Colorado baker refuses anti-gay cake

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

Yes. The law says that businesses cannot refuse service based on race, religion, sexual orientation... etc. . That's ridiculous and I will do whatever I can to change the law.

Stand for bigotry. Because people's atittudes change entirely on their own without outside influences. *nod*

I do not stand for bigotry, I stand for the right to be a bigot.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Voltaire

[Gauthier]

Stand for bigotry. Because people's atittudes change entirely on their own without outside influences. *nod*

I do not stand for bigotry, I stand for the right to be a bigot.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Voltaire

Of course saying something is entirely different from exercising your beliefs to the detriment of others.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

This discussion isn't about regulation, who even brought regulation into the conversation? This is about businesses being able to discriminate and refuse service. The government has the right to regulate businesses - that's not discrimination. The people have the right to discriminate against businesses - 'boycotting' or slander etc.
Even though the government, at least in America, represents the people, they are separate entities because it is not a direct democracy. Additionally, the government does have the right to dictate who companies can and cannot sell to, but they shouldn't (regulation of alcohol is substance regulation, not a direct regulation of business - it's illegal for a minor to consume it regardless of who the alcohol was sold to).

It's all regulation by the government. If the Government can regulate one why not the other.

They can regulate who businesses sell to, that doesn't mean they should be able to.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

I do not stand for bigotry, I stand for the right to be a bigot.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Voltaire

Of course saying something is entirely different from exercising your beliefs to the detriment of others.

To the detriment of yourself too. Companies lose money by refusing service. Money that goes directly into their competitor's pockets.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Only because that is regulated by the government.

If there was no regulation, how are you going to legally affect remedy?

Why does everyone instantly equate "the right of the public to discriminate against businesses" with "government regulation of businesses". The government and the people are two separate entities, and both should keep their respective rights. I simply argue that businesses should have the right to refuse service. That doesn't mean they will, considering that companies only lose money by choosing to refuse service.

Except businesses are not people, they are organizations

Businesses have zero rights as an entity, they have responsibilities. The people running these businesses have rights, but the rights of the owner don't transfer to the business organization.

[Cannot think of a name]

It's always amazing to find out how many people have a hard on for discrimination when these stories come up.

Even more so when they think they're the noble ones.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Ok. I am not following the logic.

An outright refusal would be complete and without qualification.

'I won't do _____ for _______, but I'll do _____, ________, or _______'

Is full of qualifications and definitely not complete.

In what kind of universe do you live in that refusal means "I won't do shit for anyone period"?

You can refuse service to one person without refusing it to another. Unless you are the sort of person who's got an absolutist logic which is a childish view of the world.

[Cannot think of a name]

An outright refusal would be complete and without qualification.

'I won't do _____ for _______, but I'll do _____, ________, or _______'

Is full of qualifications and definitely not complete.

In what kind of universe do you live in that refusal means "I won't do shit for anyone period"?

You can refuse service to one person without refusing it to another. Unless you are the sort of person who's got an absolutist logic which is a childish view of the world.

It's that dude's schtick to be as obtuse as possible, chasing his posts is like a cat chasing the laser dot.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

Why does everyone instantly equate "the right of the public to discriminate against businesses" with "government regulation of businesses". The government and the people are two separate entities, and both should keep their respective rights. I simply argue that businesses should have the right to refuse service. That doesn't mean they will, considering that companies only lose money by choosing to refuse service.

Except businesses are not people, they are organizations

Businesses have zero rights as an entity, they have responsibilities. The people running these businesses have rights, but the rights of the owner don't transfer to the business organization.

To whom should service be denied should be determined by the general manager of the building, unless there is a dedicated corporate policy.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

There was no qualification they were willing to provide the service the customer was shopping for. Had the company not provided the service, then this would not have been an issue; but they provided that product/service the customer was shopping for and refused it; as such; outright refusal of service.

There's no honestly denying that they offer qualifications on the services they are willing to provide. They did refuse to provide a certain service. Like the baker in the actual story at hand, the services and refusals have qualifications.

I don't why you're so intent on inaccurately adding "outright" to their refusal, but it just doesn't fit.

out·right
ˈoutrīt/
adverb
adverb: outright

1.
altogether; completely.
"logging has been banned outright"
synonyms: completely, entirely, wholly, fully, totally, categorically, absolutely, utterly, flatly, unreservedly, in every respect
"he rejected the proposal outright"
without reservation; openly.
"she couldn't ask him outright"
synonyms: explicitly, directly, forthrightly, openly, frankly, candidly, honestly, sincerely, bluntly, plainly, in plain language, truthfully, to someone's face, straight from the shoulder, straight up, in no uncertain terms
"I told her outright"
2.
immediately.
"the impact killed four horses outright"
synonyms: instantly, instantaneously, immediately, at once, straightaway, then and there, on the spot
"they were killed outright"
not by degrees or installments.
"they decided to buy the company outright"
synonyms: all at once, in one go
"paintings have to be bought outright"

adjective
adjective: outright

1.
open and direct; not concealed.
"an outright refusal"
synonyms: out-and-out, absolute, complete, downright, utter, sheer, categorical, unqualified, unmitigated, unconditional
"an outright lie"
total; complete.
"the outright abolition of the death penalty"
undisputed; clear.
"an outright victory"
synonyms: definite, unequivocal, clear, unqualified, incontestable, unmistakable
"the outright winner"

Perhaps familiarizing yourself with a dictionary and thesaurus would help.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Except businesses are not people, they are organizations

Businesses have zero rights as an entity, they have responsibilities. The people running these businesses have rights, but the rights of the owner don't transfer to the business organization.

To whom should service be denied should be determined by the general manager of the building, unless there is a dedicated corporate policy.

No it shouldn't.

The organization doesn't have a right under the law, the owner does, but the owner, again, isn't the same as the business and are often treated as different entities (except as a sole proprietorship, in which the assets of the company are the assets of the owner, but that's in a case of liability, for legal purposes the business and the owner are different in all other aspects and generally speaking you cannot do business in your own name, you use the name of your business).

You can certainly make such an argument, that the business owner and company are one and the same, but then the owner also is implied to run unlimited liability and lawsuits can be made under his name and the state can appropriate the owner's assets, and that's a bad idea for its own reasons.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

To whom should service be denied should be determined by the general manager of the building, unless there is a dedicated corporate policy.

No it shouldn't.

The organization doesn't have a right under the law, the owner does, but the owner, again, isn't the same as the business and are often treated as different entities (except as a sole proprietorship, in which the assets of the company are the assets of the owner, but that's in a case of liability, for legal purposes the business and the owner are different in all other aspects).

You can certainly make such an argument, that the business owner and company are one and the same, but then the owner also is implied to run unlimited liability and lawsuits can be made under his name and the state can appropriate the owner's assets, and that's a bad idea for its own reasons.

I know companies don't have that right, I specifically said "should" for that reason.

[Cannot think of a name]

Stand for bigotry. Because people's atittudes change entirely on their own without outside influences. *nod*

I do not stand for bigotry, I stand for the right to be a bigot.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Voltaire

Voltaire didn't say that, his biographer did, and this isn't what she meant. You still have every right to be a bigot and say bigoted things.

However, a business is a public accommodation. As such it is afforded protections and considerations by the government to operate as a business within it. In exchange it is asked to meet certain standards. It cannot enact certain unfair or dishonest practices, sell unsafe products, maintain a safe environment for the public, and it must accommodate the public that helps support the existence of the business even if they do not shop there by supporting the government that allows the business to exist in the first place.

As such, you cannot refuse service to the public if you're a public accommodation if you think a portion of that population like gays or black people or whatever are icky. Because when we allowed that it created a second class citizenry and was not compliant an equal society.

Now, you're going to keep on with the whole rhetoric about how the free market will fix this, that if you are a business discriminates the public will handle it. Well, it did. Businesses discriminated like motherfuckers for years, the public had enough of it and changed the law so you couldn't do that anymore. The system works! Your side lost.

As has been suggested, since we do have a democracy and the free speech you keep misinterpreting, you're welcome to try and change that law and convince people that discrimination is the totally noble way to go by misappropriating quotes and such, but I just don't see going back to a segregated society as all that fucking appealing. And I certainly don't see its advocates as noble.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No it shouldn't.

The organization doesn't have a right under the law, the owner does, but the owner, again, isn't the same as the business and are often treated as different entities (except as a sole proprietorship, in which the assets of the company are the assets of the owner, but that's in a case of liability, for legal purposes the business and the owner are different in all other aspects).

You can certainly make such an argument, that the business owner and company are one and the same, but then the owner also is implied to run unlimited liability and lawsuits can be made under his name and the state can appropriate the owner's assets, and that's a bad idea for its own reasons.

I know companies don't have that right, I specifically said "should" for that reason.

And I just explained why it should not. Because companies run higher risk of liability.

If incorporated businesses can be treated as sole ownerships in the sense that they have the same rights as the owners running them then the point of incorporation which is protection of assets is useless and the state can prosecute and appropriate the owner's assets.

Basically, saying we should modify the law to such an extent would mean tearing and eroding the corporate veil of protection of assets. Because once you give people in a corporation rights you gotta go after someone's assets, and it won't be the business if you can enforce such a notion.

[Sdaeriji]

No it shouldn't.

The organization doesn't have a right under the law, the owner does, but the owner, again, isn't the same as the business and are often treated as different entities (except as a sole proprietorship, in which the assets of the company are the assets of the owner, but that's in a case of liability, for legal purposes the business and the owner are different in all other aspects).

You can certainly make such an argument, that the business owner and company are one and the same, but then the owner also is implied to run unlimited liability and lawsuits can be made under his name and the state can appropriate the owner's assets, and that's a bad idea for its own reasons.

I know companies don't have that right, I specifically said "should" for that reason.

Companies do have that right. Any company can operate as a private club, with set criteria for membership.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

I do not stand for bigotry, I stand for the right to be a bigot.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Voltaire

Voltaire didn't say that, his biographer did, and this isn't what she meant. You still have every right to be a bigot and say bigoted things.

However, a business is a public accommodation. As such it is afforded protections and considerations by the government to operate as a business within it. In exchange it is asked to meet certain standards. It cannot enact certain unfair or dishonest practices, sell unsafe products, maintain a safe environment for the public, and it must accommodate the public that helps support the existence of the business even if they do not shop there by supporting the government that allows the business to exist in the first place.

As such, you cannot refuse service to the public if you're a public accommodation if you think a portion of that population like gays or black people or whatever are icky. Because when we allowed that it created a second class citizenry and was not compliant an equal society.

Now, you're going to keep on with the whole rhetoric about how the free market will fix this, that if you are a business discriminates the public will handle it. Well, it did. Businesses discriminated like motherfuckers for years, the public had enough of it and changed the law so you couldn't do that anymore. The system works! Your side lost.

As has been suggested, since we do have a democracy and the free speech you keep misinterpreting, you're welcome to try and change that law and convince people that discrimination is the totally noble way to go by misappropriating quotes and such, but I just don't see going back to a segregated society as all that fucking appealing. And I certainly don't see its advocates as noble.

Aha, public accommodations or not, businesses are still private enterprises. The board/CEO/owner structures the corporation & sets its policies. The right to refuse service is a basic corporate right, and it's unfortunate that you believe that only "blacks or gays" are going to be refused service. As I have stated numerous times previously, the company loses money if they refuse service, so it is not in their best interests to do so. Everybody has the right to discriminate, except for the government.
I just find it amusing that you believe that, since the government is a public institution, businesses have to respect the entire population. Well, guess what, the government allows me to exist and I certainly do not respect the whole population.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

It is only noble to protect every individual's right to discriminate and hate, not to actually do so.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I know companies don't have that right, I specifically said "should" for that reason.

Companies do have that right. Any company can operate as a private club, with set criteria for membership.

Companies don't have rights, they have protections as associations of people to ensure the rights of the individuals are not abrogated because they are in a collective.

However, the rights of these individuals do not directly transfer to a corporation just because people own the company. They still are regulated differently than the people running the business. In other words just because people have the right of free association doesn't mean the company does directly gain that right from the individual. A club is a particular kind of association which needs certain criteria to join, but you can't be without an uniform procedure either and you can't be lax in who enters. A club that allows everyone but blacks to join is not a private organization in the eyes of many states. Many clubs have lost in court because their policies were not discriminatory enough to be considered private.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Aha, public accommodations or not, businesses are still private enterprises. The board/CEO/owner structures the corporation & sets its policies. The right to refuse service is a basic corporate right, and it's unfortunate that you believe that only "blacks or gays" are going to be refused service. As I have stated numerous times previously, the company loses money if they refuse service, so it is not in their best interests to do so. Everybody has the right to discriminate, except for the government.

I just find it amusing that you believe that, since the government is a public institution, businesses have to respect the entire population. Well, guess what, the government allows me to exist and I certainly do not respect the whole population.

Businesses are private enterprises which deal with public business.

For an enterprise to be free of anti-discrimination laws and refuse service it has to be so insignificant that it doesn't impact the public in any significant way (like a male chess club in a local community composed solely of German atheist immigrants). Corporate policy doesn't mean license to do whatever the hell you want, it just lines out the procedures of an organization but it doesn't deal with how it does business. It deals with the internals, when you serve the public it has to deal with local, state, and federal regulations because you are dealing with people outside of your organization and generally it is the only part of the corporate policy measures that fall under their own special category.

Just because you exist doesn't mean that businesses are not different from people. They are, and it is both a good thing and a bad thing for its own reasons.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

Aha, public accommodations or not, businesses are still private enterprises. The board/CEO/owner structures the corporation & sets its policies. The right to refuse service is a basic corporate right, and it's unfortunate that you believe that only "blacks or gays" are going to be refused service. As I have stated numerous times previously, the company loses money if they refuse service, so it is not in their best interests to do so. Everybody has the right to discriminate, except for the government.

I just find it amusing that you believe that, since the government is a public institution, businesses have to respect the entire population. Well, guess what, the government allows me to exist and I certainly do not respect the whole population.

Businesses are private enterprises which deal with public business.

For an enterprise to be free of anti-discrimination laws and refuse service it has to be so insignificant that it doesn't impact the public in any significant way (like a male chess club in a local community composed solely of German atheist immigrants). Corporate policy doesn't mean license to do whatever the hell you want, it just lines out the procedures of an organization but it doesn't deal with how it does business. It deals with the internals, when you serve the public it has to deal with local, state, and federal regulations because you are dealing with people outside of your organization and generally it is the only part of the corporate policy measures that fall under their own special category.

Just because you exist doesn't mean that businesses are not different from people. They are, and it is both a good thing and a bad thing for its own reasons.

For a business's refusal of service to be significant at all, it has to hold a monopoly on the service, and then the business would be broken up because monopolies are illegal.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Businesses are private enterprises which deal with public business.

For an enterprise to be free of anti-discrimination laws and refuse service it has to be so insignificant that it doesn't impact the public in any significant way (like a male chess club in a local community composed solely of German atheist immigrants). Corporate policy doesn't mean license to do whatever the hell you want, it just lines out the procedures of an organization but it doesn't deal with how it does business. It deals with the internals, when you serve the public it has to deal with local, state, and federal regulations because you are dealing with people outside of your organization and generally it is the only part of the corporate policy measures that fall under their own special category.

Just because you exist doesn't mean that businesses are not different from people. They are, and it is both a good thing and a bad thing for its own reasons.

For a business's refusal of service to be significant at all, it has to hold a monopoly on the service, and then the business would be broken up because monopolies are illegal.

Comcast says "Hello".

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

For a business's refusal of service to be significant at all, it has to hold a monopoly on the service, and then the business would be broken up because monopolies are illegal.

Comcast says "Hello".

Comcast isn't a monopoly yet, especially considering that cable is not the only way to get internet/television service. Google, however, could be considered a monopoly because it's the only fiber provider here.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Comcast says "Hello".

Comcast isn't a monopoly yet, especially considering that cable is not the only way to get internet/television service.

Funny, the CEO of Comcast thinks differently.

He even said as much.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

Comcast isn't a monopoly yet, especially considering that cable is not the only way to get internet/television service.

Funny, the CEO of Comcast thinks differently.

He even said as much.

Well, he's wrong, so.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Comcast isn't a monopoly yet, especially considering that cable is not the only way to get internet/television service.

Funny, the CEO of Comcast thinks differently.

He even said as much.

They are a monopoly in certain places.

Although to their defense so is Verizon. There are still places where Verizon or Comcast is the only company that provides service.