Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 2:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 2:24:00 PM (view original):
We all have government protections. It doesn't give the government the right to intrude on our lives. It should work the same for businesses. It's the government's job to protect.

Okay, I agree that when businesses start taking handouts from the government they have now sold their sole and relinquished their freedoms. This creates crony capitalism and is very dangerous.

You didn't answer the last question.

We all have government protections but there are times when we waive our rights in exchange for something else.

For instance, when you open a bank (or other public accommodation), you give up the right to discriminate against your customers on the basis of religion.

Open a private club or church, feel free to discriminate. Open a bank, restaurant, etc., give up that right.

This brings up another interesting point and shows why your logic is flawed. Government screws everything they touch up. That's a fact. For instance, in effort to prevent discrimination, the government actually discriminates. A good example of this is the Oregon baker.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 2:30:00 PM (view original):

Also, do you believe government should be allowed to interfere in only publicly traded businesses or all businesses?

Sorry, I thought my answer was clear. I think government has the right to regulate corporations, both public and private, though the level of regulation is much higher for public companies.

And it has nothing to do with handouts. For instance, I think state governments should require commercial general liability insurance (in addition to the already mandated workers compensation insurance) for corporations. That way, a company can't cause harm, get sued, and then liquidate to avoid paying damages. If you start a sole proprietorship, you wouldn't be able to vanish into thin air, why should a corporation?

There is a little common ground here. I believe that the government's role is to protect people from other people. It stops at that. The example that you are giving here does that, but this is not the topic. The topic is about California's new law regarding board members.

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 2:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 2:30:00 PM (view original):

Also, do you believe government should be allowed to interfere in only publicly traded businesses or all businesses?

Sorry, I thought my answer was clear. I think government has the right to regulate corporations, both public and private, though the level of regulation is much higher for public companies.

And it has nothing to do with handouts. For instance, I think state governments should require commercial general liability insurance (in addition to the already mandated workers compensation insurance) for corporations. That way, a company can't cause harm, get sued, and then liquidate to avoid paying damages. If you start a sole proprietorship, you wouldn't be able to vanish into thin air, why should a corporation?

There is a little common ground here. I believe that the government's role is to protect people from other people. It stops at that. The example that you are giving here does that, but this is not the topic. The topic is about California's new law regarding board members.

The topic, in general, is the ability for the government to regulate corporations.

Okay, so where is that line drawn on how heavily governments can regulate business and who gets to decide the line?

Posted by gomiami1972 on 1/29/2019 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 1/29/2019 2:27:00 PM (view original):
What if the only woman on the Board wants to identify as a man the day of the Board Meeting? Is the Company then in violation of the law?
Seriously, just crazy California once again proving how crazy it is.

Reverse that. One man can identify as a woman on the day of meetings. Hell, pay him enough and he will self-identify as a woman all year long. What about his wife...he is gay.

Law circumvented...

Even in this thread, I just can't bring myself to take a peak at anything bl posts. I'm sure he thinks we're just being "smart", but given the crazy things he wants to see become "normal", our comments and questions are perfectly justified, and would need answered, because "someone" would certainly try the things we state.

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 2:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 2:24:00 PM (view original):
We all have government protections. It doesn't give the government the right to intrude on our lives. It should work the same for businesses. It's the government's job to protect.

Okay, I agree that when businesses start taking handouts from the government they have now sold their sole and relinquished their freedoms. This creates crony capitalism and is very dangerous.

You didn't answer the last question.

We all have government protections but there are times when we waive our rights in exchange for something else.

For instance, when you open a bank (or other public accommodation), you give up the right to discriminate against your customers on the basis of religion.

Open a private club or church, feel free to discriminate. Open a bank, restaurant, etc., give up that right.

This brings up another interesting point and shows why your logic is flawed. Government screws everything they touch up. That's a fact. For instance, in effort to prevent discrimination, the government actually discriminates. A good example of this is the Oregon baker.

While I agree that there are plenty of things the government screws up (not everything, and there are plenty of things people/corporations screw up too), public accommodation laws preventing discrimination are not one of them.

If you want to run a public facing business, you have to agree not to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, color, and country of origin. It's the federal civil rights act. If your own personal beliefs preclude you from adhering to that law, you have the option to not run a public facing business, but you are not being discriminated against.

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 2:42:00 PM (view original):
Okay, so where is that line drawn on how heavily governments can regulate business and who gets to decide the line?

The line moves back and forth, always has and always will. We decide when we elect our government.

Democrats generally want more regulation and Republicans want less.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 2:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 2:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 2:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 2:24:00 PM (view original):
We all have government protections. It doesn't give the government the right to intrude on our lives. It should work the same for businesses. It's the government's job to protect.

Okay, I agree that when businesses start taking handouts from the government they have now sold their sole and relinquished their freedoms. This creates crony capitalism and is very dangerous.

You didn't answer the last question.

We all have government protections but there are times when we waive our rights in exchange for something else.

For instance, when you open a bank (or other public accommodation), you give up the right to discriminate against your customers on the basis of religion.

Open a private club or church, feel free to discriminate. Open a bank, restaurant, etc., give up that right.

This brings up another interesting point and shows why your logic is flawed. Government screws everything they touch up. That's a fact. For instance, in effort to prevent discrimination, the government actually discriminates. A good example of this is the Oregon baker.

While I agree that there are plenty of things the government screws up (not everything, and there are plenty of things people/corporations screw up too), public accommodation laws preventing discrimination are not one of them.

If you want to run a public facing business, you have to agree not to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, color, and country of origin. It's the federal civil rights act. If your own personal beliefs preclude you from adhering to that law, you have the option to not run a public facing business, but you are not being discriminated against.

It is more discriminatory to say that a Christian has to sell a cake to a gay couple than it is to say that baker has the right to not bake a cake for a gay wedding. It infringes upon religious freedoms. And that is the point here. Laws can have unintended consequences. If an effort to prevent discrimination in one area, you discriminate in another. This is why the less government involvement we have, the better.

There is a big difference between the government screwing something up and a business/corporation screwing something up. If the government screws something up, it affects society as whole. If a business/corporation screws something up badly enough they go out of business and it creates opportunity for a better run company to come along and take their place in the market. (Assuming we don't have Bush/Obama in office foolishly bailing them out).

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/29/2019 2:50:00 PM (view original):
Democrats generally want more regulation and Republicans want less.

I disagree here. Republicans campaign on wanting less, but there actions speak differently.

We are never going to agree that the sexual orientation of the person eating a cake you baked somehow impacts your religious freedom. That's ridiculous.

The logic on your side of the debate is quite hollow. I have religious freedom in America. We all agree that it's a major tenant of our freedoms. Religious freedoms include the right to practice that religion without the government telling me I can't, Religions have doctrines in which the followers abide. In Judeo-Christian beliefs (as well as most other religions) homosexuality is a sin. Forcing me to engage in activity associated with that sin is forcing me to violate my religion, thus it's infringing on religious rights.

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 3:02:00 PM (view original):
The logic on your side of the debate is quite hollow. I have religious freedom in America. We all agree that it's a major tenant of our freedoms. Religious freedoms include the right to practice that religion without the government telling me I can't, Religions have doctrines in which the followers abide. In Judeo-Christian beliefs (as well as most other religions) homosexuality is a sin. Forcing me to engage in activity associated with that sin is forcing me to violate my religion, thus it's infringing on religious rights.

The problem with your argument is that no one is forcing you to engage in homosexuality.

You're missing the point. Take a step back here and follow me for a second. While I may not be forced to participate in the act of the sin, i'm being forced to contribute to the sin.

I'm a libertarian. What you do and with whom you do it with is none of my business. Just don't force me to be apart of it if I disapprove.

Again, you are not being forced to do anything. You chose to open a bakery. All you have to do is bake a cake. The sexual orientation of the person eating the cake is of no consequence to you.

It would be the same if I opened an apartment building and decided that Christianity violated my religious doctrine and refused to rent to people who were Christian. That would be illegal. The religion of the person sleeping in the building I own doesn't impact my beliefs.