COLORADO Baker: The second Batch

[Alvecia]

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.

Because you're provided those services to the public as allowed by the government, so you must comply with their laws, including that you must treat them equally.

[Infected Mushroom]

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.

she could have walked

that's about as inconvenienced as the alternatives to the public accommodation registration, no one wants to be forced to sell to registered members only (who the hell would register as a member to buy a cake?)

[Omnonia]

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

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

No, that was SCOTUS who did so. You defend their ruling, or, at the very least, give implicit consent to it by not speaking out against it.

[Infected Mushroom]

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.

Because you're provided those services to the public as allowed by the government, so you must comply with their laws, including that you must treat them equally.

I don't dispute that this is currently the law

but again, why should the government impose a default interference with the business owners' right to choose their customers when its the business owner who is using his labour, capital, and time to run the business at the end of the day. Is freedom of contract not the cornerstone of the modern economy?

How can a contract/transaction truly be free if person B can come to person A's place and say, "You are required to go through with this transaction" ?

[Galloism]

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.

Actually, private clubs are generally under less regulation than public accommodations, but with that comes fewer perks.

It's a tradeoff - but many private clubs have lasted a very very long time. Hell, in Arkansas, only private clubs can serve liquor on Sundays, which is why many restaurants operate a separate room that's a private club with membership in addition to the public accommodation portion.

IE, anyone can eat because it's a public accommodation, but to drink, you need to join their private club.

And the current system imposes default interference on the rights of business owners of all types of businesses in all fields - for instance, handicap accessibility. When I bought my building, I had to construct a ramp to the door before I could open my business. It's the law.

[Galloism]

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.

she could have walked

that's about as inconvenienced as the alternatives to the public accommodation registration, no one wants to be forced to sell to registered members only (who the hell would register as a member to buy a cake?)

Uh, I might.

I'm a registered club member at Chili's bar.

[The Black Forrest]

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.

Hmmm. So we should assume any pair of men or women must be gay!

[Infected Mushroom]

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.

Actually, private clubs are generally under less regulation than public accommodations, but with that comes fewer perks.

It's a tradeoff - but many private clubs have lasted a very very long time. Hell, in Arkansas, only private clubs can serve liquor on Sundays, which is why many restaurants operate a separate room that's a private club with membership in addition to the public accommodation portion.

IE, anyone can eat because it's a public accommodation, but to drink, you need to join their private club.

And the current system imposes default interference on the rights of business owners of all types of businesses in all fields - for instance, handicap accessibility. When I bought my building, I had to construct a ramp to the door before I could open my business. It's the law.

The problem is that the private club model isn't a practical model of business for most types of businesses.

Take a bakery for example. Would a bakery function if customers had to register as members first?

MAYBE if said bakery was run by say, a church with an established reputation and with regular attending members. But for most of us, thats simply not practical.

Would you go to the regular store to buy stationaries or would you want to have to register as a member first?

[Galloism]

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,

Rosa parks may not have been able to walk. She might not have a friend who could drive her every day. There's no proof she had viable alternative options.

The business owner could have run a private club. The business owner could have opened a business that's not a public accommodation. There's proof of viable alternative options.

[The Black Forrest]

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.

The open sign says otherwise.

You have a right to walk into any business that serves the public.

[Galloism]

Actually, private clubs are generally under less regulation than public accommodations, but with that comes fewer perks.

It's a tradeoff - but many private clubs have lasted a very very long time. Hell, in Arkansas, only private clubs can serve liquor on Sundays, which is why many restaurants operate a separate room that's a private club with membership in addition to the public accommodation portion.

IE, anyone can eat because it's a public accommodation, but to drink, you need to join their private club.

And the current system imposes default interference on the rights of business owners of all types of businesses in all fields - for instance, handicap accessibility. When I bought my building, I had to construct a ramp to the door before I could open my business. It's the law.

The problem is that the private club model isn't a practical model of business for most types of businesses.

Take a bakery for example. Would a bakery function if customers had to register as members first?

MAYBE if said bakery was run by say, a church with an established reputation and with regular attending members. But for most of us, thats simply not practical.

Would you go to the regular store to buy stationaries or would you want to have to register as a member first?

Possibly. I don't know. I usually print my own stationary, but even if I didn't, if they had good stationary at a good price I probably would.

[Omnonia]

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.

Hmmm. So we should assume any pair of men or women must be gay!

Strawman? Non sequitur? One of those two, definitely.

[The Black Forrest]

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 you give a valid reason why it is needed..

[Infected Mushroom]

she could have walked

that's about as inconvenienced as the alternatives to the public accommodation registration, no one wants to be forced to sell to registered members only (who the hell would register as a member to buy a cake?)

Uh, I might.

I'm a registered club member at Chili's bar.

I would find it LESS objectionable if there was an option to register as a business that resembled the public business system but in which you can choose customers but as of now, the two choices being:

Default: You serve everyone

or

Private Club: You can choose... BUT HEY... guess what? You can only sell to registered members AND here are a bunch of additional inconveniences...

Its not a real choice for most aspiring business owners. In almost all cases, the private club option isn't meant to be a realistic alternative, its supposed to fit naturally like a glove or not fit. If you ARE a private club in the common sense of the word (your business functions practically in a system where people have to register first), it will work, otherwise not really.

So the choices just seem artificial. When you say, "he chose to serve everyone because if he didn't want to, he could have opened a private club..." it just seems a bit artificial; from a business point of view, only one option was viable.

[Alvecia]

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

No, that was SCOTUS who did so. You defend their ruling, or, at the very least, give implicit consent to it by not speaking out against it.

I fail to see how understanding that the government has the right to impose regulations on businesses means that the government and the business are one and the same. Nor do I understand how this is supposedly only been happening since a SCOTUS ruling.

[The Black Forrest]

Hmmm. So we should assume any pair of men or women must be gay!

Strawman? Non sequitur? One of those two, definitely.

Appropriate for offering an insipid argument.

[Omnonia]

Nobody has a right to shop at a private business.

The open sign says otherwise.

You have a right to walk into any business that serves the public.

Nonsense. "Open" just means that somebody, possibly, could get served there at this moment. It means "store personnel currently inside".

It does not entitle you to walk in and demand service.

[Infected Mushroom]

The problem is that the private club model isn't a practical model of business for most types of businesses.

Take a bakery for example. Would a bakery function if customers had to register as members first?

MAYBE if said bakery was run by say, a church with an established reputation and with regular attending members. But for most of us, thats simply not practical.

Would you go to the regular store to buy stationaries or would you want to have to register as a member first?

Possibly. I don't know. I usually print my own stationary, but even if I didn't, if they had good stationary at a good price I probably would.

But would you agree that given the same quality of service and goods, if there were two stationary stores and one had to operate under a private club restriction (customers have to register first) it would be at a competitive disadvantage? Customers dislike inconvenience.

I would think so

[The Black Forrest]

The open sign says otherwise.

You have a right to walk into any business that serves the public.

Nonsense. "Open" just means that somebody, possibly, could get served there at this moment. It means "store personnel currently inside".

It does not entitle you to walk in and demand service.

You have given up now eh?

[Alvecia]

Because you're provided those services to the public as allowed by the government, so you must comply with their laws, including that you must treat them equally.

I don't dispute that this is currently the law

but again, why should the government impose a default interference with the business owners' right to choose their customers when its the business owner who is using his labour, capital, and time to run the business at the end of the day. Is freedom of contract not the cornerstone of the modern economy?

How can a contract/transaction truly be free if person B can come to person A's place and say, "You are required to go through with this transaction" ?

It's not about who's selling, it's about who you are selling to. If you want to sell to the public, you must sell to the public. If you want to sell to specific people then you can, just become a private business (and I'm not referring to ownership here)

[Galloism]

Uh, I might.

I'm a registered club member at Chili's bar.

I would find it LESS objectionable if there was an option to register as a business that resembled the public business system but in which you can choose customers but as of now, the two choices being:

Default: You serve everyone

or

Private Club: You can choose... BUT HEY... guess what? You can only sell to registered members AND here are a bunch of additional inconveniences...

Its not a real choice for most aspiring business owners. In almost all cases, the private club option isn't meant to be a realistic alternative, its supposed to fit naturally like a glove or not fit. If you ARE a private club in the common sense of the word (your business functions practically in a system where people have to register first), it will work, otherwise not really.

So the choices just seem artificial. When you say, "he chose to serve everyone because if he didn't want to, he could have opened a private club..." it just seems a bit artificial; from a business point of view, only one option was viable.

The private club method works. It just relies more on word of mouth than direct advertising (because direct advertising implies you're open to the public). There's lots of private clubs around.

However, even if that's the case, no one is required to open a public accommodation. You could open a business in warehousing, or construction, or shipping, etc, none of which fall under public accommodations, and then you could discriminate to your heart's content (check your state laws). They chose the bakery, which falls under the category of a public accommodation, so it's subject to those rules.

The same as when you open a construction business, you are subject to OSHA safety requirements - even if you are the sole owner and worker in the construction business.

[Galloism]

Possibly. I don't know. I usually print my own stationary, but even if I didn't, if they had good stationary at a good price I probably would.

But would you agree that given the same quality of service and goods, if there were two stationary stores and one had to operate under a private club restriction (customers have to register first) it would be at a competitive disadvantage? Customers dislike inconvenience.

I would think so

I've never seen two stores of anything with the same quality of service and goods, not even in a chain.

[Omnonia]

No, that was SCOTUS who did so. You defend their ruling, or, at the very least, give implicit consent to it by not speaking out against it.

I fail to see how understanding that the government has the right to impose regulations on businesses means that the government and the business are one and the same. Nor do I understand how this is supposedly only been happening since a SCOTUS ruling.

They are treating private businesses as if they were providing government services.

There is a world of difference between the rights affirmed to apply to black citizens since 1868, and oppression of private businesses mandated by the CRA in the 60s.

[Infected Mushroom]

I don't dispute that this is currently the law

but again, why should the government impose a default interference with the business owners' right to choose their customers when its the business owner who is using his labour, capital, and time to run the business at the end of the day. Is freedom of contract not the cornerstone of the modern economy?

How can a contract/transaction truly be free if person B can come to person A's place and say, "You are required to go through with this transaction" ?

It's not about who's selling, it's about who you are selling to. If you want to sell to the public, you must sell to the public. If you want to sell to specific people then you can, just become a private business (and I'm not referring to ownership here)

but as it stands your only 2 options are:

A: register to sell to everyone (you lose your right to choose customers)

or

B: register as a private club/business, you can only sell to registered members (you can control who you register but they have to go through with the inconvenience of registration)

There's no option C: "I retain the right to choose customers, they don't have to register."

Yet option C is what should exist in a vacuum.

[Omnonia]

Nonsense. "Open" just means that somebody, possibly, could get served there at this moment. It means "store personnel currently inside".

It does not entitle you to walk in and demand service.

You have given up now eh?

No. I am stating the facts, and combatting your (and SCOTUS') crazy misinterpretation of them.