Oregon Couple refuses to pay damages to gays couple or comply with Gag Order
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-10-2015, 01:58 PM
RE: Oregon Couple refuses to pay damages to gays couple or comply with Gag Order
(07-10-2015 01:51 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  I'm really all about freedom. I say let businesses make their own decisions. Let them serve whoever they want. Obviously you missed the point I was trying to make with my post. They want to force businesses to serve customers they agree with (gay marriage, a constitutional right according to the supreme Court) but not force businesses to serve people carrying guns (also a constitutional right according to the supreme Court).

Your comment about the government building roads and such threw me off. So If I understand you correctly now, your position is that businesses should have the freedom to serve whomever they want but that you would personally like them to serve everyone?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2015, 02:14 PM
RE: Oregon Couple refuses to pay damages to gays couple or comply with Gag Order
(07-10-2015 01:58 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(07-10-2015 01:51 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  I'm really all about freedom. I say let businesses make their own decisions. Let them serve whoever they want. Obviously you missed the point I was trying to make with my post. They want to force businesses to serve customers they agree with (gay marriage, a constitutional right according to the supreme Court) but not force businesses to serve people carrying guns (also a constitutional right according to the supreme Court).

Your comment about the government building roads and such threw me off. So If I understand you correctly now, your position is that businesses should have the freedom to serve whomever they want but that you would personally like them to serve everyone?

My position is that the government shouldn't step in to force people to go against their beliefs, however, since the government HAS chosen to step in, they should prevent businesses from refusing services to anyone. Bearing arms is a constitutional right, no business that uses taxpayer funded roads and sidewalks should be allowed to discriminate against people exercising a constitutional right.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2015, 02:14 PM (This post was last modified: 07-10-2015 02:40 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Oregon Couple refuses to pay damages to gays couple or comply with Gag Order
(07-10-2015 01:05 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(07-10-2015 07:38 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  What a fucking idiot. But what we all do not do, is take out a license to operate a public business, you moron. Personal lives and personal choices are not public business decisions, you idiot. Have you ever considered taking a course in critical thinking ? Oh wait. You need a brain to do that.

I forgive you for calling me an idiot. What we all do, or nearly all of us do, is exchange goods and services(including our own labor) for the means of survival. The bakers have a human right to exchange their labor with whom they choose for the means of survival. You want to take that right away from them simply because they won't bake cakes for same sex weddings. This isn't a good reason to deny people their human rights.

Waa waa waa. Wrong again, Blowjob. People who set up public businesses in the US cannot discriminate on the basis some factors, whom they serve. They don't have to do this. They chose to go into this line of business. If they get away with this, they can do anything, such as not bake cakes for blacks, or inter-racial couples. If they don't want to accept the rules for commerce, they can do something else. No one is taking any survival right from them, (nice try, Gonzo). They can accept the conditions under which businesses are required to operate or go into a different line of work.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
07-10-2015, 02:31 PM
RE: Oregon Couple refuses to pay damages to gays couple or comply with Gag Order
(07-10-2015 02:14 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(07-10-2015 01:58 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Your comment about the government building roads and such threw me off. So If I understand you correctly now, your position is that businesses should have the freedom to serve whomever they want but that you would personally like them to serve everyone?

My position is that the government shouldn't step in to force people to go against their beliefs, however, since the government HAS chosen to step in, they should prevent businesses from refusing services to anyone. Bearing arms is a constitutional right, no business that uses taxpayer funded roads and sidewalks should be allowed to discriminate against people exercising a constitutional right.

Freedom of speech is a constitutional right. Doesn't mean you can shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre.

But seriously:
How do you justify reifying "the market" as anything other than a sum total of individual interactions? An idealised market demands at least lip service to the idea of equal access and participation. If prejudicial beliefs predominate and statistically significant portions of any given market reflect those beliefs, those things are impossible.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
07-10-2015, 02:44 PM
RE: Oregon Couple refuses to pay damages to gays couple or comply with Gag Order
You know *why* we require laws and all that shit right? Because otherwise society *does not function*. Everyone's off murderin' everyone else and taking their stuff. So sure, maybe shit's not gonna fit together quite right and some guy will get done for innocently walking his pet AK47 somewhere *which is his right*, whereas elsewhere some other fool will get done for failing to treat everyone equally, but *fuck sakes* can we get some pragmatism here and just agree that the dickheads in question did get a fair trial, they got their best shot to present a decent reason for why the fuck they were such colossal dickheads, and they were adjudged to be in the wrong. So fuck them.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
07-10-2015, 02:44 PM
RE: Oregon Couple refuses to pay damages to gays couple or comply with Gag Order
(07-10-2015 02:31 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(07-10-2015 02:14 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  My position is that the government shouldn't step in to force people to go against their beliefs, however, since the government HAS chosen to step in, they should prevent businesses from refusing services to anyone. Bearing arms is a constitutional right, no business that uses taxpayer funded roads and sidewalks should be allowed to discriminate against people exercising a constitutional right.

Freedom of speech is a constitutional right. Doesn't mean you can shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre.

But seriously:
How do you justify reifying "the market" as anything other than a sum total of individual interactions? An idealised market demands at least lip service to the idea of equal access and participation. If prejudicial beliefs predominate and statistically significant portions of any given market reflect those beliefs, those things are impossible.

I was in a bar once, down in San Diego, CA. I had just turned 21, so this must have been 15-16 years ago. I was in the Navy at the time. I was drinking a beer and talking to the bartender, who happened to be the bar owner. Somehow we started talking about religion, and I mentioned that I was an atheist. He immediately snapped, began yelling at me to get out of his bar. Said he didn't serve people that didn't believe in God.

Not once did I even think about filing a lawsuit. Not once did it even register to me that what he did was wrong. All I could think was, well, its his bar, I'll follow his rules and leave. I really had no concept that I was wronged in any way. In fact, I remember thinking he was very brave for standing up for what he believes in. Kind of stupid, because another bar got the rest of my paycheck that night.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2015, 02:53 PM
RE: Oregon Couple refuses to pay damages to gays couple or comply with Gag Order
(07-10-2015 02:44 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(07-10-2015 02:31 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Freedom of speech is a constitutional right. Doesn't mean you can shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre.

But seriously:
How do you justify reifying "the market" as anything other than a sum total of individual interactions? An idealised market demands at least lip service to the idea of equal access and participation. If prejudicial beliefs predominate and statistically significant portions of any given market reflect those beliefs, those things are impossible.

I was in a bar once, down in San Diego, CA. I had just turned 21, so this must have been 15-16 years ago. I was in the Navy at the time. I was drinking a beer and talking to the bartender, who happened to be the bar owner. Somehow we started talking about religion, and I mentioned that I was an atheist. He immediately snapped, began yelling at me to get out of his bar. Said he didn't serve people that didn't believe in God.

Not once did I even think about filing a lawsuit. Not once did it even register to me that what he did was wrong. All I could think was, well, its his bar, I'll follow his rules and leave. I really had no concept that I was wronged in any way. In fact, I remember thinking he was very brave for standing up for what he believes in. Kind of stupid, because another bar got the rest of my paycheck that night.

That... doesn't constitute an answer. At all.
(you are no doubt aware that anecdotes are not data - in much the same way, they are not generalised policy positions either)

What if many business owners refuse to serve you? What if most do? In the stronger case of a local or natural monopoly the opinions of a single person might dicate your access; is that fair? Is that acceptable?

In other words - "there was once an instance in which discrimination against me did not meaningfully affect me" "there are no instances in which discrimination against an individual/group can meaningfully affect them".

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
07-10-2015, 05:13 PM
RE: Oregon Couple refuses to pay damages to gays couple or comply with Gag Order
(06-10-2015 11:29 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(06-10-2015 11:11 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  If you are a baker in Oregon, you best bake them gay wedding cakes when requested if you know what is good for you.

If the baker is busy or have other cakes scheduled for that same day, they can totally refuse, doesn't matter what the cake is for.

Usually with many wedding cakes that involve multiple levels, the baker also delivers the cake and sets it up -- places the cake topper, tidies it up, so it's not just about baking a cake.

Doesn't matter. If that is the service offered, it is offered to all. Drinking Beverage

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
07-10-2015, 05:16 PM
RE: Oregon Couple refuses to pay damages to gays couple or comply with Gag Order
(06-10-2015 11:43 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  What if we looked at this another way? We all know they violated Oregon law because they refused service based on sexual orientation of the customer, or at least that's what we were told. But did they really? Was it the sexual orientation of the buyer that was the deciding factor? Or was it the gay wedding itself they were against. What if a straight guy walks into this bakery and wants to order a cake for a friend's gay wedding, and they refused? The customer is straight, where is the violation? They are actually refusing to provide service to the wedding itself. A wedding isnt a protected class by itself. I've seen stories of bakeries and flower shops that have sold their products to gay people over the years, for valentines day, birthdays etc. But they didn't sell to the same people for the wedding because they were against the gay wedding. I hope I explained that in a way everyone understands it.

And as mom just explained, sometimes the baker is required to actually show up to the event, set up the cake or flowers etc, which is forcing them to be a participant. I definitely disagree with that.

Calling it 'participating' is a stretch.

The happy couple, their families, guests, photographer, etc. are nowhere near the venue when the cake is delivered and set up.

They aren't participating in squat - they are delivering a cake for a party.

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
07-10-2015, 05:20 PM
RE: Oregon Couple refuses to pay damages to gays couple or comply with Gag Order
(06-10-2015 12:20 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(06-10-2015 12:07 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You're right of course. Gay Weddings are not a protected class. But it doesn't matter. Bakers which are against gay weddings must be rehabilitated.....according to the state of Oregon.

"“Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate. The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate.” - Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian

How would the atheists here feel if the state decided to rehabilitate them?

Which brings me to my ultimate point. Which is a worse crime, refusing to make cake for a gay wedding, when many other options are available to the customer, or forcing someone to go against their deeply held religious beliefs? I've been an atheist my entire life, I think some of the things religious people believe are down right nutty, but even I can see the answer here. Both are a form of discrimination, but the government is only protecting one side, when the Constitution protects both, I believe. In this case, the Oregon government has said, "we don't care what your religious beliefs are, it means nothing, you will do what we say." So much for free exercise.

The reason for the law is to prevent institutionalized discrimination.

If you don't understand that, you don't know your history. Where do we draw the line? Right where it is currently drawn; there is nowhere else to draw it.

Heywood's argument is misguided and ignorant - I'm sorry you're following that bandwagon.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: