Rules For Traditionals: How People In Wedding Trades Can Defend Themselves

[danielpalos]

When are you going to get it through your head that you can't force someone's "best effort" out of them. It's impossible. If you don't like the service and/or quality of products you're getting, take your business somewhere else. You liberals are absolutely ******* ridiculous with your entitlement bullshit.

Actually, there's a whole line of law that allows you to sue and get damages if you don't get someone's best efforts. It's called "Commerce Law".

Epic fail.

nothing but fallacy instead of a valid rebuttal; how infidel, protestant, and renegade to the discovery of sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm not so much interested in the gay issue, but PA laws do compel behavior. That's the point of the laws in the first place. There's a distinct difference between laws that prohibit actions that harm others, and those that dictate behavior. Do you really not see the difference? Or why the latter is a far greater loss of liberty?

No, guy, I don't. Frankly, i just don't see how it's an imposition to make your business do what it promises to do.

It never promised any such thing, dumbass.

You advertised "Wedding Cakes for Sale", you should do wedding cakes. You made a representation that is what your company does.

That's just total left-wing horseshit. If a business doesn't want to serve you, then you need to take a hike. Hanging a sign in your window is a promise of nothing. There is not contractual arrangement created by a sign that says "Joe's wedding cakes."

 

[bripat9643]

I'm not so much interested in the gay issue, but PA laws do compel behavior. That's the point of the laws in the first place. There's a distinct difference between laws that prohibit actions that harm others, and those that dictate behavior. Do you really not see the difference? Or why the latter is a far greater loss of liberty?

No, guy, I don't. Frankly, i just don't see how it's an imposition to make your business do what it promises to do.

This is clearly a conceit. By that reasoning, all a business needs to do is put up sign saying "We don't server xxx" and they're covered, right? If not, then this is NOT simply a matter of making a business do what it promises.

Yeah, a business should have to do that if you get rid of PA laws (remember, you gotta start with the Federal Civil Rights Act). Nobody is going to know I'm gay when I walk into a business and if they don't want me there, I sure as hell don't want to spend my money on them.

Of course, the PA laws violate the Constitution and every business owner's property rights.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, a business should have to do that if you get rid of PA laws....

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

If you abolish PA laws, a business should have to list who they won't serve right on their front ******* door.

That's just another violation of its property rights.

 

[bripat9643]

If you were a baker employed by a bakery and you refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, your boss would fire you and hire a baker who would do what he or she is hired to do.

There is no difference here.

There's a big difference. The government is not your employer. You have a voluntary arrangement with your employer. You agree to perform whatever tasks he requests you to perform. You have agreed to nothing with the government. PA laws are imposed on you without your consent.

 

[bripat9643]

You really want to claim there's no potential for harm?

Of course not. But there's potential for harm in nearly everything we do. Should everything be illegal? And more to the point, should humiliation be illegal?

"Harm" isn't the issue. I harm business A simply by choosing to take make my purchases at business B. Using force against innocent people is the issue.

 

[bodecea]

I'm not so much interested in the gay issue, but PA laws do compel behavior. That's the point of the laws in the first place. There's a distinct difference between laws that prohibit actions that harm others, and those that dictate behavior. Do you really not see the difference? Or why the latter is a far greater loss of liberty?

No, guy, I don't. Frankly, i just don't see how it's an imposition to make your business do what it promises to do.

This is clearly a conceit. By that reasoning, all a business needs to do is put up sign saying "We don't server xxx" and they're covered, right? If not, then this is NOT simply a matter of making a business do what it promises.

Yeah, a business should have to do that if you get rid of PA laws (remember, you gotta start with the Federal Civil Rights Act). Nobody is going to know I'm gay when I walk into a business and if they don't want me there, I sure as hell don't want to spend my money on them.

Of course, the PA laws violate the Constitution and every business owner's property rights.

The Supreme Court disagrees.

 

[danielpalos]

Yeah, a business should have to do that if you get rid of PA laws....

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

If you abolish PA laws, a business should have to list who they won't serve right on their front ******* door.

That's just another violation of its property rights.

Practicing Commerce for the public may be a privilege similar to driving.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm not so much interested in the gay issue, but PA laws do compel behavior. That's the point of the laws in the first place. There's a distinct difference between laws that prohibit actions that harm others, and those that dictate behavior. Do you really not see the difference? Or why the latter is a far greater loss of liberty?

No, guy, I don't. Frankly, i just don't see how it's an imposition to make your business do what it promises to do.

This is clearly a conceit. By that reasoning, all a business needs to do is put up sign saying "We don't server xxx" and they're covered, right? If not, then this is NOT simply a matter of making a business do what it promises.

Yeah, a business should have to do that if you get rid of PA laws (remember, you gotta start with the Federal Civil Rights Act). Nobody is going to know I'm gay when I walk into a business and if they don't want me there, I sure as hell don't want to spend my money on them.

Of course, the PA laws violate the Constitution and every business owner's property rights.

The Supreme Court disagrees.

The Supreme Court is a gang of political hacks who were appointed to misconstrue the Constitution exactly the way their benefactors wanted it to be misconstrued.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, a business should have to do that if you get rid of PA laws....

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

If you abolish PA laws, a business should have to list who they won't serve right on their front ******* door.

That's just another violation of its property rights.

Practicing Commerce for the public may be a privilege similar to driving.

Wrong.

 

[SwimExpert]

It's only "true" in the silliest sense. Sure, we're all "forced" to follow the laws whether we like them or not. That certainly doesn't make it "tyranny" or any of the other ridiculousness the anti gay bigots try to throw out. It's not "tyranny" to make me wear a seatbelt or drive on the right side of the road.

It's not silly at all, it's the 100% pure truth. Laws mandate behaviors. You are, in fact, being obligated to behave a certain way, under penalty of punishment. You're right that that fact, generally, does not make the existence of government or laws inherently tyrannical. But some laws are indeed quite tyrannical. That being said, true tyranny resides in the hearts of people. For example, a law requiring people to wear seat belts can indeed be tyrannical if it is supported, and passed, by people whose only real goal is to create windfall revenue for the government and/or to give police an easy weapon to conduct otherwise unjustifiable detentions of citizens which are difficult to impossible to fight in court.

That being said, the real question that needs to be asked is whether requiring a business to bake a cake for a gay couple actually accomplishes anything worth while. And the answer is that no, it does not. It doesn't do anything to reduce bigotry or homophobia. It doesn't do anything to eliminate discrimination. All it will do is force all that to go underground and remain hidden from sight, while being played out on other pretexts.

As a gay woman, do you really want to spend thousands of dollars paying someone who has such a low opinion of you and your wife and your marriage? That's insane. It's absolutely insane. And personally, I find it repulsive if you would insist on doing so. As a person who goes out of my way to choose ethical companies to do my business with, I consider it a huge slap in the face that you aren't willing to do the same to protect the sanctity of your own marriage. A few years ago I was making 30 minute trips to the next town over every three to four weeks every time I needed a haircut. I was living in a small town with only two barbers. One was incompetent, the other was a flagrant racist who didn't hesitate to wear it on his sleeve. He wasn't getting a dime out of me. I'd put forth the same effort to avoid someone who was unwilling to accommodate a gay wedding.

The question I'm asking myself is this: Why am I putting forth so much effort in the name of your rights and the sanctity of your marriage, when you aren't willing to do the same? You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[SwimExpert]

When are you going to get it through your head that you can't force someone's "best effort" out of them. It's impossible. If you don't like the service and/or quality of products you're getting, take your business somewhere else. You liberals are absolutely ******* ridiculous with your entitlement bullshit.

Actually, there's a whole line of law that allows you to sue and get damages if you don't get someone's best efforts. It's called "Commerce Law".

Epic fail.

nothing but fallacy instead of a valid rebuttal; how infidel, protestant, and renegade to the discovery of sublime Truth (value) through argumentation.

You shouldn't talk with your mouth full. It makes everything coming out unintelligible.

 

[SwimExpert]

They are in business

Of their own free will.

There is no preference for ideology on a for-the-profit-of-lucre basis in Commerce.

Kid, you don't have the first clue about doing business. In fact, there are substantial preferences for ideology in generating profits. Some businesses target a certain "type" of client, on the basis that those clients are more lucrative. For example, the commercials you'll find on Duck Dynasty are going to be very different than the one's you're going to find during Jersey Shore.

That aside, the fact remains that a person in business is in business for their own interests and desires. If they don't want your money, they don't want your money. Move on. Go away. Go find someone else who does want your money.

 

[danielpalos]

Yeah, a business should have to do that if you get rid of PA laws....

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

If you abolish PA laws, a business should have to list who they won't serve right on their front ******* door.

That's just another violation of its property rights.

Practicing Commerce for the public may be a privilege similar to driving.

Wrong.

you need more than a non sequitur to convince me.

 

[danielpalos]

They are in business

Of their own free will.

There is no preference for ideology on a for-the-profit-of-lucre basis in Commerce.

Kid, you don't have the first clue about doing business. In fact, there are substantial preferences for ideology in generating profits. Some businesses target a certain "type" of client, on the basis that those clients are more lucrative. For example, the commercials you'll find on Duck Dynasty are going to be very different than the one's you're going to find during Jersey Shore.

That aside, the fact remains that a person in business is in business for their own interests and desires. If they don't want your money, they don't want your money. Move on. Go away. Go find someone else who does want your money.

They need to get a business license and therefore, have no excuse to appeal to ignorance of laws regarding Commerce.

 

[SwimExpert]

They need to get a business license

Eh?

and therefore, have no excuse to appeal to ignorance of laws regarding Commerce.

The only ignorance here is your own, kid. You don't known what you're talking about, and you're spewing absurdities and falsehoods. Come back after you've finished middle school. Spend the next four years trying to learn a thing or two about the world.

 

[danielpalos]

They need to get a business license

Eh?

and therefore, have no excuse to appeal to ignorance of laws regarding Commerce.

The only ignorance here is your own, kid. You don't known what you're talking about, and you're spewing absurdities and falsehoods. Come back after you've finished middle school. Spend the next four years trying to learn a thing or two about the world.

how incompetent of the Right; Within U.S. law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public.

 

[hadit]

You do have to wonder exactly why a gay couple would go out of their way to find a business owner who doesn't like them and try to force that business owner to do business with them. I mean, I thought a wedding was supposed to be a joyful event that focused on the two getting married, not some political point. That would seem to doom the marriage in my mind.

 

[danielpalos]

You do have to wonder exactly why a gay couple would go out of their way to find a business owner who doesn't like them and try to force that business owner to do business with them. I mean, I thought a wedding was supposed to be a joyful event that focused on the two getting married, not some political point. That would seem to doom the marriage in my mind.

who said that was what they did. why would anyone not pick the most convenient.

 

[SwimExpert]

They need to get a business license

Eh?

and therefore, have no excuse to appeal to ignorance of laws regarding Commerce.

The only ignorance here is your own, kid. You don't known what you're talking about, and you're spewing absurdities and falsehoods. Come back after you've finished middle school. Spend the next four years trying to learn a thing or two about the world.

how incompetent of the Right; Within U.S. law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public.

Cool story bro.