Colorado is after this guy.

[Cecilie1200]

Jim Crow laws were laws. People were punished for violating them. I don't see the baker, nor his friends, suggesting that other bakeries be punished for not joining their campaign. They're just promoting their bad ideas. People should be free to do that.

Bad actions, not bad ideas. Again, I see PA laws as valid only when applied to actual PA's. When you allow the public on your property for commerce, you open yourself up to regulation.

First of all, just living in this country with it's nosy, over-controlling government opens you to regulation. Second, there still remains a difference between "open to regulation" and "therefore, the government can just make all the decisions". At some point, we have got to apply some common sense and actually ask ourselves, "SHOULD the government regulate this?" not just "Is it possible for the government to regulate this?"

I agree with you 100%. to me the line is set when you invite the public onto your property to engage in commerce, ONLY when it comes to point of sale transactions of goods displayed or offered in the public space.

So you have to sell a cupcake to the gay man, but you don't have to cater his wedding.

To me, the line is, "Does the government NEED to regulate this behavior?" I don't consider this to be something the government needs to involve itself in. It does not even come close to rising to the level of community need that, for example, public health regulations do.

It was needed back in the day, and to me it does prevent more issues than it creates. do you really want someone selling packaged cupcakes picking and choosing who they will sell to?

1) This is not "back in the day".

2) Right and wrong are not decided by convenience or expedience.

3) I have no problem with the idea of people deciding not to do business with people they don't want to do business with. You seem to take it as a given that because YOU consider it an ultimate good to force people to behave a way they don't actually feel or believe, EVERYONE views it that way. I don't. What I really want is for people to understand that all other people are children of God, and act in accordance with that. But I have to accept that I can't force that to be the case, and trying to do so doesn't work.

 

[martybegan]

Bad actions, not bad ideas. Again, I see PA laws as valid only when applied to actual PA's. When you allow the public on your property for commerce, you open yourself up to regulation.

First of all, just living in this country with it's nosy, over-controlling government opens you to regulation. Second, there still remains a difference between "open to regulation" and "therefore, the government can just make all the decisions". At some point, we have got to apply some common sense and actually ask ourselves, "SHOULD the government regulate this?" not just "Is it possible for the government to regulate this?"

I agree with you 100%. to me the line is set when you invite the public onto your property to engage in commerce, ONLY when it comes to point of sale transactions of goods displayed or offered in the public space.

So you have to sell a cupcake to the gay man, but you don't have to cater his wedding.

To me, the line is, "Does the government NEED to regulate this behavior?" I don't consider this to be something the government needs to involve itself in. It does not even come close to rising to the level of community need that, for example, public health regulations do.

It was needed back in the day, and to me it does prevent more issues than it creates. do you really want someone selling packaged cupcakes picking and choosing who they will sell to?

1) This is not "back in the day".

2) Right and wrong are not decided by convenience or expedience.

3) I have no problem with the idea of people deciding not to do business with people they don't want to do business with. You seem to take it as a given that because YOU consider it an ultimate good to force people to behave a way they don't actually feel or believe, EVERYONE views it that way. I don't. What I really want is for people to understand that all other people are children of God, and act in accordance with that. But I have to accept that I can't force that to be the case, and trying to do so doesn't work.

It would create a ton of issues, confrontations and basically make point of sale commerce a hodgepodge of tit for tat "I WONT SERVE YOU YOUR DANISH" screaming matches and occasional fights.

The ivory tower solution is to let the market handle it, the real world is far messier, and saying point of sale items have to be sold to anyone with the $$ in hand isn't going to destroy liberty for all.

Now forcing the same rules to extend to ANY form of commerce is a different story.

We are on the same side of the street, it's just my line is further towards the middle of the road than yours. And Dblack is hanging out on the sidewalk.

 

[dblack]

No, you really haven't. Jim Crow laws were backed by the force of law. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a "de facto" law, but the baker, for example, wasn't coercing others into joining him on his campaign against gay marriage. He was just refusing to accommodate one.

What i am saying is PA laws prevent a group of people from creating a situation where even without a law in place, the same actions occur as if there was a law.

Actions, not thoughts.

Jim Crow laws were laws. People were punished for violating them. I don't see the baker, nor his friends, suggesting that other bakeries be punished for not joining their campaign. They're just promoting their bad ideas. People should be free to do that.

Bad actions, not bad ideas.

Not true. Take away the bad ideas and the actions are perfectly legal.

Only for specific ideas, and yes i agree that is an issue.

Are you saying it should be illegal to treat customer unequally for any reason?

 

[martybegan]

What i am saying is PA laws prevent a group of people from creating a situation where even without a law in place, the same actions occur as if there was a law.

Actions, not thoughts.

Jim Crow laws were laws. People were punished for violating them. I don't see the baker, nor his friends, suggesting that other bakeries be punished for not joining their campaign. They're just promoting their bad ideas. People should be free to do that.

Bad actions, not bad ideas.

Not true. Take away the bad ideas and the actions are perfectly legal.

Only for specific ideas, and yes i agree that is an issue.

Are you saying it should be illegal to treat customer unequally for any reason?

Nope, again I don't believe in absolutes.

No shoes, no shirt, no service can be applied, and of course if you don't have the $$, you don't get the product.

My views on this are admittedly messy, but things aren't supposed to be easy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

First of all, just living in this country with it's nosy, over-controlling government opens you to regulation. Second, there still remains a difference between "open to regulation" and "therefore, the government can just make all the decisions". At some point, we have got to apply some common sense and actually ask ourselves, "SHOULD the government regulate this?" not just "Is it possible for the government to regulate this?"

I agree with you 100%. to me the line is set when you invite the public onto your property to engage in commerce, ONLY when it comes to point of sale transactions of goods displayed or offered in the public space.

So you have to sell a cupcake to the gay man, but you don't have to cater his wedding.

To me, the line is, "Does the government NEED to regulate this behavior?" I don't consider this to be something the government needs to involve itself in. It does not even come close to rising to the level of community need that, for example, public health regulations do.

It was needed back in the day, and to me it does prevent more issues than it creates. do you really want someone selling packaged cupcakes picking and choosing who they will sell to?

1) This is not "back in the day".

2) Right and wrong are not decided by convenience or expedience.

3) I have no problem with the idea of people deciding not to do business with people they don't want to do business with. You seem to take it as a given that because YOU consider it an ultimate good to force people to behave a way they don't actually feel or believe, EVERYONE views it that way. I don't. What I really want is for people to understand that all other people are children of God, and act in accordance with that. But I have to accept that I can't force that to be the case, and trying to do so doesn't work.

It would create a ton of issues, confrontations and basically make point of sale commerce a hodgepodge of tit for tat "I WONT SERVE YOU YOUR DANISH" screaming matches and occasional fights.

The ivory tower solution is to let the market handle it, the real world is far messier, and saying point of sale items have to be sold to anyone with the $$ in hand isn't going to destroy liberty for all.

Now forcing the same rules to extend to ANY form of commerce is a different story.

We are on the same side of the street, it's just my line is further towards the middle of the road than yours. And Dblack is hanging out on the sidewalk.

Human interaction is often laden with nasty, confrontational behavior. Sorry, but I don't see it as the government's job to make people get along and pretend to like each other. If it extends to the point of violating criminal law, THEN it is the government's concern.

The free market is not "ivory tower", nor does the fact that real life is messy invalidate it. And saying, "It's just a little bit of liberty. It's not all of it" justifies nothing.

And yes, I'm aware that we're largely in agreement on what is good, and debating only on a difference in were to draw the boundaries. I do not believe government can change what people think and believe, and I think that attempting to by requiring them to pretend to think and believe something else only exacerbates their undesirable attitudes and sets them in stone.

 

[martybegan]

I agree with you 100%. to me the line is set when you invite the public onto your property to engage in commerce, ONLY when it comes to point of sale transactions of goods displayed or offered in the public space.

So you have to sell a cupcake to the gay man, but you don't have to cater his wedding.

To me, the line is, "Does the government NEED to regulate this behavior?" I don't consider this to be something the government needs to involve itself in. It does not even come close to rising to the level of community need that, for example, public health regulations do.

It was needed back in the day, and to me it does prevent more issues than it creates. do you really want someone selling packaged cupcakes picking and choosing who they will sell to?

1) This is not "back in the day".

2) Right and wrong are not decided by convenience or expedience.

3) I have no problem with the idea of people deciding not to do business with people they don't want to do business with. You seem to take it as a given that because YOU consider it an ultimate good to force people to behave a way they don't actually feel or believe, EVERYONE views it that way. I don't. What I really want is for people to understand that all other people are children of God, and act in accordance with that. But I have to accept that I can't force that to be the case, and trying to do so doesn't work.

It would create a ton of issues, confrontations and basically make point of sale commerce a hodgepodge of tit for tat "I WONT SERVE YOU YOUR DANISH" screaming matches and occasional fights.

The ivory tower solution is to let the market handle it, the real world is far messier, and saying point of sale items have to be sold to anyone with the $$ in hand isn't going to destroy liberty for all.

Now forcing the same rules to extend to ANY form of commerce is a different story.

We are on the same side of the street, it's just my line is further towards the middle of the road than yours. And Dblack is hanging out on the sidewalk.

Human interaction is often laden with nasty, confrontational behavior. Sorry, but I don't see it as the government's job to make people get along and pretend to like each other. If it extends to the point of violating criminal law, THEN it is the government's concern.

The free market is not "ivory tower", nor does the fact that real life is messy invalidate it. And saying, "It's just a little bit of liberty. It's not all of it" justifies nothing.

And yes, I'm aware that we're largely in agreement on what is good, and debating only on a difference in were to draw the boundaries. I do not believe government can change what people think and believe, and I think that attempting to by requiring them to pretend to think and believe something else only exacerbates their undesirable attitudes and sets them in stone.

We allow it to regulate interactions as between cars in the road, or pedestrians crossing the street. We could all just wing it, but we have decided that is worse than a bit of regulation one has to follow in public.

To me allowing some owner to deny a pre-packaged cupcake to a gay person with $$ in their hand is simply not a hill to die on.

Fighting the forcing of that same person to provide a wedding cake against their will on the other hand is a hill to die on.

 

[dblack]

Jim Crow laws were laws. People were punished for violating them. I don't see the baker, nor his friends, suggesting that other bakeries be punished for not joining their campaign. They're just promoting their bad ideas. People should be free to do that.

Bad actions, not bad ideas.

Not true. Take away the bad ideas and the actions are perfectly legal.

Only for specific ideas, and yes i agree that is an issue.

Are you saying it should be illegal to treat customer unequally for any reason?

Nope, again I don't believe in absolutes.

No shoes, no shirt, no service can be applied, and of course if you don't have the $$, you don't get the product.

My views on this are admittedly messy, but things aren't supposed to be easy.

But in your view government should be the 'decider' regarding which forms of bias are allowed and which aren't? Maybe, instead of dinking around with "protected classes", we should just publish a list of legal biases.

 

[Cecilie1200]

To me, the line is, "Does the government NEED to regulate this behavior?" I don't consider this to be something the government needs to involve itself in. It does not even come close to rising to the level of community need that, for example, public health regulations do.

It was needed back in the day, and to me it does prevent more issues than it creates. do you really want someone selling packaged cupcakes picking and choosing who they will sell to?

1) This is not "back in the day".

2) Right and wrong are not decided by convenience or expedience.

3) I have no problem with the idea of people deciding not to do business with people they don't want to do business with. You seem to take it as a given that because YOU consider it an ultimate good to force people to behave a way they don't actually feel or believe, EVERYONE views it that way. I don't. What I really want is for people to understand that all other people are children of God, and act in accordance with that. But I have to accept that I can't force that to be the case, and trying to do so doesn't work.

It would create a ton of issues, confrontations and basically make point of sale commerce a hodgepodge of tit for tat "I WONT SERVE YOU YOUR DANISH" screaming matches and occasional fights.

The ivory tower solution is to let the market handle it, the real world is far messier, and saying point of sale items have to be sold to anyone with the $$ in hand isn't going to destroy liberty for all.

Now forcing the same rules to extend to ANY form of commerce is a different story.

We are on the same side of the street, it's just my line is further towards the middle of the road than yours. And Dblack is hanging out on the sidewalk.

Human interaction is often laden with nasty, confrontational behavior. Sorry, but I don't see it as the government's job to make people get along and pretend to like each other. If it extends to the point of violating criminal law, THEN it is the government's concern.

The free market is not "ivory tower", nor does the fact that real life is messy invalidate it. And saying, "It's just a little bit of liberty. It's not all of it" justifies nothing.

And yes, I'm aware that we're largely in agreement on what is good, and debating only on a difference in were to draw the boundaries. I do not believe government can change what people think and believe, and I think that attempting to by requiring them to pretend to think and believe something else only exacerbates their undesirable attitudes and sets them in stone.

We allow it to regulate interactions as between cars in the road, or pedestrians crossing the street. We could all just wing it, but we have decided that is worse than a bit of regulation one has to follow in public.

To me allowing some owner to deny a pre-packaged cupcake to a gay person with $$ in their hand is simply not a hill to die on.

Fighting the forcing of that same person to provide a wedding cake against their will on the other hand is a hill to die on.

We allow the government to regulate interactions on roads because roads are public property, funded by tax dollars. We are also talking about public safety, as in actual, physical harm being possible, not just hurt feelings.

Allowing business owners to say who they will or won't do business with on a daily point-of-sale basis may not be your idea of a hill to die on, but I don't think you can separate it off and say, "Just THIS little piece of First Amendment freedom, you won't miss it, and it won't affect anything else." I personally think I'm not willing to give up ANY freedom, for anyone, without a damned good reason for it that goes beyond, "It's not nice, and hey, it's no big deal". Nope, sorry. I'm not interested in giving the government a foot in the door so they can work their way up to something that IS a hill to die on. Better, in my eyes, to hold your ground and demand a good reason on EVERY encroachment.

 

[martybegan]

Bad actions, not bad ideas.

Not true. Take away the bad ideas and the actions are perfectly legal.

Only for specific ideas, and yes i agree that is an issue.

Are you saying it should be illegal to treat customer unequally for any reason?

Nope, again I don't believe in absolutes.

No shoes, no shirt, no service can be applied, and of course if you don't have the $$, you don't get the product.

My views on this are admittedly messy, but things aren't supposed to be easy.

But in your view government should be the 'decider' regarding which forms of bias are allowed and which aren't? Maybe, instead of dinking around with "protected classes", we should just publish a list of legal biases.

Minimal decider, which is what government at the basis of things is.

And it's less WHAT forms of bias as opposed to WHERE bias is allowed.

 

[martybegan]

It was needed back in the day, and to me it does prevent more issues than it creates. do you really want someone selling packaged cupcakes picking and choosing who they will sell to?

1) This is not "back in the day".

2) Right and wrong are not decided by convenience or expedience.

3) I have no problem with the idea of people deciding not to do business with people they don't want to do business with. You seem to take it as a given that because YOU consider it an ultimate good to force people to behave a way they don't actually feel or believe, EVERYONE views it that way. I don't. What I really want is for people to understand that all other people are children of God, and act in accordance with that. But I have to accept that I can't force that to be the case, and trying to do so doesn't work.

It would create a ton of issues, confrontations and basically make point of sale commerce a hodgepodge of tit for tat "I WONT SERVE YOU YOUR DANISH" screaming matches and occasional fights.

The ivory tower solution is to let the market handle it, the real world is far messier, and saying point of sale items have to be sold to anyone with the $$ in hand isn't going to destroy liberty for all.

Now forcing the same rules to extend to ANY form of commerce is a different story.

We are on the same side of the street, it's just my line is further towards the middle of the road than yours. And Dblack is hanging out on the sidewalk.

Human interaction is often laden with nasty, confrontational behavior. Sorry, but I don't see it as the government's job to make people get along and pretend to like each other. If it extends to the point of violating criminal law, THEN it is the government's concern.

The free market is not "ivory tower", nor does the fact that real life is messy invalidate it. And saying, "It's just a little bit of liberty. It's not all of it" justifies nothing.

And yes, I'm aware that we're largely in agreement on what is good, and debating only on a difference in were to draw the boundaries. I do not believe government can change what people think and believe, and I think that attempting to by requiring them to pretend to think and believe something else only exacerbates their undesirable attitudes and sets them in stone.

We allow it to regulate interactions as between cars in the road, or pedestrians crossing the street. We could all just wing it, but we have decided that is worse than a bit of regulation one has to follow in public.

To me allowing some owner to deny a pre-packaged cupcake to a gay person with $$ in their hand is simply not a hill to die on.

Fighting the forcing of that same person to provide a wedding cake against their will on the other hand is a hill to die on.

We allow the government to regulate interactions on roads because roads are public property, funded by tax dollars. We are also talking about public safety, as in actual, physical harm being possible, not just hurt feelings.

Allowing business owners to say who they will or won't do business with on a daily point-of-sale basis may not be your idea of a hill to die on, but I don't think you can separate it off and say, "Just THIS little piece of First Amendment freedom, you won't miss it, and it won't affect anything else." I personally think I'm not willing to give up ANY freedom, for anyone, without a damned good reason for it that goes beyond, "It's not nice, and hey, it's no big deal". Nope, sorry. I'm not interested in giving the government a foot in the door so they can work their way up to something that IS a hill to die on. Better, in my eyes, to hold your ground and demand a good reason on EVERY encroachment.

We also allow those rules to extend to private parking lots, as we allow cops to enforce laws there as well.

I think you have to separate it off to get the greater freedom of separating public accommodations from general commerce.

If you don't want government's foot in the door, don't invite the public on your property for commerce. Make them stand on the sidewalk and do transactions in public only (I know that's a stupid example, but might be a compromise)

 

[dblack]

Minimal decider, which is what government at the basis of things is.

It's exactly that notion, that government is a general-purpose "decider" for society (minimal, or otherwise) that libertarians oppose. Government should never be seen as the "manager" for society. Government should be viewed as our security guard, not our boss.

 

[Rambunctious]

I'll bake em a cake....I'll bake em a cake they will never forget....fucking fascists militant homo's.....

 

[dblack]

We allow the government to regulate interactions on roads because roads are public property, funded by tax dollars.

That's why I've always considered PA laws a trojan for socialists. They promote the notion that businesses are, or should be, to a greater extent, public property - a part of the commons.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not true. Take away the bad ideas and the actions are perfectly legal.

Only for specific ideas, and yes i agree that is an issue.

Are you saying it should be illegal to treat customer unequally for any reason?

Nope, again I don't believe in absolutes.

No shoes, no shirt, no service can be applied, and of course if you don't have the $$, you don't get the product.

My views on this are admittedly messy, but things aren't supposed to be easy.

But in your view government should be the 'decider' regarding which forms of bias are allowed and which aren't? Maybe, instead of dinking around with "protected classes", we should just publish a list of legal biases.

Minimal decider, which is what government at the basis of things is.

And it's less WHAT forms of bias as opposed to WHERE bias is allowed.

I have a problem with bias being "allowed" in the first place. Not a fan of the Thought Police.

 

[Cecilie1200]

1) This is not "back in the day".

2) Right and wrong are not decided by convenience or expedience.

3) I have no problem with the idea of people deciding not to do business with people they don't want to do business with. You seem to take it as a given that because YOU consider it an ultimate good to force people to behave a way they don't actually feel or believe, EVERYONE views it that way. I don't. What I really want is for people to understand that all other people are children of God, and act in accordance with that. But I have to accept that I can't force that to be the case, and trying to do so doesn't work.

It would create a ton of issues, confrontations and basically make point of sale commerce a hodgepodge of tit for tat "I WONT SERVE YOU YOUR DANISH" screaming matches and occasional fights.

The ivory tower solution is to let the market handle it, the real world is far messier, and saying point of sale items have to be sold to anyone with the $$ in hand isn't going to destroy liberty for all.

Now forcing the same rules to extend to ANY form of commerce is a different story.

We are on the same side of the street, it's just my line is further towards the middle of the road than yours. And Dblack is hanging out on the sidewalk.

Human interaction is often laden with nasty, confrontational behavior. Sorry, but I don't see it as the government's job to make people get along and pretend to like each other. If it extends to the point of violating criminal law, THEN it is the government's concern.

The free market is not "ivory tower", nor does the fact that real life is messy invalidate it. And saying, "It's just a little bit of liberty. It's not all of it" justifies nothing.

And yes, I'm aware that we're largely in agreement on what is good, and debating only on a difference in were to draw the boundaries. I do not believe government can change what people think and believe, and I think that attempting to by requiring them to pretend to think and believe something else only exacerbates their undesirable attitudes and sets them in stone.

We allow it to regulate interactions as between cars in the road, or pedestrians crossing the street. We could all just wing it, but we have decided that is worse than a bit of regulation one has to follow in public.

To me allowing some owner to deny a pre-packaged cupcake to a gay person with $$ in their hand is simply not a hill to die on.

Fighting the forcing of that same person to provide a wedding cake against their will on the other hand is a hill to die on.

We allow the government to regulate interactions on roads because roads are public property, funded by tax dollars. We are also talking about public safety, as in actual, physical harm being possible, not just hurt feelings.

Allowing business owners to say who they will or won't do business with on a daily point-of-sale basis may not be your idea of a hill to die on, but I don't think you can separate it off and say, "Just THIS little piece of First Amendment freedom, you won't miss it, and it won't affect anything else." I personally think I'm not willing to give up ANY freedom, for anyone, without a damned good reason for it that goes beyond, "It's not nice, and hey, it's no big deal". Nope, sorry. I'm not interested in giving the government a foot in the door so they can work their way up to something that IS a hill to die on. Better, in my eyes, to hold your ground and demand a good reason on EVERY encroachment.

We also allow those rules to extend to private parking lots, as we allow cops to enforce laws there as well.

I think you have to separate it off to get the greater freedom of separating public accommodations from general commerce.

If you don't want government's foot in the door, don't invite the public on your property for commerce. Make them stand on the sidewalk and do transactions in public only (I know that's a stupid example, but might be a compromise)

Cops are allowed to enforce laws involving personal injury and property damage everywhere. Still does not and will not make "hurt feelings" comparable.

And don't even start with me on the "If you want your rights, then you have to forego making a living or owning a business" routine. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights are ANY Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms made dependent on giving up other rights and privileges as a citizen.

 

[martybegan]

Minimal decider, which is what government at the basis of things is.

It's exactly that notion, that government is a general-purpose "decider" for society (minimal, or otherwise) that libertarians oppose. Government should never be seen as the "manager" for society. Government should be viewed as our security guard, not our boss.

No, the police and military are the security guard, the government itself is an arbiter, with more power than just a guard does.

Government is overhead, and overhead entails a degree of management.

 

[martybegan]

Only for specific ideas, and yes i agree that is an issue.

Are you saying it should be illegal to treat customer unequally for any reason?

Nope, again I don't believe in absolutes.

No shoes, no shirt, no service can be applied, and of course if you don't have the $$, you don't get the product.

My views on this are admittedly messy, but things aren't supposed to be easy.

But in your view government should be the 'decider' regarding which forms of bias are allowed and which aren't? Maybe, instead of dinking around with "protected classes", we should just publish a list of legal biases.

Minimal decider, which is what government at the basis of things is.

And it's less WHAT forms of bias as opposed to WHERE bias is allowed.

I have a problem with bias being "allowed" in the first place. Not a fan of the Thought Police.

Then wouldn't you technically have a problem with bias NOT being allowed?

 

[martybegan]

It would create a ton of issues, confrontations and basically make point of sale commerce a hodgepodge of tit for tat "I WONT SERVE YOU YOUR DANISH" screaming matches and occasional fights.

The ivory tower solution is to let the market handle it, the real world is far messier, and saying point of sale items have to be sold to anyone with the $$ in hand isn't going to destroy liberty for all.

Now forcing the same rules to extend to ANY form of commerce is a different story.

We are on the same side of the street, it's just my line is further towards the middle of the road than yours. And Dblack is hanging out on the sidewalk.

Human interaction is often laden with nasty, confrontational behavior. Sorry, but I don't see it as the government's job to make people get along and pretend to like each other. If it extends to the point of violating criminal law, THEN it is the government's concern.

The free market is not "ivory tower", nor does the fact that real life is messy invalidate it. And saying, "It's just a little bit of liberty. It's not all of it" justifies nothing.

And yes, I'm aware that we're largely in agreement on what is good, and debating only on a difference in were to draw the boundaries. I do not believe government can change what people think and believe, and I think that attempting to by requiring them to pretend to think and believe something else only exacerbates their undesirable attitudes and sets them in stone.

We allow it to regulate interactions as between cars in the road, or pedestrians crossing the street. We could all just wing it, but we have decided that is worse than a bit of regulation one has to follow in public.

To me allowing some owner to deny a pre-packaged cupcake to a gay person with $$ in their hand is simply not a hill to die on.

Fighting the forcing of that same person to provide a wedding cake against their will on the other hand is a hill to die on.

We allow the government to regulate interactions on roads because roads are public property, funded by tax dollars. We are also talking about public safety, as in actual, physical harm being possible, not just hurt feelings.

Allowing business owners to say who they will or won't do business with on a daily point-of-sale basis may not be your idea of a hill to die on, but I don't think you can separate it off and say, "Just THIS little piece of First Amendment freedom, you won't miss it, and it won't affect anything else." I personally think I'm not willing to give up ANY freedom, for anyone, without a damned good reason for it that goes beyond, "It's not nice, and hey, it's no big deal". Nope, sorry. I'm not interested in giving the government a foot in the door so they can work their way up to something that IS a hill to die on. Better, in my eyes, to hold your ground and demand a good reason on EVERY encroachment.

We also allow those rules to extend to private parking lots, as we allow cops to enforce laws there as well.

I think you have to separate it off to get the greater freedom of separating public accommodations from general commerce.

If you don't want government's foot in the door, don't invite the public on your property for commerce. Make them stand on the sidewalk and do transactions in public only (I know that's a stupid example, but might be a compromise)

Cops are allowed to enforce laws involving personal injury and property damage everywhere. Still does not and will not make "hurt feelings" comparable.

And don't even start with me on the "If you want your rights, then you have to forego making a living or owning a business" routine. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights are ANY Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms made dependent on giving up other rights and privileges as a citizen.

I am not the one going there, the nanny state people are the ones going there. My point is fighting to remove PA laws entirely will probably never work, the best thing to do is limit them to actual PA's as much as possible.

Again, you don't see tons or even ounces of people wanting to deny service in point of sale things. Why fight for it if no one really wants it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Are you saying it should be illegal to treat customer unequally for any reason?

Nope, again I don't believe in absolutes.

No shoes, no shirt, no service can be applied, and of course if you don't have the $$, you don't get the product.

My views on this are admittedly messy, but things aren't supposed to be easy.

But in your view government should be the 'decider' regarding which forms of bias are allowed and which aren't? Maybe, instead of dinking around with "protected classes", we should just publish a list of legal biases.

Minimal decider, which is what government at the basis of things is.

And it's less WHAT forms of bias as opposed to WHERE bias is allowed.

I have a problem with bias being "allowed" in the first place. Not a fan of the Thought Police.

Then wouldn't you technically have a problem with bias NOT being allowed?

Let me clarify. I have a problem with the notion that thoughts and beliefs are things that government, or anyone else, should "allow". If there is anything in the universe that is mine and mine alone and no one else's to control or order, it is my thoughts and beliefs. And if they are NOT mine and mine alone, then nothing is, and there is no such thing as freedom at all.

 

[martybegan]

Nope, again I don't believe in absolutes.

No shoes, no shirt, no service can be applied, and of course if you don't have the $$, you don't get the product.

My views on this are admittedly messy, but things aren't supposed to be easy.

But in your view government should be the 'decider' regarding which forms of bias are allowed and which aren't? Maybe, instead of dinking around with "protected classes", we should just publish a list of legal biases.

Minimal decider, which is what government at the basis of things is.

And it's less WHAT forms of bias as opposed to WHERE bias is allowed.

I have a problem with bias being "allowed" in the first place. Not a fan of the Thought Police.

Then wouldn't you technically have a problem with bias NOT being allowed?

Let me clarify. I have a problem with the notion that thoughts and beliefs are things that government, or anyone else, should "allow". If there is anything in the universe that is mine and mine alone and no one else's to control or order, it is my thoughts and beliefs. And if they are NOT mine and mine alone, then nothing is, and there is no such thing as freedom at all.

That's nothing to disagree with. Now as an Engineer let me ask you how we implement that concept among everyone in the particular case of commerce, in PA's or by contract.