COLORADO Baker: The second Batch

[The Black Forrest]

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.

Hyper self-conscious? Hardly. People are maturing and starting to think there are bigger problems then catching gay cooties.

I am missing your point about Hobby Lobby and boycotts.

Oh please. don't preach the myth of the self correcting free market.

[Galloism]

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

Neither is a permanent sign, business license, or the electronic filing requirement.

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

What fundamental aspect is that? be more specific.

[The Black Forrest]

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.

Kim Davis and the bakers came from the same mold.

Davis got smacked for not doing her job. The bakers got smacked for not doing their job.

[Galloism]

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.

Kim Davis and the bakers came from the same mold.

Davis got smacked for not doing her job. The bakers got smacked for not doing their job.

More specifically, the bakers got smacked for agreeing to be a public accommodation (with all the protections and responsibilities that entails) then commenced to shirking part of the responsibility portion.

[Fartsniffage]

Kim Davis and the bakers came from the same mold.

Davis got smacked for not doing her job. The bakers got smacked for not doing their job.

More specifically, the bakers got smacked for agreeing to be a public accommodation (with all the protections and responsibilities that entails) then commenced to shirking part of the responsibility portion.

You mean that people have both rights and responsibilities? But that's not fair.

[Galloism]

More specifically, the bakers got smacked for agreeing to be a public accommodation (with all the protections and responsibilities that entails) then commenced to shirking part of the responsibility portion.

You mean that people have both rights and responsibilities? But that's not fair.

Being an adult is hard.

[Donut section]

Where are we at with this?

We still have people claiming you don't have the freedom to discriminate?

[Infected Mushroom]

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

Neither is a permanent sign, business license, or the electronic filing requirement.

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

What fundamental aspect is that? be more specific.

electronic filing requirements are for valid administrative and legal reasons (ex so if someone sues, they are able to look up the company and its directors online by accessing the registry for a fee), the business license is subject to compliance with safety, tax and other valid requirements (and should in all honesty, exclude the loss of a right to choose customers). The permanent sign requirement we can do away with if you want.

[Fartsniffage]

You mean that people have both rights and responsibilities? But that's not fair.

Being an adult is hard.

I hate it. I wanna be a kid again. Or adopted by you and Nana, I'm cool with either.

[The Black Forrest]

Where are we at with this?

We still have people claiming you don't have the freedom to discriminate?

We still have a few people claiming you do have the right to discriminate in a public business.

But, please repeat the same discredited arguments.

[Galloism]

Neither is a permanent sign, business license, or the electronic filing requirement.



What fundamental aspect is that? be more specific.

electronic filing requirements are for valid administrative and legal reasons (ex so if someone sues, they are able to look up the company and its directors online by accessing the registry for a fee),

The electronic filing requirement does not involve publicly declaring online or any other way the company and its directors online. In fact, what I electronically file is legally privileged and immune from most forms of government probes (aside from tax compliance), let alone private industry.

the business license is subject to compliance with safety, tax and other valid requirements (and should in all honesty, exclude the loss of a right to choose customers).

The business license is a city license, and the city has literally no safety requirements (those are provided by OSHA), so it would fall clearly in "tax and other valid requirements", such as a public accommodation being required to serve the public.

The permanent sign requirement we can do away with if you want.

Why? Is it an invalid requirement?

[Galloism]

Being an adult is hard.

I hate it. I wanna be a kid again. Or adopted by you and Nana, I'm cool with either.

You'll have to take out the garbage and mow the lawn.

It's not all bad though - we do have a really nice riding lawnmower.

[Donut section]

Where are we at with this?

We still have people claiming you don't have the freedom to discriminate?

We still have a few people claiming you do have the right to discriminate in a public business.

But, please repeat the same discredited arguments.

You mean the ones "discredited" by public accommodation, civil rights movement and other bad fixes to social issues?

[Fartsniffage]

I hate it. I wanna be a kid again. Or adopted by you and Nana, I'm cool with either.

You'll have to take out the garbage and mow the lawn.

It's not all bad though - we do have a really nice riding lawnmower.

But I don't have a driving license. Oh well.

[Galloism]

We still have a few people claiming you do have the right to discriminate in a public business.

But, please repeat the same discredited arguments.

You mean the ones "discredited" by public accommodation, civil rights movement and other bad fixes to social issues?

I'm happy to hear proposals for a better fix.

As a business owner myself, these fixes facilitate my business and make it easier to be an ethical business owner, so going without them wholesale is a horrible option.

[Galloism]

You'll have to take out the garbage and mow the lawn.

It's not all bad though - we do have a really nice riding lawnmower.

But I don't have a driving license. Oh well.

In America, no driving license is needed to operate a lawnmower.

[Fartsniffage]

But I don't have a driving license. Oh well.

In America, no driving license is needed to operate a lawnmower.

Yay! *moves in with Gallo*

[Donut section]

You mean the ones "discredited" by public accommodation, civil rights movement and other bad fixes to social issues?

I'm happy to hear proposals for a better fix.

As a business owner myself, these fixes facilitate my business and make it easier to be an ethical business owner, so going without them wholesale is a horrible option.

I don't really know. Government intervention never seems to do so well at social issues.

All these have done is move the marginalisation from one group to the another. While costing whole heaps of money.

[Galloism]

I'm happy to hear proposals for a better fix.

As a business owner myself, these fixes facilitate my business and make it easier to be an ethical business owner, so going without them wholesale is a horrible option.

I don't really know. Government intervention never seems to do so well at social issues.

You probably weren't around the 60s, so let me enlighten you.

The civil rights act has done amazing things for social issues faced by black people. It hasn't been a cure all, but we've gone from people literally getting up and leaving and swearing never to eat at that restaurant again if a black couple comes in to blithely ignoring their presence, which is a really big change.

All these have done is move the marginalisation from one group to the another. While costing whole heaps of money.

Quite the opposite, in fact. The marginalization is greatly reduced compared to life before the civil rights act.

It's not fixed and perfect, but greatly improved. The economic cost thereof was also negligible in the grand scheme. Like, I couldn't say for certain whether it had a positive or negative effect.

[Donut section]

I don't really know. Government intervention never seems to do so well at social issues.

You probably weren't around the 60s, so let me enlighten you.

The civil rights act has done amazing things for social issues faced by black people. It hasn't been a cure all, but we've gone from people literally getting up and leaving and swearing never to eat at that restaurant again if a black couple comes in to blithely ignoring their presence, which is a really big change.

All these have done is move the marginalisation from one group to the another. While costing whole heaps of money.

Quite the opposite, in fact. The marginalization is greatly reduced compared to life before the civil rights act.

It's not fixed and perfect, but greatly improved. The economic cost thereof was also negligible in the grand scheme. Like, I couldn't say for certain whether it had a positive or negative effect.

I'm not saying things haven't improved. It's clear that they have. What I'm saying is the solution created to fix a large social issue that was having massive every day intrusion and discrimination in people's lives has achieved what it could (better than it should have, so I suspect some inter generational acceptance and progression is at play) is now being used to interfere in ways it shouldn't. Wait that's long winded.

There's a difference between discrimination of people to the extent where three hotels will serve you in a state. To not being able to get a specific baker to bake a cake for you this one time.




As a side note I don't believe the civil rights laws was a good fix to those issues, even in spite of their general success. But that's a whole different conversation.

Edit: I hope the distinction is I am trying to make is clear, god I wish I was more literate.

[Infected Mushroom]

electronic filing requirements are for valid administrative and legal reasons (ex so if someone sues, they are able to look up the company and its directors online by accessing the registry for a fee),

The electronic filing requirement does not involve publicly declaring online or any other way the company and its directors online. In fact, what I electronically file is legally privileged and immune from most forms of government probes (aside from tax compliance), let alone private industry.

the business license is subject to compliance with safety, tax and other valid requirements (and should in all honesty, exclude the loss of a right to choose customers).

The business license is a city license, and the city has literally no safety requirements (those are provided by OSHA), so it would fall clearly in "tax and other valid requirements", such as a public accommodation being required to serve the public.

The permanent sign requirement we can do away with if you want.

Why? Is it an invalid requirement?

You can't be correct. Because I've used the government run corporate registries frequently in my line of work, both the municipal and the provincial ones. It has a publicly registered name of company, name of directors, and other information. Its all right there.

In fact, you can access it too, not just lawyers. You just have to pay a fee for accessing the database each time.

The registration isn't just so the government can keep track of who is the owner/director, company name etc... its so you can access it too if you want to sue a company, contact a director, or just confirm the name of a business entity.

Without that database, you can be quite sure that it would be a lot more difficult to reach some of the people we want to sue.

[Omnonia]

Your feelings don't matter when compared to my feelings, get over it.

"...when compared to my basic human rights." FTFY

LGBT feelings should, indeed, be considered utterly, utterly urrelevant in this regard. Universal human rights trump LGBT+ folks' feelings. Infinitely so. That should be no contest, ever.

They* should indeed grow up and get over it.


* and for those not followng my posts, I'll repeat it: the only reason that's "they" instead of "we" is my conscious decision not to subscribe to a political ideology steeped in entitlement; I'm not cishet, so I could legitimately choose to be part of LGBT+... but, really, no, thanks.

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 that's the only of those that denies you the right to choose who gets to enter your private property, and acces to your own labor and goods.

If that's not oppressive, then what, logically, was oppressive about enslaving "imported" Africans? The only problem was that there wasn't the equality of enslaving a proportional amount of whites. But slavery, in itself? Still freedom within reasonable regulation, by your standards.

I suppose the slavery aspect of the Civil War (which wasn't its only cause, but hell yes, was a huge part of it, without which the CW possibly would not have happened) was just the North woefully ignorant of the truth of the epidemic of drapetomania, and enabling that illness to spread instead of trying to cure it, like the more health-conscious Southerners. [/acerbic sarcasm, if you really cannot tell}

Oh please. don't preach the myth of the self correcting free market.

Welcome to your utopia of Stalinist Amerika, where state owns your private business and may do with your property as it pleases.

I hope you are thoroughly against the Fourth Amendment. Because, newsflash: Exact. Same. Fucking. Principle. If you support that one, you're a hypocrite.

Kim Davis and the bakers came from the same mold.

Davis got smacked for not doing her job. The bakers got smacked for not doing their job.

No. Hell no. What a disgusting thing to say, driven most likely by a primitive tribalist ideology.

The only line of reasoning under which I could agree with this is the one that would render me utterly unable to give a counterargument to "No innocents were harmed in Auschwitz. A lot of innocents were harmed at Nuremberg '45. The Allies were the true criminals. #HitlerDidNothingWrong". And that's disgusting and ethically unacceptable.

But, please repeat the same discredited arguments.

Discredited as solidly as Jim Crow discredited the argument that n*****s are real people. *slow clap*

Oh but now, wait, I forgot. That was done by them evil people. It's the source that immediately validates or discredits anything that is said or done. Source is the deciding factor, not content - the same action isn't equally moral in the least if a virtously angelic LGBT+ person does it or one of those subhuman homophobes does it. You cannot compare that! Who totally outweighs how and what! (But discrimination... man, that is so mean, it breaks my bleeding hypocritical heart.)

People are maturing and starting to think there are bigger problems then catching gay cooties.

No, people have allowed themselves to regress into a state where they think there are bigger concerns that those pesky little freedoms and human rights, and tribalism is a virtue.

Yes, that includes you, personally.

[Omnonia]

Oh, and just for the mental image of Black Forrest's mind to get blown, here are the results of me taking the Political Compass Test...


And 8values...
Economic Axis: Socialist 76.8%
Diplomatic Axis: Internationalist 80.3%
Civil Axis: Liberal 73.5%
Societal Axis: Very Progressive 75.6%


I side with the baker, against the couple. Yes, I answered both tests honestly.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

[]

[Omnonia]

In the eyes of the primitive tribalist left... yes, that makes me a Good Person^TM.