Colorado is after this guy.

[dblack]

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?

Because, despite your dismissing the point as "absolutist", the law operates on precedent and principles. If we allow government the power to ban biases that the current majority doesn't like, another majority will come along with a different agenda and different biases to ban. The Alex Jones dust-up is a great example.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Three reasons.

1) Right is right, and wrong is wrong, and it is always incumbent on good people to recognize and state which is which.

2) I have little patience with weaseling around and twisting words and laws into pretzels to defend the rights of people like Mr. Phillips, when simply stating what is right would accomplish it much better. It is silly to me to spend time drawing useless distinctions like "artistic expression" and "contracted service", when the truth is that it's his business and his beliefs, and that should be the end of it.

3) PA laws, like all social justice engineering, are the gift that keeps on giving. They start out with "just to correct this one injustice", and then they hang around, creating more and more "injustices" they must correct, rather than simply going away when their purpose is served. Whatever remnants of true bigotry still exist out there are far better eradicated by allowing their owners to expose them publicly, and be educated by the community around them, than they ever will be by government mandating that they pretend something they don't really believe. Meanwhile, we would be free of increasing attempts to use PA laws as bludgeons to beat to death anyone who dares hold an opinion the SJWs decree is "not allowed".

 

[martybegan]

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?

Because, despite your dismissing the point as "absolutist", the law operates on precedent and principles. If we allow government the power to ban biases that the current majority doesn't like, another majority will come along with a different agenda and different biases to ban. The Alex Jones dust-up is a great example.

Actually when you say point of sale items are for all comers, you remove the ability of the majority to pick and choose biases.

 

[martybegan]

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?

Three reasons.

1) Right is right, and wrong is wrong, and it is always incumbent on good people to recognize and state which is which.

2) I have little patience with weaseling around and twisting words and laws into pretzels to defend the rights of people like Mr. Phillips, when simply stating what is right would accomplish it much better. It is silly to me to spend time drawing useless distinctions like "artistic expression" and "contracted service", when the truth is that it's his business and his beliefs, and that should be the end of it.

3) PA laws, like all social justice engineering, are the gift that keeps on giving. They start out with "just to correct this one injustice", and then they hang around, creating more and more "injustices" they must correct, rather than simply going away when their purpose is served. Whatever remnants of true bigotry still exist out there are far better eradicated by allowing their owners to expose them publicly, and be educated by the community around them, than they ever will be by government mandating that they pretend something they don't really believe. Meanwhile, we would be free of increasing attempts to use PA laws as bludgeons to beat to death anyone who dares hold an opinion the SJWs decree is "not allowed".

1) At a base level that is true, however only for obvious things. The people trying to force compliance or else think they are on the side of good as well

2) In a complex society sometime complex solutions are needed.

3) if properly applied, they allow commerce for point of sale items and transactions where the public is invited to occur without needless picking and choosing. Picking and choosing can be then reserved for contracted services.

 

[dblack]

Actually when you say point of sale items are for all comers, you remove the ability of the majority to pick and choose biases.

Well, the businesses in question aren't saying that. They're saying the opposite.

But with regard to the majority picking and choosing biases, did you just say earlier you didn't think all biases should be illegal? How does that happen without the majority picking and choosing?

 

[martybegan]

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?

Because, despite your dismissing the point as "absolutist", the law operates on precedent and principles. If we allow government the power to ban biases that the current majority doesn't like, another majority will come along with a different agenda and different biases to ban. The Alex Jones dust-up is a great example.

Actually when you say point of sale items are for all comers, you remove the ability of the majority to pick and choose biases.

Well, the businesses in question aren't saying that. They're saying the opposite.

But with regard to the majority picking and choosing biases, did you just say earlier you didn't think all biases should be illegal? How does that happen without the majority picking and choosing?

In all these cases the issue was with a contracted service for a specific event, not point of sale. Even Phillips has said he won't deny stock items to anyone.

For the simple matter of a point of sale item, just sell it and don't ask.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Three reasons.

1) Right is right, and wrong is wrong, and it is always incumbent on good people to recognize and state which is which.

2) I have little patience with weaseling around and twisting words and laws into pretzels to defend the rights of people like Mr. Phillips, when simply stating what is right would accomplish it much better. It is silly to me to spend time drawing useless distinctions like "artistic expression" and "contracted service", when the truth is that it's his business and his beliefs, and that should be the end of it.

3) PA laws, like all social justice engineering, are the gift that keeps on giving. They start out with "just to correct this one injustice", and then they hang around, creating more and more "injustices" they must correct, rather than simply going away when their purpose is served. Whatever remnants of true bigotry still exist out there are far better eradicated by allowing their owners to expose them publicly, and be educated by the community around them, than they ever will be by government mandating that they pretend something they don't really believe. Meanwhile, we would be free of increasing attempts to use PA laws as bludgeons to beat to death anyone who dares hold an opinion the SJWs decree is "not allowed".

1) At a base level that is true, however only for obvious things. The people trying to force compliance or else think they are on the side of good as well

2) In a complex society sometime complex solutions are needed.

3) if properly applied, they allow commerce for point of sale items and transactions where the public is invited to occur without needless picking and choosing. Picking and choosing can be then reserved for contracted services.

That's nice. I'm not responsible for what other people do or don't do. That's the main difference between me and SJWs, in fact: I recognize that it's not my job to control others. You asked why I was objecting to PAs. I answered you. Whether or not people who disagree with me think they're right in doing so is irrelevant to that answer.

Complex solutions are often needed, in the sense that you often have to decide things on a case-by-case basis, rather than with a blanket, one-size-fits-all regulation. That being said, it doesn't refute in any way my assertion that simply denying the government the right to regulate thoughts and beliefs would be more direct AND a more comprehensive protection of rights - which was the point of the First Amendment in the first place - than conceding defeat and THEN trying to invent ways that THIS time is different.

If applied as written, they don't "allow" for anything. They mandate commerce, and deny any choice. YOU might consider doing away with choice as an ultimate good that we are all striving for; I do not

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Um, you just butt out. Not really sure where you think the complicated "implementation" is there. Some crybaby comes to the government and says, "Waaahh! This guy wouldn't make a cake for my gay wedding! He hates gay people!" The government says, "Sorry. Not our problem. Go to another bake shop. They advertise in gay media, dumbass." End of story.

 

[JoeB131]

Just more justification for punishing ThoughtCrime.

You just can't deal with people who believe differently than you. What a cocksucker you are.

duly noted you couldn't really refute the points I made that we ALREADY tell religion they have to obey the law to achieve social goals.

 

[martybegan]

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?

Three reasons.

1) Right is right, and wrong is wrong, and it is always incumbent on good people to recognize and state which is which.

2) I have little patience with weaseling around and twisting words and laws into pretzels to defend the rights of people like Mr. Phillips, when simply stating what is right would accomplish it much better. It is silly to me to spend time drawing useless distinctions like "artistic expression" and "contracted service", when the truth is that it's his business and his beliefs, and that should be the end of it.

3) PA laws, like all social justice engineering, are the gift that keeps on giving. They start out with "just to correct this one injustice", and then they hang around, creating more and more "injustices" they must correct, rather than simply going away when their purpose is served. Whatever remnants of true bigotry still exist out there are far better eradicated by allowing their owners to expose them publicly, and be educated by the community around them, than they ever will be by government mandating that they pretend something they don't really believe. Meanwhile, we would be free of increasing attempts to use PA laws as bludgeons to beat to death anyone who dares hold an opinion the SJWs decree is "not allowed".

1) At a base level that is true, however only for obvious things. The people trying to force compliance or else think they are on the side of good as well

2) In a complex society sometime complex solutions are needed.

3) if properly applied, they allow commerce for point of sale items and transactions where the public is invited to occur without needless picking and choosing. Picking and choosing can be then reserved for contracted services.

That's nice. I'm not responsible for what other people do or don't do. That's the main difference between me and SJWs, in fact: I recognize that it's not my job to control others. You asked why I was objecting to PAs. I answered you. Whether or not people who disagree with me think they're right in doing so is irrelevant to that answer.

Complex solutions are often needed, in the sense that you often have to decide things on a case-by-case basis, rather than with a blanket, one-size-fits-all regulation. That being said, it doesn't refute in any way my assertion that simply denying the government the right to regulate thoughts and beliefs would be more direct AND a more comprehensive protection of rights - which was the point of the First Amendment in the first place - than conceding defeat and THEN trying to invent ways that THIS time is different.

If applied as written, they don't "allow" for anything. They mandate commerce, and deny any choice. YOU might consider doing away with choice as an ultimate good that we are all striving for; I do not

I object to PA laws at a base level as well, but getting rid of them entirely is probably a non-starter.

The line is going to be drawn somewhere in the middle of the street, not on your side of the sidewalk.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Um, you just butt out. Not really sure where you think the complicated "implementation" is there. Some crybaby comes to the government and says, "Waaahh! This guy wouldn't make a cake for my gay wedding! He hates gay people!" The government says, "Sorry. Not our problem. Go to another bake shop. They advertise in gay media, dumbass." End of story.

What if it's the only baker in town? What if there are 10 bakers and they all collude to not sell cakes for a SSM wedding?

 

[martybegan]

Just more justification for punishing ThoughtCrime.

You just can't deal with people who believe differently than you. What a cocksucker you are.

duly noted you couldn't really refute the points I made that we ALREADY tell religion they have to obey the law to achieve social goals.

What points? The only point you have is "I like fascism when I get to decide the tenets of it"

 

[dblack]

What if it's the only baker in town? What if there are 10 bakers and they all collude to not sell cakes for a SSM wedding?

Then you'd need to face the sad fact that you live on a town full of bigots. And while they can't legally prevent you from getting married, they want nothing to do with it.

 

[martybegan]

What if it's the only baker in town? What if there are 10 bakers and they all collude to not sell cakes for a SSM wedding?

Then you'd need to face the sad fact that you live on a town full of bigots. And while they can't legally prevent you from getting married, they want nothing to do with it.

And that's when the government has to take an interest in it.

When people collude like that, it is just the same as them passing a law. It's an end run around established rights of commerce.

 

[JoeB131]

What points? The only point you have is "I like fascism when I get to decide the tenets of it"

Guy, I made the point that the laws that we agree to are not invalidated because your imaginary Sky pixie says otherwise.

I gave you lists and lists of things where the law trumps (no pun intended) religion.

This is one of those cases.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

because your imaginary Sky pixie

I really can't wait to see some of you smug 'tards under the thumb of your coming Muslim oppressors. But then, Islam "is a religion of peace," right?

 

[JoeB131]

I really can't wait to see some of you smug 'tards under the thumb of your coming Muslim oppressors. But then, Islam "is a religion of peace," right?

Guy, you can piss yourself because you think there's a Muslim hiding under your bed..

Our middle east policy is sticking our dicks in a hornet's nest and then whine about how mean the hornets are when they sting us.

Here's a crazy idea. How about we stop travelling to the other side of the planet to fuck with these people.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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.

Um, you just butt out. Not really sure where you think the complicated "implementation" is there. Some crybaby comes to the government and says, "Waaahh! This guy wouldn't make a cake for my gay wedding! He hates gay people!" The government says, "Sorry. Not our problem. Go to another bake shop. They advertise in gay media, dumbass." End of story.

What if it's the only baker in town? What if there are 10 bakers and they all collude to not sell cakes for a SSM wedding?

/——/ Buy the cake from Costco or BJ bakery. No one asks or cares what it’s used for. But that solution does not advance the libtard agenda.

 

[JoeB131]

/——/ But the cake from Costco or BJ bakery. No one asks or cares what it’s used for. But that solution does not advance the libtard agenda.

Again, these are custom cakes, and you miss the point.

The point is, you can't discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, national origin or gender... and you know what, these laws protect all of us.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/——/ But the cake from Costco or BJ bakery. No one asks or cares what it’s used for. But that solution does not advance the libtard agenda.

Again, these are custom cakes, and you miss the point.

The point is, you can't discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, national origin or gender... and you know what, these laws protect all of us.

/——/ Nothing custom about cake. Any bakery can make them. And those laws sure as hell don’t protect the Christian bakers rights, now do they?