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.
try again there my friend. the denial for the bakeries was based on the religious beliefs of the owners, and if you read the scotus ruling, it was narrow in scope, though broadened a bit to allow the bakers to not put vulgarity or other offensive writing on their cakes.
The denial of baking that cake was based on personal, subjective criteria, same as denial of Sanders' being served at a restaurant. Denial of service based on subjective, personal criteria of the seller. Period.
Both are perfectly acceptable to me because I stand solidly behind all associations being 100% voluntary. It's the only logically consistent position to hold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
in this instance it wasnt about anything but pure hatred for someone and who they work for. the owner let the employees decide to serve them or not, and the employees made the decision and the owner went along.
Denial of service based on subjective, personal criteria. Same as not baking a cake based on subjective, personal criteria. Same as denying any service based on subjective, personal criteria.
I am fine with denials of service based on subjective, personal criteria. The goods/services offered by the seller belong to them, and all associations should be voluntary. I wouldn't personally do it, since money is money, but if someone else wants to give me their market share because they have subjective, personal criteria to uphold...cool.
try again there my friend. the denial for the bakeries was based on the religious beliefs of the owners, and if you read the scotus ruling, it was narrow in scope, though broadened a bit to allow the bakers to not put vulgarity or other offensive writing on their cakes.
in this instance it wasnt about anything but pure hatred for someone and who they work for. the owner let the employees decide to serve them or not, and the employees made the decision and the owner went along.
you dont work in the restaurant industry do you? health inspections ARE scheduled a week in advance generally. its rare when a health inspection is unscheduled.
Not in my jurisdiction. They're unscheduled. How about the rest of my post, what exactly is the restaurant going to get shut down for & for how long?
they had already STARTED serving her, and decided in the middle that they didnt want to. big difference between someone walking into a shop to order something and being refused BEFORE the order is placed.
The owner only asked that Sanders leave. She offered to still serve the rest of the party and when they declined and offered to pay, the owner said it was on the house. The owner handled it respectfully unlike what Sanders did afterward on twitter.
Either be in business to make money, or be in business to make political statements. Often both are at odds, and the latter can lead to insolvency. If you can afford to run a business at a loss to make political statements then more power to you. Evidently, this owner can, or at least thinks she can.
And in a Utopian society, things would work that way, but we don't live there.
Which is why you are seeing my real-world examples as not being logical. I do see what you mean about all associations being voluntary, but it's pretty easy to say that when you are not living in the world where people discriminate to the point that some people have NO nearby access to services they require.
Blah blah....just more excuses for logical inconsistency. Again, that puts you in the vast majority of Americans, who are likewise logically and morally inconsistent. Ironically, your inconsistency, like the people you defend or oppose in these "denial of services" cases, is based on personal, subjective criteria, same as these folks denying service.
It's so much fun watching you do all these mental and linguistic gymnastics in order to not admit that you're logically and morally inconsistent. But by all means, keep the dance going...I find it amusing.
The owner only asked that Sanders leave. She offered to still serve the rest of the party and when they declined and offered to pay, the owner said it was on the house. The owner handled it respectfully unlike what Sanders did afterward on twitter.
So forcing a person, and her family to leave in the middle of their meal solely for political reasons isn't cruel? Let's see how you feel the next time you are hungry, and someone takes your food away.
More twisting to excuse the exact same thing - refusal of service based on personal, subjective criteria.
That is what you are doing, but don't worry, utter lack of logical consistency is the starting point for about 99% of the population, especially within the political arena.
I would be denying them service based on my personal, subjective criteria, regardless of what that criteria happens to be. Same as denying a specific service based on my religious criteria, or my political criteria, or whatever. That you cannot see your glaring inconsistency of logic is just you avoiding all that ugly cognitive dissonance, but we are taking about the EXACT SAME ACTION.
Uhm, go through my archive on this subject. You'll find me squarely behind ALL ASSOCIATIONS SHOULD BE VOLUNTARY, which means any business selling/providing anything should be able to accept or deny customers (form associations) according to whatever criteria they choose.
And this is the heart of the inconsistency, creating unequal classifications for "people" and then forcing others to operate according to those unequal and inconsistent classifications. You do realize this is institutionalized inconsistency, right?
I am for a consistent society where everyone is simply "person" and all persons are free to form any and all associations voluntarily and according to whatever criteria they choose. I defend it in the case of someone telling Trump admin folks to go pound sand, same as someone saying find another baker to celebrate your homosexual wedding. I absolutely oppose forcing people to make associations, of any kind for any reason.
My position is logically consistent. Yours is not. You can throw up another wall of appeal to XYZ fallacies, but it will never change the fact that I am logically consistent on this matter and you aren't.
You've missed the point entirely.
The law prohibits discrimination against specific categories of people. It prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, and sex.
Certain people should not be allowed in businesses. For example, restaurants should ban people with no shoes, with dirty hands, those who don't bath, and those who are loud and obnoxious. Because certain individuals should not be allowed in businesses, owners have always had the discretion under the law to prohibit certain individuals from patronizing their establishments.
The point is that the law which was created by our elective representatives prohibits discrimination against broad groups of people, yet allows it in individual cases. That is the balance the law has chosen to strike in terms of both protecting minority groups, yet allowing businesses to exclude people for legitimate reasons.
So forcing a person, and her family to leave in the middle of their meal solely for political reasons isn't cruel? Let's see how you feel the next time you are hungry, and someone takes your food away.
It’s funny how conservatives rally for the right for business owners to deny service to anyone they choose, but when that right gets extended to them, it’s the end of the world and discriminatory,
What the Red Hen did was wrong; what Trump did is an abuse of power.
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.
