Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, they actually are..Usually, you have to pay your fines and taxes or there are bad consequences that up to and including incarceration.
Citations:
http://tax.findlaw.com/tax-problems-audits/can-you-go-to-jail-for-not-paying-taxes.html
I'm aware that if you don't pay them it can escalate to that point eventually, but the ticket itself isn't a threat of force. Just like a fine isn't a threat either.
Originally posted by Nephthys
I guess parking tickets are threats of force now too.
You get parking tickets or get your crap toed for violating rules established by a public interest through democracy for public property, or because a private interest called the cops because you violated the rules they set for their private property. The use of force is justified in the instance of parking tickets for public and private property, private interests are well within their bounds to set rules for private property and calling the government to protect their property rights, and a democratically elected government (ie. the public interest) is well within their jurisprudence to set and enforce the rules for publicly owned property.
An individual's creative and personal expression within their private business should not be a point of public interest and the government infringing upon that is an overreach that I don't think is ethically justifiable.
The use of force is justified in protecting property rights, either of the public or private interests. It isn't justified in infringing upon the right someone has to their own personal expression, and this man is not infringing on anyone's life liberty or property rights by refusing to bake them a cake.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yeah they are.You get parking tickets or get your crap toed for violating rules established by a public interest through democracy for public property, or because a private interest called the cops because you violated the rules they set for their private property. The use of force is justified in the instance of parking tickets for public and private property, private interests are well within their bounds to set rules for private property and calling the government to protect their property rights, and a democratically elected government (ie. the public interest) is well within their jurisprudence to set and enforce the rules for publicly owned property.
An individual's creative and personal expression within their private business should not be a point of public interest and the government infringing upon that is an overreach that I don't think is ethically justifiable.
The use of force is justified in protecting property rights, either of the public or private interests. It isn't justified in infringing upon the right someone has to their own personal expression, and this man is not infringing on anyone's life liberty or property rights by refusing to bake them a cake.
Already given my thoughts on this. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. Fines are not a big deal.
Except it isn't his personal expression. Its a customised commissioned work for the customer. It has nothing to do with the persons own expressions. A business thats open to the publics refusal of service based on bigotry is not about creative expression, its about their discriminatory biases.
This conversation would likely noy even be happening if it was a Black or Jewish person denied service due to racism. But if you accept homophobia as an excuse, those become open too. Discrimination cannot be tolerated.
^ Absolutely correct, if the baker had said "not making a cake with the Star of David on it because in my beliefs the Jews killed my Lord and Savior", there would be no SC case, the baker would be discriminating based on religious grounds and that's illegal.
But since it's has to do with a couple of gay guys, people make excuses why clear discrimination isn't discrimination.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Is this literally just about if theres a man and a woman on top of the cake vs two dudes, lol?
Not even. There was no discussion of what would go on the cake at all. Two men requested a cake, and the baker said, "No."
Moreover, while some bakers do you carry a limited selection of wedding cake toppers, many do not, and require you to purchase them separately from somewhere else.
There is literally no reason he could not provide them with one of the wedding cakes in the book they were looking through.
Originally posted by Nephthys
I'm aware that if you don't pay them it can escalate to that point eventually, but the ticket itself isn't a threat of force. Just like a fine isn't a threat either.
But...it is a threat of force. The piece of paper represents an indirect threat of force.
Don't pay it...you go away.
Never get that piece of paper, you don't go away (unless its for another reason). Seems that a direct relationship exists between a citation and incarceration.
Perhaps I'm missing your point entirely. What are you really meaning?
Originally posted by Nephthys
Already given my thoughts on this. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. Fines are not a big deal.Except it isn't his personal expression. Its a customised commissioned work for the customer. It has nothing to do with the persons own expressions. A business thats open to the publics refusal of service based on bigotry is not about creative expression, its about their discriminatory biases.
This conversation would likely noy even be happening if it was a Black or Jewish person denied service due to racism. But if you accept homophobia as an excuse, those become open too. Discrimination cannot be tolerated.
Originally posted by Robtard👆
^ Absolutely correct, if the baker had said "not making a cake with the Star of David on it because in my beliefs the Jews killed my Lord and Savior", there would be no SC case, the baker would be discriminating based on religious grounds and that's illegal.But since it's has to do with a couple of gay guys, people make excuses why clear discrimination isn't discrimination.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Already given my thoughts on this. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. Fines are not a big deal.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Except it isn't his personal expression. Its a customised commissioned work for the customer. It has nothing to do with the persons own expressions. A business thats open to the publics refusal of service based on bigotry is not about creative expression, its about their discriminatory biases.
Originally posted by Nephthys
This conversation would likely noy even be happening if it was a Black or Jewish person denied service due to racism. But if you accept homophobia as an excuse, those become open too. Discrimination cannot be tolerated.
Originally posted by Robtard
^ Absolutely correct, if the baker had said "not making a cake with the Star of David on it because in my beliefs the Jews killed my Lord and Savior", there would be no SC case, the baker would be discriminating based on religious grounds and that's illegal.
If one day I'm getting married and some hardcore gay atheist with a real hardon for shitting on Christianity didn't want to make me a cake I'd happily find another baker and not give them my money.
Originally posted by Robtard
But since it's has to do with a couple of gay guys, people make excuses why clear discrimination isn't discrimination.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
If one day I'm getting married and some hardcore gay atheist with a real hardon for shitting on Christianity didn't want to make me a cake I'd happily find another baker and not give them my money.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Certainly more consistent than your weird bullshit where freedom of expression only matters when it's the refusal to express a message you personally find objectionable.
Also, gay love, is not a religious message of any kind. It's a concept that lacks one.
Furthermore, from what I've read, the man wasn't even asked to have them holding hands, but jjust asked to make a cake.
How is a religious message being forced on him?
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Should discrimination based on someone's natural physical characteristics not be legally objectionable?Also, gay love, is not a religious message of any kind. It's a concept that lacks one.
Furthermore, from what I've read, the man wasn't even asked to have them holding hands, but jjust asked to make a cake.
How is a religious message being forced on him?
That IMO is a principle that supersedes and should supersede anti-discrimination policy, and I hope that's how SCOTUS rules.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Should discrimination based on someone's natural physical characteristics not be legally objectionable?
Yes, absolutely.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Also, gay love, is not a religious message of any kind. It's a concept that lacks one.
This is ignorant as f*ck and shits on any from the LGBTQ+ Community that are also religious.