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.
I'm not talking about a disorderly patron situation...and you know that.
As it is now...Buyers can OPENLY discriminate against Sellers. No law against that.
You could gather up goods in a store...go to the checkout...look at the person and exclaim "I don't do business with (insert epithet) people like you". Leave the stuff right there on the counter...and walk out.
Perfectly legal.
But the Seller MUST sell to the Buyer...barring the rare disorderly person. Not fair.
How does the seller become the seller? Doesn't the seller freely choose to offer goods or services to the public? Isn't the seller free to stop offering goods or services to the public at any time they choose?
You don't get special tax breaks for being a cake buyer.
Who knows what breaks anyone got to obtain the funds to buy a cake with?
Doesn't matter...irrelevant to the Buyer--Seller interaction in and of itself.
How does the seller become the seller? Doesn't the seller freely choose to offer goods or services to the public? Isn't the seller free to stop offering goods or services to the public at any time they choose?
Not the issue. The Buyer is also free to stop buying goods and services at any time they choose. For most of human history nobody bought anything, ever. Also...there are very few goods one MUST have. A fancy cake certainly isn't one of them. One does not need a wedding reception either.
This point is moot.
Any specific Buyer can OPENLY discriminate against any specific Seller...but the Seller must oblige all Buyers. I even gave the example.
Not fair. Not equal.
Who knows what breaks anyone got to obtain the funds to buy a cake with?
Doesn't matter...irrelevant to the Buyer--Seller interaction in and of itself.
We know exactly what specifically for-purpose tax-breaks a business gets to get started and keep going, using those tax-breaks, for that intended purpose of being a Seller.
The relationship power-play is clearly skewed in one direction, and it is not in favor of the consumer being given tax-breaks in order to consume. One party is techincally loosing, and the other is technically winning... even if they are both getting what they settled for. Regardless of your ethical views about the omni-equality of power struggles, the laws are decided in their ways.
We know exactly what breaks a business gets to get started and keep going.
The relationship power-play is clearly skewed in one direction.
A business owner logically has way more on the line with investment and risk involved in what it takes to get to the point of being able to conduct the transactions of their company than any Buyer purchasing from the business would have.
If anything...just on that basis...if anyone is put in a superior legal position in the transaction, it should be the Seller that has all the investment and risk.
Instead, the law puts the Seller in a position whereby any Buyer can come in, fully intending to buy...but then refuse based on discriminatory reasons. AND even express in no uncertain terms that is why they now refuse to buy.
The EXACT same business transaction circumstance as the one at issue...only with the Buyer discriminating against the Seller. All legal.
The Seller is not given a fair and equal position, by comparison.
I have yet to see anyone address that issue directly.
How is it fair that the Buyers are allowed to OUTRIGHT discriminate against the Sellers with impunity...but the Sellers are forced to fully oblige Buyers?
A business owner logically has way more on the line with investment and risk involved in what it takes to get to the point of being able to conduct the transactions of their company than any Buyer purchasing from the business would have.
If anything...just on that basis...if anyone is put in a superior legal position in the transaction, it should be the Seller that has all the investment and risk.
Instead, the law puts the Seller in a position whereby any Buyer can come in, fully intending to buy...but then refuse based on discriminatory reasons. AND even express in no uncertain terms that is why they now refuse to buy.
The EXACT same business transaction circumstance as the one at issue...only with the Buyer discriminating against the Seller. All legal.
The Seller is not given a fair and equal position, by comparison.
I have yet to see anyone address that issue directly.
How is it fair that the Buyers are allowed to OUTRIGHT discriminate against the Sellers with impunity...but the Sellers are forced to fully oblige Buyers?
Way more on the line? Then there wouldn't be business. Saying a businessman has more on the line is like saying that a rich man has more to loose.
People don't [or shouldn't] start a business because they want to gamble their money away. That is why they [public society along with business groups] set up laws that favor businesses monetarily.
On your basis, we should be a plutocracy, since the rich have technically the most investment and risk.
Have you never heard "the customer is always right." It's logical business practice to understand the balance of power and responsibility. Yet does a business go down if they loose one customer, no. Does a customer go down if one business turns them away on the bases of unnecessary discrimination, yes.
You are, of course, welcome to continue to lobby for the contrary.
Again, buyers are not regulated and helped by government for the specific purpose, but you are welcome to try to change that dynamic for the worse. It's your choice, the religious weren't stopped after the Pax Romana, they aren't going to be stopped now.
Again, ORAL ROBERTS UNIVERSITY IS A SELLER that freely discriminates on religion, sexual orientation, and probably up to recently, race.
They are also a BUYER that also discriminates.
And corporations can become "buyers" too, and as "buyers" they can't discriminate based on the protected classes either.
Once the government is big enough to directly control individual consumers through direct help in order to buy certain things and such it can then force them (through penalties) not to discriminate in who they are buying from.
We know exactly what specifically for-purpose tax-breaks a business gets to get started and keep going, using those tax-breaks, for that intended purpose of being a Seller.
The relationship power-play is clearly skewed in one direction, and it is not in favor of the consumer being given tax-breaks in order to consume. One party is techincally loosing, and the other is technically winning... even if they are both getting what they settled for. Regardless of your ethical views about the omni-equality of power struggles, the laws are decided in their ways.
To use your own argument against you - and with more justification than the numbers-and-tradition - fallacy - the ruling was made, is upheld and is unlikely to be overturned. Get over it. Your arguments to convince yourself that religion is perfectly entitles to discriminate whenever it wants count for nothing with us or with the actual situation.
Way more on the line? Then there wouldn't be business. Saying a businessman has more on the line is like saying that a rich man has more to loose.
People don't [or shouldn't] start a business because they want to gamble their money away. That is why they [public society along with business groups] set up laws that favor businesses monetarily.
On your basis, we should be a plutocracy, since the rich have technically the most investment and risk.
Have you never heard "the customer is always right." It's logical business practice to understand the balance of power and responsibility. Yet does a business go down if they loose one customer, no. Does a customer go down if one business turns them away on the bases of unnecessary discrimination, yes.
You are, of course, welcome to continue to lobby for the contrary.
Again, buyers are not regulated and helped by government for the specific purpose, but you are welcome to try to change that dynamic for the worse. It's your choice, the religious weren't stopped after the Pax Romana, they aren't going to be stopped now.
Again, ORAL ROBERTS UNIVERSITY IS A SELLER that freely discriminates on religion, sexual orientation, and probably up to recently, race.
They are also a BUYER that also discriminates.
And corporations can become "buyers" too, and as "buyers" they can't discriminate based on the protected classes either.
Once the government is big enough to directly control individual consumers through direct help in order to buy certain things and such it can then force them (through penalties) not to discriminate in who they are buying from.
All businesses are also buyers.
Businesses "buy" on a wholesale, not a retail, level.
A business like that small bakery is SO difficult...of those started, MOST will not exist in 5 years. For "startups" (new ventures) over 90% fail.
Even with "tax incentives" (which very few small businesses get) the probability of failure is greater than the probability of success.
Whoever told you that running your own small business was a way to probably get rich...was feeding you a line.
Long hours of very hard work with most everything you have on the line...knowing that even with your very best effort you probably won't make it. THAT is truth about a small business like a little bake shop.
Also...a customer does not "go down" if one business like the place referred to in the OP turns them away.
How do you figure that? What prevented that Same Sex Couple from just going to another place?
Your example of a University is not applicable...that isn't a "small business" like that bake shop.
You still have not addressed the issue from the standpoint of the business interaction at the retail level between the Buyer and Seller being fair and equal as to how they can now treat each other as far as freely picking and choosing whether they will or will not do business with the other for whatever reason.
I'm not talking about some drastically different scenario. I'm talking about the EXACT same business transaction that occured.
The way the law is now...if the situation were reversed, and the bakery was owned by a Same Sex Couple...a customer can come in, fully intending to buy...and upon discovering the nature of the personal relationship of the owners, could have done EXACTLY what the bakery shop did to them, and openly refused to transact business on that very basis. And there would be no legal penalty for them doing that.
The Buyers can legally do to the Sellers...what is a crime for the Sellers to do to the Buyers. THAT is what isn't "fair and equal".
IF people could learn to respect other's religious beliefs, this never would have had to go to court in the first place.
Any evidence this business actively advertised that they were right-wing extremist Christians and would discriminate against people their political masters ordered them to? If not, it is hard to understand how a customer could expect the kind of discrimination that this business tried to practice.
No, but I do have a Constitutional right to not be treated differently than anyone else.
(I'm actually not a member of the unlawfully discriminated against group of law abiding citizens in this case. I simply continued in the same 1st person you had used).
No one is denying that.
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.
