you should just agree to disagree with EWreckedSean,

Heaven forbid people have a discussion in a discussion forum.

This is a discussion? All I've seen is:

You: "This is wrong for the businesses"

Everyone else: "No it isn't and here's the mountains of evidence and court cases to support"

You: "I don't care, it's still wrong"

Zavesta and I had a great conversation, and we'll hopefully have more of them in the future because I enjoyed the debate. We didn't agree, but hehad solid points and was capable of backing them up without resorting to the nonsense most of you seem to thrive on. I'm truly sorry you are incapable of participating. That my friend is your loss.

It has nothing to do with participation. You refuse to acknowledge fact and instead hold onto your opinion with nothing to back it up except your opinion.

And yes, I also understand you are not a bigot and don't like discrimination. I also understand you are playing devil's advocate for the business (much like a defense lawyer who knows his client is guilty but must defend him anyway). But when playing devil's advocate, you must have more than just your opinion to back up what you say. Otherwise it's just, like, your opinion, man.

You can keep repeating over and over that the "rights" of the businessman are being violated, when the law explicitly disagrees with you.

/And it's Zasteva, in case he wants to see your compliment (won't get a notification with a misspelling)


Again, I've agreed that the law as currently written disagrees with me. You've three or four times now made that attack against me. How many times do I have to agree with you specifically that I agree the law isn't currently written that way before you stop telling me the law isn't written that way? My argument all a long is that the law is wrong, it it does violate the property rights and liberty of the business owners unnecessarily. We are 5 pages into this thread and you are still arguing a point I never made.
 
2013-12-11 01:11:18 PM  

maddogdelta: I'm not convinced that this is true.

Here you go...  http://www.npr.org/2012/01/28/146006217/why-new-photo-id-laws-mean-so m e-wont-vote

And here    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/08/vot e r_id_laws_why_do_minorities_lack_id_to_show_at_the_polls_.html
And here
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/how-voter-id-law s- are-being-used-to-disenfranchise-minorities-and-the-poor/254572/

here...
http://www.alternet.org/story/151687/11_states_trying_really_hard_to _k eep_poor,_black,_and_student_voters_from_voting

yup... here too..
http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2005-09-30/294046/

and, you can still go back to the video I posted earlier of the Repube telling us all exactly why they passed the Voter ID laws...


You need to reread our exchange and then look at what you cited. You said "most poor people don't have drivers licenses." I went through 3 of the links you posted finding nothing that was even remotely suggesting that. The first link starts out by saying that 89% of the voting aged population has a valid photo ID. Majorities of every race/ethnicity have licenses according to those links. I suspect that you are confusing most people without licenses are poor to mean most poor people don't have licenses. Those are two very different statements and only one of them is true.

I never said anything about voter ID laws. I was just disputing your claim that most poor people don't have a license.
 
2013-12-11 01:11:24 PM  
Know what some kosher delis do when you order something with two ingredients that can't go on the same thing and remain kosher? They wrap up the second ingredient separately and tell you to put it on yourself. All this farkwit had to do, if he had actual religious concerns and wasn't trying to make an ass of himself by doing his best to hurt people he didn't agree with, is make a wedding cake, hand them the toppers in a bag, and say "someone else put them on."

There is no reason the farking baker should get to decide whether your marriage is worthy for ANY REASON. He can do his job or not, and if you have a job that your religion supposedly prevents you from doing- pharmacist, baker, anything -get a new Goddamn job. Because it is not incumbent upon the species to wait around for you to grow up and you do not get to inconvenience everyone else with your childishness.

I hope the motherfarker does rot in jail.
 
2013-12-11 01:13:23 PM  

wrs1864: EWreckedSean: Every once and a while you will see a lawsuit about it (usually by some kid who had no chance of meeting a girl at ladies' night :) ). They pretty much get universally tossed. But it is funny how discrimination is legally ok when it is a kind most people want

Actually, the court cases are pretty mixed..  See Ladies' night

In the cases where courts have ruled in favor of allowing Ladies' night type discounts, it has been for things like the not having standing, or "it isn't discrimination against men, it is trying to get more women" (similar to affirmative action rulings), etc.   None have said it ok to discriminate.


Interesting. Great stuff, thanks!
 
2013-12-11 01:15:07 PM  

EWreckedSean: Again, I've agreed that the law as currently written disagrees with me. You've three or four times now made that attack against me. How many times do I have to agree with you specifically that I agree the law isn't currently written that way before you stop telling me the law isn't written that way? My argument all a long is that the law is wrong, it it does violate the property rights and liberty of the business owners unnecessarily. We are 5 pages into this thread and you are still arguing a point I never made.


You have offered nothing but your opinion to back up your assertions. That's the point I am trying to make.

You don't want a discussion, you want someone to agree with you.
 
2013-12-11 01:22:36 PM  

scottydoesntknow: EWreckedSean: Again, I've agreed that the law as currently written disagrees with me. You've three or four times now made that attack against me. How many times do I have to agree with you specifically that I agree the law isn't currently written that way before you stop telling me the law isn't written that way? My argument all a long is that the law is wrong, it it does violate the property rights and liberty of the business owners unnecessarily. We are 5 pages into this thread and you are still arguing a point I never made.

You have offered nothing but your opinion to back up your assertions. That's the point I am trying to make.

You don't want a discussion, you want someone to agree with you.


Obviously you aren't interested in discussion so have a wonderful afternoon.
 
2013-12-11 01:24:14 PM  

EWreckedSean: scottydoesntknow: EWreckedSean: Again, I've agreed that the law as currently written disagrees with me. You've three or four times now made that attack against me. How many times do I have to agree with you specifically that I agree the law isn't currently written that way before you stop telling me the law isn't written that way? My argument all a long is that the law is wrong, it it does violate the property rights and liberty of the business owners unnecessarily. We are 5 pages into this thread and you are still arguing a point I never made.

You have offered nothing but your opinion to back up your assertions. That's the point I am trying to make.

You don't want a discussion, you want someone to agree with you.

Obviously you aren't interested in discussion so have a wonderful afternoon.


Obviously you aren't either, so you also have a wonderful afternoon.
 
2013-12-11 01:24:59 PM  
I am not reading through what I am sure was a great and thoughtful conversation here on Fark, but I have to sorta agree with the baker here

The gay couple could just as easily moved on to the next baker instead of making a big deal about it. The baker is a douche for not doing it, and I am fine with same sex marriage, but this could have been handled a bit differently...
 
2013-12-11 01:25:17 PM  

Zasteva: wrs1864: EWreckedSean: Every once and a while you will see a lawsuit about it (usually by some kid who had no chance of meeting a girl at ladies' night :) ). They pretty much get universally tossed. But it is funny how discrimination is legally ok when it is a kind most people want

Actually, the court cases are pretty mixed..  See Ladies' night

In the cases where courts have ruled in favor of allowing Ladies' night type discounts, it has been for things like the not having standing, or "it isn't discrimination against men, it is trying to get more women" (similar to affirmative action rulings), etc.   None have said it ok to discriminate.

Interesting. Great stuff, thanks!


Yeah that's a good find. The one's I've seen general seem to get tossed (the practice is still hugely popular). Plus I think the guys who push it have to go in hiding afterward from all their college mates who want to kill them.

So another...case...what if a member's only shopping club decided to discriminate, like a Sam's Club or a Costco where you can only shop there if you are a member?
 
2013-12-11 01:27:45 PM  

give me doughnuts: Zasteva: - This is a government taking of liberty and property on the part of the baker -- no dispute there.
- The 5th amendment prohibits such takings without due process of law -- there is no reasonable dispute here

Big dispute.
There is due process (courts, judges, all that stuff). The court isn't making him give the cake away, just to sell it like he does every day to lots of other people.


I'm not sure why you are taking my thing out of context, especially since the very next thing I said was:

"- There has been a process of law (still underway). -- no dispute there

So it seems to me you've got one possible argument -- that somehow the process of law so far does not constitute "due process".

That would be a discussion I'm willing to have."

I share your view that the baker is in the wrong, and that the law is correct and the baker should be compelled to serve them or suffer the consequences if he refuses (probably compensatory and punitive damages, or perhaps contempt of court depending oh how he goes about it).

What you are reading is my attempts to guide EWreckedSean to fully explore the topic from another point of view; something he seems willing to do. You are actually making that more difficult. Why did you do that?
 
2013-12-11 01:31:10 PM  

scottydoesntknow: "Jack, are you willing to go to jail for your religious beliefs here?" asked Hasselbeck.

"You know if that's what it takes, I guess I would be," he responded.

Ohh christ, they're going to turn this guy into a martyr


The problem is, as an atheist, I think he's right to do so.  He just should not be taking the religious persecution tack, but rather another part of the first amendment: the right to assembly.

AnonymousBosch: There is no reason the farking baker should get to decide whether your marriage is worthy for ANY REASON. He can do his job or not


...actually, that's the point of him going to jail is that he really can't.

Anonymous Bosch: and if you have a job that your religion supposedly prevents you from doing- pharmacist, baker, anything -get a new Goddamn job


Pharmacist is another matter entirely.  In my view, dispensing drugs that could make or break a person's life should not have religion brought into it at all.  Baking a cake for a wedding?  Not that critical. And then we bring up the slippery slope: Would he be getting the same jail risk had he refused making a cake for a couple of Klan members, or Satanists, or merely divas who disrupt your business?  Yes, I know the other slope is just as slippery, but that's the fine line we walk: On one side is having to service people you don't like, and on the other is full-on segregation.  Something has to give, unfortunately
 
2013-12-11 01:34:52 PM  

EWreckedSean: So another...case...what if a member's only shopping club decided to discriminate, like a Sam's Club or a Costco where you can only shop there if you are a member?


I'm not sure where that would stand legally -- personally I think it is wrong, and if I were the prosecuting attorney I would argue that the membership is a legal fiction; that by every other measure it is a normal business of public accommodation, and the membership is really a marketing ploy to make more money from consumers and give them a false sense of exclusivity.
 
2013-12-11 01:36:09 PM  

EWreckedSean: So another...case...what if a member's only shopping club decided to discriminate, like a Sam's Club or a Costco where you can only shop there if you are a member?


They would be just as liable, because they are still a public business.
 
2013-12-11 01:38:22 PM  

scottydoesntknow: EWreckedSean: Again, I've agreed that the law as currently written disagrees with me. You've three or four times now made that attack against me. How many times do I have to agree with you specifically that I agree the law isn't currently written that way before you stop telling me the law isn't written that way? My argument all a long is that the law is wrong, it it does violate the property rights and liberty of the business owners unnecessarily. We are 5 pages into this thread and you are still arguing a point I never made.

scottydoesntknow: You have offered nothing but your opinion to back up your assertions. That's the point I am trying to make.

You don't want a discussion, you want someone to agree with you.


I'm sure he does want someone to agree with him, but I also think he wants to have a discussion. 

If you do want a discussion, you could acknowledge that he understands what the law says and ask him more about why he thinks the law is wrong. Just a suggestion though, maybe you are bored with this :-)
 
2013-12-11 01:38:55 PM  

grumpfuff: EWreckedSean: So another...case...what if a member's only shopping club decided to discriminate, like a Sam's Club or a Costco where you can only shop there if you are a member?

They would be just as liable, because they are still a public business.


Are you a public business if you only deal with members? Is the Moose Lodge a public business? Is a members only club a private business?
 
2013-12-11 01:39:57 PM  

dinomyar: So if I go to a Muslim owned restaurant, can I force them to cook and serve me bacon? Or a bacon version of something they do make?


If your ignorant analogy is to even to approach being relevant then the two people went into the bakery and demanded a brake job on their car.

But keep trying I am sure you will approach a cogent point someday
 
2013-12-11 01:40:08 PM  

Zasteva: EWreckedSean: So another...case...what if a member's only shopping club decided to discriminate, like a Sam's Club or a Costco where you can only shop there if you are a member?

I'm not sure where that would stand legally -- personally I think it is wrong, and if I were the prosecuting attorney I would argue that the membership is a legal fiction; that by every other measure it is a normal business of public accommodation, and the membership is really a marketing ploy to make more money from consumers and give them a false sense of exclusivity.


Ok. So is it ok to have a members only club that only allows Men?
 
2013-12-11 01:41:58 PM  

EWreckedSean: So another...case...what if a member's only shopping club decided to discriminate, like a Sam's Club or a Costco where you can only shop there if you are a member?


IANAL, but my understanding is what is important is whether you generally accept everyone, not wither you charge an entry fee or have a club membership.  So, for example, my girlfriend works at a place that gives out free lunches and also has horrible food safety practices.   But, the only people who can eat there are have to (at least claim) they have a mental illness, have gone through an orientation and do stuff to recover from their problems.   So when the health inspector got complaints and did a surprise inspection and found a huge number of violations, the health inspector said "oh, you aren't feeding the general public?  ok, no problem then."  (my girlfriend won't eat the food they serve.)

So, if costco gives memberships to anyone who pays, then they can't discriminate.

But if a church will only marry people who accept their faith and become members of that church, then the church would have no problems with rejecting gay marriages, etc.

The baker accepts the general public as customers, therefore it has to comply with food safety laws, among other things
 
2013-12-11 01:45:30 PM  

Piizzadude: but this could have been handled a bit differently...


Yeah, the baker could have kept his opinion to himself and baked the cake. Your job is a baker, part of your duties involve baking cakes for people. When you choose to open your business to the public, you choose to open it to ALL of the public or you face fines. None of this is a surprise to you when you open said business.
 
2013-12-11 01:47:14 PM  

EWreckedSean: grumpfuff: EWreckedSean: So another...case...what if a member's only shopping club decided to discriminate, like a Sam's Club or a Costco where you can only shop there if you are a member?

They would be just as liable, because they are still a public business.

Are you a public business if you only deal with members? Is the Moose Lodge a public business? Is a members only club a private business?


Costco is a public business because anyone can join. The only requirement is "Pay a small fee." Also, they are listed on the Stock Market(as in publicly traded). Requiring membership is not enough to make something private. Being listed on the stock market is enough to make something a public business.

Moose Lodges, on the other hand, a private "business." Though I really wouldn't call them a business.

At least that's my understanding. Maybe a Fark Lawyer can correct me.
 
2013-12-11 01:49:10 PM  

Zasteva: scottydoesntknow: EWreckedSean: Again, I've agreed that the law as currently written disagrees with me. You've three or four times now made that attack against me. How many times do I have to agree with you specifically that I agree the law isn't currently written that way before you stop telling me the law isn't written that way? My argument all a long is that the law is wrong, it it does violate the property rights and liberty of the business owners unnecessarily. We are 5 pages into this thread and you are still arguing a point I never made.

scottydoesntknow: You have offered nothing but your opinion to back up your assertions. That's the point I am trying to make.

You don't want a discussion, you want someone to agree with you.

I'm sure he does want someone to agree with him, but I also think he wants to have a discussion. 

If you do want a discussion, you could acknowledge that he understands what the law says and ask him more about why he thinks the law is wrong. Just a suggestion though, maybe you are bored with this :-)


I understand exactly why he thinks the law is wrong (because it discriminates against the business owner's religious views). He even acknowledges that, while you made very good points, it did not change his opinion. Why have a discussion with someone when they're so hard-headed they refuse to acknowledge that preventing a business from discriminating is NOT discrimination.
 
2013-12-11 01:50:20 PM  
What if I went into a hardware store and demanded a ham sandwich?

What if I was in a hot air balloon and they wouldn't give me an orange Julius?

What if I was at a Luby's and I stuck my dick in the mashed potatoes?
 
2013-12-11 01:53:43 PM  

grumpfuff: EWreckedSean: grumpfuff: EWreckedSean: So another...case...what if a member's only shopping club decided to discriminate, like a Sam's Club or a Costco where you can only shop there if you are a member?

They would be just as liable, because they are still a public business.

Are you a public business if you only deal with members? Is the Moose Lodge a public business? Is a members only club a private business?

Costco is a public business because anyone can join. The only requirement is "Pay a small fee." Also, they are listed on the Stock Market(as in publicly traded). Requiring membership is not enough to make something private. Being listed on the stock market is enough to make something a public business.

Moose Lodges, on the other hand, a private "business." Though I really wouldn't call them a business.

At least that's my understanding. Maybe a Fark Lawyer can correct me.


So if I opened a super chain, whites only, required membership to use it and didn't offer it up for public stock options (I really feel this has nothing to do with the public issue though), we think it would be legal?
 
2013-12-11 01:56:38 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Zasteva: scottydoesntknow: EWreckedSean: Again, I've agreed that the law as currently written disagrees with me. You've three or four times now made that attack against me. How many times do I have to agree with you specifically that I agree the law isn't currently written that way before you stop telling me the law isn't written that way? My argument all a long is that the law is wrong, it it does violate the property rights and liberty of the business owners unnecessarily. We are 5 pages into this thread and you are still arguing a point I never made.

scottydoesntknow: You have offered nothing but your opinion to back up your assertions. That's the point I am trying to make.

You don't want a discussion, you want someone to agree with you.

I'm sure he does want someone to agree with him, but I also think he wants to have a discussion. 

If you do want a discussion, you could acknowledge that he understands what the law says and ask him more about why he thinks the law is wrong. Just a suggestion though, maybe you are bored with this :-)

I understand exactly why he thinks the law is wrong (because it discriminates against the business owner's religious views). He even acknowledges that, while you made very good points, it did not change his opinion. Why have a discussion with someone when they're so hard-headed they refuse to acknowledge that preventing a business from discriminating is NOT discrimination.


1) That wasn't my point at all. I mean not even remotely. I've said almost nothing about his religious views in this entire 5 pages

2) The purpose of discussion and debate is rarely to change views but to get people to think things through better, to see another's point of view to better define your own. Other people will always look at things from a different perspective. That's how we learn.
 
2013-12-11 01:56:44 PM  

DeaH: He said he'd make any other cake for them, so what makes a wedding cake so different?



In the book of Confections, Chapter 7, verse potato, it states clearly   "Birthday cakes, cookies, brownies, these all may thee bakest for any and all, but baketh thee not a wedding cake for same sex couples."

At least it probably says something like that.  "No baking cakes for same sex marriages" must be in the bible somewhere.
 
2013-12-11 01:58:04 PM  

grumpfuff: EWreckedSean: grumpfuff: EWreckedSean: So another...case...what if a member's only shopping club decided to discriminate, like a Sam's Club or a Costco where you can only shop there if you are a member?

They would be just as liable, because they are still a public business.

Are you a public business if you only deal with members? Is the Moose Lodge a public business? Is a members only club a private business?

Costco is a public business because anyone can join. The only requirement is "Pay a small fee." Also, they are listed on the Stock Market(as in publicly traded). Requiring membership is not enough to make something private. Being listed on the stock market is enough to make something a public business.

Moose Lodges, on the other hand, a private "business." Though I really wouldn't call them a business.

At least that's my understanding. Maybe a Fark Lawyer can correct me.


On the lodges issue btw, most charge fees, and run their own bars. Some serve food, etc as well. Hold concerts, bingo nights, etc. I'd say they truly do function as a members only business.
 
2013-12-11 01:59:44 PM  

EWreckedSean: Is the Moose Lodge a public business? Is a members only club a private business?


Funny that you would pick the moose lodge as an example.   See Loyal Order of Moose

They are a private club for white men only and the SCotUS ruled that they could not be denied a liquor license just because they wouldn't serve blacks.

The Boy Scouts are another example of a bigoted organization that the SCotUS has ruled it is fine for them to discriminate.   As consequence of their discrimination, they have lost all government support in most (all?) states.
 
2013-12-11 02:02:48 PM  

wrs1864: EWreckedSean: Is the Moose Lodge a public business? Is a members only club a private business?

Funny that you would pick the moose lodge as an example.   See Loyal Order of Moose

They are a private club for white men only and the SCotUS ruled that they could not be denied a liquor license just because they wouldn't serve blacks.

The Boy Scouts are another example of a bigoted organization that the SCotUS has ruled it is fine for them to discriminate.   As consequence of their discrimination, they have lost all government support in most (all?) states.


Well I picked a good example then I guess. While I have no interest in joining a white guys only club myself, if that's who these people feel comfortable hanging out with, why shouldn't by free association that have the right to? And what really is the difference between the lodge and the baker?
 
2013-12-11 02:06:49 PM  

Churchill2004: While this guy is an absolute jackass, so too are the couple making a big legal case out of it. Being turned away from a hotel room or a meal at a restaurant because you're gay? Absolutely, throw the book at the bigot. But a friggin' wedding cake? None of the rationales for why antidiscrimination law should trump freedom of religion and association (which is what they do, justified or not) apply here. There's no significant cost or burden in just getting your cake from someone who isn't a bigot. Ditto with the recent case involving a wedding photographer.


That's probably true in many places -- but suppose the guy is the only baker in your small town. Or suppose all the talented wedding cake makers in your town feel that way.

The point is that it's a place of public accommodation. The guy is under no obligation to go into business for himself, or to bake cakes.

Churchill2004: I'm in a SSM. We had to travel out of state for the civil ceremony, but our private ceremony was here in Wisconsin. I would have never dreamed of making our personal statement of love and union into a friggin' poltical exercise in having the state force people to participate. I can't imagine anything that would have tarnished the day more than having unwilling, coerced participants.

I think most people would agree with you and would just try to forget about it and move on. Nevertheless, this couple felt like it was important to stand up for their rights (and yours in the process).
 
2013-12-11 02:08:28 PM  

James!: What if I went into a hardware store and demanded a ham sandwich?

What if I was in a hot air balloon and they wouldn't give me an orange Julius?

What if I was at a Luby's and I stuck my dick in the mashed potatoes?


I'm just going to go stick sharp objects in my eyes now.
 
2013-12-11 02:10:33 PM  

EWreckedSean: Zasteva: EWreckedSean: So another...case...what if a member's only shopping club decided to discriminate, like a Sam's Club or a Costco where you can only shop there if you are a member?

I'm not sure where that would stand legally -- personally I think it is wrong, and if I were the prosecuting attorney I would argue that the membership is a legal fiction; that by every other measure it is a normal business of public accommodation, and the membership is really a marketing ploy to make more money from consumers and give them a false sense of exclusivity.

Ok. So is it ok to have a members only club that only allows Men?


That is my understanding, yes; and as far as I know such things still exist.  However, this is not something I've paid much attention too, so it's possible I'm wrong, so you might want to research this yourself. What private clubs do isn't something I'm concerned about.

I do know, however, that churches can discriminate against you in providing services for any reason they like, since they are religious organizations rather than places of public accommodation.
 
2013-12-11 02:12:17 PM  
Fark: No matter how much of a bigoted asshole you are, someone on the internet will defend your right to discriminate.
 
2013-12-11 02:14:47 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: James!: What if I went into a hardware store and demanded a ham sandwich?

What if I was in a hot air balloon and they wouldn't give me an orange Julius?

What if I was at a Luby's and I stuck my dick in the mashed potatoes?

I'm just going to go stick sharp objects in my eyes now.


If I went to a Walmart and stuck sharp objects in my eyes would they sell me a 3 bedroom ranch style house in Reseda?
 
2013-12-11 02:15:02 PM  

Zasteva: EWreckedSean: Zasteva: EWreckedSean: So another...case...what if a member's only shopping club decided to discriminate, like a Sam's Club or a Costco where you can only shop there if you are a member?

I'm not sure where that would stand legally -- personally I think it is wrong, and if I were the prosecuting attorney I would argue that the membership is a legal fiction; that by every other measure it is a normal business of public accommodation, and the membership is really a marketing ploy to make more money from consumers and give them a false sense of exclusivity.

Ok. So is it ok to have a members only club that only allows Men?

That is my understanding, yes; and as far as I know such things still exist.  However, this is not something I've paid much attention too, so it's possible I'm wrong, so you might want to research this yourself. What private clubs do isn't something I'm concerned about.

I do know, however, that churches can discriminate against you in providing services for any reason they like, since they are religious organizations rather than places of public accommodation.


wrs1864 posted a good link up above about the Moose Lodge that is worth looking at. This public/private line seems a bit tough to swallow. It seems like discrimination is ok as long as you sign up all the people who you aren't going to discriminate against? The lines we are legally drawing seem pretty ridiculous.
 
2013-12-11 02:19:17 PM  

scottydoesntknow: I understand exactly why he thinks the law is wrong (because it discriminates against the business owner's religious views). He even acknowledges that, while you made very good points, it did not change his opinion. Why have a discussion with someone when they're so hard-headed they refuse to acknowledge that preventing a business from discriminating is NOT discrimination.


I continue because usually at some point the other person gives up -- I have a lot of patience :-)

With the thoughtful people we realize we've agreed on the facts; and disagreed on the relative merits of particular factors after hearing each other out.

Unfortunately those people are rare -- much more common is they call you names.

In my opinion, people like EWreckedSean should be valued, since they've learned to have a bunch of people attacking their opinion without getting hot and bothered by it.
 
2013-12-11 02:22:48 PM  

James!: Satan's Bunny Slippers: James!: What if I went into a hardware store and demanded a ham sandwich?

What if I was in a hot air balloon and they wouldn't give me an orange Julius?

What if I was at a Luby's and I stuck my dick in the mashed potatoes?

I'm just going to go stick sharp objects in my eyes now.

If I went to a Walmart and stuck sharp objects in my eyes would they sell me a 3 bedroom ranch style house in Reseda?


Naw, but it might get you a 2 bedroom trailer in Compton.
 
Displayed 50 of 314 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report