Couple denied service at cake shoppe due to being "abominations of the lord"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-03-2013, 11:13 AM
RE: Couple denied service at cake shoppe due to being "abominations of the lord"
(03-03-2013 11:10 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  "It's the fucking law."

Great. This isn't a thread about what is and isn't the law.

Of course it is; what the cake shoppe did was illegal.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2013, 11:21 AM
RE: Couple denied service at cake shoppe due to being "abominations of the lord"
"Of course it is; what the cake shoppe did was illegal."

And the discussion is about whether or not it should be.... not whether or not it is.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2013, 11:29 AM
RE: Couple denied service at cake shoppe due to being "abominations of the lord"
Unfortunately, talking about what "should" and "shouldn't" be leans on individual liberty and who's liberty is more important than another's liberty. The guys at the shoppe should be free to refuse sale to whomever they choose? Awesome. The abonimable couple should also be free to buy cakes from wherever they want.

Damn. Now we've run into a bit of a pickle in the ol' liberty department. Consider

That's the thing about freedom. It's never really free. Undecided

Through profound pain comes profound knowledge.
Ridi, Pagliaccio, sul tuo amore infranto! Ridi del duol, che t'avvelena il cor!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Misanthropik's post
03-03-2013, 11:30 AM
RE: Couple denied service at cake shoppe due to being "abominations of the lord"
(03-03-2013 11:21 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  "Of course it is; what the cake shoppe did was illegal."

And the discussion is about whether or not it should be.... not whether or not it is.


There is a reason for that law.

It is to prevent discrimination against classes of people. That is why what they did was and is wrong.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
03-03-2013, 11:43 AM
RE: Couple denied service at cake shoppe due to being "abominations of the lord"
"Damn. Now we've run into a bit of a pickle in the ol' liberty department. [Image: consider.gif]"

The pickle you're talking about started when you (the collective) decided it was a good idea to point guns at people who don't agree with you.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2013, 11:55 AM
RE: Couple denied service at cake shoppe due to being "abominations of the lord"
"There is a reason for that law. It is to prevent discrimination against classes of people."

I know the reason for the law, but thanks for sharing.


"That is why what they did was and is wrong."


What they did was wrong because they're bigots, not because there's a law. That wrong is a moral wrong that doesn't involve force or coercion. The people they refused to serve were not denied the right to have a cake. They were simply refused service by one company. If you think it's morally just to force people to interact with one another, then why not a law that forces women to date men they don't like? After all, if I want to date a woman I should be able to. What gives her the right to discriminate against me? I'm not a rapist, a Nazi, a child molester or any other thing that society has deemed abhorrent, so I should be able to date anyone I like. Right?

That's taking your reasoning and following it to it's logical conclusion. The reality is that a woman has the right to deny me her company for any reason she chooses or for none at all. And by doing so, she has not denied me the right to a woman's company.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2013, 01:12 PM
RE: Couple denied service at cake shoppe due to being "abominations of the lord"
(03-03-2013 01:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your ideologically-driven argument is getting tiresome. You and I will not see eye-to-eye on law.

You seem to think every law is coercive, every law is violence.

Have a nice time in your fantasy land.
Personal attacks won't advance your argument. All my positions are based on first principles and the logical application thereof. Ideology is opinion based and you know that.

That said, all laws are based on the threat of violence. If they weren't they'd be suggestions.

That you're not comfortable with that truth does not reflect on me.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2013, 01:14 PM
RE: Couple denied service at cake shoppe due to being "abominations of the lord"
(03-03-2013 11:55 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  "There is a reason for that law. It is to prevent discrimination against classes of people."

I know the reason for the law, but thanks for sharing.


"That is why what they did was and is wrong."


What they did was wrong because they're bigots, not because there's a law. That wrong is a moral wrong that doesn't involve force or coercion. The people they refused to serve were not denied the right to have a cake. They were simply refused service by one company. If you think it's morally just to force people to interact with one another, then why not a law that forces women to date men they don't like? After all, if I want to date a woman I should be able to. What gives her the right to discriminate against me? I'm not a rapist, a Nazi, a child molester or any other thing that society has deemed abhorrent, so I should be able to date anyone I like. Right?

That's taking your reasoning and following it to it's logical conclusion. The reality is that a woman has the right to deny me her company for any reason she chooses or for none at all. And by doing so, she has not denied me the right to a woman's company.
You continue to ignore the reason for the law on public accommodation and that it is applicable to businesses, not to personal relationships.

The owners of the cake shop are not required to associate with anyone, but as a business they are required to serve the public.

Your 'logical conclusion' is illogical.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2013, 01:26 PM
RE: Couple denied service at cake shoppe due to being "abominations of the lord"
"You continue to ignore the reason for the law on public accommodation
and that it is applicable to businesses, not to personal relationships."

It's not that I'm ignoring it, it's that the reason is, in and of itself, illogical. To begin with, there is no "business". There is only people. People who discriminate every single day of their lives about any number of different things. I discriminate against McDonalds every time I choose to buy a burger from someone else. Have I harmed the Croc family? Of course not.

The logical inconsistency comes when you attempt to sort human beings into groups and force some of them to interact with others while not forcing others to do the same. I understand your reasons and I agree that bigotry is a cancer on society. I also understand that force against people, not the concept business, isn't the answer.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2013, 01:31 PM
RE: Couple denied service at cake shoppe due to being "abominations of the lord"
(03-03-2013 01:12 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(03-03-2013 01:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your ideologically-driven argument is getting tiresome. You and I will not see eye-to-eye on law.

You seem to think every law is coercive, every law is violence.

Have a nice time in your fantasy land.
Personal attacks won't advance your argument. All my positions are based on first principles and the logical application thereof. Ideology is opinion based and you know that.

That said, all laws are based on the threat of violence. If they weren't they'd be suggestions.

That you're not comfortable with that truth does not reflect on me.

I agree that laws are backed by the threat of a cost, not necessarily violence.

Laws are required because people are not always ethical or rational, they are more typically self-interested, uncaring, and callous. It is a fantasy to think otherwise.

That is why we have government and law; it is why peaceful anarchy is not feasible.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: