Fenderputty
Banned
What a stupid response. Though I figure the libertarian types would show up to complain.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Judge Orders Colorado Bakery to Cater for Same-Sex Weddings
- Thread starter CrazyDude
- Start date
- Status
What a stupid response. Though I figure the libertarian types would show up to complain.
RoninChaos
Member
Why? Why should religion trump law? There are religions out there where it's okay to stone people to death. Where you can honor kill your daughter if she isn't a virgin. How should belief trump law?
Fenderputty
Banned
I would rather not find out someone hates me in the first place. Especially since I just want to bring them business. You have the benefit of hindsight.
Skellig Gra
Member
Naturally, it's all a hypothetical of course.
way more
Member
The free market would have solved all those problems, because, freedom means equality.
LaserBuddha
Member
There's a lot of people around here who believe a lot of libertarian bullshit.
Discrimination is, philosophically and materially, something that amounts to a lot more than just "an opinion". Pretending it's just self expression and doesnt hurt anyone is proof that you need to crack open a book and read up on what you're talking about.
The free market does not fix itself. The market tends to shoot itself in the face whenever it is given too much leash, in fact. Do you really think a business in some shit hole in Alabama is going to be shamed out of existence if it is allowed to freely put up a "whites only" sign? No, there would be a lot of towns that completely ban minorities from entering businesses. There would be entire states where it would seem damn near impossible for a gay person to make a business transaction. There are pockets of completely disgusting people in this country and they can't be allowed this "freedom" that you project such bullshit sanctity onto. If you're fine with segregation then your point is valid I guess, and also you're a disgusting person.
Here's a truth that libertarians hide from: there is a mutual contract with society when you operate a business. In exchange for all of the infrastructure and educated employees and safety regulations and legal protections that society gives you, you agree to operate a business that any citizen should be able to enter. They all, in a way, contributed money with their taxes to create the environment that allows a modern business to exist. That is the world that a sane, morally sound person wants to live. Not the fucking Wild West.
It is not a big coincidence that racism and sexism scandals follow the Pauls and other notable libertarians around. Stop parroting their ideological garbage if you want people to take you seriously or not start assuming you're a bigot.
EDIT: I MEAN COME ON, HOW FUCKING STUPID DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO THINK REFUSING TO SERVE GAYS PERIOD SHOULD BE PROTECTED WHEN EVEN "SEPERATE BUT EQUAL" WAS CLEARLY FUCKING WRONG 50+ YEARS AGO? HOW FUCKING STUPID????
Discrimination is, philosophically and materially, something that amounts to a lot more than just "an opinion". Pretending it's just self expression and doesnt hurt anyone is proof that you need to crack open a book and read up on what you're talking about.
The free market does not fix itself. The market tends to shoot itself in the face whenever it is given too much leash, in fact. Do you really think a business in some shit hole in Alabama is going to be shamed out of existence if it is allowed to freely put up a "whites only" sign? No, there would be a lot of towns that completely ban minorities from entering businesses. There would be entire states where it would seem damn near impossible for a gay person to make a business transaction. There are pockets of completely disgusting people in this country and they can't be allowed this "freedom" that you project such bullshit sanctity onto. If you're fine with segregation then your point is valid I guess, and also you're a disgusting person.
Here's a truth that libertarians hide from: there is a mutual contract with society when you operate a business. In exchange for all of the infrastructure and educated employees and safety regulations and legal protections that society gives you, you agree to operate a business that any citizen should be able to enter. They all, in a way, contributed money with their taxes to create the environment that allows a modern business to exist. That is the world that a sane, morally sound person wants to live. Not the fucking Wild West.
It is not a big coincidence that racism and sexism scandals follow the Pauls and other notable libertarians around. Stop parroting their ideological garbage if you want people to take you seriously or not start assuming you're a bigot.
EDIT: I MEAN COME ON, HOW FUCKING STUPID DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO THINK REFUSING TO SERVE GAYS PERIOD SHOULD BE PROTECTED WHEN EVEN "SEPERATE BUT EQUAL" WAS CLEARLY FUCKING WRONG 50+ YEARS AGO? HOW FUCKING STUPID????
pas55word, while I don't endorse people crapping on you or implying you're a bigot for your post, it definitely behooves you to check sources before posting them. In this case, I did a little bit of googling and couldn't really find a good source supporting your line of argument. The bakery certainly shut down its physical location (though it was reported to still be taking orders via internet or phone), but it's not clear that this was driven by people no longer shopping there--indeed, it sounds like business actually went up for them following the spotlight being shone on them due to the suit. The only places reporting this also use terms like "homosexual agenda" and the like which casts strong doubt on their reporting.
Take a deep breath, man. I don't think this is necessary.
Take a deep breath, man. I don't think this is necessary.
Sir Garbageman
Member
When you deny them goods or services based solely off their race, sexual orientation, or religion?
LaserBuddha
Member
Sorry, the more I think about the reasoning the angrier it makes me.
Ninja Scooter
Member
Fucking ridiculous. This isn't just some cake shop operating in a vacuum. I'm sure there are some parts of this country where, if not for the law preventing it, would discriminate not only against gays but even african-americans and other minorities and, to be honest, it probably wouldn't even be bad for business. This isn't just about a cake shop. What if fucking grocery stores or pharmacies, in very rural areas where there isn't always plentiful alternative options, were allowed to operate like this? Ridiculous.
The Faceless Master
Member
can't wait for people to start religions that say murder and rape are totally cool!
Wouldn't that still be considered discriminatory?
CornBurrito
Member
I don't really get how people can think the market would fix things. Even on a site as liberal leaning as NeoGAF we have a vocal group of people that argue that taking a stand against one business means you have to take a stand against every unethical business (read: every business) or else be a hypocrite. Here is one example:
And this mindset is astonishingly common because people think being a hypocrite is the worst possible thing in existence to be. So if a big company started to refuse to do business with a small enough minority, they would make enough money to survive, and there'd be a vocal group of people arguing that you shouldn't boycott them because you own electronics or some shit. You can't rely on boycotts preventing discrimination.
And this mindset is astonishingly common because people think being a hypocrite is the worst possible thing in existence to be. So if a big company started to refuse to do business with a small enough minority, they would make enough money to survive, and there'd be a vocal group of people arguing that you shouldn't boycott them because you own electronics or some shit. You can't rely on boycotts preventing discrimination.
Switch Back 9
a lot of my threads involve me fucking up somehow. Perhaps I'm a moron?
Oh the temptation...
Grinchy
Banned
Sure, but try taking that to a court. They're not going to rule on whether the cake you provided was tasty enough.
Surely no one was raped during the Crusades.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
That is still discriminatory. If you change "gay weddings" to "black people," you can see the problem there; the legislature has decided race/gender/sexual orientation are to be treated the same.
They can't actually force them to do it, of course, they can just fine them.
You just said they tell them that. Besides, its not as hard to prove as you're apparently envisioning.
Some of you guys are confusing "freedom of religion" with letting you do anything you want that your religion likes.
Yeah I would have to agree with this.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
"Freedom of religion" doesn't actually exist in the format you apparently think it does. The free exercise clause has never been read to totally prohibit restriction of specific religious practices even following the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Grinchy
Banned
I think you're under some kind of impression that I'm on their side.
BeFlatLine
Banned
This is what I find odd:
It's okay for the KKK or Neo-Nazis to have hate speech rallies and the like, but a business can't say "No" to serving someone because of similiar reasons.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely despise discrimination. But if someone is protected to say hateful things, why is the line drawn at business?
I don't think anyone should be fired because of discriminatory reasons either. I don't morally agree with it. And I don't think society as a whole agrees with discrimination. Yet people can act a fool normally and be discriminatory in pretty much any other regard, but not in business?
Just seems like a strange standard to me.
I agree that businesses should be held responsible for disciminatory practices. I just think society should really be holding them responsible . . . but I guess if they don't, government should step in.
I just really don't understand why it's okay to rally against something and spew hatred, but then you go into a business and you're expected to deliver service.
It's okay for the KKK or Neo-Nazis to have hate speech rallies and the like, but a business can't say "No" to serving someone because of similiar reasons.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely despise discrimination. But if someone is protected to say hateful things, why is the line drawn at business?
I don't think anyone should be fired because of discriminatory reasons either. I don't morally agree with it. And I don't think society as a whole agrees with discrimination. Yet people can act a fool normally and be discriminatory in pretty much any other regard, but not in business?
Just seems like a strange standard to me.
I agree that businesses should be held responsible for disciminatory practices. I just think society should really be holding them responsible . . . but I guess if they don't, government should step in.
I just really don't understand why it's okay to rally against something and spew hatred, but then you go into a business and you're expected to deliver service.
It's not complicated really. Nobody needs to attend KKK rallies. People need to go to businesses to buy things to live.
BeFlatLine
Banned
I think the part that throws me is from my understanding, businesses have been given the same rights as individuals. Which, I don't quite agree with or understand, but it sets a weird standard.
That, and in modern times, it would seem that if one business turned you away, you could fairly easily find another unless you are in an extremely rural area.
Just seems odd to me. Like I said, I hate discrimination. It just seems an odd line to draw when there's other rulings that seem to counter it.
No, but you playing devil's advocate. People are going to respond to that.
BeFlatLine
Banned
Not being allowed to protect my family in a business is a shame. I have trained with Law Enforcement and military. I not only have trained more than your standard law enforcement officer, but have the certifications to back it.
So, yes, I'd say it's a shame that if some asshat decides they want to shoot up my local movie theater while I'm enjoying a movie with my family, I can't do anything to intervene DESPITE being trained for active shooter response. That is a damn shame. But you know what? I don't attend these businesses. I go where I'm welcome instead.
EDITTED TO ADD:
But since that doesn't go with the discrimination under law route, how about this: When I was a teenager, I was discriminated against because of my age. I could drive, and would go by myself (or with friends) to local businesses. I was respectful, but because of my age was essentially told "Beat it, people your age only cause trouble." Sucked, but big deal, right?
You are aware that a business turning you away for carrying a weapon is not even remotely the same as someone being turned away for their sexuality or race... right?
BeFlatLine
Banned
How does my carrying a weapon (concealed) have any bearing on them? It has about as much bearing on them as my age, race, or sexual orientation. But if you look above, you'll notice that I've also been discriminated for my age when I was younger. Does it feel good? No. But if a business feels like that's how they want to do business, I don't give them business.
Well, because you're carrying a lethal weapon?
First off, so you don;'t think businesses in the 50's/60's should have been forced to serve African Americans when they were denying them service? There is a reason it is illegal.
Second carrying a firearm is NOT at all comparable. Being black or gay is something who you are. It's what you are born with and something you have no choice in the matter. Carrying a gun in something you actively chose to do, it's not part of your being.
BeFlatLine
Banned
A weapon that I'm more qualified to carry than your local police officer. So, they can carry into said business, but I can't? That seems . . . off. But hey, that's the law.
You are born gay. You are born black. You can't change these things. They are with you till the day you die whether you want them to be or not.You chose to carry a gun. Big big difference.
Age discriminate is something bad... but if you think your choice to carry a weapon is even remotely the same as a gay person's sexuality or my race then you are delusional.
You can always not carry a weapon, I can't stop being black. Saying they are remotely the same thing is insanely insulting.
You really can't understand that and it seems strange to you? Ok. I don't understand how there can be any misunderstanding.
BeFlatLine
Banned
At that point, they should've been forced because it was socially acceptable to the majority to deny service. That was harmful due to the reason listed above of it being life or death to the person if they were denied everywhere.
As I said earlier though, I hate discrimination so I think they should be held accountable. I just think society is probably reached the point that the government shouldn't be the ones stepping in, but actual society voting with their wallets. But then again, I may be wrong.
I just don't see forcing someone to serve someone as changing societal viewpoints. I see society as a whole rebelling against a business for their hateful viewpoints as more character changing.
BeFlatLine
Banned
Just like you shouldn't feel the need to change for something that has no negative impact on the world, I shouldn't feel the need to change (even if I CAN) for the same reason.
I don't mean it as insulting. I don't think discrimination should exist in any form. I just don't see why it's okay for someone to spew hate speech according to the government, but then be forced to go serve someone that they were just rallying against. Just seems odd.
It is actually more socially acceptable today to support Gay Marriage (well over 50% support in all polls now) than it was amongst white people to support the civil rights movement during the days of sit-ins you know. The government forced the country to accept blacks as equals, especially in the the south which helped lead to more acceptance in the long run.
Saying society was more ready for the civil rights laws of the 60's than gay marriage today is completely false.
Its literally boggling my mind that this seems odd to you.
BeFlatLine
Banned
I don't think I wrote it out clearly enough. I am agreeing with you on your last statement 100%. That's why I think society should be the one shunning the business, not the government.
Are you being serious right now? My race isn't a weapon that can be used to kill someone. Stop comparing the two. They are not they same at all.
It's learning from history. When free speech has been restricted in the past, even if the initial intentions are good, bad things happen. When you discriminate against people for being who they are, you create an oppressed class of people and social inequality. Which leads to bad things. Both of these were causes of the fall of the Roman Republic by the way.
It's impossible to fairly judge every spoken word and business service, so we need laws to prevent the worst situations from happening, defined in a clear if not particular concise manner. We have thousands of years of history to learn from, and while we might not get it right over and over again, eventually somewhere those lessons stick.
You dont seem to understand. There is no "feeling the need to change". You cannot change your race period. Its not a choice I make when I wake up in the morning. This is not a comparable situation no matter how much you try to equate them. You carrying a gun != the race someone is born into.
You can make this comparison when I gain the possibility/choice of leaving my 'race' in my gun safe on my way out the door in the morning.
But if we left it up to society alone in the 60's we would have got civil rights reform much much later. LBJ had to basically force it upon congress.
BeFlatLine
Banned
Thank you. That was the most clear and logical statement to explain the differences. Now it makes much more sense.
I still find it stupid that I can be turned away for carrying. But at least the difference between free speech and business discrimination makes more sense.
BeFlatLine
Banned
I agree 100% again. I don't think the intervention at that time was wrong. I feel that having the government being the force to cause change when a more persuasive force (one's peers aka society) is likely to cause a change of heart is likely is the wrong route (as I feel we are the point of now).
I'd much rather see society push back and show a public outpouring of shame on the bakery. Only because it's more likely to change opinion.
If that's unlikely, then that's when I think the government should step in. But that's just the optimist in me. Maybe it's naive, but despite thinking poorly of society, I hope for the best.
captmorgan
Banned
So now that the bakery is forced to cater, whats to stop them from charging 100K for a sawdust cake?
Does the rulling also stat what the cake has to be made of and how much they can charge?
Does the rulling also stat what the cake has to be made of and how much they can charge?
When was the last time you checked if a food-item you bought contained poisonous ingredients? If the answer is "never", it's because you live in a country that indeed states what consumables should be made of. Or more specifically, what they shouldn't be made of if the seller wants to sell them (mixing sawdust into your products will get them pulled).
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked