Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is obedience to authority a virtue in your mind? If the government tells you to do something, you do it? "Do as you're told", "Get in the cattle car", "Go into the gas chamber"....yes, master. Hopefully that isn't what you're saying. It's logically impossible for that type of "authority" to be valid, actually.
If the majority wills it, you submit? Minorities shouldn't fight against oppression? I thought that's what everyone is complaining about in this thread, but they fail to apply it universally.
But yes, I know...I'm just rationalizing my self-centeredness and failure to comply with the will of society.
In earlier (& simpler) times, only a person could sue or be sued. When most businesses were either sole proprietors or partnerships, this was not a problem, business owner(s) were simply held liable. The legal fictions regarding corporate personhood came into being (mostly) after the Industrial Revolution. The concept of an ‘artificial person’ was seen to solve more problems than it created & became the preferred organizational form for businesses. ‘Troubleshooting’ this concept became necessary when ‘glitches’ were revealed. One of the earliest revelations showed the ‘glitch’ inherent in the limited liability function.
In a sole proprietorship, or partnership, the ‘natural person’ owner(s) were held liable for the debts of the business. When organized in the corporate form, the ‘natural person’ owner(s) enjoy limited liability, they could not be sued or held personally liable for the debts of the business.
In the earlier stages, individuals had no recourse if they sued a corporation for a breach of contract because the ‘natural person’ owner(s) were not liable & the corporation itself was not a person. (these were used as legal arguments)
There were/are benefits to the concept of Incorporation but this was probably one of the first problems the concept (legal fiction) created. One of the earlier resolutions was to suggest a corporation could be sued, just as a person could be sued, & therefore be held accountable for debts.
Since then, extending other rights to corporations (beyond those necessary to ensure accountability for debts) have been suggested. Sometimes it seems to me as if some of today's problems come from yesterday's solutions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
I think every individual in a group (be that a company, a government, or whatever) have the same rights as everyone else, and it's wrong for them to violate the rights of others. Nothing changes by joining a group of people. If none of the individuals in that group have the right to do something, how do they collectively gain that right? It doesn't make any logical sense.
I think extending the rights of 'natural persons' to corporations makes sense when it protects the individual rights of 'natural persons.' I don't think this idea plays out this way, without exception, in real life.
Religious organizations often exist to foster the beliefs of a single religious faith. This real life practice is not as prevalent in for-profit incorporated organizations. Corporations do not usually present as desiring the right to foster the beliefs of a single religious faith. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called attention to this in her dissent to the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision:
"Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."
I used to see signs that said, "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" in various business store fronts. No one seemed to object to these signs because they seemed to elicit a kindof common sense agreement.
In the same vein, I think that's one of the reasons why folks oppose restrictions on service that don't make sense. It doesn't seem logical to deny service to folks on the basis of race, color, religion, natural origin or sexual orientation ...
Denying service based on religious belief just doesn't seem to make sense to many folks.
Denying service based on religious belief just doesn't seem to make sense to many folks.
No doubt it makes plenty of sense to business owners who find the sex acts gays engage in to be grossly repugnant, and so don't want to associate with such people in any way. And then they run to verses in the bible to support why they are entitled to feel that way.
YES, of course. That means they are perfectly free to put up a sign that says "no homos served".
Quote:
Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie
No doubt it makes plenty of sense to business owners who find the sex acts gays engage in to be grossly repugnant, and so don't want to associate with such people in any way. And then they run to verses in the bible to support why they are entitled to feel that way.
I get what you're saying although I wonder why those desiring to deny service based on religious beliefs seem to lack the courage of their convictions. Why not just (no pun intended) be straight about it?
I pretty much disagree with everything you said, but I'll keep it to two points:
1. If I cook a bunch of hamburgers for myself and refuse to sell to anyone, is that wrong? I'm discriminating against everyone else on earth...that doesn't sound very nice.
If I decide to give some away for free to my friends and family, but then others want to buy some and I charge them for it, is that wrong?
They're my hamburgers...I paid for them and made them...shouldn't I be able to use them how I want?
2. The law is just an opinion with a gun. You're claiming that we need to threaten people with violence to MAKE them trade with every person that wants what they're selling.
If I'm acting peacefully and non-violently, just making hamburgers, giving them to some people, trading them for money with others, and deciding not to trade my hamburgers for money in certain cases, you advocate forcefully locking me in a cage or killing me? (Before you say anything about simply fining me, what happens if I don't pay your fine?) Also, would you personally do that or would you just send someone else to do it for you?
I'm completely against discriminating against anyone for stupid reasons like the color of their skin, their religion, or other ridiculous reasons, but I don't believe I have the right to point a gun at them and coerce them into doing what I want if they aren't harming anyone.
If we are going to discuss this, we should stay in the real world and not some alternate universe where someone opens a hamburger business and then refuses to sell to anyone. It's just silly.
So your point one I'm ignoring.
Your second point is seemingly even more bizarre. The law is the law. It is NOT an opinion. Where did I ever
post that we need to threaten people with violence? You've really gone off here.
What you fail to grasp is that when you open a business, you do not have the right to discriminate. It's not an option. What do you think the 1960's were about in your country when blacks decided to sit at the lunch counter with whites?
Another thing you are conveniently forgetting is that business ALREADY has to operate in a plethora of laws and regulations. I don't see health inspectors in restaurants carrying firearms.
I'm really at a loss of why you are bringing guns into this argument. All that happens to businesses that don't abide by the law, is that their business license is revoked or refused.
I get what you're saying although I wonder why those desiring to deny service based on religious beliefs seem to lack the courage of their convictions. Why not just (no pun intended) be straight about it?
Well, it seems those who are not religious bigots in Indiana are willing to be up front about it. Many businesses have started putting up signs at their establishments that proclaim: "This business serves everyone."
Let's see if the religious bigots will be as willing to stand on their beliefs and put up signs saying who they will not serve. But I won't hold my breath. As you say, that would take courage.
Just imagine the metrosexual that likes to dress well, maybe uses a little hair gel and wears a colorful tie and wingtip oxfords.
I can think of several prominent conservatives who'd better watch themselves in Indiana. They could easily be refused service because somebody thinks they are gay, whether they actually are or not.
I can also think of some women who might be taken as transgendered or lesbian. Better not visit Indiana, ladies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
