Gay coffee shop owner kicks out Christians

[Telconi]

You folks really need to stop with the whole "not prohibited by law" is "ok" thing.

Adultery is not prohibited by law, doesn't mean cheating on your spouse is "ok"

The problem is things that aren't good or ok should be legislated and should be illegal. Ambiguity in the legal system is ineffective and wrong.

There are parents without guns out in the world, don't hear me crying about it.

Why? Because making a law to enforce your personal version of right and wrong isn't okay. Just because you think X should be Y doesn't mean you get to utilize the state to coerce your view with force.

[Aillyria]

The problem is things that aren't good or ok should be legislated and should be illegal. Ambiguity in the legal system is ineffective and wrong.

Who decides what is "good and ok"? Basing laws in morality is a terrible idea.

Laws should be based in rights. It violates a basic right of a private business owner if the law can force him to sell to customers he doesn't want to sell to. It does not violate any person's rights if they can't get served as customers by any privately owned shop they choose.

Therefore, I will rate a law as this as unethical, and oppose it over being oppressive.

I am basing this off basic american rights, not my personal morals (which are a hell of a lot more strict), in the United States our Bill of Rights and its amendments supercedes any shitty discriminating policy a private business owner might fancy cuz "muh shop is muh special happy place". A persons right to not be discriminated against is more important than the owner picking a random person that did nothing wrong and choosing to not serve them just because they don't want to.

[The of Japan]

Who decides what is "good and ok"? Basing laws in morality is a terrible idea.

Laws should be based in rights. It violates a basic right of a private business owner if the law can force him to sell to customers he doesn't want to sell to. It does not violate any person's rights if they can't get served as customers by any privately owned shop they choose.

Therefore, I will rate a law as this as unethical, and oppose it over being oppressive.

I am basing this off basic american rights, not my personal morals (which are a hell of a lot more strict), in the United States our Bill of Rights and its amendments supercedes any shitty discriminating policy a private business owner might fancy cuz "muh shop is muh special happy place". A persons right to not be discriminated against is more important than the owner picking a random person that did nothing wrong and choosing to not serve them just because they don't want to.

well, muh shop is a private establishment, and if I don't want to build a sculpture of 2 men having sexual intercourse, then I shouldn't have to. total purism is stupid

[Telconi]

Who decides what is "good and ok"? Basing laws in morality is a terrible idea.

Laws should be based in rights. It violates a basic right of a private business owner if the law can force him to sell to customers he doesn't want to sell to. It does not violate any person's rights if they can't get served as customers by any privately owned shop they choose.

Therefore, I will rate a law as this as unethical, and oppose it over being oppressive.

I am basing this off basic american rights, not my personal morals (which are a hell of a lot more strict), in the United States our Bill of Rights and its amendments supercedes any shitty discriminating policy a private business owner might fancy cuz "muh shop is muh special happy place". A persons right to not be discriminated against is more important than the owner picking a random person that did nothing wrong and choosing to not serve them just because they don't want to.

The constitution does not apply to private individuals. The government cannot discriminate, private citizens can. The government cannot silence you if you're expressing an opinion, private citizens can. The government cannot stop you from practicing the religion that you want, private citizens can. Which leads us to... The government cannot prevent you from doing something based upon discrimination of a protected class, private citizens should be able to.

[The of Japan]

I am basing this off basic american rights, not my personal morals (which are a hell of a lot more strict), in the United States our Bill of Rights and its amendments supercedes any shitty discriminating policy a private business owner might fancy cuz "muh shop is muh special happy place". A persons right to not be discriminated against is more important than the owner picking a random person that did nothing wrong and choosing to not serve them just because they don't want to.

The constitution does not apply to private individuals. The government cannot discriminate, private citizens can. The government cannot silence you if you're expressing an opinion, private citizens can. The government cannot stop you from practicing the religion that you want, private citizens can. Which leads us to... The government cannot prevent you from doing something based upon discrimination of a protected class, private citizens should be able to.

Integration is hampered by making things taboo.

[Aillyria]

I am basing this off basic american rights, not my personal morals (which are a hell of a lot more strict), in the United States our Bill of Rights and its amendments supercedes any shitty discriminating policy a private business owner might fancy cuz "muh shop is muh special happy place". A persons right to not be discriminated against is more important than the owner picking a random person that did nothing wrong and choosing to not serve them just because they don't want to.

well, muh shop is a private establishment, and if I don't want to build a sculpture of 2 men having sexual intercourse, then I shouldn't have to. total purism is stupid

WTF are you talking about? Who said anything about making the owner build things or have things in his shop he doesn't want? We're talking about the owner not serving or kicking people out based on some random arbitrary critera and not the customer's having done anything to merit ill-will or discrimination.

[Omnonia]

I am basing this off basic american rights, not my personal morals (which are a hell of a lot more strict), in the United States our Bill of Rights and its amendments supercedes any shitty discriminating policy a private business owner might fancy cuz "muh shop is muh special happy place". A persons right to not be discriminated against is more important than the owner picking a random person that did nothing wrong and choosing to not serve them just because they don't want to.

Where in the constitution and its amendments do you think it says that? If you come with 14A, you should be aware that the interpretation of that has been changed between the 1860s and 1960s, dramatically. And, in my opinion, it changed much for the worse, and opened the door for systematic oppression of basic rights by the government.


Either way, I'm glad that our constitution, especially Art.2, says the opposite. Denying service at, and access to, privately owned business is part of "the right of free development of [one's] personality", as guaranteed by our constitution. Someone's entitled demands to do business at your shop do not get to supercede that, and with good reason.

WTF are you talking about? Who said anything about making the owner build things or have things in his shop he doesn't want? We're talking about the owner not serving or kicking people out based on some random arbitrary critera and not the customer's having done anything to merit ill-will or discrimination.

Demanding to be served at your shop against your decision not to serve them is doing something to merit ill-will.

[Albynau]

Curious how I haven't seen anything about this in the local news.

[Eclius]

Seriously though, if religious people can reject LGBTQA members, then why can't it work the other way around? Personally, I think government should set discrimination laws so people can coexist harmoniously

[Telconi]

Seriously though, if religious people can reject LGBTQA members, then why can't it work the other way around? Personally, I think government should set discrimination laws so people can coexist harmoniously

-Forced to integrate by government coercion.

-Coexist harmoniously.

Pick one and only one.

[Eclius]

Seriously though, if religious people can reject LGBTQA members, then why can't it work the other way around? Personally, I think government should set discrimination laws so people can coexist harmoniously

-Forced to integrate by government coercion.

-Coexist harmoniously.

Pick one and only one.

I prefer harmony, but still, like, this conflict can't just keep on escalating

[Telconi]

-Forced to integrate by government coercion.

-Coexist harmoniously.

Pick one and only one.

I prefer harmony, but still, like, this conflict can't just keep on escalating

So perhaps the government should stop escalating it?

[Eclius]

I prefer harmony, but still, like, this conflict can't just keep on escalating

So perhaps the government should stop escalating it?

That's true though........ but the matter of truth is, it already is escalating, and personally I think government should seek to stop further complications of the issue

[Shofercia]

Guys, I'm not going to read 30+ pages, I just want to know - was this fake news, or did it actually happen?

[Senkaku]

Guys, I'm not going to read 30+ pages, I just want to know - was this fake news, or did it actually happen?

It seems pretty fake-news-y but we're not totally sure. It's been the subject of a significant fraction of those 30+ pages of debate.

Given that, I think it's safe to say if it isn't fabricated, it's been spin-doctored to all hell and is probably not a reliable account, and thus fake news tbh.

[Fartsniffage]

Guys, I'm not going to read 30+ pages, I just want to know - was this fake news, or did it actually happen?

Still in the "not confirmed" category.

[Shofercia]

Guys, I'm not going to read 30+ pages, I just want to know - was this fake news, or did it actually happen?

It seems pretty fake-news-y but we're not totally sure. It's been the subject of a significant fraction of those 30+ pages of debate.

I'm sorry, is this CNN or NSG?

[Eclius]

Guys, I'm not going to read 30+ pages, I just want to know - was this fake news, or did it actually happen?

It seems pretty fake-news-y but we're not totally sure. It's been the subject of a significant fraction of those 30+ pages of debate.

Well, we're discussing more of the issue of this conflict itself, the article however, seems like fake news.

[Senkaku]

It seems pretty fake-news-y but we're not totally sure. It's been the subject of a significant fraction of those 30+ pages of debate.

I'm sorry, is this CNN or NSG?

Still basically a tossup as to whether it's a bunch of lies or doctored footage or a very carefully framed narrative or what.

[Senkaku]

It seems pretty fake-news-y but we're not totally sure. It's been the subject of a significant fraction of those 30+ pages of debate.

Well, we're discussing more of the issue of this conflict itself, the article however, seems like fake news.

Mhm, I think the discussion more moved to "okay but if such a thing were to happen what's your position"

[Shofercia]

Still in the "not confirmed" category.

Still? Damn lol.

Given that, I think it's safe to say if it isn't fabricated, it's been spin-doctored to all hell and is probably not a reliable account, and thus fake news tbh.

Well, we're discussing more of the issue of this conflict itself, the article however, seems like fake news.

So even if it's not fake news, it sounds like the source is highly unreliable. Got it - thanks guys!

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

i literally could not give less of a shit in the context of who's kicking who out, but America needs to decide if they're going to allow discriminatory refusal of service or disallow it and apply the law consistently

i don't want anyone to be a protected class one way or another

[Senkaku]

i literally could not give less of a shit in the context of who's kicking who out, but America needs to decide if they're going to allow discriminatory refusal of service or disallow it and apply the law consistently

i don't want anyone to be a protected class one way or another

>america
>consistent decisionmaking
>making decisions at all

lol

[Shofercia]

i literally could not give less of a shit in the context of who's kicking who out, but America needs to decide if they're going to allow discriminatory refusal of service or disallow it and apply the law consistently

i don't want anyone to be a protected class one way or another

>america
>consistent decisionmaking
>making decisions at all

lol

We are very consistent. We consistently decide to be argumentative and the most litigious nation on Earth

[Telconi]

So perhaps the government should stop escalating it?

That's true though........ but the matter of truth is, it already is escalating, and personally I think government should seek to stop further complications of the issue

See, I want harmonious interaction. I just think that forcing people together via threat is not the way to get harmony, it creates resentment.