COLORADO Baker: The second Batch

[Galloism]

Minorities, very specifically, and ethical business owners more generally.

As a small business owner myself, I'm damn glad for public accommodation laws.

That specific section? Probably never effected you. If that section is repealed, anyone for any reason can be denied service. So, occasionally people will be disappointed - big woop. Your feelings don't matter when compared to my feelings, get over it.

And then I'm forced to either be discriminatory or face boycotts and ultimately business closure.

No thanks - I'll keep the public accommodations laws.

[Republic of the Cristo]

Except, you know, they didn't. You sited the greenbook remember? The greenbook showed businesses that would serve blacks back then - and clearly there are more than enough considering that blacks were able to travel around the entire country. That was 60 years ago to, back when America was actually bigoted - and there were more than enough businesses offering their service. Today, were are even more open minded on the matter. Your fears of Jim Crow 2.0 are extremely exaggerated.

I doubt it. It wouldn't be blacks this time, for certain. Public Accommodations laws went a long way to undermining that particular racial prejudice.

It would probably be Arabs and/or Mexicans now.

Well, it's good news, America is now hyper self-conscious about that sort of thing. Remember when Hobby Lobby had their little fiasco and a bunch of people started boycotting them? If businesses started instituting discrimination rules such as - " All White clientele ", we will almost certainly similar boycotts. Only now, it will be of small businesses and actually quite devastating. These, ebil racists, would be shutdown quickly by the power of the market. Problem solved, market still free, and no one is forced to do anything.

[Republic of the Cristo]

That specific section? Probably never effected you. If that section is repealed, anyone for any reason can be denied service. So, occasionally people will be disappointed - big woop. Your feelings don't matter when compared to my feelings, get over it.

And then I'm forced to either be discriminatory or face boycotts and ultimately business closure.

No thanks - I'll keep the public accommodations laws.

Lol, what?

Other way round bub. If you are discriminatory you will be boycotted. Majority of the country is against that sorta thing. You'll be fine.

[Vassenor]

And then I'm forced to either be discriminatory or face boycotts and ultimately business closure.

No thanks - I'll keep the public accommodations laws.

Lol, what?

Other way round bub. If you are discriminatory you will be boycotted. Majority of the country is against that sorta thing. You'll be fine.

If the majority of the country is against it then binning the laws is undemocratic, isn't it?

[Omnonia]

And again, this wasn't born out of "a random cake shop in the middle of nowhere didn't serve someone". It was born out of "black people couldn't get food, fuel, or hotels for hundreds of miles when traveling because ALL business owners discriminated against them along the entire route".

A possible, non-oppressive solution would be to open state-run shops/malls in those particular areas where the free market is stymied by outright conspiracy/ideological cartellism. Government employees - and that would include the cashier at "StateMart" - aren't allowed to discriminate. (Kim Davis was definitely not someone I supported. This baker is standing up for his rights; Davis just didn't know her place; her only ethical options were to a) do her job, or b) quit it in protest - she chose to bitch about it instead. Completely different sitch than we have here.)

It's still not sufficient justification to oppress the rights of private business owners.

[Republic of the Cristo]

Lol, what?

Other way round bub. If you are discriminatory you will be boycotted. Majority of the country is against that sorta thing. You'll be fine.

If the majority of the country is against it then binning the laws is undemocratic, isn't it?

Most people are against furries, but that doesn't mean we want to deprive them of their right to be... furry. As the famous liberal, atheist, secularist Voltaire once said, " I disagree wholeheartedly with what you said, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it! "

[Omnonia]

If the majority of the country is against it then binning the laws is undemocratic, isn't it?

How many Nazi voters does it take before mandating Auschwitz becomes a good law? (a.k.a., Tyranny of the Majority)

Democracy isn't everything; that's why sane countries have strong constitutions to keep the amount of influence voters can have on legislation in check.

[Omnonia]

Lol, what?

Other way round bub. If you are discriminatory you will be boycotted. Majority of the country is against that sorta thing. You'll be fine.

I believe him when he says he lives and works in some shithole corner where the big majority is homophobic and/or racist. Probably Bible Belt or rural Midwest, I suppose. Those do still exist, I won't deny that.

[Vassenor]

If the majority of the country is against it then binning the laws is undemocratic, isn't it?

Most people are against furries, but that doesn't mean we want to deprive them of their right to be... furry. As the famous liberal, atheist, secularist Voltaire once said, " I disagree wholeheartedly with what you said, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it! "

Actually he didn't, considering the quote didn't show up until over a century after he died. He did say "a witty saying proves nothing" though.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Leviticus doesn't say anything about not serving homosexuals. Just that under the old covenant homosexuality is considered a sin alongside consuming the flesh of certain animals and other acts that just about everyone in America does every day.

It listed out the laws of the Jewish nation, including punishments for certain sins including homosexuality. Though some things in the bible are not directly mentioned, it can be inferred from the text their benevolent or malevolent nature. For example: it is a sin to offer children crystal meth. This is never mentioned in the bible, but from context clues we can infer it is a sin. Now comes the baker's interpretation on the matter. He inferred from his understanding of the bible that to bake a cake for a gay wedding would be a sin. He inferred this, this is his interpretation and the basis behind his refusal.

Mind you, I am totally for him just saying, " Cuz I don't wanna. "

If he would have said "cause I don't want to", then that's not discrimination. He just doesn't want to, and that's perfectly understandable if you are a business owner, that you don't want to serve someone or do something special for someone because you simply don't fucking feel like it.

However, just because "he's a fucking homo" isn't really a reason, nor should it be.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

If the majority of the country is against it then binning the laws is undemocratic, isn't it?

Most people are against furries, but that doesn't mean we want to deprive them of their right to be... furry. As the famous liberal, atheist, secularist Voltaire once said, " I disagree wholeheartedly with what you said, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it! "

*twitches* Evelyn Beatrice Hall.

[Galloism]

And then I'm forced to either be discriminatory or face boycotts and ultimately business closure.

No thanks - I'll keep the public accommodations laws.

Lol, what?

Other way round bub. If you are discriminatory you will be boycotted. Majority of the country is against that sorta thing. You'll be fine.

Not where I live (in the south). I managed to fizzle a boycott attempt against me already for having the temerity to file gay couples tax returns for them married filing joint.

Someone had to post on Facebook about it, and brought down a load of shit on my head.

Thank the Lord for public accommodations laws.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Well, they are using a lot of cherry-picked verses, honestly, to allow this to be their belief.

Problem is, a lot of people don't know how to articulate a good, coherent argument using those verses. And those verses are taken out of context and crammed into a shitty argument anyways.

That's why there's Christians like me who disagree with the notion they're trying to peddle and engage in arguments about theology with them. Because there's a difference between trying to be as holy as our father in heaven is, and being spiteful and using the bible to justify that spitefulness.

Is it spitefulness? Or is it deeply held belief? The scenario in question was a gay wedding correct? Consider this, you are a deeply Christian baker and believe that gay-marriage is a sin because it defiles what marriage is supposed to be: a union between a man and a women in the eyes of God. To then participate in this event in any way would be a kind of acceptance on your part of their unholy union.

Now that I think of it, this was probably their thought process. Yeah, the dog thing was equally bad but they probably didn't know about it ( squeaky wheel gets the oil, yes? ). With the above interpretation in mind, would you truly wish for these people to violate their principles for a perceived level of equality - one which could have been found elsewhere?

They don't have to, that's why they can choose not to bake any wedding cakes as a business.

However, I would not call someone who is "deeply" Christian, and doesn't understand what the basic message of loving others in the bible is, as someone who is "deeply" in their religion.

If a Christian was "deeply" in their religion, they wouldn't think that going around condemning people to a miserable life is actually okay in the first place.

[Galloism]

And again, this wasn't born out of "a random cake shop in the middle of nowhere didn't serve someone". It was born out of "black people couldn't get food, fuel, or hotels for hundreds of miles when traveling because ALL business owners discriminated against them along the entire route".

A possible, non-oppressive solution would be to open state-run shops/malls in those particular areas where the free market is stymied by outright conspiracy/ideological cartellism. Government employees - and that would include the cashier at "StateMart" - aren't allowed to discriminate. (Kim Davis was definitely not someone I supported. This baker is standing up for his rights; Davis just didn't know her place; her only ethical options were to a) do her job, or b) quit it in protest - she chose to bitch about it instead. Completely different sitch than we have here.)

It's still not sufficient justification to oppress the rights of private business owners.

Again - private business owners are a significant group of victims protected by public accommodations laws.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

A possible, non-oppressive solution would be to open state-run shops/malls in those particular areas where the free market is stymied by outright conspiracy/ideological cartellism. Government employees - and that would include the cashier at "StateMart" - aren't allowed to discriminate. (Kim Davis was definitely not someone I supported. This baker is standing up for his rights; Davis just didn't know her place; her only ethical options were to a) do her job, or b) quit it in protest - she chose to bitch about it instead. Completely different sitch than we have here.)

It's still not sufficient justification to oppress the rights of private business owners.

Again - private business owners are a significant group of victims protected by public accommodations laws.

The problem with the whole "oppression to business owners" is that we chose to declare to the government "hey, we want to run a business, you got me?" and the government said "yea, sure". At that point, everything the government tells businesses to do is entirely something that they can do, and should be able to do, to regulate commerce. Business owners don't own themselves, we still have a government to answer to as they granted us a license to operate as a legitimate business. If we didn't want the government up our ass about it we can always not do commerce via a legitimate business.

[Galloism]

Again - private business owners are a significant group of victims protected by public accommodations laws.

The problem with the whole "oppression to business owners" is that we chose to declare to the government "hey, we want to run a business, you got me?" and the government said "yea, sure". At that point, everything the government tells businesses to do is entirely something that they can do, and should be able to do, to regulate commerce. Business owners don't own themselves, we still have a government to answer to.

I mean, sure. I applied for a license to run my business and am required to display it my office. This is not oppression.

I am required in my business to comply with circular 230 specifically and the internal revenue code more generally. This is not oppression.

I am required by city ordinance to use a permanent sign instead of a temporary one. This is not oppression.

I am required to hold taxes on employees (and match FICA), this is not oppression.

I am required to maintain a safe work environment. This is not oppression.

I am required to electronically file. This is not oppression.

Why is being required to serve the public oppression for a public accommodation?

[The Emerald Legion]

Except, you know, they didn't. You sited the greenbook remember? The greenbook showed businesses that would serve blacks back then - and clearly there are more than enough considering that blacks were able to travel around the entire country. That was 60 years ago to, back when America was actually bigoted - and there were more than enough businesses offering their service. Today, were are even more open minded on the matter. Your fears of Jim Crow 2.0 are extremely exaggerated.

America's current president was elected on a platform that boiled down to "Mexicans and Muslims cause all America's problems". It's not that much of an exaggeration.

Please. His platform boiled down to "I'm an idiot but my opponent is a crook!"

The Mexicans and Muslims^TM were, at best, Hillary Clintons^TM horde of minions. Here to bolster her and the foul globalists^TM forces here in America and pervert our beloved democracy to their terrible foreign will.

[Galloism]

America's current president was elected on a platform that boiled down to "Mexicans and Muslims cause all America's problems". It's not that much of an exaggeration.

Please. His platform boiled down to "I'm an idiot but my opponent is a crook!"

The Mexicans and Muslims were, at best, Hillary Clintons horde of minions. Here to bolster her and the foul globalists forces here in America and pervert our beloved democracy to their terrible foreign will.

There needed to be at least 3 ^TMs in there.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

America's current president was elected on a platform that boiled down to "Mexicans and Muslims cause all America's problems". It's not that much of an exaggeration.

Please. His platform boiled down to "I'm an idiot but my opponent is a crook!"

The Mexicans and Muslims were, at best, Hillary Clintons horde of minions. Here to bolster her and the foul globalists forces here in America and pervert our beloved democracy to their terrible foreign will.

You're thinking too small

Obviously, our master plan is more complicated, convoluted, and bigger than Clinton *nods*

[The Emerald Legion]

There needed to be at least 3 ^TMs in there.

Better?

[Galloism]

There needed to be at least 3 ^TMs in there.

Better?

Much better. Thank ya.

[Esternial]

America's current president was elected on a platform that boiled down to "Mexicans and Muslims cause all America's problems". It's not that much of an exaggeration.

Please. His platform boiled down to "I'm an idiot but my opponent is a crook!"

The Mexicans and Muslims^TM were, at best, Hillary Clintons^TM horde of minions. Here to bolster her and the foul globalists^TM forces here in America and pervert our beloved democracy to their terrible foreign will. :p

Turn that shit into a movie.

Or remake the LOTR movies with Isengard as American globalist traitors, lead by Hillary of Many Emoticons, Mexicans as the Corsairs of Umbar and muslims as the Easterlings.

With Bernie as the Lich King 'cus he's old.

[The Novakian Empire]

He should be allowed to refuse service to anyone, but he shouldn't refuse service for such a stupid fucking reason.

[Gig em Aggies]

He should be allowed to refuse service to anyone, but he shouldn't refuse service for such a stupid fucking reason.

This statement sounds like a double negative. First you say he should have the right then you say he shouldn't for a stupid reason? Any reason someone comes up with will be considered stupid to someone else.

[Infected Mushroom]

The problem with the whole "oppression to business owners" is that we chose to declare to the government "hey, we want to run a business, you got me?" and the government said "yea, sure". At that point, everything the government tells businesses to do is entirely something that they can do, and should be able to do, to regulate commerce. Business owners don't own themselves, we still have a government to answer to.

I mean, sure. I applied for a license to run my business and am required to display it my office. This is not oppression.

I am required in my business to comply with circular 230 specifically and the internal revenue code more generally. This is not oppression.

I am required by city ordinance to use a permanent sign instead of a temporary one. This is not oppression.

I am required to hold taxes on employees (and match FICA), this is not oppression.

I am required to maintain a safe work environment. This is not oppression.

I am required to electronically file. This is not oppression.

Why is being required to serve the public oppression for a public accommodation?

because it isn't justified by a public safety concern, related to tax law compliance or worker's compensation

and its related to a fundamental aspect of personal and professional interaction, so it seems entirely intrusive