General US Politics

[eclipse]

and i know personal experience means nothing, but unfortunately the quality of schools in poor neighborhoods is well known to be, as you put it, outside of rationality.

you wouldn't be saying this if they were black. or asian. or hispanic. a human being has as much choice in their sexuality as they do their race, ethnicity, or nationality. and because of this it is stupid to turn people away for it, and luckily the right to turn folks away in the mentioned cases isn't upheld by the government.

religion i can see. i personally think it's stupid to turn someone away for their religion, but at least religion is a choice at the end of the day.

I would. However, anyone that's crazy enough to discriminate based on race, especially Asians in Hawaii, is going out of business real fast.

[Phoenix Wright]

"the people" regulating business over government is as factually substantiated as trickle-down economics.

which is to say not at all...

[eclipse]

"the people" regulating business over government is as factually substantiated as trickle-down economics.

which is to say not at all...

Source this. Because I see things differently over here.

[Phoenix Wright]

i'm unsure what you mean. the claim is that the people can regulate businesses, but that just isn't supported by observation. as in, there is no evidence that it's a thing.

[Time the Crestfallen]

Stupid to you, not to her or me. I think private businesses should be able to turn people away, unless there's no viable alternative, or it's a matter of life or death. Unless that couple was in the middle of nowhere, and that was the only bakery in town, they had other options.

I don't see why discrimination should be legal for any reason. Using this logic, it's alright for private businesses to refuse to hire people because of sexual orientation, skin colour or gender and all sorts of things, which is just absurd.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Phillius

[eclipse]

You mean if word-of-mouth can support/destroy a business? Yes, it can. Here's some data on restaurant failures (PDF warning). On page 311 (page 8 of 19), it mentions some conclusions, including that independent restaurant owners are more likely to fail than franchised owners, and that there's no shortage of eating places unless you're in some really tiny town. Thus, an independent restaurant owner is taking a risk in turning away customers based on race/gender/orientation/other factors short of "disrupting service". A franchise has less risk, but may end up doing controversial things anyway, like Chick-a-Fil.

For the couple in question, I don't think that one bakery was the only place they could've gotten their cake from. That's why I think that the baker should've been allowed to turn them away.

The issue that I didn't see you mention is "what if everyone in the area adopts the same stance?" That would be a tough question to answer, since the government forcing a business to serve others is technically an infringement of personal freedom, BUT I think that having an intolerant lock-step ideal will do more harm than good in the long run.

EDIT:

I don't see why discrimination should be legal for any reason. Using this logic, it's alright for private businesses to refuse to hire people because of sexual orientation, skin colour or gender and all sorts of things, which is just absurd.

I don't see why I should be forced to violate my religious beliefs for any reason. However, I understand that my religious beliefs extend only to me and those who claim to follow it, which is why I don't have a gigantic issue with gay marriage supported by the government. There's laws in place regarding discriminatory hiring practices, which is completely different from forcing someone to accept a customer.

Edited August 26, 2016 by eggclipse

[Time the Crestfallen]

You mean if word-of-mouth can support/destroy a business? Yes, it can. Here's some data on restaurant failures (PDF warning). On page 311 (page 8 of 19), it mentions some conclusions, including that independent restaurant owners are more likely to fail than franchised owners, and that there's no shortage of eating places unless you're in some really tiny town. Thus, an independent restaurant owner is taking a risk in turning away customers based on race/gender/orientation/other factors short of "disrupting service". A franchise has less risk, but may end up doing controversial things anyway, like Chick-a-Fil.

For the couple in question, I don't think that one bakery was the only place they could've gotten their cake from. That's why I think that the baker should've been allowed to turn them away.

The issue that I didn't see you mention is "what if everyone in the area adopts the same stance?" That would be a tough question to answer, since the government forcing a business to serve others is technically an infringement of personal freedom, BUT I think that having an intolerant lock-step ideal will do more harm than good in the long run.

In Oregon (the state where the store is if my research is correct), it is illegal for public accommodations to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

https://web.archive.org/web/20131111041124/http://www.hrc.org/laws-and-legislation/entry/oregon-non-discrimination-law

If this happened in a State which there was no discrimination laws, such as Mississippi, then fine. But in refusing to serve that couple, Sweet Cakes broke the law. Are you saying that private businesses should be allowed to operate outside the laws of their location? If not, then there's no reason to defend them and they deserve the punishment they received.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Phillius

[eclipse]

In Oregon (the state where the store is if my research is correct), it is illegal for public accommodations to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

https://web.archive.org/web/20131111041124/http://www.hrc.org/laws-and-legislation/entry/oregon-non-discrimination-law

If this happened in a State which there was no discrimination laws, such as Mississippi, then fine. But in refusing to serve that couple, Sweet Cakes broke the law. Are you saying that private businesses should be allowed to operate outside the laws of their location? If not, then there's no reason to defend them and they deserve the punishment they received.

I don't agree with that law. However, by operating a business in Oregon, the owner of Sweet Cakes is bound to the state laws. If she set up a gofundme or something, I bet she'd get quite a few donations, for various reasons. However, you're going on a really weird train of thought, because THIS is what I originally posted:

Stupid to you, not to her or me. I think private businesses should be able to turn people away, unless there's no viable alternative, or it's a matter of life or death. Unless that couple was in the middle of nowhere, and that was the only bakery in town, they had other options.

Not once did I mention breaking the law. Just how I think things should be.

[Time the Crestfallen]

Not once did I mention breaking the law. Just how I think things should be.

You mentioned the Government forcing businesses to serve others, so yes, it relevant.

I also don't see how you can not agree with that law, since all it says is that you can't discriminate based on orientation. Why should it be legal to discriminate against homosexuals and what's more, what's to stop it from snow-balling into further discrimination (race, gender, ETC)?

Edited August 26, 2016 by Phillius

[eclipse]

You mentioned the Government forcing businesses to serve others, so yes, it relevant.

I also don't see how you can not agree with that law, since all it says is that you can't discriminate based on orientation. Why should it be legal to discriminate against homosexuals and what's more, what's to stop it from snow-balling into further discrimination (race, gender, ETC)?

I don't think the government SHOULD. The keyword is "should", not "what actually happened".

Escalating this isn't going to help your cause. The crux of the issue on my end is religious freedom. So address that instead.

[Time the Crestfallen]

Escalating this isn't going to help your cause. The crux of the issue on my end is religious freedom. So address that instead.

Simple, you're 'religious freedom' should not limit another person's freedom and it should never, ever come at the expense of others. If your idea of religious freedom includes the freedom to discriminate against others, for any reason, than it's your definition of religious freedom that's the problem. Not anything else.

[eclipse]

Simple, you're 'religious freedom' should not limit another person's freedom and it should never, ever come at the expense of others. If your idea of religious freedom includes the freedom to discriminate against others, for any reason, than it's your definition of religious freedom that's the problem. Not anything else.

By the same token, I shouldn't be forced to give up my religious freedom for another person's freedom. You'd have a case if I wanted to force people to live by my creed, instead of denying someone's request (which is a literal interpretation of what happened). Like any request, I should have the right to say "no", reasons irrelevant.

Keep in mind that you're arguing over a cake, from a private business, not a government entity. Also, keep in mind that arguments such as yours tell me that you're more interested in advertising your own views with no regard to mine, which means that I'm more likely to take a hostile view of your position. If you can't figure out how to talk to someone, and get them to listen, I strongly suggest agreeing to disagree for the next day or so.

BTW, this goes for the entire topic - disagreements are okay, but figuring out WHAT and WHY there's a disagreement, as well as keeping emotion in check will help in the long run.

[Time the Crestfallen]

By the same token, I shouldn't be forced to give up my religious freedom for another person's freedom. You'd have a case if I wanted to force people to live by my creed, instead of denying someone's request (which is a literal interpretation of what happened). Like any request, I should have the right to say "no", reasons irrelevant.

Your mistake is assuming that I value all freedoms equally. In this case; religious freedom < freedom from discrimination, and considering that the religious practice in this case being defended is the freedom to discriminate against groups, I'm not exactly feeling sympathetic. Especially considering that I'm not sure in what way providing retail service to homosexuals impede one's religious freedom.

Keep in mind that you're arguing over a cake, from a private business, not a government entity.

It's a retail store. Retail stores are counted as public accommodation and thus, are covered under the Civil Rights act of 1964 and numerous other laws pertaining to discrimination. I don't see how being a private business makes homophobic practices any less reprehensible, nor have you made any argument for why this should not be the case other than 'because I don't like it'.

Also, keep in mind that arguments such as yours tell me that you're more interested in advertising your own views with no regard to mine, which means that I'm more likely to take a hostile view of your position. If you can't figure out how to talk to someone, and get them to listen, I strongly suggest agreeing to disagree for the next day or so.

You tell me to 'figure out how to talk to someone', and yet the entire second paragraph of your post is not an attempt at reasonable debate, but rather passive-aggressive insults that add nothing to the discussion. I have said nothing bad about you personally, nor made any ad hominem attacks, but attempting to defend bigotry by claiming religious freedom already does nothing to endear me to the idea of being receptive, especially considering that you haven't given me any reasons for why religious freedom matters more than anti-discrimination other than personal opinion, and since the fact that the vast majority of the US (45 out of 50 states) has anti-discrimination laws, the implications are that freedom from discrimination is valued more than religious freedom and your lack of citation comes across as rather damning.

With that said, I'm going to take your advice and have a break from this discussion. I've had a pretty shitty week and perhaps the discussion will be calmer once I've cooled down.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Phillius

[solrocknroll]

You have the freedom to deny service to someone, but just know that they have the right to destroy your business if they can.

Maybe not through suing, but at least through word-of-mouth or protesting.

[Tryhard]

I've got mixed feelings on it. On one hand, it is important for the government to not allow proliferation of discrimination against a certain group of people in their country. If they allow mass denial of services to a specific group, they have failed those people. I would dread to see a bunch of "No X allowed" signs outside of shops or businesses. The right to discriminate isn't a particularly compelling case for me.

On the other hand, punishment/fining/jailing people for these views isn't going to do anything or change anything. If anything, they are just going to be more resentful, indignant or disgruntled. They will not see why they are being punished because in their minds they are right. Secondly, doing so is almost saying that you do not have confidence in the ability for good ideas to overcome bad ones, and that you are scared that more people would follow discriminatory practices.

While I wouldn't say I was thrilled anti-discrimination laws exist in terms of providing services, I don't think their existence is unnecessary.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Tryhard

[Phoenix Wright]

You mean if word-of-mouth can support/destroy a business? Yes, it can. Here's some data on restaurant failures (PDF warning). On page 311 (page 8 of 19), it mentions some conclusions, including that independent restaurant owners are more likely to fail than franchised owners, and that there's no shortage of eating places unless you're in some really tiny town. Thus, an independent restaurant owner is taking a risk in turning away customers based on race/gender/orientation/other factors short of "disrupting service". A franchise has less risk, but may end up doing controversial things anyway, like Chick-a-Fil.

For the couple in question, I don't think that one bakery was the only place they could've gotten their cake from. That's why I think that the baker should've been allowed to turn them away.

The issue that I didn't see you mention is "what if everyone in the area adopts the same stance?" That would be a tough question to answer, since the government forcing a business to serve others is technically an infringement of personal freedom, BUT I think that having an intolerant lock-step ideal will do more harm than good in the long run.

EDIT:

I don't see why I should be forced to violate my religious beliefs for any reason. However, I understand that my religious beliefs extend only to me and those who claim to follow it, which is why I don't have a gigantic issue with gay marriage supported by the government. There's laws in place regarding discriminatory hiring practices, which is completely different from forcing someone to accept a customer.

there is no discussion in word-of-mouth ruining business. as far as i can tell it's conjecture on your part. it's funny that you mention chick-fil-a, because i was going to mention it as an obvious example of how the only people who really honestly gave a shit were homosexuals. everyone else just wanted a chicken sandwich.

the people can't regulate. that's why there's unions protected by the government, otherwise they'd be useless. this country is set up such that the power dynamic is nearly entirely in favor of management. government regulation exists to swing the other way a little bit, and here in the us that's barely at all.

that's why the guilded age was a thing. and slavery. that's why china and indonesia and india and taiwan have sweatshops. people can't stop business. basically the only thing people can stop are independent restaurants, which are notorious for failure. 30% yearly failure rate. but that is due not to word of mouth, but dozens of other more meaningful factors (detailed in the linked report).

the general strategy is to outlaw something for so long it seems crazy to behave in another way. in 1966 i bet there were still whites only restaurants still trying to exist and succeeding, whereas today you wouldn't dream of that happening. forcing progress on humans seems to work the best as far as i can tell. i can't think of any social progress we've made as a species without law preceding it.

I don't think the government SHOULD. The keyword is "should", not "what actually happened".

Escalating this isn't going to help your cause. The crux of the issue on my end is religious freedom. So address that instead.

as was said, your religious freedom begins and ends with your ability to worship freely. if you intend to use your religious freedom to trample another's rights in the name of faith, then you simply don't get to do it. the simplest way to put it is that you aren't granted extra freedoms because you're religious. as an agnostic, if i can't turn away homosexuals, as a christian you cannot.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Augestein]

the general strategy is to outlaw something for so long it seems crazy to behave in another way. in 1966 i bet there were still whites only restaurants still trying to exist and succeeding, whereas today you wouldn't dream of that happening. forcing progress on humans seems to work the best as far as i can tell. i can't think of any social progress we've made as a species without law preceding it.

That might be more because we need to reflect on what the "law" is exactly. Generally speaking, it's a set of moral guidelines that we choose to follow in our established society. You don't have to force progress at all to be honest. Just allow for intermingling to happen. Using the food analogy again, a person might choose to have "whites only," but in the long run, they have to question if blocking demographics of people is even profitable enough to be worth the time.

As for Eggclipse, I see your point, you believe that a privately owned business should have the choice to do whatever they want. While that's *somewhat* true, there are STILL things that they should have to come back to-- health regulations, payment standards etc. The question is where "service towards a customer" actually falls under. It's certainly not lethal for claiming to not serve someone , and if you own the business, you can't exactly be fired from yourself. I can see how an argument can be made that the woman in question would be able to say "no" to someone she did not wish to serve. Specifically because she said that it was for religious reasons. Heck, the government can't make you serve in the draft if you claim you don't believe in fighting for religious reasons, so when you look at it that way, it IS a bit odd and does seem like a bit of a double standard. And to even remark on that situation, I did wonder why they felt the government needed to be involved with that. If someone wouldn't serve me-- whether it's because of my physiological aspects or not, my response would be : "you're loss" and I'd go somewhere else.

[Phoenix Wright]

that is not the general definition of a law.

laws are rules that citizens are required to abide by. it's not immoral to break the law.

[Augestein]

that is not the general definition of a law.

laws are rules that citizens are required to abide by. it's not immoral to break the law.

I didn't say it was. But generally speaking, laws are made because it's what society has setup for what they find morally correct. The rules aren't just made up just to make people follow them. There would need to be a reason for them to be made up. Otherwise they would be just that: "rules." No different from a game at that point.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Augestein

[Phoenix Wright]

no, laws arise out of necessity or for the self-preservation of a nation. things like robbery, murder, arson, etc. are morally deplorable, but there exists also a rational, legal argument for why these things should be understood as crimes. a nation where murder is legal wouldn't be a nation with a very high population.

the general public probably holds no opinion on seat-belt laws or jaywalking or just traffic laws in general from a moral standpoint, but for the need to keep citizens safe we see these laws as necessary. so of course the rules aren't made up, but there doesn't need to exist a moral basis for law to exist. law would exist without morality.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Augestein]

no, laws arise out of necessity or for the self-preservation of a nation. things like robbery, murder, arson, etc. are morally deplorable, but there exists also a rational, legal argument for why these things should be understood as crimes. a nation where murder is legal wouldn't be a nation with a very high population.

the general public probably holds no opinion on seat-belt laws or jaywalking or just traffic laws in general from a moral standpoint, but for the need to keep citizens safe we see these laws as necessary. so of course the rules aren't made up, but there doesn't need to exist a moral basis for law to exist. law would exist without morality.

Sure. But they are also because people believe that these are correct from a moral stand point as well. It's why with something like "gay marriage," it doesn't demonstrate much else other than a significant portion of the population doesn't find there anything wrong with being homosexual. Much less, having a form of civil union. In some counties being so little as homosexual is punishable by death. So may I ask how that is necessary for self-preservation? The homosexual more than likely wouldn't reproduce anyways, so what good does killing them do? No. That rule that's made is simply made because the ones in power feel that this is reprehensible. Which is simply an opinion.

It DOES hold an opinion on these things. Just not enough for the general population to care about those specific laws (which in and of itself is an opinion). If we didn't, then you wouldn't see things such as protesters trying to influence the thinking of our national and local governments for laws that they don't like. There generally is some form of moral basis for it. It's just that most modern countries will come to similar conclusions on certain subjects; this is the reason that you'll see laws such as "don't kill, don't steal etc" everywhere, because most people agree that it's wrong.

[Life]

After re-evaluating my argument on education, I've come to conclusion that Raven is correct when he accuses me of the "correlation equals causation" logical fallecy.

Back to the drawing board with proving my argument. Might take a lot of time.

In the meantime, I think I'm going to start supporting the Gosnell Movie with a donation. I don't care what your stance on abortion is; the grand jury report chilled me to the bone.

I really hope Elizabeth Warren isn't re-elected for Senate based solely on her stance on abortion (you can be pro-choice and that's fine but I draw the line when you also want "no restrictions").

Edited August 26, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[-Cynthia-]

I really hope Elizabeth Warren isn't re-elected for Senate based solely on her stance on abortion (you can be pro-choice and that's fine but I draw the line when you also want "no restrictions").

I agree with disallowing 'late' (third term) abortions, but I'm not in favor of mandatory ultrasounds, mandatory counseling, mandatory waiting periods, or parental notification/consent required.

[Life]

I agree with disallowing 'late' (third term) abortions, but I'm not in favor of mandatory ultrasounds, mandatory counseling, mandatory waiting periods, or parental notification/consent required.

Past 24 weeks has to be illegal. Period. End stop. I'll simply point to Kermit Gosnell and say "that's why".

What Gosnell did to babies was first degree murder. The only difference between that and a late term abortion is that Elizabeth Warren says that as long as the fetus is still in the womb, it's legal. Outside the womb? It's probably a crime worse than rape and I abhor rape more anything.

[UNLEASH IT]

Past 24 weeks has to be illegal. Period. End stop. I'll simply point to Kermit Gosnell and say "that's why".

What Gosnell did to babies was first degree murder. The only difference between that and a late term abortion is that Elizabeth Warren says that as long as the fetus is still in the womb, it's legal. Outside the womb? It's probably a crime worse than rape and I abhor rape more anything.

I disagree. All types of abortions should be legal and subsidized. In my opinion, abortion, regardless of the time when it's done, is killing a child but I feel like the pros outweigh the cons, especially for lower class citizens who can't afford to raise a child. Also, supporting these abortion programs probably costs the state less money than providing welfare to raise children (most of which would be born to single mothers) who would have otherwise not existed.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Chad Thundercock