|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
wei2cancerman still wei2cancer4me
fking sjws mang
On April 04 2015 11:12 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 10:54 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 09:37 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 09:35 cLutZ wrote:
Just so long as you understand that that involves people being sent to jail or killed for disagreeing with you. No it doesn't? You can't go to jail in a civil case and not one is going to die because of a civil case. You are just wrong. you can go to jail for willful violation of a civil court order. You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. they are likely to issue an injunction saying not to discriminate, and if they refuse, then they will likely shut down the business. Edit: All Right, I looked up the case and stand corrected. I was 100% incorrect. I was not aware of the cake case in Colorado. Not really that upset about it either. On April 04 2015 10:50 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 09:37 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 09:35 cLutZ wrote:
Just so long as you understand that that involves people being sent to jail or killed for disagreeing with you. No it doesn't? You can't go to jail in a civil case and not one is going to die because of a civil case. You are just wrong. you can go to jail for willful violation of a civil court order. You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. The whole thing started because this actually happened in a different state than Indiana (not pizza, cake, I think). You are correct and I was wrong about the facts of the case. I still don't feel bad for them, as I have zero tolerance for homophobic people. I understand the stance you've taken. With this kind of thing, however, you do have to recite a limiting principle. Does a Jewish baker need to make a "Jihad" cake? Democratic sign-maker have to make signs for Republican candidates? Packers fan make a Bears bumper sticker? If you do use the phrase "protected class" in your answer, it should also contain a definition of what a protected class is and why thats a good definition.
The former can be constituted as hate speech, and the business is within rights to refuse. If you're referencing the second case in Colorado, the business is within rights to not feel comfortable and refuse, and offered a reasonably acceptable alternate (someone wanted to put an anti-gay verse on a cake, the baker refused but offered to give them the creme and tools to write it themselves, while still providing the cake).
In the latter two cases, yes. If they're running a sign making business or a bumper sticker business, there's little reason why they can refuse.
I mean, I'm fairly certain the people who sell sport bumper stickers aren't fans of EVERY team they sell, and I'm quite sign making companies have employees/CEOs with different political affiliations. But without a compelling reason, businesses are generally not allowed to discriminate.
|
On April 04 2015 11:12 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 10:54 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 09:37 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 09:35 cLutZ wrote:
Just so long as you understand that that involves people being sent to jail or killed for disagreeing with you. No it doesn't? You can't go to jail in a civil case and not one is going to die because of a civil case. You are just wrong. you can go to jail for willful violation of a civil court order. You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. they are likely to issue an injunction saying not to discriminate, and if they refuse, then they will likely shut down the business. Edit: All Right, I looked up the case and stand corrected. I was 100% incorrect. I was not aware of the cake case in Colorado. Not really that upset about it either. On April 04 2015 10:50 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 09:37 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 09:35 cLutZ wrote:
Just so long as you understand that that involves people being sent to jail or killed for disagreeing with you. No it doesn't? You can't go to jail in a civil case and not one is going to die because of a civil case. You are just wrong. you can go to jail for willful violation of a civil court order. You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. The whole thing started because this actually happened in a different state than Indiana (not pizza, cake, I think). You are correct and I was wrong about the facts of the case. I still don't feel bad for them, as I have zero tolerance for homophobic people. I understand the stance you've taken. With this kind of thing, however, you do have to recite a limiting principle. Does a Jewish baker need to make a "Jihad" cake? Democratic sign-maker have to make signs for Republican candidates? Packers fan make a Bears bumper sticker? If you do use the phrase "protected class" in your answer, it should also contain a definition of what a protected class is and why thats a good definition.
I'm not really into disingenuous, bait based arguments, thanks. I do think that all bigots and homophobic people shouldn't be allowed to discriminate legally and the laws pretty much handle that. A cake makers shouldn't be able to refuse a gay couple service any more than they could an interracial couple.
|
On April 04 2015 11:25 Lord Tolkien wrote:wei2cancerman still wei2cancer4me fking sjws mang Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 11:12 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:54 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 09:37 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 09:35 cLutZ wrote:
Just so long as you understand that that involves people being sent to jail or killed for disagreeing with you. No it doesn't? You can't go to jail in a civil case and not one is going to die because of a civil case. You are just wrong. you can go to jail for willful violation of a civil court order. You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. they are likely to issue an injunction saying not to discriminate, and if they refuse, then they will likely shut down the business. Edit: All Right, I looked up the case and stand corrected. I was 100% incorrect. I was not aware of the cake case in Colorado. Not really that upset about it either. On April 04 2015 10:50 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 09:37 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 09:35 cLutZ wrote:
Just so long as you understand that that involves people being sent to jail or killed for disagreeing with you. No it doesn't? You can't go to jail in a civil case and not one is going to die because of a civil case. You are just wrong. you can go to jail for willful violation of a civil court order. You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. The whole thing started because this actually happened in a different state than Indiana (not pizza, cake, I think). You are correct and I was wrong about the facts of the case. I still don't feel bad for them, as I have zero tolerance for homophobic people. I understand the stance you've taken. With this kind of thing, however, you do have to recite a limiting principle. Does a Jewish baker need to make a "Jihad" cake? Democratic sign-maker have to make signs for Republican candidates? Packers fan make a Bears bumper sticker? If you do use the phrase "protected class" in your answer, it should also contain a definition of what a protected class is and why thats a good definition. The former can be constituted as hate speech, and the business is within rights to refuse. If you're referencing the second case in Colorado, the business is within rights to not feel comfortable and refuse, and offered a reasonably acceptable alternate (someone wanted to put an anti-gay verse on a cake, the baker refused but offered to give them the creme and tools to write it themselves, while still providing the cake). In the latter two cases, yes. If they're running a sign making business or a bumper sticker business, there's little reason why they can refuse. I mean, I'm fairly certain the people who sell sport bumper stickers aren't fans of EVERY team they sell, and I'm quite sign making companies have employees/CEOs with different political affiliations. But without a compelling reason, businesses are generally not allowed to discriminate.
We just did this song and dance. You need a compelling reason to prevent businesses from discriminating, not the other way around. Because you need a compelling reason to force someone into the situation of, "Do XXX, pay, or go to prison."
On April 04 2015 11:21 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 11:12 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:54 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 09:37 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 09:35 cLutZ wrote:
Just so long as you understand that that involves people being sent to jail or killed for disagreeing with you. No it doesn't? You can't go to jail in a civil case and not one is going to die because of a civil case. You are just wrong. you can go to jail for willful violation of a civil court order. You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. they are likely to issue an injunction saying not to discriminate, and if they refuse, then they will likely shut down the business. Edit: All Right, I looked up the case and stand corrected. I was 100% incorrect. I was not aware of the cake case in Colorado. Not really that upset about it either. On April 04 2015 10:50 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 09:37 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 09:35 cLutZ wrote:
Just so long as you understand that that involves people being sent to jail or killed for disagreeing with you. No it doesn't? You can't go to jail in a civil case and not one is going to die because of a civil case. You are just wrong. you can go to jail for willful violation of a civil court order. You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. The whole thing started because this actually happened in a different state than Indiana (not pizza, cake, I think). You are correct and I was wrong about the facts of the case. I still don't feel bad for them, as I have zero tolerance for homophobic people. I understand the stance you've taken. With this kind of thing, however, you do have to recite a limiting principle. Does a Jewish baker need to make a "Jihad" cake? Democratic sign-maker have to make signs for Republican candidates? Packers fan make a Bears bumper sticker? If you do use the phrase "protected class" in your answer, it should also contain a definition of what a protected class is and why thats a good definition. well i think it would be pretty easy to draw a line in regards to terrorists and hate groups. the rest would be fuzzy though. still though there doesn't have to be an objective line it can be handled on a case to case basis
You need to have at least an outline so people can be put on reasonable notice.
|
On April 04 2015 11:32 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 11:25 Lord Tolkien wrote:wei2cancerman still wei2cancer4me fking sjws mang On April 04 2015 11:12 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:54 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 09:37 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
No it doesn't? You can't go to jail in a civil case and not one is going to die because of a civil case. You are just wrong. you can go to jail for willful violation of a civil court order. You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. they are likely to issue an injunction saying not to discriminate, and if they refuse, then they will likely shut down the business. Edit: All Right, I looked up the case and stand corrected. I was 100% incorrect. I was not aware of the cake case in Colorado. Not really that upset about it either. On April 04 2015 10:50 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 09:37 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
No it doesn't? You can't go to jail in a civil case and not one is going to die because of a civil case. You are just wrong. you can go to jail for willful violation of a civil court order. You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. The whole thing started because this actually happened in a different state than Indiana (not pizza, cake, I think). You are correct and I was wrong about the facts of the case. I still don't feel bad for them, as I have zero tolerance for homophobic people. I understand the stance you've taken. With this kind of thing, however, you do have to recite a limiting principle. Does a Jewish baker need to make a "Jihad" cake? Democratic sign-maker have to make signs for Republican candidates? Packers fan make a Bears bumper sticker? If you do use the phrase "protected class" in your answer, it should also contain a definition of what a protected class is and why thats a good definition. The former can be constituted as hate speech, and the business is within rights to refuse. If you're referencing the second case in Colorado, the business is within rights to not feel comfortable and refuse, and offered a reasonably acceptable alternate (someone wanted to put an anti-gay verse on a cake, the baker refused but offered to give them the creme and tools to write it themselves, while still providing the cake). In the latter two cases, yes. If they're running a sign making business or a bumper sticker business, there's little reason why they can refuse. I mean, I'm fairly certain the people who sell sport bumper stickers aren't fans of EVERY team they sell, and I'm quite sign making companies have employees/CEOs with different political affiliations. But without a compelling reason, businesses are generally not allowed to discriminate. We just did this song and dance. You need a compelling reason to prevent businesses from discriminating, not the other way around. Because you need a compelling reason to force someone into the situation of, "Do XXX, pay, or go to prison." Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 11:21 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On April 04 2015 11:12 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:54 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 09:37 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
No it doesn't? You can't go to jail in a civil case and not one is going to die because of a civil case. You are just wrong. you can go to jail for willful violation of a civil court order. You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. they are likely to issue an injunction saying not to discriminate, and if they refuse, then they will likely shut down the business. Edit: All Right, I looked up the case and stand corrected. I was 100% incorrect. I was not aware of the cake case in Colorado. Not really that upset about it either. On April 04 2015 10:50 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:05 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 09:37 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
No it doesn't? You can't go to jail in a civil case and not one is going to die because of a civil case. You are just wrong. you can go to jail for willful violation of a civil court order. You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. The whole thing started because this actually happened in a different state than Indiana (not pizza, cake, I think). You are correct and I was wrong about the facts of the case. I still don't feel bad for them, as I have zero tolerance for homophobic people. I understand the stance you've taken. With this kind of thing, however, you do have to recite a limiting principle. Does a Jewish baker need to make a "Jihad" cake? Democratic sign-maker have to make signs for Republican candidates? Packers fan make a Bears bumper sticker? If you do use the phrase "protected class" in your answer, it should also contain a definition of what a protected class is and why thats a good definition. well i think it would be pretty easy to draw a line in regards to terrorists and hate groups. the rest would be fuzzy though. still though there doesn't have to be an objective line it can be handled on a case to case basis No need to have at least an outline so people can be put on reasonable notice.
protecting minority rights isn't a compelling reason? because if a company decided to refuse to do something because the people are black it's pretty obvious that that would be illegal.
|
On April 04 2015 11:35 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 11:32 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 11:25 Lord Tolkien wrote:wei2cancerman still wei2cancer4me fking sjws mang On April 04 2015 11:12 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:54 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:05 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
you can go to jail for willful violation of a civil court order. You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. they are likely to issue an injunction saying not to discriminate, and if they refuse, then they will likely shut down the business. Edit: All Right, I looked up the case and stand corrected. I was 100% incorrect. I was not aware of the cake case in Colorado. Not really that upset about it either. On April 04 2015 10:50 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:05 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
you can go to jail for willful violation of a civil court order. You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. The whole thing started because this actually happened in a different state than Indiana (not pizza, cake, I think). You are correct and I was wrong about the facts of the case. I still don't feel bad for them, as I have zero tolerance for homophobic people. I understand the stance you've taken. With this kind of thing, however, you do have to recite a limiting principle. Does a Jewish baker need to make a "Jihad" cake? Democratic sign-maker have to make signs for Republican candidates? Packers fan make a Bears bumper sticker? If you do use the phrase "protected class" in your answer, it should also contain a definition of what a protected class is and why thats a good definition. The former can be constituted as hate speech, and the business is within rights to refuse. If you're referencing the second case in Colorado, the business is within rights to not feel comfortable and refuse, and offered a reasonably acceptable alternate (someone wanted to put an anti-gay verse on a cake, the baker refused but offered to give them the creme and tools to write it themselves, while still providing the cake). In the latter two cases, yes. If they're running a sign making business or a bumper sticker business, there's little reason why they can refuse. I mean, I'm fairly certain the people who sell sport bumper stickers aren't fans of EVERY team they sell, and I'm quite sign making companies have employees/CEOs with different political affiliations. But without a compelling reason, businesses are generally not allowed to discriminate. We just did this song and dance. You need a compelling reason to prevent businesses from discriminating, not the other way around. Because you need a compelling reason to force someone into the situation of, "Do XXX, pay, or go to prison." On April 04 2015 11:21 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On April 04 2015 11:12 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:54 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:05 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
you can go to jail for willful violation of a civil court order. You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. they are likely to issue an injunction saying not to discriminate, and if they refuse, then they will likely shut down the business. Edit: All Right, I looked up the case and stand corrected. I was 100% incorrect. I was not aware of the cake case in Colorado. Not really that upset about it either. On April 04 2015 10:50 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:05 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
you can go to jail for willful violation of a civil court order. You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. The whole thing started because this actually happened in a different state than Indiana (not pizza, cake, I think). You are correct and I was wrong about the facts of the case. I still don't feel bad for them, as I have zero tolerance for homophobic people. I understand the stance you've taken. With this kind of thing, however, you do have to recite a limiting principle. Does a Jewish baker need to make a "Jihad" cake? Democratic sign-maker have to make signs for Republican candidates? Packers fan make a Bears bumper sticker? If you do use the phrase "protected class" in your answer, it should also contain a definition of what a protected class is and why thats a good definition. well i think it would be pretty easy to draw a line in regards to terrorists and hate groups. the rest would be fuzzy though. still though there doesn't have to be an objective line it can be handled on a case to case basis No need to have at least an outline so people can be put on reasonable notice. protecting minority rights isn't a compelling reason? because if a company decided to refuse to do something because the people are black it's pretty obvious that that would be illegal.
rights end when it comes to forcing people to do shit.
|
On April 04 2015 11:37 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 11:35 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On April 04 2015 11:32 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 11:25 Lord Tolkien wrote:wei2cancerman still wei2cancer4me fking sjws mang On April 04 2015 11:12 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:54 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. they are likely to issue an injunction saying not to discriminate, and if they refuse, then they will likely shut down the business. Edit: All Right, I looked up the case and stand corrected. I was 100% incorrect. I was not aware of the cake case in Colorado. Not really that upset about it either. On April 04 2015 10:50 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. The whole thing started because this actually happened in a different state than Indiana (not pizza, cake, I think). You are correct and I was wrong about the facts of the case. I still don't feel bad for them, as I have zero tolerance for homophobic people. I understand the stance you've taken. With this kind of thing, however, you do have to recite a limiting principle. Does a Jewish baker need to make a "Jihad" cake? Democratic sign-maker have to make signs for Republican candidates? Packers fan make a Bears bumper sticker? If you do use the phrase "protected class" in your answer, it should also contain a definition of what a protected class is and why thats a good definition. The former can be constituted as hate speech, and the business is within rights to refuse. If you're referencing the second case in Colorado, the business is within rights to not feel comfortable and refuse, and offered a reasonably acceptable alternate (someone wanted to put an anti-gay verse on a cake, the baker refused but offered to give them the creme and tools to write it themselves, while still providing the cake). In the latter two cases, yes. If they're running a sign making business or a bumper sticker business, there's little reason why they can refuse. I mean, I'm fairly certain the people who sell sport bumper stickers aren't fans of EVERY team they sell, and I'm quite sign making companies have employees/CEOs with different political affiliations. But without a compelling reason, businesses are generally not allowed to discriminate. We just did this song and dance. You need a compelling reason to prevent businesses from discriminating, not the other way around. Because you need a compelling reason to force someone into the situation of, "Do XXX, pay, or go to prison." On April 04 2015 11:21 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On April 04 2015 11:12 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:54 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. they are likely to issue an injunction saying not to discriminate, and if they refuse, then they will likely shut down the business. Edit: All Right, I looked up the case and stand corrected. I was 100% incorrect. I was not aware of the cake case in Colorado. Not really that upset about it either. On April 04 2015 10:50 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. The whole thing started because this actually happened in a different state than Indiana (not pizza, cake, I think). You are correct and I was wrong about the facts of the case. I still don't feel bad for them, as I have zero tolerance for homophobic people. I understand the stance you've taken. With this kind of thing, however, you do have to recite a limiting principle. Does a Jewish baker need to make a "Jihad" cake? Democratic sign-maker have to make signs for Republican candidates? Packers fan make a Bears bumper sticker? If you do use the phrase "protected class" in your answer, it should also contain a definition of what a protected class is and why thats a good definition. well i think it would be pretty easy to draw a line in regards to terrorists and hate groups. the rest would be fuzzy though. still though there doesn't have to be an objective line it can be handled on a case to case basis No need to have at least an outline so people can be put on reasonable notice. protecting minority rights isn't a compelling reason? because if a company decided to refuse to do something because the people are black it's pretty obvious that that would be illegal. rights end when it comes to forcing people to do shit.
The Supreme Court of the United States and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 disagree with you.
|
On April 04 2015 11:35 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 11:32 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 11:25 Lord Tolkien wrote:wei2cancerman still wei2cancer4me fking sjws mang On April 04 2015 11:12 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:54 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:05 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
you can go to jail for willful violation of a civil court order. You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. they are likely to issue an injunction saying not to discriminate, and if they refuse, then they will likely shut down the business. Edit: All Right, I looked up the case and stand corrected. I was 100% incorrect. I was not aware of the cake case in Colorado. Not really that upset about it either. On April 04 2015 10:50 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:05 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
you can go to jail for willful violation of a civil court order. You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. The whole thing started because this actually happened in a different state than Indiana (not pizza, cake, I think). You are correct and I was wrong about the facts of the case. I still don't feel bad for them, as I have zero tolerance for homophobic people. I understand the stance you've taken. With this kind of thing, however, you do have to recite a limiting principle. Does a Jewish baker need to make a "Jihad" cake? Democratic sign-maker have to make signs for Republican candidates? Packers fan make a Bears bumper sticker? If you do use the phrase "protected class" in your answer, it should also contain a definition of what a protected class is and why thats a good definition. The former can be constituted as hate speech, and the business is within rights to refuse. If you're referencing the second case in Colorado, the business is within rights to not feel comfortable and refuse, and offered a reasonably acceptable alternate (someone wanted to put an anti-gay verse on a cake, the baker refused but offered to give them the creme and tools to write it themselves, while still providing the cake). In the latter two cases, yes. If they're running a sign making business or a bumper sticker business, there's little reason why they can refuse. I mean, I'm fairly certain the people who sell sport bumper stickers aren't fans of EVERY team they sell, and I'm quite sign making companies have employees/CEOs with different political affiliations. But without a compelling reason, businesses are generally not allowed to discriminate. We just did this song and dance. You need a compelling reason to prevent businesses from discriminating, not the other way around. Because you need a compelling reason to force someone into the situation of, "Do XXX, pay, or go to prison." On April 04 2015 11:21 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On April 04 2015 11:12 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:54 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:05 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
you can go to jail for willful violation of a civil court order. You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. they are likely to issue an injunction saying not to discriminate, and if they refuse, then they will likely shut down the business. Edit: All Right, I looked up the case and stand corrected. I was 100% incorrect. I was not aware of the cake case in Colorado. Not really that upset about it either. On April 04 2015 10:50 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:05 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
you can go to jail for willful violation of a civil court order. You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. The whole thing started because this actually happened in a different state than Indiana (not pizza, cake, I think). You are correct and I was wrong about the facts of the case. I still don't feel bad for them, as I have zero tolerance for homophobic people. I understand the stance you've taken. With this kind of thing, however, you do have to recite a limiting principle. Does a Jewish baker need to make a "Jihad" cake? Democratic sign-maker have to make signs for Republican candidates? Packers fan make a Bears bumper sticker? If you do use the phrase "protected class" in your answer, it should also contain a definition of what a protected class is and why thats a good definition. well i think it would be pretty easy to draw a line in regards to terrorists and hate groups. the rest would be fuzzy though. still though there doesn't have to be an objective line it can be handled on a case to case basis No need to have at least an outline so people can be put on reasonable notice. protecting minority rights isn't a compelling reason? because if a company decided to refuse to do something because the people are black it's pretty obvious that that would be illegal.
Great, now define minority.
Edit.
And rights.
|
On April 04 2015 11:37 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 11:35 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On April 04 2015 11:32 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 11:25 Lord Tolkien wrote:wei2cancerman still wei2cancer4me fking sjws mang On April 04 2015 11:12 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:54 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. they are likely to issue an injunction saying not to discriminate, and if they refuse, then they will likely shut down the business. Edit: All Right, I looked up the case and stand corrected. I was 100% incorrect. I was not aware of the cake case in Colorado. Not really that upset about it either. On April 04 2015 10:50 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. The whole thing started because this actually happened in a different state than Indiana (not pizza, cake, I think). You are correct and I was wrong about the facts of the case. I still don't feel bad for them, as I have zero tolerance for homophobic people. I understand the stance you've taken. With this kind of thing, however, you do have to recite a limiting principle. Does a Jewish baker need to make a "Jihad" cake? Democratic sign-maker have to make signs for Republican candidates? Packers fan make a Bears bumper sticker? If you do use the phrase "protected class" in your answer, it should also contain a definition of what a protected class is and why thats a good definition. The former can be constituted as hate speech, and the business is within rights to refuse. If you're referencing the second case in Colorado, the business is within rights to not feel comfortable and refuse, and offered a reasonably acceptable alternate (someone wanted to put an anti-gay verse on a cake, the baker refused but offered to give them the creme and tools to write it themselves, while still providing the cake). In the latter two cases, yes. If they're running a sign making business or a bumper sticker business, there's little reason why they can refuse. I mean, I'm fairly certain the people who sell sport bumper stickers aren't fans of EVERY team they sell, and I'm quite sign making companies have employees/CEOs with different political affiliations. But without a compelling reason, businesses are generally not allowed to discriminate. We just did this song and dance. You need a compelling reason to prevent businesses from discriminating, not the other way around. Because you need a compelling reason to force someone into the situation of, "Do XXX, pay, or go to prison." On April 04 2015 11:21 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On April 04 2015 11:12 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:54 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. they are likely to issue an injunction saying not to discriminate, and if they refuse, then they will likely shut down the business. Edit: All Right, I looked up the case and stand corrected. I was 100% incorrect. I was not aware of the cake case in Colorado. Not really that upset about it either. On April 04 2015 10:50 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. The whole thing started because this actually happened in a different state than Indiana (not pizza, cake, I think). You are correct and I was wrong about the facts of the case. I still don't feel bad for them, as I have zero tolerance for homophobic people. I understand the stance you've taken. With this kind of thing, however, you do have to recite a limiting principle. Does a Jewish baker need to make a "Jihad" cake? Democratic sign-maker have to make signs for Republican candidates? Packers fan make a Bears bumper sticker? If you do use the phrase "protected class" in your answer, it should also contain a definition of what a protected class is and why thats a good definition. well i think it would be pretty easy to draw a line in regards to terrorists and hate groups. the rest would be fuzzy though. still though there doesn't have to be an objective line it can be handled on a case to case basis No need to have at least an outline so people can be put on reasonable notice. protecting minority rights isn't a compelling reason? because if a company decided to refuse to do something because the people are black it's pretty obvious that that would be illegal. rights end when it comes to forcing people to do shit.
Nah, that is right when it starts. No legal protection for bigots who own business and want to be bigoted business owners.
|
On April 04 2015 11:37 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 11:35 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On April 04 2015 11:32 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 11:25 Lord Tolkien wrote:wei2cancerman still wei2cancer4me fking sjws mang On April 04 2015 11:12 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:54 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. they are likely to issue an injunction saying not to discriminate, and if they refuse, then they will likely shut down the business. Edit: All Right, I looked up the case and stand corrected. I was 100% incorrect. I was not aware of the cake case in Colorado. Not really that upset about it either. On April 04 2015 10:50 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. The whole thing started because this actually happened in a different state than Indiana (not pizza, cake, I think). You are correct and I was wrong about the facts of the case. I still don't feel bad for them, as I have zero tolerance for homophobic people. I understand the stance you've taken. With this kind of thing, however, you do have to recite a limiting principle. Does a Jewish baker need to make a "Jihad" cake? Democratic sign-maker have to make signs for Republican candidates? Packers fan make a Bears bumper sticker? If you do use the phrase "protected class" in your answer, it should also contain a definition of what a protected class is and why thats a good definition. The former can be constituted as hate speech, and the business is within rights to refuse. If you're referencing the second case in Colorado, the business is within rights to not feel comfortable and refuse, and offered a reasonably acceptable alternate (someone wanted to put an anti-gay verse on a cake, the baker refused but offered to give them the creme and tools to write it themselves, while still providing the cake). In the latter two cases, yes. If they're running a sign making business or a bumper sticker business, there's little reason why they can refuse. I mean, I'm fairly certain the people who sell sport bumper stickers aren't fans of EVERY team they sell, and I'm quite sign making companies have employees/CEOs with different political affiliations. But without a compelling reason, businesses are generally not allowed to discriminate. We just did this song and dance. You need a compelling reason to prevent businesses from discriminating, not the other way around. Because you need a compelling reason to force someone into the situation of, "Do XXX, pay, or go to prison." On April 04 2015 11:21 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On April 04 2015 11:12 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:54 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. they are likely to issue an injunction saying not to discriminate, and if they refuse, then they will likely shut down the business. Edit: All Right, I looked up the case and stand corrected. I was 100% incorrect. I was not aware of the cake case in Colorado. Not really that upset about it either. On April 04 2015 10:50 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:16 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
You have to try really hard and they don't send you to jail for a money judgment, which is what he is talking about. He is making a totally hyperbolic argument that being sued for discrimination will lead to armed assaults on pizza places to force them to cater gay weddings. they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. The whole thing started because this actually happened in a different state than Indiana (not pizza, cake, I think). You are correct and I was wrong about the facts of the case. I still don't feel bad for them, as I have zero tolerance for homophobic people. I understand the stance you've taken. With this kind of thing, however, you do have to recite a limiting principle. Does a Jewish baker need to make a "Jihad" cake? Democratic sign-maker have to make signs for Republican candidates? Packers fan make a Bears bumper sticker? If you do use the phrase "protected class" in your answer, it should also contain a definition of what a protected class is and why thats a good definition. well i think it would be pretty easy to draw a line in regards to terrorists and hate groups. the rest would be fuzzy though. still though there doesn't have to be an objective line it can be handled on a case to case basis No need to have at least an outline so people can be put on reasonable notice. protecting minority rights isn't a compelling reason? because if a company decided to refuse to do something because the people are black it's pretty obvious that that would be illegal. rights end when it comes to forcing people to do shit.
Haha.
No.
Without discussing the Social Contract, the state of nature (which libertarians are generally enamored with for some reason), the past 400 years of political science, and the basics of common sense, this is a stupid statement. Let's see.
rights end when it comes to forcing people to do shit.
To yell fire in a crowded movie theater? To threaten to shoot someone while brandishing a gun? Obviously not. But laws prohibiting these things are clearly infringing on my natural right to say these things and do these things without repercussion. So clearly, this is grossly insufficient.
|
On April 04 2015 11:45 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 11:37 wei2coolman wrote:On April 04 2015 11:35 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On April 04 2015 11:32 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 11:25 Lord Tolkien wrote:wei2cancerman still wei2cancer4me fking sjws mang On April 04 2015 11:12 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:54 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. they are likely to issue an injunction saying not to discriminate, and if they refuse, then they will likely shut down the business. Edit: All Right, I looked up the case and stand corrected. I was 100% incorrect. I was not aware of the cake case in Colorado. Not really that upset about it either. On April 04 2015 10:50 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. The whole thing started because this actually happened in a different state than Indiana (not pizza, cake, I think). You are correct and I was wrong about the facts of the case. I still don't feel bad for them, as I have zero tolerance for homophobic people. I understand the stance you've taken. With this kind of thing, however, you do have to recite a limiting principle. Does a Jewish baker need to make a "Jihad" cake? Democratic sign-maker have to make signs for Republican candidates? Packers fan make a Bears bumper sticker? If you do use the phrase "protected class" in your answer, it should also contain a definition of what a protected class is and why thats a good definition. The former can be constituted as hate speech, and the business is within rights to refuse. If you're referencing the second case in Colorado, the business is within rights to not feel comfortable and refuse, and offered a reasonably acceptable alternate (someone wanted to put an anti-gay verse on a cake, the baker refused but offered to give them the creme and tools to write it themselves, while still providing the cake). In the latter two cases, yes. If they're running a sign making business or a bumper sticker business, there's little reason why they can refuse. I mean, I'm fairly certain the people who sell sport bumper stickers aren't fans of EVERY team they sell, and I'm quite sign making companies have employees/CEOs with different political affiliations. But without a compelling reason, businesses are generally not allowed to discriminate. We just did this song and dance. You need a compelling reason to prevent businesses from discriminating, not the other way around. Because you need a compelling reason to force someone into the situation of, "Do XXX, pay, or go to prison." On April 04 2015 11:21 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On April 04 2015 11:12 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:54 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. they are likely to issue an injunction saying not to discriminate, and if they refuse, then they will likely shut down the business. Edit: All Right, I looked up the case and stand corrected. I was 100% incorrect. I was not aware of the cake case in Colorado. Not really that upset about it either. On April 04 2015 10:50 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
they will send you to jail for violating an injunction, which is what will happen if you commit civil rights abuses like you all are discussing. Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding? Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. The whole thing started because this actually happened in a different state than Indiana (not pizza, cake, I think). You are correct and I was wrong about the facts of the case. I still don't feel bad for them, as I have zero tolerance for homophobic people. I understand the stance you've taken. With this kind of thing, however, you do have to recite a limiting principle. Does a Jewish baker need to make a "Jihad" cake? Democratic sign-maker have to make signs for Republican candidates? Packers fan make a Bears bumper sticker? If you do use the phrase "protected class" in your answer, it should also contain a definition of what a protected class is and why thats a good definition. well i think it would be pretty easy to draw a line in regards to terrorists and hate groups. the rest would be fuzzy though. still though there doesn't have to be an objective line it can be handled on a case to case basis No need to have at least an outline so people can be put on reasonable notice. protecting minority rights isn't a compelling reason? because if a company decided to refuse to do something because the people are black it's pretty obvious that that would be illegal. rights end when it comes to forcing people to do shit. Haha. No. Without discussing the Social Contract, the state of nature (which libertarians are generally enamored with for some reason), the past 400 years of political science, and the basics of common sense, this is a stupid statement. Let's see. To yell fire in a crowded movie theater? To threaten to shoot someone while brandishing a gun? Obviously not. But laws prohibiting these things are clearly infringing on my natural right to say these things and do these things without repercussion. So clearly, this is grossly insufficient.
rights end, when it infringes on others rights*, happy?
|
While I think the law is a step backwards, I think it's fine to let businesses decide who to serve or not if they want. Let me be clear I'm against discrimination, but if a business wants to risk the shit press and so forth, then they have the right to be stupid.
|
On April 04 2015 11:47 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 11:45 Lord Tolkien wrote:On April 04 2015 11:37 wei2coolman wrote:On April 04 2015 11:35 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On April 04 2015 11:32 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 11:25 Lord Tolkien wrote:wei2cancerman still wei2cancer4me fking sjws mang On April 04 2015 11:12 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:54 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding?
Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. they are likely to issue an injunction saying not to discriminate, and if they refuse, then they will likely shut down the business. Edit: All Right, I looked up the case and stand corrected. I was 100% incorrect. I was not aware of the cake case in Colorado. Not really that upset about it either. On April 04 2015 10:50 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding?
Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. The whole thing started because this actually happened in a different state than Indiana (not pizza, cake, I think). You are correct and I was wrong about the facts of the case. I still don't feel bad for them, as I have zero tolerance for homophobic people. I understand the stance you've taken. With this kind of thing, however, you do have to recite a limiting principle. Does a Jewish baker need to make a "Jihad" cake? Democratic sign-maker have to make signs for Republican candidates? Packers fan make a Bears bumper sticker? If you do use the phrase "protected class" in your answer, it should also contain a definition of what a protected class is and why thats a good definition. The former can be constituted as hate speech, and the business is within rights to refuse. If you're referencing the second case in Colorado, the business is within rights to not feel comfortable and refuse, and offered a reasonably acceptable alternate (someone wanted to put an anti-gay verse on a cake, the baker refused but offered to give them the creme and tools to write it themselves, while still providing the cake). In the latter two cases, yes. If they're running a sign making business or a bumper sticker business, there's little reason why they can refuse. I mean, I'm fairly certain the people who sell sport bumper stickers aren't fans of EVERY team they sell, and I'm quite sign making companies have employees/CEOs with different political affiliations. But without a compelling reason, businesses are generally not allowed to discriminate. We just did this song and dance. You need a compelling reason to prevent businesses from discriminating, not the other way around. Because you need a compelling reason to force someone into the situation of, "Do XXX, pay, or go to prison." On April 04 2015 11:21 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On April 04 2015 11:12 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:54 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding?
Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. they are likely to issue an injunction saying not to discriminate, and if they refuse, then they will likely shut down the business. Edit: All Right, I looked up the case and stand corrected. I was 100% incorrect. I was not aware of the cake case in Colorado. Not really that upset about it either. On April 04 2015 10:50 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding?
Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. The whole thing started because this actually happened in a different state than Indiana (not pizza, cake, I think). You are correct and I was wrong about the facts of the case. I still don't feel bad for them, as I have zero tolerance for homophobic people. I understand the stance you've taken. With this kind of thing, however, you do have to recite a limiting principle. Does a Jewish baker need to make a "Jihad" cake? Democratic sign-maker have to make signs for Republican candidates? Packers fan make a Bears bumper sticker? If you do use the phrase "protected class" in your answer, it should also contain a definition of what a protected class is and why thats a good definition. well i think it would be pretty easy to draw a line in regards to terrorists and hate groups. the rest would be fuzzy though. still though there doesn't have to be an objective line it can be handled on a case to case basis No need to have at least an outline so people can be put on reasonable notice. protecting minority rights isn't a compelling reason? because if a company decided to refuse to do something because the people are black it's pretty obvious that that would be illegal. rights end when it comes to forcing people to do shit. Haha. No. Without discussing the Social Contract, the state of nature (which libertarians are generally enamored with for some reason), the past 400 years of political science, and the basics of common sense, this is a stupid statement. Let's see. rights end when it comes to forcing people to do shit. To yell fire in a crowded movie theater? To threaten to shoot someone while brandishing a gun? Obviously not. But laws prohibiting these things are clearly infringing on my natural right to say these things and do these things without repercussion. So clearly, this is grossly insufficient. rights end, when it infringes on others rights*, happy?
am I okay infringing on other people's rights to be bigots definately. you haven't shown that the right to discriminate is a fundamental right that shouldn't be able to be taken away. you also haven't proven that in no circumstances are rights to be infringed which is required for your argument to work. (unless of course your defining rights as that in which case see my first point)
|
On April 04 2015 11:47 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 11:45 Lord Tolkien wrote:On April 04 2015 11:37 wei2coolman wrote:On April 04 2015 11:35 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On April 04 2015 11:32 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 11:25 Lord Tolkien wrote:wei2cancerman still wei2cancer4me fking sjws mang On April 04 2015 11:12 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:54 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding?
Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. they are likely to issue an injunction saying not to discriminate, and if they refuse, then they will likely shut down the business. Edit: All Right, I looked up the case and stand corrected. I was 100% incorrect. I was not aware of the cake case in Colorado. Not really that upset about it either. On April 04 2015 10:50 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding?
Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. The whole thing started because this actually happened in a different state than Indiana (not pizza, cake, I think). You are correct and I was wrong about the facts of the case. I still don't feel bad for them, as I have zero tolerance for homophobic people. I understand the stance you've taken. With this kind of thing, however, you do have to recite a limiting principle. Does a Jewish baker need to make a "Jihad" cake? Democratic sign-maker have to make signs for Republican candidates? Packers fan make a Bears bumper sticker? If you do use the phrase "protected class" in your answer, it should also contain a definition of what a protected class is and why thats a good definition. The former can be constituted as hate speech, and the business is within rights to refuse. If you're referencing the second case in Colorado, the business is within rights to not feel comfortable and refuse, and offered a reasonably acceptable alternate (someone wanted to put an anti-gay verse on a cake, the baker refused but offered to give them the creme and tools to write it themselves, while still providing the cake). In the latter two cases, yes. If they're running a sign making business or a bumper sticker business, there's little reason why they can refuse. I mean, I'm fairly certain the people who sell sport bumper stickers aren't fans of EVERY team they sell, and I'm quite sign making companies have employees/CEOs with different political affiliations. But without a compelling reason, businesses are generally not allowed to discriminate. We just did this song and dance. You need a compelling reason to prevent businesses from discriminating, not the other way around. Because you need a compelling reason to force someone into the situation of, "Do XXX, pay, or go to prison." On April 04 2015 11:21 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On April 04 2015 11:12 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:54 Plansix wrote:On April 04 2015 10:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding?
Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. they are likely to issue an injunction saying not to discriminate, and if they refuse, then they will likely shut down the business. Edit: All Right, I looked up the case and stand corrected. I was 100% incorrect. I was not aware of the cake case in Colorado. Not really that upset about it either. On April 04 2015 10:50 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 10:29 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Do you honestly believe a judge is going to issue an injunction to force a restaurant to cater a gay wedding? That anyone would seek a injunction and not just seek monetary damages? That people are going to force homophobic people to cater their wedding?
Is this really something we are worried about? Because it sounds like a pretty terrible wedding. We are not forcing the integration of schools here, we are talking about serving people cake and dinner. The whole thing started because this actually happened in a different state than Indiana (not pizza, cake, I think). You are correct and I was wrong about the facts of the case. I still don't feel bad for them, as I have zero tolerance for homophobic people. I understand the stance you've taken. With this kind of thing, however, you do have to recite a limiting principle. Does a Jewish baker need to make a "Jihad" cake? Democratic sign-maker have to make signs for Republican candidates? Packers fan make a Bears bumper sticker? If you do use the phrase "protected class" in your answer, it should also contain a definition of what a protected class is and why thats a good definition. well i think it would be pretty easy to draw a line in regards to terrorists and hate groups. the rest would be fuzzy though. still though there doesn't have to be an objective line it can be handled on a case to case basis No need to have at least an outline so people can be put on reasonable notice. protecting minority rights isn't a compelling reason? because if a company decided to refuse to do something because the people are black it's pretty obvious that that would be illegal. rights end when it comes to forcing people to do shit. Haha. No. Without discussing the Social Contract, the state of nature (which libertarians are generally enamored with for some reason), the past 400 years of political science, and the basics of common sense, this is a stupid statement. Let's see. rights end when it comes to forcing people to do shit. To yell fire in a crowded movie theater? To threaten to shoot someone while brandishing a gun? Obviously not. But laws prohibiting these things are clearly infringing on my natural right to say these things and do these things without repercussion. So clearly, this is grossly insufficient. rights end, when it infringes on others rights*, happy?
No. Happiness isn't a right. Only the pursuit of happiness is a right. If being forced to stop discriminating makes someone unhappy, thats not the governments problem.
|
On April 04 2015 11:53 ticklishmusic wrote:
While I think the law is a step backwards, I think it's fine to let businesses decide who to serve or not if they want. Let me be clear I'm against discrimination, but if a business wants to risk the shit press and so forth, then they have the right to be stupid.
So if the only local supermarket refuses to sell a gay couple food, they should have the any legal options to remedy that?
|
On April 04 2015 11:47 wei2coolman wrote:
rights end, when it infringes on others rights*, happy?
Now we've taken a step up, closer to understanding the social contract. Somewhat closer to Mill's Harm Principle.
Now, what happens in such a collision? Doesn't this justify government intervention if a group is systemically being discriminated against by another; their right to be treated fairly and equally under the law is clearly being infringed by the other, no?
After all, we've all waived some of our natural freedoms to a political entity to protect us and ensure we don't end up in a Hobbesian state of nature. The right to be treated equally is clearly of a higher priority and moral bearing than a right to discriminate, after all.
|
On April 04 2015 11:53 ticklishmusic wrote:
While I think the law is a step backwards, I think it's fine to let businesses decide who to serve or not if they want. Let me be clear I'm against discrimination, but if a business wants to risk the shit press and so forth, then they have the right to be stupid.
pretty much this.
the law is framed poorly, and has terrible intentions, but I'm all for letting business owners select who they want to deal business with. I consider each sale a contract, and with contracts both parties have the right to refuse to enter into a deal.
On April 04 2015 11:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 11:53 ticklishmusic wrote:
While I think the law is a step backwards, I think it's fine to let businesses decide who to serve or not if they want. Let me be clear I'm against discrimination, but if a business wants to risk the shit press and so forth, then they have the right to be stupid. So if the only local supermarket refuses to sell a gay couple food, they should have the any legal options to remedy that?
hmm, i wonder how the free market works... Oh yeah, you decide where to go based on product and services offered.
|
On April 04 2015 11:55 Lord Tolkien wrote:
After all, we've all waived some of our natural freedoms to a political entity to protect us and ensure we don't end up in a Hobbesian state of nature. The right to be treated equally is clearly of a higher priority and moral bearing than a right to discriminate, after all.
Only if you can state some sort of limiting principle of what you mean by "discriminate". Because you aren't treating people equally. You are forcing one person to engage in a transaction against their will, while you would not force the opposite party to do the same.
|
On April 04 2015 12:00 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 11:55 Lord Tolkien wrote:
After all, we've all waived some of our natural freedoms to a political entity to protect us and ensure we don't end up in a Hobbesian state of nature. The right to be treated equally is clearly of a higher priority and moral bearing than a right to discriminate, after all. Only if you can state some sort of limiting principle of what you mean by "discriminate". Because you aren't treating people equally. You are forcing one person to engage in a transaction against their will, while you would not force the opposite party to do the same.
The law isn't about treating people equally. It's about ensuring people have equal rights.
|
On April 04 2015 12:00 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 11:55 Lord Tolkien wrote:
After all, we've all waived some of our natural freedoms to a political entity to protect us and ensure we don't end up in a Hobbesian state of nature. The right to be treated equally is clearly of a higher priority and moral bearing than a right to discriminate, after all. Only if you can state some sort of limiting principle of what you mean by "discriminate". Because you aren't treating people equally. You are forcing one person to engage in a transaction against their will, while you would not force the opposite party to do the same.
Essentially, do people have a right to someone else's service?
If they do, does that override someone's right to refuse?
|
On April 04 2015 12:00 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 11:55 Lord Tolkien wrote:
After all, we've all waived some of our natural freedoms to a political entity to protect us and ensure we don't end up in a Hobbesian state of nature. The right to be treated equally is clearly of a higher priority and moral bearing than a right to discriminate, after all. Only if you can state some sort of limiting principle of what you mean by "discriminate". Because you aren't treating people equally. You are forcing one person to engage in a transaction against their will, while you would not force the opposite party to do the same.
You caught me in the middle of a response and edit so anyways.
@ Clutz: No. There needs to be a compelling reason for a business to systemically discriminate, otherwise you're allowing hair salons to deny haircuts to men, restaurants to deny African-Americans seats inside, etc. Eg, a restaurant can refuse to serve rude and disruptive customers: a compelling case can be made that they are disrupting the normal operations of the business and affecting the experience of other customers. But to refuse to serve, say, a Jew? That violates the fundamental principles of equality that a democracy is built upon.
This doesn't entail anything regarding government prosecution and prisons (which is rather hyperbolic, as anti-discrimination law generally demands more reasonable redress).
On April 04 2015 12:04 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2015 12:00 cLutZ wrote:On April 04 2015 11:55 Lord Tolkien wrote:
After all, we've all waived some of our natural freedoms to a political entity to protect us and ensure we don't end up in a Hobbesian state of nature. The right to be treated equally is clearly of a higher priority and moral bearing than a right to discriminate, after all. Only if you can state some sort of limiting principle of what you mean by "discriminate". Because you aren't treating people equally. You are forcing one person to engage in a transaction against their will, while you would not force the opposite party to do the same. Essentially, do people have a right to someone else's service? If they do, does that override someone's right to refuse?
Also, generally yes, unless there is a reasonable case why you can refuse service. Eg. disruption of business, disruption of service or the infringement of rights of others, etc. If a reasonable case can be made outside of "I don't like X group", then there you go.
Religious organizations are, obviously, exempt from this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
