COLORADO Baker: The second Batch

[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.

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"

Yes, to the extent that it complies with other rights.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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.

I didn't mean you obviously don't think that the law should be removed.

I mean you obviously don't know what the law says, because it never says that they MUST serve you no matter what.

[Infected Mushroom]

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?

I wouldn't say so (that it rises to the level of oppression). The requirement to file electronically as opposed to by paper is just an administrative preference of the government, similar to how they might choose to accept payments by cheque for certain fees while rejecting a money order or cash

However, I would say that it comes across as a natural right that if I choose to use my own money to start a business that I should also have the default right to choose customers, and that barring a valid public safety/tax reason I shouldn't have to be forced otherwise

Under the current system, the default (regular business license) in many countries is that you are obligated to serve the public at large and that if you want the privilege to serve specific customers you have to apply to be registered as a private club (which is a huge inconvenience and comes with a different set of strings attached, ex you can only sell to registered members, effective you are not a "business" in the regular sense of the word and its not a sustainable business model). This just doesn't seem right

[Vassenor]

Also I take it this means y'all are fine with people being kicked out of a store for open-carrying then?

[Omnonia]

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.

Being gay is highly likely to be an intrinsic state, yes (personally, I think that's assumption is true, and the evidence certainly does point strongly iinto that direction; but it's not yet 100% absolutely proven).

But that intrinsic state is unrelated to the issue of getting the privilege of buying a cake at a privately owned bakery.

[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.

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.

Something something fallacy fallacy.

Tell me then, what was the intent of 14A in the creators words?
I've seen you claim that the CRA is a perversion of the 14A, but I've yet to see you explain why.

Perhaps I missed it, or perhaps you're doing much the same you've accused me of.

[Omnonia]

Also I take it this means y'all are fine with people being kicked out of a store for open-carrying then?

Obviously. As if I support open-carry.

Gun control FTW!

[Infected Mushroom]

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"

Yes

why are we interested in imposing a default interference with people's personal preferences and personal interests?

[Jamzmania]

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.

I didn't mean you obviously don't think that the law should be removed.

I mean you obviously don't know what the law says, because it never says that they MUST serve you no matter what.

No, according to you they just have to further violate their faith by becoming liars and inventing legal reasons not to take certain orders.

[Alvecia]

Yes

why are we interested in imposing a default interference with people's personal preferences and personal interests?

I clarified, too late it seems.

I refer back to the statement "your rights end where mine begin"

[Galloism]

However, I would say that it comes across as a natural right that if I choose to use my own money to start a business that I should also have the default right to choose customers, and that barring a valid public safety/tax reason I shouldn't have to be forced otherwise

Actually, there is a public safety reason. It was often hard for black people to get hotels, and were therefore subject to having to sleep on the street, where they're at risk for crime - even if they otherwise had the money. It was also difficult for black people to get medication or food which subjected them to death for lack of service, even though service was available to white people.

Public safety is a damn good reason for the civil rights act.

Under the current system, the default (regular business license) in many countries is that you are obligated to serve the public at large and that if you want the privilege to serve specific customers you have to apply to be registered as a private club (which is a huge inconvenience and comes with a different set of strings attached, ex you can only sell to registered members, effective you are not a "business" in the regular sense of the word and its not a sustainable business model). This just doesn't seem right

It's perfectly right - private clubs have the right to discriminate, public accommodations do not. This is because public accommodations are held out as being open to the public, and get certain public privileges and responsibilities that private clubs do not.

They implicitly agreed to the terms when they started. They should not get all the privileges of running a public accommodation and then get to shirk the responsibility portion.

It would be like if I used water from the local water utility then insisted I had no responsibility to pay for it.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I didn't mean you obviously don't think that the law should be removed.

I mean you obviously don't know what the law says, because it never says that they MUST serve you no matter what.

No, according to you they just have to further violate their faith by becoming liars and inventing legal reasons not to take certain orders.

Oh please, Christians lie just like everyone else.

They can live with their conscience if they're that spiteful, as they already have to live with their conscience for being assholes anyways.

You're appealing to their "poor sense of morality", when in reality, they really and truly are already breaking the morality they claim to espouse as Christians.

So no, I don't feel for the poor business owner who has to break one more moral code to live by, he already does it anyways without having to lie.

If you have to come up with "think of their morality", then there's nothing for you to convince me, because I've seen people break under pressure, and I think morality is a fickle thing.

[Galloism]

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

Being gay is highly likely to be an intrinsic state, yes (personally, I think that's assumption is true, and the evidence certainly does point strongly iinto that direction; but it's not yet 100% absolutely proven).

But that intrinsic state is unrelated to the issue of getting the privilege of buying a cake at a privately owned bakery.

It's an intrinsic state unrelated to the ability to buy cake, however.

[Omnonia]

Something something fallacy fallacy.

Tell me then, what was the intent of 14A in the creators words?
I've seen you claim that the CRA is a perversion of the 14A, but I've yet to see you explain why.

Perhaps I missed it, or perhaps you're doing much the same you've accused me of.

Getting served by a private business is not in any way related to equal treatment under the law.

Equal treatment under the law: Things like right to marry, right to be a citizen, right to own property, right to free movement, right to vote. Governmental stuff. Not private business stuff. That's the things 14A, guaranteed black Americans, and good grief yes, was that ever neccessary and overdue by 1868.

Applying that as an excuse to de-facto disown and enslave private business owners in the 1960s? That's perverse and disgusting.

[Galloism]

I didn't mean you obviously don't think that the law should be removed.

I mean you obviously don't know what the law says, because it never says that they MUST serve you no matter what.

No, according to you they just have to further violate their faith by becoming liars and inventing legal reasons not to take certain orders.

Or they could hire an employee with no qualms and let that employee handle the orders they object to. Or they could not voluntarily open a business where they have to serve the public because it's part of the regulations surrounding that business.

[Omnonia]

Being gay is highly likely to be an intrinsic state, yes (personally, I think that's assumption is true, and the evidence certainly does point strongly iinto that direction; but it's not yet 100% absolutely proven).

But that intrinsic state is unrelated to the issue of getting the privilege of buying a cake at a privately owned bakery.

It's an intrinsic state unrelated to the ability to buy cake, however.

Having an ability is unrelated to whether you get the privilege of actuating that ability.

I have a right to sign executive orders as a president, exactly as much as a gay couple has a right to demand a wedding cake in a privately owner bakery - nada in both cases.

[Alvecia]

Something something fallacy fallacy.

Tell me then, what was the intent of 14A in the creators words?
I've seen you claim that the CRA is a perversion of the 14A, but I've yet to see you explain why.

Perhaps I missed it, or perhaps you're doing much the same you've accused me of.

Getting served by a private business is not in any way related to equal treatment under the law.

Equal treatment under the law: Things like right to marry, right to be a citizen, right to own property, right to free movement, right to vote. Governmental stuff. Not private business stuff. That's the things 14A, guaranteed black Americans, and good grief yes, was that ever neccessary and overdue by 1868.

Applying that as an excuse to de-facto disown and enslave private business owners in the 1960s? That's perverse and disgusting.

It is governmental business given that it is the government who decides whether or not you should be allowed to operate in the first place.
To claim that the government and private businesses have nothing to do with each other is highly naive.

[Galloism]

It's an intrinsic state unrelated to the ability to buy cake, however.

Having an ability is unrelated to whether you get the privilege of actuating that ability.

I have a right to sign executive orders as a president, exactly as much as a gay couple has a right to demand a wedding cake in a privately owner bakery - nada in both cases.

Except the bakery owners agreed to the public accommodation laws by opening a public accommodation. They agreed.

Now they shirk.

EDIT: And, again, the civil rights act protects nondiscriminating business owners from public backlash. I already fizzled one boycott this way.

[Omnonia]

To claim that the government and private businesses have nothing to do with each other is highly naive.

To claim that they are the same thing is highly oppressive.

[Infected Mushroom]

why are we interested in imposing a default interference with people's personal preferences and personal interests?

I clarified, too late it seems.

I refer back to the statement "your rights end where mine begin"

why do you have a default right to use services that I'm going to have to provide with my labour?

And if you say, "because when you opened the business you registered as a business and the requirement for such registration is that you serve Everyone and give up your right to choose customers" I'll say that its a mechanical argument about how things Are, not how they should be. There's a default interference with the shop owner's right to set up his business so before you even talk about your supposed rights as a consumer, the rights of the business owner has already been violated.

And again, why do you have a default right to use services that I'm going to have to provide with my labour?

The shop was set up with my labour, my capital, my time. So it seems entirely natural that I should have the default right to exercise my personal judgement in who to service and who not to. In fact, its been this way for the past few hundred years until the recent licensing regimes were set up.

[Omnonia]

Except the bakery owners agreed to the public accommodation laws by opening a public accommodation. They agreed.

By entering the bus, Rosa Parks implicitly agreed to vacate her seat to any white person who tells her to.

Your point being?

[Galloism]

Except the bakery owners agreed to the public accommodation laws by opening a public accommodation. They agreed.

By entering the bus, Rosa Parks implicitly agreed to vacate her seat to any white person who tells her to.

Your point being?

Rosa Parks probably had no choice but to ride the bus.

The business owners had many choices besides opening a public accommodation and taking advantage of those laws until they became inconvenient.

[Infected Mushroom]

Having an ability is unrelated to whether you get the privilege of actuating that ability.

I have a right to sign executive orders as a president, exactly as much as a gay couple has a right to demand a wedding cake in a privately owner bakery - nada in both cases.

Except the bakery owners agreed to the public accommodation laws by opening a public accommodation. They agreed.

Now they shirk.

EDIT: And, again, the civil rights act protects nondiscriminating business owners from public backlash. I already fizzled one boycott this way.

Did they have a practical alternative though?

Registering as a "private club" comes with all sorts of strings attached that make business unsustainable (ex you can only sell to registered members). The current system imposes a default interference on the rights of business owners, there is no alternative viable registration.

So anything they "agreed to" seems a bit artificial. Its not as simple as a scenario where I agreed to deliver a pizza to you and then defaulted on it.

[Alvecia]

To claim that the government and private businesses have nothing to do with each other is highly naive.

To claim that they are the same thing is highly oppressive.

Now who's committing logical fallacies?
I never said there were the same.

[Omnonia]

Or they could hire an employee with no qualms and let that employee handle the orders they object to. Or they could not voluntarily open a business where they have to serve the public because it's part of the regulations surrounding that business.

Rosa Parks probably had no choice but to ride the bus.

Rosa Parks could just have walked. Rosa Parks could have asked a friend to drive her. Rosa Parks could have sat in the seats designated to blacks,