COLORADO Baker: The second Batch

[Omnonia]

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

So you discriminate against non-presidents. I'm offended! My rights!

[Alvecia]

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?

Being refused there because they're gay, black, etc is discrimination, by definition.
The state allows you to open a business that sells to the public.
The laws says you can sell, the public is entitled to equal treatment under the law Consitutionally, so refusing to treat the whole public is unconsitutional.

[Alvecia]

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

So you discriminate against non-presidents. I'm offended! My rights!

It isn't against the law for a non-president to become president

[Omnonia]

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?

Being refused there because they're gay, black, etc is discrimination, by definition.
The state allows you to open a business that sells to the public.
The laws says you can sell, the public is entitled to equal treatment under the law Consitutionally, so refusing to treat the whole public is unconsitutional.

Not all discrimination deserves to be made illegal. Implicit part of the 1st Amendment.

You even allow poeple to call folks slurs without legal sanction, for goodness sake. That's far more of a violation of their rights than not being sold to by a privately owned bakery.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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?

Being refused there because they're gay, black, etc is discrimination, by definition.
The state allows you to open a business that sells to the public.
The laws says you can sell, the public is entitled to equal treatment under the law Consitutionally, so refusing to treat the whole public is unconsitutional.

See, the problem is that people don't understand that there's a difference between owning the materials to do a business, and opening a business.

Opening a business and getting a business license from the state subjects you to the law of the state in which you live in. Now, can you do business without a business license? Of course you can, it's just not sanctioned by the state, and that's a different thing.

But apparently the government requiring people to file for a business license is so oppressive.

[Omnonia]

So you discriminate against non-presidents. I'm offended! My rights!

It isn't against the law for a non-president to become president

Is it against the law for gay people become to become (or pose as) straight?

If they wanted a wedding cake, they could have invited a female friend to pose as the bride for one of them.

[Galloism]

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...)

Like I said once before: this was not created in a vacuum. There was a very real oppressive situation on the ground that necessitated public accommodations serve the public without regard to race, etc.

I'm bringing back an oldie:

Stupid statists ruining muh markets ;_;

He died not that long ago, but I knew a guy who used to run a grocery store and a pharmacy in the south before the Civil Rights Act.

Like most people running a store, he had a rather large loan on the property. In that loan paperwork, all the local banks who would actually finance businesses included a clause that if they sold to black people, their note could be called within 7 days.

This was legal and common practice in many areas of the south.

He used to make deliveries in the middle of the night to black families that needed groceries or medicine so as not to be caught. If he was caught, he would lose his store. He loved the civil rights act - which enjoined him from treating black people differently (which he didn't want to) and the banks from treating businesses differently that discriminated. The businesses that allowed black people in the same as whites were routinely boycotted and went out of business. Even banks that financed them faced social backlash and loss of accounts - hence the clauses.

This is capitalism at work.

[Alvecia]

Being refused there because they're gay, black, etc is discrimination, by definition.
The state allows you to open a business that sells to the public.
The laws says you can sell, the public is entitled to equal treatment under the law Consitutionally, so refusing to treat the whole public is unconsitutional.

Not all discrimination deserves to be made illegal. Implicit part of the 1st Amendment.

You even allow poeple to call folks slurs without legal sanction, for goodness sake. That's far more of a violation of their rights than not being sold to by a privately owned bakery.

I've brought this up before. Your rights end where another begins.
If it was my religion view that I should murder a small child every full moon, I should not be allowed that right because it infringes upon the rights of the child, despite not being able to do so infringing upon my own right to ritually sacrifice children.

[Galloism]

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

So you discriminate against non-presidents. I'm offended! My rights!

Being a president is not an intrinsic state of being unrelated to the issuing of executive orders.

[Galloism]

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

We used to file on paper, but I am no longer allowed to file on paper unless electronic filing is impossible. It's not a forced choice between filing and not filing, it's a forced choice between filing electronically vs filing on paper.

Try again.

[Jamzmania]

Not all discrimination deserves to be made illegal. Implicit part of the 1st Amendment.

You even allow poeple to call folks slurs without legal sanction, for goodness sake. That's far more of a violation of their rights than not being sold to by a privately owned bakery.

I've brought this up before. Your rights end where another begins.
If it was my religion view that I should murder a small child every full moon, I should not be allowed that right because it infringes upon the rights of the child, despite not being able to do so infringing upon my own right to ritually sacrifice children.

Nobody has a right to shop at a private business.

[Alvecia]

It isn't against the law for a non-president to become president

Is it against the law for gay people become to become (or pose as) straight?

No, they're free to do that if they want

If they wanted a wedding cake, they could have invited a female friend to pose as the bride for one of them.

Assuming they knew they'd be discriminated against beforehand.
Doesn't matter in the end. The owner is legally obligated to serve them.

[Alvecia]

I've brought this up before. Your rights end where another begins.
If it was my religion view that I should murder a small child every full moon, I should not be allowed that right because it infringes upon the rights of the child, despite not being able to do so infringing upon my own right to ritually sacrifice children.

Nobody has a right to shop at a private business.

They do actually. Equal Protection under the Law.
The law says this business is allowed to serve the public, therefore the business must serve the whole public.

[Infected Mushroom]

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

We used to file on paper, but I am no longer allowed to file on paper unless electronic filing is impossible. It's not a forced choice between filing and not filing, it's a forced choice between filing electronically vs filing on paper.

Try again.

What am I trying out for?

You're the one who is being unclear and who seems to be deliberately adversarial on a non-point; I could care less how or what you are filing

[Omnonia]

There was a very real oppressive situation on the ground that necessitated public accommodations serve the public without regard to race, etc.

It was remedied with just as much oppression. Now, that might be justifiable as an emergency measure - comparaable to a democracy instating martial law do deal with the immediate effects of some catastrophe, because there's no way to get things under control.

But keeping martial law in place for 50 years after the catstrophe... yeah, no. That's a dictatorship that replaced the original democratic state. And, in fact, that's the most common way of creating one from the other.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Nobody has a right to shop at a private business.

They do actually. Equal Protection under the Law.
The law says this business is allowed to serve the public, therefore the business must serve the whole public.

Well, the business owner can still refuse.

This is the problem behind the argument posed that "there's no right to shop! HURRR DURRRR LOOK AT ME I SMRT!", that it ignores the fact NOBODY IS TELLING YOU YOU CAN'T REFUSE BUSINESS. They're telling you that you can still say "no", you just can't be a fucking racist while at it.

[Jamzmania]

Nobody has a right to shop at a private business.

They do actually. Equal Protection under the Law.
The law says this business is allowed to serve the public, therefore the business must serve the whole public.

We all know what the current law says. The point is that the law should be removed.

[Galloism]

We used to file on paper, but I am no longer allowed to file on paper unless electronic filing is impossible. It's not a forced choice between filing and not filing, it's a forced choice between filing electronically vs filing on paper.

Try again.

What am I trying out for?

You're the one who is being unclear and who seems to be deliberately adversarial on a non-point; I could care less how or what you are filing

The point IM, is that I MUST electronically file. Maybe I prefer to file on paper, or file black people's returns on paper, but that doesn't matter, by regulation, I MUST electronically file.

Is it oppression that I MUST electronically file instead of filing on paper?

How is that any different from being required to serve gay married couples in the same fashion as straight married couples when it comes to filing taxes?

[Infected Mushroom]

Nobody has a right to shop at a private business.

They do actually. Equal Protection under the Law.
The law says this business is allowed to serve the public, therefore the business must serve the whole public.

should this be how its set up though?

This may be how its currently set up, but is this how a truly free society should be set up? The default being, "you are required to serve everyone, you cannot choose"

[Soldati Senza Confini]

They do actually. Equal Protection under the Law.
The law says this business is allowed to serve the public, therefore the business must serve the whole public.

We all know what the current law says. The point is that the law should be removed.

Obviously you don't.

[Omnonia]

They do actually. Equal Protection under the Law.
The law says this business is allowed to serve the public, therefore the business must serve the whole public.

A sad perversion of the intent of 14A. You keep pointing out the exact reasons why I think the CRA messed up, trying to convince me that that's why they're justified.

That's a logical fallacy: you're begging the question.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

They do actually. Equal Protection under the Law.
The law says this business is allowed to serve the public, therefore the business must serve the whole public.

should this be how its set up though?

This may be how its currently set up, but is this how a truly free society should be set up? The default being, "you are required to serve everyone, you cannot choose"

Well, that would be wrong, if that is what the law actually says.

But, it doesn't, so there's no issue.

[Galloism]

There was a very real oppressive situation on the ground that necessitated public accommodations serve the public without regard to race, etc.

It was remedied with just as much oppression.

No, it's replaced with less oppression.

Instead of "you are oppressed merely for being and your choices don't come into play", it's "when you open a public accommodation, you are required to follow the laws regarding public accommodations."

"You must follow legal requirements for X if you do X" is inherently less oppressive than "You must endure discrimination for existing."

[Jamzmania]

We all know what the current law says. The point is that the law should be removed.

Obviously you don't.

I subscribe to the idea that rights are not instituted by laws, they are simply protected by them. Sometimes false rights are set up, or rights are violated.

[Alvecia]

They do actually. Equal Protection under the Law.
The law says this business is allowed to serve the public, therefore the business must serve the whole public.

We all know what the current law says. The point is that the law should be removed.

And I disagree.