Gay coffee shop owner kicks out Christians

[Omnonia]

One billionaire with archaic ideas later, suddenly no baked goods for gays, and if you get another who's spiteful, suddenly Christians can't get their coffee.

Better to avoid depriving people of the personal liberty to buy products that are on the market

You don't, and should never, have the right to shop at a specific privately owned bakery. The right of the baker to refuse to sell to you must always outweigh your privilege to buy in their shop.

Your scenario only happens if the state doesn't take steps to prevent monopolies, so that is where you should focus. There is no justification for depriving all shop owners of their basic rights instead.

the liberty of the baker and the barista already seems pretty well intact, since they can sell their goods to the public.

And in a totalitarian dictatorship, your freedom of speech seems pretty well intact, because you can support the party line as loudly as you wish.

This just says they don't get to exclude certain segments of the public simply because of their identities.

"Just". This "just" deprives them of a fundamental natural right.

I guess chattel slavery wasn't so bad, after all. I mean, it "just" deprived blacks of stuff like free movement; it's not like they were unemployed or homeless or anything really serious, now were they?

[Greater USA]

Businesses have a right to serve and deny service on their own whim. Period.

I'd boycott any baker that refuses to make products for gay people. But I don't think they should be coerced under threat of lawsuit to do so. That violates personal liberty.

One billionaire with archaic ideas later, suddenly no baked goods for gays, and if you get another who's spiteful, suddenly Christians can't get their coffee.

Better to avoid depriving people of the personal liberty to buy products that are on the market- the liberty of the baker and the barista already seems pretty well intact, since they can sell their goods to the public. This just says they don't get to exclude certain segments of the public simply because of their identities.

A private organization should be able to discriminate freely.

America today is different than the America of the 1960's. We have a better ability to organize boycotts (which they still did back in the day), post stuff on social media, etc. Businesses react when they lose money. If you don't like what a business does, it's on you to convince people to stop shopping there. But the government shouldn't coerce a provider into doing what they don't want.

[Neutraligon]

Then they should not have opened the type of business they did. if they wished to pick and choose their customers they should have made a club, which allows them to sell products, have a brick and mortar store, and choose exactly to whom they sell.

opening a club puts too many restrictions on you and most of us can't afford to do it (ex you can only sell to registered members... would you go to a bakery if you had to become a member first or would you go to the one that skips this paperwork?)

The same reason Costco does so. And very simply, to control who you sell to.

[Infected Mushroom]

opening a club puts too many restrictions on you and most of us can't afford to do it (ex you can only sell to registered members... would you go to a bakery if you had to become a member first or would you go to the one that skips this paperwork?)

The same reason Costco does so. And very simply, to control who you sell to.

If its so easy, why not just make it a default?

If its actually SUPER EASY for any business to become Costco, why not just remove that step and make freedom the default?

And if you are okay with the status quo, what's so valuable about that extra formality to turn something into a private club? Are you saying that presently the Civil Rights Act actually does nothing if more people found out they could snap their fingers and go Costco Mode?

[Telconi]

Then they should not have opened the type of business they did. if they wished to pick and choose their customers they should have made a club, which allows them to sell products, have a brick and mortar store, and choose exactly to whom they sell.

so then what's the point?

It's easy super easy to become a "Private Club" and discriminate or its super hard to become a "Private Club" and discriminate. In either event, it works against your position.

It's super easy to become a Private Club and operate as a business except you get to discriminate
Then what's the point? If you're okay with this then why not make it a default?

It's super hard to become a Private Club and operate as a business except you get to discriminate
Then its just a disingenuous argument. You know that these businesses would collapse if they wanted to discriminate but are encumbered and weighed down by the regulations (ex you can only sell to registered members, customers want to buy and get out without the paperwork, they avoid your store).

That's the point. Hence the textbook reply of "Oh, you want to associate voluntarily, well go be this completely untenable business model and you can"

They know damn good and well that the choice they're offering is no real choice at all. But that's how they want it, so they smugly give it to every complaint.

[Neutraligon]

One billionaire with archaic ideas later, suddenly no baked goods for gays, and if you get another who's spiteful, suddenly Christians can't get their coffee.

Better to avoid depriving people of the personal liberty to buy products that are on the market- the liberty of the baker and the barista already seems pretty well intact, since they can sell their goods to the public. This just says they don't get to exclude certain segments of the public simply because of their identities.

A private organization should be able to discriminate freely.

America today is different than the America of the 1960's. We have a better ability to organize boycotts (which they still did back in the day), post stuff on social media, etc. Businesses react when they lose money. If you don't like what a business does, it's on you to convince people to stop shopping there. But the government shouldn't coerce a provider into doing what they don't want.

Given that in small towns there is often only 1 of a particular type of store (so for instance 1 grocery store, 1 gas station, 1 auto repair place, etc) they are unlikely to lose money or be boycotted. Particularly if the people who live in the are actually support the discrimination.

[Omnonia]

Businesses have a right to serve and deny service on their own whim. Period.

I'd boycott any baker that refuses to make products for gay people. But I don't think they should be coerced under threat of lawsuit to do so. That violates personal liberty.

Then they should not have opened the type of business they did. if they wished to pick and choose their customers they should have made a club, which allows them to sell products, have a brick and mortar store, and choose exactly to whom they sell.

You do not become a "private club" just due to exercising your natural right to do trade with who you choose. To require that is utter insanity.

And this is exactly why the CRA, in its current form, is a *bleep*ing idiotic and presumptuous piece of legislation.

[Neutraligon]

so then what's the point?

It's easy super easy to become a "Private Club" and discriminate or its super hard to become a "Private Club" and discriminate. In either event, it works against your position.

It's super easy to become a Private Club and operate as a business except you get to discriminate
Then what's the point? If you're okay with this then why not make it a default?

It's super hard to become a Private Club and operate as a business except you get to discriminate
Then its just a disingenuous argument. You know that these businesses would collapse if they wanted to discriminate but are encumbered and weighed down by the regulations (ex you can only sell to registered members, customers want to buy and get out without the paperwork, they avoid your store).

That's the point. Hence he textbook reply of "Oh, toy want to associate voluntarily, we'll go be this completely untenable business model and you can"

They know damn good and well that theven choice they're offering is no real choice at all. But that's how they want it, so they smugly give it to every complaint.

Given that these types of clubs exist (look at the male only golf clubs) or those places like Costco, seem perfectly reasonable business model to me, and one that works.

[Galloism]

You can have your liberty, you must just jump through fourteen million hoops to get it...

Exactly. It makes no sense.

Also, a private club implies that you only sell to registered members. No one is going to bother buying stuff from a retail store when they have to register as members first.

Its an infeasible model for startups.

Costco.

[Greater USA]

A private organization should be able to discriminate freely.

America today is different than the America of the 1960's. We have a better ability to organize boycotts (which they still did back in the day), post stuff on social media, etc. Businesses react when they lose money. If you don't like what a business does, it's on you to convince people to stop shopping there. But the government shouldn't coerce a provider into doing what they don't want.

Given that in small towns there is often only 1 of a particular type of store (so for instance 1 grocery store, 1 gas station, 1 auto repair place, etc) they are unlikely to lose money or be boycotted. Particularly if the people who live in the are actually support the discrimination.

Most Americans no longer live in those small towns without options. For those that do, they can "vote with their feet" and find other places to live. Bottom line, I don't have the right to demand a Christian baker make me a cake for my gay wedding. That's coercion.

[Galloism]

That's the point. Hence he textbook reply of "Oh, toy want to associate voluntarily, we'll go be this completely untenable business model and you can"

They know damn good and well that theven choice they're offering is no real choice at all. But that's how they want it, so they smugly give it to every complaint.

Given that these types of clubs exist (look at the male only golf clubs) or those places like Costco, seem perfectly reasonable business model to me, and one that works.

It's really not that hard. The bar at my local Chili's is a private club.

[Infected Mushroom]

Exactly. It makes no sense.

Also, a private club implies that you only sell to registered members. No one is going to bother buying stuff from a retail store when they have to register as members first.

Its an infeasible model for startups.

Costco.

Okay. Lets do this one step at a time.

Question 1:

Is it very easy and very feasible for all/most businesses to go "Costco Mode" so that they operate exactly as they do now except on paper they can now discriminate?

yes or no

[Neutraligon]

Then they should not have opened the type of business they did. if they wished to pick and choose their customers they should have made a club, which allows them to sell products, have a brick and mortar store, and choose exactly to whom they sell.

You do not become a "private club" just due to exercising your natural right to do trade with who you choose. To require that is utter insanity.

And this is exactly why the CRA, in its current form, is a *bleep*ing idiotic and presumptuous piece of legislation.

I disagree. First like I said I do not think natural rights exist so your comment as to that is entirely meaningless. I think to stop this requirement is utter insanity. Like I said before all rights have their limitation, I think that this in one of those places where the limitation is necessary.

[Greater USA]

Exactly. It makes no sense.

Also, a private club implies that you only sell to registered members. No one is going to bother buying stuff from a retail store when they have to register as members first.

Its an infeasible model for startups.

Costco.

If Costco denied membership to LGBTQ communities, you think there wouldn't be lawsuits? Of course there would be. Again, this goes back to using government power to coerce a private organization to do your bidding.

[Telconi]

Given that in small towns there is often only 1 of a particular type of store (so for instance 1 grocery store, 1 gas station, 1 auto repair place, etc) they are unlikely to lose money or be boycotted. Particularly if the people who live in the are actually support the discrimination.

Most Americans no longer live in those small towns without options. For those that do, they can "vote with their feet" and find other places to live. Bottom line, I don't have the right to demand a Christian baker make me a cake for my gay wedding. That's coercion.

Heaven forbid poor Mr. Example suffer hardship because freedom. Better force every business ever to exist in a state of coercion to ensure everybody is oppressed equally.

[Omnonia]

Bottom line, I don't have the right to demand a Christian baker make me a cake for my gay wedding. That's coercion.

You don't have the right to demand of any baker in a privately owned bakery to make you a cake for anything. Getting a cake from them is always a privilege, never a right.

[Telconi]

You do not become a "private club" just due to exercising your natural right to do trade with who you choose. To require that is utter insanity.

And this is exactly why the CRA, in its current form, is a *bleep*ing idiotic and presumptuous piece of legislation.

I disagree. First like I said I do not think natural rights exist so your comment as to that is entirely meaningless. I think to stop this requirement is utter insanity. Like I said before all rights have their limitation, I think that this in one of those places where the limitation is necessary.

You don't believe natural rights exist... So you're basically admitting that your coerced labor is simply tyranny through force?

[Greater USA]

Bottom line, I don't have the right to demand a Christian baker make me a cake for my gay wedding. That's coercion.

You don't have the right to demand of any baker in a privately owned bakery to make you a cake for anything. Getting a cake from them is always a privilege, never a right.

I agree.

[Omnonia]

I disagree. First like I said I do not think natural rights exist so your comment as to that is entirely meaningless. I think to stop this requirement is utter insanity. Like I said before all rights have their limitation, I think that this in one of those places where the limitation is necessary.

This limitation is incredibly draconic, sacrifices rights to cater to entitled privilege, and is not the only option available.

It is neither neccessary, nor ethically defensible.

[Galloism]

Costco.

Okay. Lets do this one step at a time.

Question 1:

Is it very easy and very feasible for all/most businesses to go "Costco Mode" so that they operate exactly as they do now except on paper they can now discriminate?

yes or no

It has its ups and downs as a business choice.

You get exemptions from quite a few regulations by being a private club, which can make starting up easier from a certain perspective. There's fewer hoops to jump through. However, it also means you can't sell to the public, so you have to have some kind of a lure to get people to sign up as members.

It's kind of a wash from an easy/feasible standpoint. Starting a business is hard. Starting a private club is different - harder in some ways, easier in others, but probably a wash at the end.

[Infected Mushroom]

Okay. Lets do this one step at a time.

Question 1:

Is it very easy and very feasible for all/most businesses to go "Costco Mode" so that they operate exactly as they do now except on paper they can now discriminate?

yes or no

It has its ups and downs as a business choice.

You get exemptions from quite a few regulations by being a private club, which can make starting up easier from a certain perspective. There's fewer hoops to jump through. However, it also means you can't sell to the public, so you have to have some kind of a lure to get people to sign up as members.

It's kind of a wash from an easy/feasible standpoint. Starting a business is hard. Starting a private club is different - harder in some ways, easier in others, but probably a wash at the end.

So your answer seems to be No?

Because presumably, it wouldn't be feasible for the vast majority of startups to face the ADDITIONAL challenge of getting people to sign up as members on top of selling to them?

For instance, I'm not going to buy my pencils from a startup if I have to sign up as a member. I'm getting it from the store next door that skips this bureaucracy. You lose your customers.

[Neutraligon]

Costco.

If Costco denied membership to LGBTQ communities, you think there wouldn't be lawsuits? Of course there would be. Again, this goes back to using government power to coerce a private organization to do your bidding.

I am not sure exactly where COSTCO falls when it comes to things, they and those golfing clubs and a few other similar clubs go to show that the model can be successful.

[Neutraligon]

It has its ups and downs as a business choice.

You get exemptions from quite a few regulations by being a private club, which can make starting up easier from a certain perspective. There's fewer hoops to jump through. However, it also means you can't sell to the public, so you have to have some kind of a lure to get people to sign up as members.

It's kind of a wash from an easy/feasible standpoint. Starting a business is hard. Starting a private club is different - harder in some ways, easier in others, but probably a wash at the end.

So your answer seems to be No?

Because presumably, it wouldn't be feasible for the vast majority of startups to face the ADDITIONAL challenge of getting people to sign up as members on top of selling to them?

For instance, I'm not going to buy my pencils from a startup if I have to sign up as a member. I'm getting it from the store next door that skips this bureaucracy. You lose your customers.

So you provide other incentives. I am not going to by the pencil from the place next door if it isn't open when I need it to be, or they aren't next door, or they don't provide the additional things I need/want. Every business model has their drawbacks.

[Greater USA]

If Costco denied membership to LGBTQ communities, you think there wouldn't be lawsuits? Of course there would be. Again, this goes back to using government power to coerce a private organization to do your bidding.

I am not sure exactly where COSTCO falls when it comes to things, they and those golfing clubs and a few other similar clubs go to show that the model can be successful.

Sure, their model is successful. I'm a proud Costco customer. Their food is damn good and they pay their workers well. But I don't think a similar club would win a lawsuit if it denied memberships to gay customers.

[Neutraligon]

I am not sure exactly where COSTCO falls when it comes to things, they and those golfing clubs and a few other similar clubs go to show that the model can be successful.

Sure, their model is successful. I'm a proud Costco customer. Their food is damn good and they pay their workers well. But I don't think a similar club would win a lawsuit if it denied memberships to gay customers.

If they are actually a club, I think they could win that lawsuit. Like I said I am not sure exactly where COSTCO falls since the term private club isn't actually a legal term. That being said, there are clubs that are able to sell products to individuals where they have club membership to determine who can enter the premise. The point was the model is feasible, it allows you to have a business, and allows you to pick and choose your customers (those golf clubs). Actually I seem to recall places that sell alcohol that got passed some of the requirements for doing so by being private clubs. Let me look that up.