Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 5:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 5:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/29/2019 5:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 5:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/29/2019 5:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 5:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/29/2019 4:58:00 PM (view original):
No we would have bakeries that didn't care and those that did? I see nothing wrong with that. If I go to a restaurant that doesn't serve kosher, I can leave and go to one that does. LOL.

Not serving kosher is not the same as refusing to serve. I am a vegetarian. It's not discrimination to not have vegetarian options.

Exactly. So if a baker says, sorry I am not comfortable then go to another one. Seems simple to me.

Not serving an item is not equivalent to not serving a person.

What if a company with a monopoly in a business refuses to serve Jews? What if Luxxottica didn't give glasses to Jews?

Now you're moving the goal posts. It is one tiny bakery. It was not Starbucks.

Strikeout is saying that it is OK if it was Starbucks. Anti discrimination laws affect everyone.

Yes, I am against anti-discrimination laws. I am for personal choice. If someone wants to be a douche, they have that right. The market will hold people accountable. It has proven to work. Before you respond to this, Tang, do some research. If you need help, I will oblige.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 5:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 3:44:00 PM (view original):
Maybe this will help you understand.

B_L is an author for a living. He is a very talented author. I want him to write me a book on how homosexuality is a sin and immoral. Should he have to do it or can he deny service based on his beliefs?

An author isn’t a public accommodation. That matters. Same with an artist or a public speaker or a church or a private club

Public accommodations are stores, banks, housing, restaurants, etc.

If you open one, you are free to continue practicing your religion. What you can’t do is discriminate on the basis of religion (your or theirs), race, color, sex, and nation or origin.

Despite your somewhat extreme position that the Civil Rights Act is a bad thing, it’s not. It’s a good law. It’s naive to think that the market alone deals with discrimination. It never has and it never will.

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/29/2019 5:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 1/29/2019 5:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/29/2019 5:22:00 PM (view original):
LOL - no. Must be because of the Pats, I am in Football Mode!!!!!!!!!!!!

Man, I can't wait to get to Vegas to start dropping prop bets. Never been to Vegas during Super Bowl, it's supposed to be nuts.

What are some of the prop bets? What number will be higher, TB's TDs or goals scored in a Knights game?

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/29/2019 5:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 5:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/29/2019 5:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 5:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 5:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 5:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/29/2019 4:58:00 PM (view original):
No we would have bakeries that didn't care and those that did? I see nothing wrong with that. If I go to a restaurant that doesn't serve kosher, I can leave and go to one that does. LOL.

Not serving kosher is not the same as refusing to serve. I am a vegetarian. It's not discrimination to not have vegetarian options.

The baker was willing to serve. He wasn't willing to put 2 dudes or "Jim and Bob" on the top of the cake. CCCP's argument is actually very similar.

Would he have served a cake with "Jim and Kim" on it?

If he didn't serve cake with toppers, that's fine. If he changed his policy based on preference, that's not fine.

Why? Just go to a different bakery. I don't get why people want to die on that hill.

Many people view discrimination laws as an extremely important hill.

But you're forcing the baker to do something he is not comfortable doing? That to you is not discrimination?

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/29/2019 5:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 5:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/29/2019 5:26:00 PM (view original):
I am OK with it too being Starbucks but in this case it wasn't Starbucks. That chicken place closes Sundays? It costs them business but they don't care. If Starbucks said we will not serve Jews, I'd be OK with it. They'd lose business and shareholders would revolt.

Chick-Fil-A closing sundays is not discrimination.

I didn't say Starbucks. I said Luxxotica.

I'd go to one of their many competitors.

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 5:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/29/2019 5:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 5:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/29/2019 5:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 5:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 5:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 5:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/29/2019 4:58:00 PM (view original):
No we would have bakeries that didn't care and those that did? I see nothing wrong with that. If I go to a restaurant that doesn't serve kosher, I can leave and go to one that does. LOL.

Not serving kosher is not the same as refusing to serve. I am a vegetarian. It's not discrimination to not have vegetarian options.

The baker was willing to serve. He wasn't willing to put 2 dudes or "Jim and Bob" on the top of the cake. CCCP's argument is actually very similar.

Would he have served a cake with "Jim and Kim" on it?

If he didn't serve cake with toppers, that's fine. If he changed his policy based on preference, that's not fine.

Why? Just go to a different bakery. I don't get why people want to die on that hill.

Many people view discrimination laws as an extremely important hill.

But you're forcing the baker to do something he is not comfortable doing? That to you is not discrimination?

Nope.

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 5:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 5:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 5:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 5:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 5:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 4:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 4:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 3:36:00 PM (view original):
First off, I am against anti-discrimination laws anyways. The market takes of discrimination on its own. The government actually had to put discrimination laws into place because the market wasn't discriminating for them. People don't care who they sell to. They just want the money. The people that do care go out of business. It's one thing that I love about capitalism.

To this specific case, the baker said he would sell the gay couple a cake. He said that he would not put two dudes on top and he would not write "Jim and Bob" or whatever on it. Asking him to decorate the cake for a gay wedding is discriminating on his religious beliefs. Once again, take a step back and look at this logically.

Yeah but what if enough bakers refuse service to enough gay people? That's pretty bad for the gay people, right? Asking someone to bake a cake for a gay person is not discrimination against their belief.

On your BL argument, if I go into an occupation where I am expected to write books based on people's requests, I will be expected to do that, regardless of whether I agree with it or not.

I guarantee that many authors who help write athlete's books do not agree with everything they write.

I want you to write me a book (op-ed) stating that all muslims are radicals. Will you do this for me?
I want you to write me a book about how great a person Hitler was and how beneficial to society the Holocaust was. Will you do that for me?

If that was my job, I would.
If I was not comfortable with that, I wouldn't go into that job.

Not sure that is how books are made, but whatever.

This tells me you don't have very strong convictions, but you shouldn't penalize those that do.

No, you are allowed freely to choose an occupation that doesn't violate your convictions.

I shouldn't have to stop upholding my beliefs because of my career choice. That is just anti-everything that America stands for.

Would it be OK if I was a part of a nudist society but wanted to join the NFL?

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 5:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 5:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 3:44:00 PM (view original):
Maybe this will help you understand.

B_L is an author for a living. He is a very talented author. I want him to write me a book on how homosexuality is a sin and immoral. Should he have to do it or can he deny service based on his beliefs?

An author isn’t a public accommodation. That matters. Same with an artist or a public speaker or a church or a private club

Public accommodations are stores, banks, housing, restaurants, etc.

If you open one, you are free to continue practicing your religion. What you can’t do is discriminate on the basis of religion (your or theirs), race, color, sex, and nation or origin.

Despite your somewhat extreme position that the Civil Rights Act is a bad thing, it’s not. It’s a good law. It’s naive to think that the market alone deals with discrimination. It never has and it never will.

The market most certainly has. It does a great job. Why do you think the racist government in Alabama felt the need for Jim Crow laws? Because the market wasn't keeping people segregated.

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 5:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/29/2019 5:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 5:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/29/2019 5:26:00 PM (view original):
I am OK with it too being Starbucks but in this case it wasn't Starbucks. That chicken place closes Sundays? It costs them business but they don't care. If Starbucks said we will not serve Jews, I'd be OK with it. They'd lose business and shareholders would revolt.

Chick-Fil-A closing sundays is not discrimination.

I didn't say Starbucks. I said Luxxotica.

I'd go to one of their many competitors.

Luxxotica doesn't have competitors.

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 5:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 5:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 5:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 5:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 5:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/29/2019 4:58:00 PM (view original):
No we would have bakeries that didn't care and those that did? I see nothing wrong with that. If I go to a restaurant that doesn't serve kosher, I can leave and go to one that does. LOL.

Not serving kosher is not the same as refusing to serve. I am a vegetarian. It's not discrimination to not have vegetarian options.

The baker was willing to serve. He wasn't willing to put 2 dudes or "Jim and Bob" on the top of the cake. CCCP's argument is actually very similar.

Would he have served a cake with "Jim and Kim" on it?

If he didn't serve cake with toppers, that's fine. If he changed his policy based on preference, that's not fine.

It most certainly is fine. Our constitution says so. Now if you want to debate whether we have a good constitution or not that's fine, but he is protected under the constitution to not serve that cake because of his beliefs. To say otherwise, undermines everything our country was built upon. I'm not sure why this is so hard.

You want to change the civil rights act? What's your point?

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/29/2019 5:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 5:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/29/2019 5:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 5:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/29/2019 5:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 5:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 5:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 5:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/29/2019 4:58:00 PM (view original):
No we would have bakeries that didn't care and those that did? I see nothing wrong with that. If I go to a restaurant that doesn't serve kosher, I can leave and go to one that does. LOL.

Not serving kosher is not the same as refusing to serve. I am a vegetarian. It's not discrimination to not have vegetarian options.

The baker was willing to serve. He wasn't willing to put 2 dudes or "Jim and Bob" on the top of the cake. CCCP's argument is actually very similar.

Would he have served a cake with "Jim and Kim" on it?

If he didn't serve cake with toppers, that's fine. If he changed his policy based on preference, that's not fine.

Why? Just go to a different bakery. I don't get why people want to die on that hill.

Many people view discrimination laws as an extremely important hill.

But you're forcing the baker to do something he is not comfortable doing? That to you is not discrimination?

Nope.

That is the Leftist POV. Hence I rail against it so vehemently. Leftist to me is anti capitalist.

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 5:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 5:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 5:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 3:44:00 PM (view original):
Maybe this will help you understand.

B_L is an author for a living. He is a very talented author. I want him to write me a book on how homosexuality is a sin and immoral. Should he have to do it or can he deny service based on his beliefs?

An author isn’t a public accommodation. That matters. Same with an artist or a public speaker or a church or a private club

Public accommodations are stores, banks, housing, restaurants, etc.

If you open one, you are free to continue practicing your religion. What you can’t do is discriminate on the basis of religion (your or theirs), race, color, sex, and nation or origin.

Despite your somewhat extreme position that the Civil Rights Act is a bad thing, it’s not. It’s a good law. It’s naive to think that the market alone deals with discrimination. It never has and it never will.

The market most certainly has. It does a great job. Why do you think the racist government in Alabama felt the need for Jim Crow laws? Because the market wasn't keeping people segregated.

You are arguing for a segregated market.

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 5:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 5:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 3:44:00 PM (view original):
Maybe this will help you understand.

B_L is an author for a living. He is a very talented author. I want him to write me a book on how homosexuality is a sin and immoral. Should he have to do it or can he deny service based on his beliefs?

An author isn’t a public accommodation. That matters. Same with an artist or a public speaker or a church or a private club

Public accommodations are stores, banks, housing, restaurants, etc.

If you open one, you are free to continue practicing your religion. What you can’t do is discriminate on the basis of religion (your or theirs), race, color, sex, and nation or origin.

Despite your somewhat extreme position that the Civil Rights Act is a bad thing, it’s not. It’s a good law. It’s naive to think that the market alone deals with discrimination. It never has and it never will.

The market most certainly has. It does a great job. Why do you think the racist government in Alabama felt the need for Jim Crow laws? Because the market wasn't keeping people segregated.

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 5:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/29/2019 5:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 5:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/29/2019 5:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 5:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/29/2019 5:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 5:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 5:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 1/29/2019 5:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/29/2019 4:58:00 PM (view original):
No we would have bakeries that didn't care and those that did? I see nothing wrong with that. If I go to a restaurant that doesn't serve kosher, I can leave and go to one that does. LOL.

Not serving kosher is not the same as refusing to serve. I am a vegetarian. It's not discrimination to not have vegetarian options.

The baker was willing to serve. He wasn't willing to put 2 dudes or "Jim and Bob" on the top of the cake. CCCP's argument is actually very similar.

Would he have served a cake with "Jim and Kim" on it?

If he didn't serve cake with toppers, that's fine. If he changed his policy based on preference, that's not fine.

Why? Just go to a different bakery. I don't get why people want to die on that hill.

Many people view discrimination laws as an extremely important hill.

But you're forcing the baker to do something he is not comfortable doing? That to you is not discrimination?

Nope.

That is the Leftist POV. Hence I rail against it so vehemently. Leftist to me is anti capitalist.

I am not comfortable going to school. The government is discriminating against me by forcing me to go to school.