COLORADO Baker: The second Batch

[Alvecia]

I think you're assuming that the public/private categorisation in "public accomodation" and "private business" refer to the same thing.
"Public accomodation" refers to their clientele
"Private business" refers to their ownership

Hence, a private business can be a public accomodation

[San Lumen]

How far did she have to go?

I don't know, and it's irrelevant. We're just arguing if she was free to do so, even if it was 100 miles.

They aren''t just forced to serve that specific couple. The force is applied whenever a customer, any customer, walks through the door. You just happen to only notice the oppression when there's a customer you don't want to serve.

You, Gallo, still are oppressed. You are just too nice and compliant to notice it. (Not being snarky here. I do think that on the level of niceness, you probably outclass this baker by leagues. But I don't think liberty and human rights should only be given to nice people. Giving them to people you consider assholes is the entire point of having those rights in the first place. "I don't agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.")




I mean, yeah. Sales tax exists now and gets raised/lowered occasionally.



Not sure what this crazy tangent has to do with public accommodations laws.
Not a crazy tangent at all. You said you don't see any difference between a one time fee and a restriction of your choice in every contract you made; and then, you said you're okay with the state controlling prices through arbitrary inflation.

The craziness is on your side, not mine.

No, they are a privately owned business. They have far more in common with a residence than with an airport or railway station. They are a public accomodation only if they have been disowned by the state, the owners right to property - a basic human right - oppressed and revoked.

What you link to there? That is exactly why the CRA needs change, pronto. That is oppression, plain and simple - no if, no but. It's a perversion of 14A, applied to oppress private business.

so any business should be allowed to discriminate against whomever they so choose? Where do we draw the line? What would you change the CRA to and basically defeat its purpose or would you just repeal it entirely? I find it interesting that other posters wrote the same argument as I did and you choose to give them a response.

[Omnonia]

So where does the Bible say that you cannot serve homosexuals?

As I told you before: That question is irrelevant, due to the 1st Amendment.

(Wondering if you have blocked me without telling me... I mean, that would be your right to do, obvs, but isn't very polite. )

When I block people, I am polite enough to inform them. Some people don't get the hint even then, but then it's onjectively 100% their problem, not mine.

I think you're assuming that the public/private categorisation in "public accomodation" and "private business" refer to the same thing.
"Public accomodation" refers to their clientele
"Private business" refers to their ownership

Hence, a private business can be a public accomodation

That's still just a view put into legislation by the CRA. I vehemently disagree with that view; so does the law, over here.

[Galloism]

Motherfarking quote tags.

How far did she have to go?

I don't know, and it's irrelevant. We're just arguing if she was free to do so, even if it was 100 miles.

You are not free to do things you are physically unable to do.

Really? They had a few dozen gay couples getting married walking into their store every day looking for cupcakes? Source?

They aren''t just forced to serve that specific couple. The force is applied whenever a customer, any customer, walks through the door. You just happen to only notice the oppression when there's a customer you don't want to serve.

You, Gallo, still are oppressed. You are just too nice and compliant to notice it. (Not being snarky here. I do think that on the level of niceness, you probably outclass this baker by leagues. But I don't think liberty and human rights should only be given to nice people. Giving them to people you consider assholes is the entire point of having those rights in the first place. "I don't agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.")

Here's the thing: I run a public accommodation. I chose to run a public accommodation. This was my choice. In so choosing to run a public accommodation, I am bound by public accommodation laws. This stems from my choice.

I chose to run a tax business. This was my choice. In so choosing to run a tax business, I am bound by Circular 230, requirement to efile, requirement to maintain a PTIN, requirement to obtain a business license, and a whole bunch of other shit that I could fill pages on. However, all this stems from my choice.

Now, I like efiling. It's much better than when we used to file on paper, but according to your logic, I am being oppressed every time a customer walks through the door because I HAVE to efile his return. The logic here implies that any business regulation is oppression.

So much for the free market, then. If the state raises the fee for operating your till, the peasants see the cost of lollypops inflated to whatever the government see fit.

I mean, yeah. Sales tax exists now and gets raised/lowered occasionally.

A lovely little planned economy with arbitrary induced inflation and/or good shortages, you have there. In Soviet Amerika, state plan now says lollipop is for the top 1% income bracket!

Not sure what this crazy tangent has to do with public accommodations laws.
Not a crazy tangent at all. You said you don't see any difference between a one time fee and a restriction of your choice in every contract you made; and then, you said you're okay with the state controlling prices through arbitrary inflation.

The craziness is on your side, not mine.

Well, it's on the strawman you made of my side, I guess. I didn't necessarily even come out in favor of price fixing - I merely pointed out that excise taxes are a thing and have never been viewed as unconstitutional.

No, they are a privately owned business. They have far more in common with a residence than with an airport or railway station. They are a public accomodation only if they have been disowned by the state, the owners right to property - a basic human right - oppressed and revoked.

What you link to there? That is exactly why the CRA needs change, pronto. That is oppression, plain and simple - no if, no but. It's a perversion of 14A, applied to oppress private business.

Again, reasonable regulation isn't oppression, unless I'm oppressed by being required to efile.

[Alvecia]

I think you're assuming that the public/private categorisation in "public accomodation" and "private business" refer to the same thing.
"Public accomodation" refers to their clientele
"Private business" refers to their ownership

Hence, a private business can be a public accomodation

That's still just a view put into legislatin by the CRA. I vehemently disagree with that view; so does the law, over here.

I don't see why. Business must operate by the rules in of the market they exist in.
Seemingly, by your definition, for a business to be unopressed they must be free of any regulations whatsoever.

[Omnonia]

Motherfarking quote tags.

I know, right? At least one thing you and I agree on wholeheartedly.

Here's the thing: I run a public accommodation. I chose to run a public accommodation. This was my choice. In so choosing to run a public accommodation, I am bound by public accommodation laws. This stems from my choice.

I chose to run a tax business. This was my choice. In so choosing to run a tax business, I am bound by Circular 230, requirement to efile, requirement to maintain a PTIN, requirement to obtain a business license, and a whole bunch of other shit that I could fill pages on. However, all this stems from my choice.

Now, I like efiling. It's much better than when we used to file on paper, but according to your logic, I am being oppressed every time a customer walks through the door because I HAVE to efile his return. The logic here implies that any business regulation is oppression.

Unless your tax business is literally a service run by the state, and you are a government employee - no, I don't agree that you run a public accomodation. People coming in to get help with their taxes are, unless and until you agree to enter a contract and take their money for your labor, guests on your property, nothing less.

If you, by law, cannot show guests in your privately owned building the door - then you are oppressed. No if, no but.

Again, reasonable regulation isn't oppression, unless I'm oppressed by being required to efile.

By being required to file, yes, you are oppressed. You are a slave. You call yourself a business owner, but de facto, you are a slave to the state.

[Omnonia]

I don't see why. Business must operate by the rules in of the market they exist in.
Seemingly, by your definition, for a business to be unopressed they must be free of any regulations whatsoever.

Not all rules and regulations are fair and justified. (Jim Crow was 100% perfectly legal. So was the Holocaust. No law broken there; on the contrary, law fulfilled with horrifying efficiency.)

A law that oppresses human rights is a bad law. To even do so in the slightest ways requires massive justification. I don't do "much" harm if I spit into [insert discriminated person from group XYZ's ] face, they can wipe it off without any lasting damage whatsoever. Does that mean alaw that allows, or even requires, spitting into faces, is alright and should not be protested?

Hell to the no, it doesn't.

[Galloism]

Motherfarking quote tags.

I know, right? At least one thing you and I agree on wholeheartedly.

On this we can agree.

Here's the thing: I run a public accommodation. I chose to run a public accommodation. This was my choice. In so choosing to run a public accommodation, I am bound by public accommodation laws. This stems from my choice.

I chose to run a tax business. This was my choice. In so choosing to run a tax business, I am bound by Circular 230, requirement to efile, requirement to maintain a PTIN, requirement to obtain a business license, and a whole bunch of other shit that I could fill pages on. However, all this stems from my choice.

Now, I like efiling. It's much better than when we used to file on paper, but according to your logic, I am being oppressed every time a customer walks through the door because I HAVE to efile his return. The logic here implies that any business regulation is oppression.

Unless your tax business is literally a service run by the state, and you are a government employee - no, I don't agree that you run a public accomodation. People coming in to get help with their taxes are, unless and until you agree to enter a contract and take their money for your labor, guests on your property, nothing less.

If you, by law, cannot show guests in your privately owned building the door - then you are oppressed. No if, no but.

It is not - because I agreed to it by opening a public accommodation. You're essentially arguing that being required to do things I implicitly agreed to do is oppression.

Again, reasonable regulation isn't oppression, unless I'm oppressed by being required to efile.

By being required to file, yes, you are oppressed. You are a slave. You call yourself a business owner, but de facto, you are a slave to the state.

I'll send the IRS a note later to tell them efiling is slavery.

Those guys could use a laugh.

[Alvecia]

I don't see why. Business must operate by the rules in of the market they exist in.
Seemingly, by your definition, for a business to be unopressed they must be free of any regulations whatsoever.

Not all rules and regulations are fair and justified. (Jim Crow was 100% perfectly legal. So was the Holocaust. No law broken there; on the contrary, law fulfilled with horrifying efficiency.)

A law that oppresses human rights is a bad law. To even do so in the slightest ways requires massive justification. I don't do "much" harm if I spit into [insert discriminated person from group XYZ's ] face, they can wipe it off without any lasting damage whatsoever. Does that mean alaw that allows, or even requires, spitting into faces, is alright and should not be protested?

Hell to the no, it doesn't.

Arguably allowing businesses to discriminate infringes on more human rights than not so. More people buy from stores than sell from them.
Besides, taht old adage comes to mind once again "You right to swing your fist end where my face begins".
Your rights end when they infringe upon another's.

[Omnonia]

It is not - because I agreed to it by opening a public accommodation. You're essentially arguing that being required to do things I implicitly agreed to do is oppression.

Yes, it is. You should have the right to give - or withhold - explicit agreement. Every. Single. Time. A customer comes through your door.

I'll send the IRS a note later to tell them efiling is slavery.

Those guys could use a laugh.

Okay, perhaps I misunderstand what "efiling" is. (Not a native speaker here, just a pretty talented second-language. ) Is that part of the service you offer to your clients, or part of e.g. paying your own income tax?

[Rangila]

Private business owners shouldn't be obligated to serve anyone.

[Alvecia]

Private business owners shouldn't be obligated to serve anyone.

Somehow I suspect a business that didn't serve anyone wouldn't last very long

[Nulla Bellum]

I want Billy Joel, Inc. to perform at my wedding...

Billy Joel isn't, and doesn't claim to be, a public accommodation.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Omnonia]

Arguably allowing businesses to discriminate infringes on more human rights than not so. More people buy from stores than sell from them.

Shopping at a private business regardless of the wishes of the business owner is not and has never been a human right.

So, a million gay couples turned away is less human right infringement than a single baker forced to bake a cake against his will.

[Galloism]

Okay, perhaps I misunderstand what "efiling" is. (Not a native speaker here, just a pretty talented second-language. ) Is that part of the service you offer to your clients, or part of e.g. paying your own income tax?

Maybe I better go back to the beginning.

In the US, almost everyone has to file income taxes every year, usually a minimum of two forms, typically 8-10, but I've submitted a 300 page tax return a few times.

Starting in... 2010 I think (I'd have to look it up to be sure), as a professional preparer, I had to submit tax returns electronically instead of via US Mail, unless we are physically unable to submit electronically (IE, specific tax situations and certain supplemental statements have to be included). In doing so, I have to collect the customer's consent signature and keep them on file for warrantless inspection for 3 years.

This is required if you run a tax business.

[Alvecia]

Arguably allowing businesses to discriminate infringes on more human rights than not so. More people buy from stores than sell from them.

Shopping at a private business regardless of the wishes of the business owner is not and has never been a human right.

C'mon now, you should have been easily able to infer that it's about not being discriminated against, not about whether or not you have a right to shop

[Vassenor]

Private business owners shouldn't be obligated to serve anyone.

Public accommodation owners, on the other hand...

[Omnonia]

Private business owners shouldn't be obligated to serve anyone.

Somehow I suspect a business that didn't serve anyone wouldn't last very long

If they're driven out of business by the principles of the Free Market, I won't shed a tear.

If the government does it, I will angrily call the lawmakers out for making oppressive laws.

Apples and oranges.

[Alvecia]

Somehow I suspect a business that didn't serve anyone wouldn't last very long

If they're driven out of business by the principles of the Free Market, I won't shed a tear.

If the government does it, I will angrily call the lawmakers out for making oppressive laws.

Apples and oranges.

Oh stop it, it was a joke, I know what they meant.

[Omnonia]

C'mon now, you should have been easily able to infer that it's about not being discriminated against, not about whether or not you have a right to shop

If shopping there isn't a right, then being refused shopping there isn't discrimination. It's just not qualifying for a privilege.

Am I being "discriminated against" for not getting to make executive orders? The President can do that, why not me?

[Galloism]

C'mon now, you should have been easily able to infer that it's about not being discriminated against, not about whether or not you have a right to shop

If shopping there isn't a right, then being refused shopping there isn't discrimination. It's just not qualifying for a privilege.

Am I being "discriminated against" for not getting to make executive orders? The President can do that, why not me?

If only white presidents could make executive orders, while black presidents were not allowed, that would be discrimination.

[Vassenor]

Also for people saying that racism is dead in America: we have cases where police officers are literally making up laws on the spot to justify arresting black people.

[Omnonia]

Private business owners shouldn't be obligated to serve anyone.

Public accommodation owners, on the other hand...

That's a judicial term in an oppressive law. You're begging the question.

You can justify Jim Crow the same way. No person was discriminated against, just n*****s put in their place.

(cue fools misinterpreting that statement due to lack of reading comprehension, in 3, 2, 1...)

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Public accommodation owners, on the other hand...

That's a judicial term in an oppressive law. You're begging the question.

You can justify Jim Crow the same way. No person was discriminated against, just n*****s put in their place.

(cue fools misinterpreting that statement due to lack of reading comprehension, in 3, 2, 1...)

Boy, and I thought I was aggressive.

[Infected Mushroom]

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.

That isn't what I'm electronically filing. I'm electronically filing tax returns of clients, and those enjoy a certain amount of legal privilege.

And I am required to do so (unless the client, not I, opts out).

and you're required to file it because the government needs to keep track of its taxes, so there's a reasonable administrative basis for it

on the other hand, forcing businesses to serve everyone doesn't; it doesn't have a tax or public safety justification, its just imposing a political preference