You decide: the wedding cake issue.

maquiscat said:

Right now, if I wanted to as a business man, I could decide that I would not hire any redheads. There is nothing in the law to prevent that. Only certain groups are protected.

And I agree that we should be striving to make such discriminatory practices hostory. But the proper way to do so is through social pressure, not law.

Click to expand...

There is the rub. Depending on what area you live in and the what type of redhead, biker, pagan you are, and the demographics of the remaining persons in your city or county, social pressure could have the opposite pressure, and over time, cause segregation and discrimination. Encouraging areas to become tribal, and then alienate other tribes, and that is what it is, is hardly a productive path. It is currently practiced by, in one fashion or another, every political faction. Needs to stop.
As an aside, I knew a redhead, pagan, biker chick, like 5-2, 90 lbs and carried a 357 on her backside.

First off, an apology to all for highly delayed responses. Life got in the way. Looks like the thread is dying so I will just make my responses and let it die or revive as others feel necessary.

devildavid said:

That doesn't follow. Opening a store to the public makes it open to all. Barring people from a store open to the public is not the equivalent of not shopping where you don't want to shop. One shopper's choice does not stop anyone from having a store or shopping at any store they want. Buying and selling has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of association.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Any interaction, save certain ones with government agencies (including LEO), are all about freedom of association. It is your right to do business with whom you choose, regardless of which side of the transaction you are one. If you limit who can choose on one side, why are you not making the same limit on the other? The claim that a business is open to the public in its entirety is the violation of this basic freedom. Basically those who do not own the private business are deciding that simply opening a business without a membership means its no longer private. Now I can go with the business needing to post who is excluded or limited to. That falls right up there with the concept that they should put out what the contents of a product is. But to simply say, "Oh hey you're opening a business, so we will take your private property rights from you because we don't like how you might run things," is wrong.

Ikari said:

My basic take on it was that for non-emergency types of service, such as a bakery, anyone should be able to come in and buy anything off the shelf. If you're ordering a specialty item, such as a wedding cake, that service can be refused. One does not fundamentally own the resources and labor of another, and cannot force them to labor for their end. Items on the shelf are already made and have been made available to the public. Specialty items have not. There are many reasons one may not want to agree to make a specialty item, and it's on them.

Click to expand...

I disagree, at least in part. I see no reason to force the shop owner to sell any of his product at any time, before or after creation. As you noted, one does not own, nor is owed, the labor or resources of another. This includes the results of that labor and resources. If I make a cake, that cake is mine until such time I find someone to whom I am willing to sell it to. It doesn't matter that I have it on display in an attempt to attract someone to make an offer to buy it. And to be clear, in this case I don't mean present a price as the start to haggling. I am talking about someone coming up and saying, "I'll buy that $10 cake you have on display." All product made or purchased by the business owner is their private property. They should never be required to sell their private property to anyone they do not want to. They should be able to display their wares/services in hopes that an individual they are willing to sell to is willing to buy it.

That's not to say they couldn't or shouldn't suffer backlash or consumer pressures. That's all part of the consumer-regulated marketplace as well.

Click to expand...

I fully agree here. This is why I note that social pressure is what should be used to bring these type of businesses in line with societal expectations, not the force of law restricting freedoms unnecessarily.

LaylaWindu said:

See this is where you are making mistakes and mixing things, neither of those things are a "right" as you state them.

Click to expand...

So a buyer does not have the right to choose who they will seek to do business with?

No I don't want laws that do that at all. That's not even close to accurate or intellectually honest about the laws now either. That's why your whole claim falls apart. You haven't mentioned one right of the seller yet that are actually violated, the seller is completely free to not run a public access business. I notice you keep skipping that. I can open a private business right now and not sell to whatever you may be. A white straight male? But if I choose to open a public access business then that's an agreement to rules and laws I am choosing to follow. I can't cry about breaking the law/contract after and claim some imaginary right was infringed on, that's stupid.

Click to expand...

I am not skipping that bit. You are the one claiming that a private business is a public access business. My claim is that such is a legal fiction in order to restrict what a business does outside of legitimate restrictions against harm. I get what it seems that you are saying, that in order to open what is currently called a "public access business", I have to comply with a bunch of various laws. My claim is that these laws themselves are the violation of the private property rights and freedom of association. Simply saying that these laws exist does not negate my argument of violating those rights and freedoms.

Wrong again and that's easy to prove. Actually thank you for proving my point already with your example you just don't realize it, maybe this will help you understand. The BUYER is NOT the one that chose to be in a contract and agreement with public access laws and chose to run a certain type of business. Hence why there are zero rights of the seller infringed. If your boss tells you that she'll give you money for sex that is sexual harassment, if a woman on the street tells you the same it's nothing really, she would have to do way more for it to be illegal. You are in fact mixing things that aren't the same just like I said earlier. You argument here is like saying a passenger should be able to get a DUI or your boss is forcing you to work, it is simply not accurate in anyway. So the fact still stand, public accommodation laws are not a violations of rights.

Click to expand...

If a person is riding with a drunk driver, I have no problem with them being charged, not with the DUI itself, but for aiding and abetting. It is one thing to try to stop a drunk from driving and failing, but getting in the same car with them isn't the same thing and that person is just as responsible. As to the boss forcing you to work, that is a poor example. Just as a business cannot back out of a contract after accepting it, nor can an employee. Their employment is an open ended contract, or agreement. Thus while a business owner should be able to decide that they do not want to do business with, say, a white person, the employee does not have that ability on their own. They have to follow the owner's policy. Granted, the employer can not actually force the employee to do anything, but is able to exact consequences for failure to live up to the agreement. This difference between this a law, is that the agreement/contract between employer/employee or between buyer/seller is between private individuals. Just as I can impose consequences, such as forced to leave my property, for speech I do not like, or such can be done to me, the government is not allowed to do that. The relationship between citizen and citizen is not the same as between government and citizen.

AlbqOwl said:

For me it is simple. Nobody, for ANY reason, whether they are black, white, polka dotted, straight, gay, leftwing, rightwing, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, or an accordian player, etc., should be required to provide a special order for a product or service that is offensive to him/her or participate in any way in an event or activity to which that person objects. For a person to have the right of their own conscience in that way discriminates against nobody so long as the the products that the person normally carries are sold to everybody who wants them.

Rule of thumb. If you want to buy what I have to sell, you are welcome to do so. If you want me to accept a special order for something that offends me, I should have every right to say no.

Click to expand...

Again I must disagree. Whether it product is already made or not should not be a factor. It is owned by one and that one should be the only one to decide who gets to buy it. They should even be able to not sell it to one white person and then decide to sell it to the next white person who wants to buy it. Their product/service, their decision.

Casper said:

I do not care what they do if they follow the laws that are in place.

Click to expand...

By that logic, then you shouldn't care if a person owns a slave or not as long as they are following the laws for slave ownership.

maquiscat said:

By that logic, then you shouldn't care if a person owns a slave or not as long as they are following the laws for slave ownership.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant, the laws of this Nation forbid slavery. If the law does not cover who a business must serve then it is up to the owners of the business and I there is a law governing the issue then they must comply with that law or face the consequences.

Casper said:

Irrelevant, the laws of this Nation forbid slavery. If the law does not cover who a business must serve then it is up to the owners of the business and I there is a law governing the issue then they must comply with that law or face the consequences.

Click to expand...

*watches the satellite fly-by*

Let's try this again. Place yourself back to the pre-Civil War days in the South. You would be ok with slavery as long as they are following the laws on slavery?

The whole concept of this thread is not what is the law, but what should the law be. Citing what the law already says is like saying that we should keep allowing slavery because slavery is already allowed by law.

maquiscat said:

*watches the satellite fly-by*

Let's try this again. Place yourself back to the pre-Civil War days in the South. You would be ok with slavery as long as they are following the laws on slavery?

The whole concept of this thread is not what is the law, but what should the law be. Citing what the law already says is like saying that we should keep allowing slavery because slavery is already allowed by law.

Click to expand...

:roll:

Nope.

Wrong Again. Don't like the laws then work to get them changed and if you do like them work to keep them in place, whining at me about what the law should be is completely unproductive.

Casper said:

:roll:

Nope.

Wrong Again. Don't like the laws then work to get them changed and if you do like them work to keep them in place, whining at me about what the law should be is completely unproductive.

Click to expand...

Last I checked, engaging others in debate, particularly in the hopes of persuading them to your point of view, is one of the methods of working towards change. After all, how do you expect laws to get changed if you can't get enough of a support behind the idea?

maquiscat said:

Again I must disagree. Whether it product is already made or not should not be a factor. It is owned by one and that one should be the only one to decide who gets to buy it. They should even be able to not sell it to one white person and then decide to sell it to the next white person who wants to buy it. Their product/service, their decision.

Click to expand...

I understand where you're coming from and I don't think you're wrong if we apply strict libertarian principles apart from social contract. And I think any community should be able to adopt whatever social contract they want, but would strongly personally oppose and would personally boycott a "white's only" policy or any other similar policy. At the same time if somebody was previously a jerk or conducted himself/herself inappropriately in your place of business, I would have no problem with your refusing service to that person the next time he/she comes in and think that should be a business owner's prerogative without any repercussions.

But I also don't really have a problem with the social contract determining that a business license assumes you will not discriminate against anybody who comes into your place of business to buy a product you have for sale. Such is a welcoming policy that benefits all.

maquiscat said:

Last I checked, engaging others in debate, particularly in the hopes of persuading them to your point of view, is one of the methods of working towards change. After all, how do you expect laws to get changed if you can't get enough of a support behind the idea?

Click to expand...

You can't, simple as that. Now you can working on changing peoples minds then you might have a shot at a later date, until then you have live them or move.

maquiscat said:

Ok so I was thinking about various things while listening to local talk radio (which tends to be more balanced to national talk radio) and an idea struck me as to a potential defense for the (now in)famous cake shop refusing to make the cake for a same sex wedding. I want to see everyone's opinion on this.

it occurs to me that the laws protect certain groups of people, but that is it. People. A possible good defense would be to show that if any gay person came in and bought a birthday cake or a graduation cake, or basically a cake for any event other than a same sex wedding (you could also go with interracial wedding here too. Heck, go for a specific religious wedding including Christian) and the business provided it no problem, then you are not discriminating against the given protected group when refusing the same sex wedding cake. You are refusing to do business for a specific event.

Mind you I still think such is a dick move and any business who does such should be boycotted and/or protested. And of course this would apply to any business. Opinions?

Click to expand...

I think any business should retain the right to refuse service to anyone for whatever reason they choose.
I also think said gays targeted this particular business because they are Christians and wanted to smear Christians and make an example out of them.
I think the court ruling is abominable. So many are these days.
A business should also have rights to protect itself from maggots like these.

AlbqOwl said:

I understand where you're coming from and I don't think you're wrong if we apply strict libertarian principles apart from social contract. And I think any community should be able to adopt whatever social contract they want, but would strongly personally oppose and would personally boycott a "white's only" policy or any other similar policy. At the same time if somebody was previously a jerk or conducted himself/herself inappropriately in your place of business, I would have no problem with your refusing service to that person the next time he/she comes in and think that should be a business owner's prerogative without any repercussions.

But I also don't really have a problem with the social contract determining that a business license assumes you will not discriminate against anybody who comes into your place of business to buy a product you have for sale. Such is a welcoming policy that benefits all.

Click to expand...

Maybe we'd view "social contract" differently. To me the social contract and not the law I should what should be in play. The social pressures are what should be keeping excessive discrimination and racism in check, not the law, at least not in the private sector, which is anything not government.

maquiscat said:

Maybe we'd view "social contract" differently. To me the social contract and not the law I should what should be in play. The social pressures are what should be keeping excessive discrimination and racism in check, not the law, at least not in the private sector, which is anything not government.

Click to expand...

For the most part I agree as the law can dictate what we can do without penalty, but it can never dictate our attitude or how we feel about something. That is the main error made by so many of the groups clamoring for government to dictate equal rights. They can never become 'equal' by generating anger, frustration, resentment etc. in others, and will never be seen as 'equal' by requiring that others give up their own rights in favor of 'equality' for the special interest groups. They may get their way, but at the cost of being seen as hateful and uncaring of others' rights and resented as ugly weirdos.

Changing hearts and minds is the way to go every time.

Social contract to me is the people deciding what environment, customs, processes, organization and law will exist instead of the government imposing laws on the people against their will. In other words, what the Constitution was intended for the people who could then organize themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wanted.

Wedding cakes?

1. The idea that baking a cake is participating in a religious ceremony is a lie. The wedding is the religious ceremony. The reception is not. Neither is the cake-cutting at the end.

1a. The only principle that could possibly support this is: all implements used to celebrate a wedding after it has occurred (for how many hours thereafter) are, by virtue of being included in the general celebration, thereby retroactively participate in the ceremony itself, whether it was religious or not. I found that to be stupid.

1b. I find 1a to be improbable as to any claimed religious objector. If a baker participates by virtue of a cake-cutting 5 hours after the ceremony, why have no fork makers spoken up? Table makers? Venue renters? DJs?

2. It is laughable to assert that it is consistent to stop private businesses from serving blacks or Jews or women, but allow them to stop

2a. Would not serving blacks, Jews, or women be acceptable if the business claimed that those people were evil according to the businesses' religions?

2b. If yes to 2a, have you ever honestly and truly sat down and thought these things over at length AND considered whether or not your answer depends on the probability of your ever having been discriminated against?

2c. If yes to 2b, is your answer anything other than pure laissez faire government?

maquiscat said:

So a buyer does not have the right to choose who they will seek to do business with?

Click to expand...

There is no right to break the law and violate the rights of others so they are free to seek what ever they want a long as it's within the law, rules or rights of others. AGain though there is no right like you state them.

maquiscat said:

I am not skipping that bit. You are the one claiming that a private business is a public access business.

Click to expand...

I did no such thaing at anmy time. This further shows that you are confused about this topic and don;t understand it much at all. Not being mean that's just how it is.

maquiscat said:

My claim is that such is a legal fiction in order to restrict what a business does outside of legitimate restrictions against harm. I get what it seems that you are saying, that in order to open what is currently called a "public access business", I have to comply with a bunch of various laws. My claim is that these laws themselves are the violation of the private property rights and freedom of association. Simply saying that these laws exist does not negate my argument of violating those rights and freedoms.

Click to expand...

And you are simply wrong since one is choosing to run that type of business. There can't even be an imaginary violation based on your claim when one is free to open a business that is not public access. Your claim has no leg to stand on in theory, law or rights.

maquiscat said:

If a person is riding with a drunk driver, I have no problem with them being charged, not with the DUI itself, but for aiding and abetting. It is one thing to try to stop a drunk from driving and failing, but getting in the same car with them isn't the same thing and that person is just as responsible. As to the boss forcing you to work, that is a poor example. Just as a business cannot back out of a contract after accepting it, nor can an employee. Their employment is an open ended contract, or agreement. Thus while a business owner should be able to decide that they do not want to do business with, say, a white person, the employee does not have that ability on their own. They have to follow the owner's policy. Granted, the employer can not actually force the employee to do anything, but is able to exact consequences for failure to live up to the agreement. This difference between this a law, is that the agreement/contract between employer/employee or between buyer/seller is between private individuals. Just as I can impose consequences, such as forced to leave my property, for speech I do not like, or such can be done to me, the government is not allowed to do that. The relationship between citizen and citizen is not the same as between government and citizen.

Click to expand...

Again you are showing your confusing, what your are fine with doesn't matter to what is. Then you go on to mention "contract" and don't even realize that's actually why you are wrong. Opening a public access business is a type of contract, if a person doesn;t like that contract they are free not to operate that type of business. This is way public accommodation laws are not a violations of rights.