An Important Case

maxparrish said:

Until such time you are able to actually quote where your claimed criteria was cited for limiting the meaning of all forms of unfair labor, you are dodging and confusing your own inventions with something in the article.

Click to expand...

:roll:

You linked to Wikipedia. The Wiki article links to the Wiki page on "unfree labor." Your inability to read your own sources is not my problem.

Apparently you don't comprehend understand the phrase "a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion other than the worker's financial needs." Employers who threaten disciplinary action to demote, suspend, or fire employees for insubordination are NOT coercing beyond the employee's financial wants/needs.

Click to expand...

:roll:

No, the key is that with involuntary servitude, the victim cannot walk away. While it is not as comprehensive as chattel slavery, it is very close, as it involves a near-total loss of the ability to choose.

So: The baker has chosen to bake goods for a living. The baker has chosen to offer wedding cakes. The baker has chosen to operate as a public accommodation. The baker is fully within his or her power to stop making wedding cakes, or even to close up shop. A baker who is subjected to involuntary servitude cannot walk away. They do not have the option to cease making wedding cakes, or cease making any cakes, or closing up shop.

And again, when you violate a civil rights law, you are fined. That is a type of pressure based on financial need, and as such it is equivalent to docking one's pay or getting fired. The government does not seize ownership of the business, and force the former owner to work at the bakery 18 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Yet again, your claim that anti-discrimination laws qualify as "involuntary servitude" both misunderstands and trivializes the concept.

It is as wrong as Mormons in Utah, for example, who mandate coercive labor from secularists for their benefit.

Click to expand...

When did that happen?

Visbek said:

That's the most absurd distortion of history I've seen in quite some time.

Jim Crow laws were designed specifically to prevent blacks from being treated equal by the law and in society. In fact, they started as a variety of restrictions on voting that targeted blacks -- poll taxes, literacy tests, residency requirements and so on. This prevented them not just from voting but also from serving on juries or as elected officials. They weren't started because "some jackasses didn't want businesses." Racism was the beginning, middle and end of Jim Crow laws.

I.e. Jim Crow laws were specifically written to enforce segregation. Civil rights laws were written to end segregation. They are opposites.

The idea that one is just as bad as another is flat-out ridiculous.



Uh, hello? Segregationist and racist businesses in the 1960s were not going bust because they refused to serve black people. The market absolutely was NOT fixing that social issue, not by a long shot.



Your willful ignorance is not terribly persuasive.

Click to expand...

You omitted where I said in part, so that was a nice try there.
There were businesses that started to openly accept blacks. Because as a capitalist structure, they were more then willing to accept a new source of income from people who were willing to pay and this is also not ignoring the people who were openly ready for blacks to have more civil rights.

The racist businesses would actually see a lost in profits in the future if something wasn't done to impose a difficulty. This is common sense when you think about it.

Call me willfully ignorant all you want. It only serves to make you more wrong on the subject.

Unless you have a citation of some sort to clear that issue up?

I just can't wait to see what kind of article you pull from the bowels of the internet to prove this outlandish notion.

Oborosen said:

As per public accommodation laws. I can say that if the business in question were a privately owned one. They should have the right to choose whomever they do business with and still be subject to the fallout from the open market such a choice would entail. Where they a government entity however, such a choice would be impossible for them personally.

They should not be forced into a service that they do not want to do. Just like the customer isn't being forced into using the business's services.

This is just another instance of the government putting their hands into something and screwing things up several magnitudes over once again. You'd think people would remember how Jim Crow laws started and why they were forcing businesses to abide by them in the first place.

Liberals are pretty much piggy backing onto a long tarnished issue and getting the free ride they usually get. Because if they can keep screaming discrimination about this issue. Yet hold their own "no white person day" at a college campus with no fallout to themselves.

Click to expand...

I thought part of the argument in the cake case was that the baker did not have to participate in the weeding, therefore it would be like making any other cake.

In this case the photographer was made to participate in the actual wedding.

How can they force somebody to do that?

Mason66 said:

I thought part of the argument in the cake case was that the baker did not have to participate in the weeding, therefore it would be like making any other cake.

In this case the photographer was made to participate in the actual wedding.

How can they force somebody to do that?

Click to expand...

morals clauses. taking pictures is what photographers do.

Mason66 said:

I thought part of the argument in the cake case was that the baker did not have to participate in the weeding, therefore it would be like making any other cake.

In this case the photographer was made to participate in the actual wedding.

How can they force somebody to do that?

Click to expand...

What governments have always done. Make a law to do it for you.

Simply put, if you open a public business you serve the public...all of them. You do not get to pick which ones unless they are breaking posted business rules or guidelines. If a photographer does not wish to serve gays he merely has to post this prominently and then deal with the results. No shoes, No shirt, No service has been in use for a long time and is legal....grow a set and post your hate so everyone can see it. Your sensibilities are protected even if your customers leave....fair is fair.