|
CharlestheHammer posted:If you want the free market to consistently protect minorities and other vulnerable groups than boy do I have bad news for you. Well there's certainly a terrible track record of that through history. But now we have Yelp reviews! Really more society's doing than the free market I guess. I didn't mean we should hamstring the EPA so corporations can spew pollution right near black neighborhoods. Just that business owners acting like shitheels then everyone boycotting their business while they scream to the heavens on social media is such a choice source of schad. Of course the schad will be on us when some conservative rear end in a top hat like John Schnatter decides he wants to bolster this guy's company by having two million dollars with of anti-gay cakes delivered to a Trump fundraiser at his mansion.
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 21:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 10:13 |
|
|
StrangersInTheNight posted:The cake thing is difficult because I think you should be able to reject customers or clients you don't work well with, but I also am not into homophobes and am happy to watch that guy's life spiral down for as long as he's going to stubbornly fight about making cakes. You can reject customers you don't want to work with. You can't ONLY if the reason you don't want to work with them is their age, gender, sexual orientation, race or religion. Its been that way for a long time. Hth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 21:54
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:You can reject customers you don't want to work with. Is sexual orientation still codified into this? I thought I had heard rumblings about it being removed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 21:57
|
|
|
I know. I never said I didn't know that. I was just saying that I agree you should be able to reject customers (and frankly, you shouldn't have to give a reason). If a bigot doesn't want to take on a gay client, it upsets me but I'm not going to force him. In this instance I am referring only to a business owner and client relationship, NOT a boss and employee, or any situation where one has power over the other - in the latter instance things change ENTIRELY. But at the same time this guy's an rear end in a top hat who can't seem to back down, and it's satisfying watching the people he has burned use their resources to gently caress with him. I like it when a homophobe gets their comeuppance. StrangersInTheNight has a new favorite as of 22:03 on Aug 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 22:00
|
|
|
StrangersInTheNight posted:I know. I never said I didn't know that. I was just saying that I agree you should be able to reject customers (and frankly, you shouldn't have to give a reason). If a bigot doesn't want to take on a gay client, it upsets me but I'm not going to force him. In this instance I am referring only to a business owner and client relationship, NOT a boss and employee, or any situation where one has power over the other - in the latter instance things change ENTIRELY.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 22:03
|
|
|
Exactly. Which is why it's difficult. Because on the one hand it's super hard to legislate who a business can choose to do business with, it also needs to be done because if not, eventually it leads to segregation of services.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 22:08
|
|
|
StrangersInTheNight posted:I know. I never said I didn't know that. I was just saying that I agree you should be able to reject customers (and frankly, you shouldn't have to give a reason). If a bigot doesn't want to take on a gay client, it upsets me but I'm not going to force him. In this instance I am referring only to a business owner and client relationship, NOT a boss and employee, or any situation where one has power over the other - in the latter instance things change ENTIRELY. No, this is wrong because sexual orientation is a protected class for a specific reason. If a bigot doesn't want to take on a gay client, tough titties, they should be forced to because historically, gay people have been discriminated against. If you, as a business owner, can't handle the fact that you MUST serve protected classes of people then you shouldn't operate a business.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 22:14
|
|
|
As a queer person I understand that entirely, but as a freelancer if someone told me I HAD to work with someone for X reason I'd tell them to go gently caress themselves. This is precisely why I said it's difficult, because I think the guy's an rear end in a top hat but there's other bakers in the world, and frankly as a queer person I don't think FORCE works well in all instances. That said, I absolutely think laws protecting certain classes of folks are necessary, needed, and good, and want to see this guy get his rear end handed to him in all manners which his opponents have access to.
StrangersInTheNight has a new favorite as of 22:25 on Aug 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 22:21
|
|
|
I'm legit surprised that "religious liberty" has lasted this long as the nominal excuse, given the long and sordid history of antisemitism in Christianity. There's no argument that allows a baker to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple that doesn't also allow them to refuse to bake a cake for a Jewish couple simply based on antisemitism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 22:22
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:You can reject customers you don't want to work with. Not only has it not been that way for a long time, it's not even that way now. Age discrimination is frequently entirely legal. This ranges from not being able to rent a car until you're 25, to communities which don't let you live there if you're below 65. There is no Federal statute saying it's illegal to discriminate based on age (and it would be weird if there were, given the huge number of Federal laws which explicitly discriminate based on age). Remember how Dick's Sporting Goods decided recently it wouldn't sell guns to adults who can legally buy guns, if they're under the age of 21? That's age discrimination. And it's totally legal (in most states). It is also entirely legal in most states to discriminate based on sexual orientation, and there is no Federal law prohibiting it. Hth. StrangersInTheNight posted:but as a freelancer if someone told me I HAD to work with someone for X reason I'd tell them to go gently caress themselves That's exactly my attitude. Part of what the First Amendment guarantees is freedom of *association*. Let's say the WBC walks into a gay baker's shop and asks him to make a bunch of cakes that say "God Hates Fags," or "Leviticus 18:22" or even just "Hooray for Jesus!" (or even nothing at all, just plain cakes) for their church bake sale. Should the baker have the right to discriminate against their religion and tell them to gently caress off forthrightly from his bakery? What if you're a printer and they just want you to print up a church newsletter? What if a KKK chapter goes into a black-run barbecue joint and asks him to cook them a pig for their next Klavern meeting? Yes, he should be able to tell them to gently caress off. If you're a freelance PR writer and the local Church of Scientology wants you to write them some spiel, again you should be entirely allowed to tell them "No, I'm not working for you, go away." Does anyone really disagree with any of that? Azathoth posted:I'm legit surprised that "religious liberty" has lasted this long as the nominal excuse, given the long and sordid history of antisemitism in Christianity. There's no argument that allows a baker to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple that doesn't also allow them to refuse to bake a cake for a Jewish couple simply based on antisemitism. Again, the baker in Masterpiece Cakeshop did not refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple. He refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding. The two statements are not equivalent. And I think a baker would be entirely within his rights to refuse to bake a cake for a Jewish religious ceremony. Like, say you're really personally and sincerely opposed to the concept of an elderly man slicing off a bit of an infant's foreskin and then sucking out the blood (yes, I know all Jews don't observe that particular ritual but a number do), and a Jewish couple asks you to bake a cake to celebrate their new son's brit milah and metzitzah b'peh? Would you want to bake that cake? There's no argument that allows you to refuse but doesn't allow the Masterpiece baker to refuse that's not simply based on "my sincerely held religious beliefs are more important and realer than his." And as for your invocation of Heart of Atlanta Motel, that was a decision about the applicability of the 1964 CRA to the states. That act applies to public accommodations, which as the act defines them does not include bakeries [Quote]really BS arguments about cakes being speech instead of a product he sells[/quotes] Again the Supreme Court’s decision was not based on his free speech claim. You can make a credible argument that decorating the cake is a purely functional and non-expressive act (it’s one that I disagree with at least it’s a reasonable argument), but the court never even reached that level of analysis I decided the case on pure free exercise grounds. But OK let’s say instead of a baker he was a photographer. Or a songwriter. Can he refuse to create artistic expressions about a gay wedding? Or can that speech be compelled by the force you’re talking about? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 22:24
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:I'm legit surprised that "religious liberty" has lasted this long as the nominal excuse, given the long and sordid history of antisemitism in Christianity. There's no argument that allows a baker to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple that doesn't also allow them to refuse to bake a cake for a Jewish couple simply based on antisemitism. One I struggled with in NYC: should Orthodox Jewish businesses be forced to serve members outside of their community? There was a large section of Brooklyn that was basically no-mans-land to non-jews. In what way can you manage that or legislate that so that it's not just anti-semitism? SHOULD that even be managed, or as a culture do they have a right to their own communal businesses? There's no right answer to that, btw, just explaining how complex this poo poo can be. StrangersInTheNight has a new favorite as of 22:31 on Aug 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 22:28
|
|
|
StrangersInTheNight posted:As a queer person I understand that entirely, but as a freelancer if someone told me I HAD to work with someone for X reason I'd tell them to go gently caress themselves. This is precisely why I said it's difficult, because I think the guy's an rear end in a top hat but there's other bakers in the world, and frankly as a queer person I don't think FORCE works well in this instance. That said, I absolutely think laws protecting certain classes of folks are necessary, needed, and good. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel,_Inc._v._United_States Force is absolutely necessary and the baker is making some really BS arguments about cakes being speech instead of a product he sells. He could literally have just found some excuse to not do the job, but he's spoiling for a fight. He absolutely needs to be forced to join the rest of society if he wants to operate a public business.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 22:30
|
|
|
I'm just going to quote myself from ONE PAGE AGO here, because you're so eager you seem to have missed this:StrangersInTheNight posted:Also why the hell doesn't he just lie and say he's too busy for it after all, like any other sane person deferring a client?? Who TELLS the client it's because God said not to? It's like he's going out of his way to stoke flames. If I was rich and bored and he said no to serving me with a diatribe about religion as the reason, I might have sued him too. Not because I think I'd win, but just to gently caress with him for being so sanctimonious. I'm not arguing he's right and never was, I was explaining why I could see it as multi-faceted but that ultimately he did this to himself and if he's just BACKED DOWN at any point he would have been fine. But dude just could not help himself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 22:35
|
|
|
It's almost like you can feel two ways about a thing!
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 22:39
|
|
|
StrangersInTheNight posted:One I struggled with in NYC: should Orthodox Jewish businesses be forced to serve members outside of their community? There was a large section of Brooklyn that was basically no-mans-land to non-jews. In what way can you manage that or legislate that so that it's not just anti-semitism? SHOULD that even be managed, or as a culture do they have a right to their own communal businesses? It's tough, I agree. However, I think a case can be made that if any group wants the benefits of operating publicly (roads and sidewalk maintenance, law enforcement and fire protection, etc.) then they need to serve whoever stops in. If that violates their beliefs to such a degree that they can't remain open, then they should further withdraw from society and forego its benefits to remain within their faith. Get the community together and go buy a tract of land, build a private compound, form a closed community. Being part of a society isn't just benefits, it has corresponding obligations, else you just get Freemen on the Land bullshit. I could be persuaded to change, if someone has compelling counterarguments though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 22:46
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:It's tough, I agree. However, I think a case can be made that if any group wants the benefits of operating publicly (roads and sidewalk maintenance, law enforcement and fire protection, etc.) then they need to serve whoever stops in. Does this also apply to restaurants that don’t want to serve Sarah Huckabee, or web hosting services that don’t want to serve Alex Jones?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 22:56
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:It's tough, I agree. However, I think a case can be made that if any group wants the benefits of operating publicly (roads and sidewalk maintenance, law enforcement and fire protection, etc.) then they need to serve whoever stops in. I agree with all of this on a philosophical level, what I worry about is how to enforce it. So, here's where it gets complex: What you're describing does exist in the Jewish community and is called a shtetl - in fact, that is what this community in Williamsburg considers itself and seeks to be. An American shtetl, and acts as a closed community. Some of the land and businesses are privately owned, but at the same time they are also the largest recipients of Section 8 housing grants in NYC. A patriarch will work and earn for the family while the young men study the Torah as scholars. They even have their own police force which has been allowed by the NYPD, known as the Shomrim, and their vehicles can be dead ringers for cop cars. The NYPD still comes in, but there's definitely a clear 'let us try to handle this on our own' attitude, and generally the police are sent away - nowadays they stay away unless necessary. There's an Understanding. That said, they're integral to NYC. Asking them to leave would be impossible, because they are fundamental to business in NYC. Even then, attempts at force have been made but never work out well, are often met with more force, and again: it can quickly and easily devolve into just going after them due to anti-semitism, because a lot of issues one might have with how they live in our society are at the same time fundamental to their culture. And they've made it work until now, so there's no reason for them to change. The only solution has been for us to work with and around them. I get it, because sometimes force is necessary - it was absolutely necessary for the South to be forced into ending slavery, ending Jim Crow and segregation. And force has been necessary for allowing institutions like marriage to be allowed for all. Force is not in and of itself a bad thing. But at the same time, not every social problem is as large as slavery - there's nuances here - and practically legislating and applying that force in proper proportion to the issue at hand can be difficult. StrangersInTheNight has a new favorite as of 23:09 on Aug 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 23:05
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Does this also apply to restaurants that don’t want to serve Sarah Huckabee, or web hosting services that don’t want to serve Alex Jones? Very good point. I think the distinction is between not allowing a business to refuse to serve someone based upon a part of themselves over which they have no control (race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion or lack thereof, national origin, etc.) and the part of themselves over which they have control. SHS can be barred because she runs flak for a racist demagogue. Jones can be banned because he's a peddler of violent conspiracies. SHS can't be banned because she's Christian. Jones can't be banned because he's half human, half hotdogman. That's the heart of it, what is and isn't under a person's control is, obviously, a matter of dispute, but I think that is the framework to operate under.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
Re: serving SHS and folks, thank you, that was exactly my point - because I support those businesses refusing service to those Trump folks, it means I support being able to choose who you do business with. There should absolutely be protected classes, I'm a part of one, but I don't agree with the concept that businesses should have to do business with everyone, because SHS should not be allowed to insist she be served and have it be legally enforced. This is why these things go to court, to hash it out. poo poo that last post was waaaay to much of a derail, have some content: https://www.newsweek.com/social-distortion-singer-beats-trump-supporting-heckler-california-punk-show-1074817 StrangersInTheNight has a new favorite as of 23:28 on Aug 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 23:25
|
|
|
Such Fun posted:Listen here cum-slut, More like butt slut: (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Somebody has a new favorite as of 22:52 on Aug 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 23:25
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:Very good point. Why does someone have less control over one’s religious beliefs than over their political beliefs? And how do you cleanly draw a distinction between the two? Is opposition to gay marriage a religious belief, or a political belief? And if you have to serve someone regardless of their religion because that’s a part of them over which they have no control, how can you penalize a baker for his religious objection to gay marriage?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 23:25
|
|
|
Don’t spoiler nsfw images.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
StrangersInTheNight posted:Good stuff In enforcement, there will always be priorities and authorities should prioritize enforcement based on how many people are being harmed. In practice, what they're doing is probably already somewhere on the spectrum of illegal under various civil rights laws, but if enforced would just result in more harm than good (see also: ICE immigration raids). In practice, they're tolerated but not given legal protection, as you say, there is an Understanding.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 23:27
|
|
|
StrangersInTheNight posted:https://www.newsweek.com/social-distortion-singer-beats-trump-supporting-heckler-california-punk-show-1074817 For some reason that newsweek page was chugging the gently caress out of my computer, have another site https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/08/15/social-distortion-mike-ness-beating/ The video in question https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgSeKpMYdHM You don't really get to see much; dude jumps off the stage and you kind of see a couple swings. Then the last 60 seconds is almost a singularly long bleep noise
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Why does someone have less control over one’s religious beliefs than over their political beliefs? And how do you cleanly draw a distinction between the two? Is opposition to gay marriage a religious belief, or a political belief? And if you have to serve someone regardless of their religion because that’s a part of them over which they have no control, how can you penalize a baker for his religious objection to gay marriage? Religious freedom, like every other freedom, is not unlimited. I can't shout fire in a crowded theater, I can't convert to a religion that allows for two practitioners to duel each other to the death over a matter of honor then use that as an excuse to avoid murder charges when I win the duel. There will always be areas where the law bars religiously acceptable things for the greater good of society.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
StrangersInTheNight posted:
Paying to get your rear end whipped to own the libs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 23:39
|
|
|
"Wait a second, this punk band doesn't like the establishment???"
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 23:40
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:Religious freedom, like every other freedom, is not unlimited. I can't shout fire in a crowded theater, I can't convert to a religion that allows for two practitioners to duel each other to the death over a matter of honor then use that as an excuse to avoid murder charges when I win the duel. That’s not actually an answer to any of the questions I asked. And every single time someone brings up that awful “fire in a crowded theater” analogy I’m going to point out that it was concocted by a Supreme Court Justice who was using it to explain why it was allowed to throw people in jail for handing out pamphlets opposing the draft.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 23:43
|
|
|
I can shout “fire” in a crowded theater if I want to. I won’t even get in trouble if there really is a fire!
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 23:45
|
|
|
edit: gently caress, I'm dumb, read the whole post self.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 23:46
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Not only has it not been that way for a long time, it's not even that way now. To be specific then, people over 40. Pretty sure there is a federal statue saying you can't discriminate against the elderly. Handicapped are also protected federally, forgot that one. And the protection over 'sex' has been interpreted to be both gender identity and sexual orientation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 23:59
|
|
|
Zaphod42 posted:To be specific then, people over 40. Pretty sure there is a federal statue saying you can't discriminate against the elderly. There is not. As a blanket statement, there is not. There are even mandatory retirement laws for certain Federal employees, and the FAA will take your commercial pilot’s license away at age 65. Age discrimination is literally encoded in Federal law. quote:Handicapped are also protected federally, forgot that one. They are protected federally in certain contexts. That does not mean “it is never permissible to discriminate against the handicapped in every circumstance.” quote:And the protection over 'sex' has been interpreted to be both gender identity and sexual orientation. In one circuit. In others, it hasn’t.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 00:06
|
|
|
How did this thread of all places become the one where we debate which groups we can discriminate against
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 00:11
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:How did this thread of all places become the one where we debate which groups we can discriminate against Phanatic
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 00:16
|
|
|
StrangersInTheNight posted:
Haha! I saw this when I woke up today. I actually know Mike Ness, he plays hockey with a buddy of mine. Cool dude, good on him. I'm definitely buying him a beer next time I see him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 00:22
|
|
|
Samuringa posted:Phanatic I thought people learned to ignore his shitposts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 00:25
|
|
|
Hi. Businesses open to the general public are required to serve any and all customers so long as they are not disruptive to the business. If you don't like that, run a private club, where you can decline to serve whoever the gently caress you want because you're not open to the general public. Now shut the gently caress up about the stupid cake man.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 00:34
|
|
|
Tony Snark posted:Paying to get your rear end whipped to own the libs. It's not the first time: As the conversation turns from the current record to a recent incident where Ness knocked a show patron out cold, the conversation turns to somewhat of a political discussion, much to the delight of Ness, it seems. "I've been getting more politically educated," admits Ness. "Rumsfield is a cocksucker; I can't even watch him talk. And, George Bush is a duche bag." As for the incident at the show, Ness reports that he "made the mistake of giving someone a microphone at a show. He was spouting off and I gave him a chance to talk. He said 'If I hear you say one more thing about my president, I'll come up on stage and kick your rear end you ni--' and before he could say the word, he was out cold. I drop kicked his rear end. Racism is not allowed at a Social Distortion show. "I drop kicked him before he could say friend of the family. I beat him down and then the security guards carried him out, feet first. I don't do that a lot, but-- I would have killed him if I were black and he called me a friend of the family." November-December 2003
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 00:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 10:13 |
|
|
StrangersInTheNight posted:They even have their own police force which has been allowed by the NYPD, known as the Shomrim, and their vehicles can be dead ringers for cop cars. The NYPD still comes in, but there's definitely a clear 'let us try to handle this on our own' attitude, and generally the police are sent away - nowadays they stay away unless necessary. There's an Understanding. They even beat black people under color of authority and rape teenagers, just like the NYPD!
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 01:02
|
|
