Originally posted by SurturWedding cakes are his job, they don’t go against his beliefs. What went against his beliefs were the people buying the cakes, and that’s discrimination.
The man doesn't design cakes that go against his beliefs. A straight couple could not get the same kind of cake. Nobody could.
Originally posted by Firefly218
Wedding cakes are his job, they don’t go against his beliefs. What went against his beliefs were the people buying the cakes, and that’s discrimination.
Wedding cakes with certain themes do go against his beliefs. I believe he has said he wouldn't do a cake with Anti LGBT stuff either.
No, he didn't have a problem with them being gay, he didn't want to participate in their WEDDING.......do you see the difference (probably not.)
That quote I gave you about wedding cakes shows that to serve 300 people a cake would cost anywhere from 450$ to 3,600$. That is not a basic cake you throw together in a pan and ice.
Wedding cakes with certain themes do go against his beliefs. I believe he has said he wouldn't do a cake with Anti LGBT stuff either.
Correct, he wouldn't participate in hateful things or things that go against families (divorces) or halloween cakes etc.
That is simply not true. The strike was supported by over 5000 of the town’s population, unionists or not. There’s no proof of intimidation. It’s also not historically agreed upon who fired first. The Pinkertons wanted to maintain their good reputation, yes, but they also wanted to maintain their reputation as a company that gets things done. Either way, the Pinkertons got their asses kicked and the state militia was called in to deal with the situation, which they did quite well.
I never denied worker support, in fact, I even said workers supported the unionists. The reason that Frick/Carnage assumed there was intimidation was due to the majority of workers agreeing to the initial contract. LeFeber's writings make it pretty clear who shot first. Considering the state militia failed numerous times before the Pinkerton's were brought in, they do not have a positive track record. Regardless the point of my debunk was to show that the Homestead strike is not a good example of private police oppression.
People would support companies that use force because they would have no choice, alternatives, or more likely out of sheer convenience and not giving a crap. People buy products made in sweatshops even today, and the vast majority don’t care; in the past, people had no problems dealing with the East Indian Company which was known for its brutal practices. Eliminating or suppressing competition would actually be worthwhile in the mid and the long-term as having a monopoly = massive profits. Most people wouldn’t and probably couldn’t do anything about it for much the same reasons why the people of places like North Korea, Somalia or those under the mercy of the Mexican drug cartels can’t or won’t do anything about it: they’d be too oppressed and intimidated.
The idea that people do not change their buying habits based on company behavior is certainly not congruent with modern economic theory or empirical examples. Why did McDonald's take the option supersize off their menu directly after supersize me? Why has Starbucks switched to fair trade? Why did Verizon immediately stop blocking pro-choice traffic after backlash from their viewer base? Hell, why do companies do any kind deeds at all? Why does Google donate money to tragedies and small businesses? Why is Exon Mobile switching away from C02? The answer is straightforward and economically accepted: REPUTATION! Funny you mention the East India Trading Company as that actually helps my point. There was myriad public outrage surrounding the company. As a result, people were fearful that they would use GOVERNMENT to continue their behavior. They are not a fair example as their existence is propped up by governments. Despite the corruption, many of their members were put on trial for their egregious actions. You also talked about people buying from sweatshops. Fairtrade has grown gigantically as an industry in the past few years. A great example of this would be Nestle. When it was found that Nestle was using child labor in 2012, they immediately changed their ways, and their stock dropped. Also an important note about sweatshops and child labor. The reason child labor exists in third world countries is that their society is so physically unproductive that if the kids don't work the family starves. A great example would be Bangladesh. The British Charity Oxfam pointed out when Bangladesh banned child labor the children either went into prostitution, or they starved. By the time child labor laws were implemented, the practice had mostly died in the states. Ah, the misplaced fear of monopolies. I am sure you would point to Industrial Revolution as a prime example of tyrannous mergers.
Before I delve into the Industrial Revolution, I want to clear up a few things about monopolies. Monopolies are nigh impossible in a purely capitalist society. Competition, consumer choice, and free trade each work in tandem to prevent any serious monopoly. As Milton Friedman puts it, the only monopoly that has survived under pure capitalism is the Debris Diamond Company. If we assume that there really were monopolies in the Industrial Revolution, they would assumedly. control the market and raise prices. This did not happen. Steel rails fell from $68 to $32 per ton during the 1880s; we might also note the amount of zinc, which fell from $5.51 to $4.40 per pound (a 20 percent decline) and refined sugar, which fell from 9¢ to 7¢ per pound (22 percent). In fact, this pattern held true for all 17 supposedly monopolized industries, with the trivial exceptions of castor oil and matches. Kerosine was a dollar a gallon, and it became 10 cents a gallon. There are many many more examples of falling prices throughout the industrial revolution. In the case of North Korea, they have a monopolistic government which makes it nigh impossible to use competitors. Despite this, the black market is steadily growing inside of the country. In regards to Somalia, it's not fair to compare a third world country to a first world country in any economic context. So the relevant comparison is not Somalia and the United States but rather Somalia and its peer group. Somalia's conditions by almost all discernable metrics were worse with the state than without. So I am not sure that is a valid comparison either. With drug cartels actions being legalized they would be dependent upon their shareholders, and they would be competing against non-violent industries. If the drug cartels had a reputation for murder and thieves, very few individuals would buy their product as opposed their peaceful competitor. Pretty basic free-market economics.
As for arbitration: it would only be a thing between billionaires and mega-corps, who would deal with each other as relative equals. Joe Average would have little choice but to use private courts owned by the corporations and the ultra-rich, which of course would rule any way their owners told them to.
Why does that not happen in the arbitration industry today? The answer is very simple for the private law to be used it has to have a viable reputation.
The thing about drug cartels is that in an Ancap society, they would be a legitimate business and would not have to work in secrecy. And the only competitors they would face would be other drug cartels.
This is also untrue. The cartles would face legal peaceful enterprize trying to steal their customers due to their poor buisness practices. Alright sorry for the long walls of text we can continue this on Google Hangouts if you want.
Originally posted by Firefly218
It was not a gay themed cake they were asking for, it was a standard wedding cake
But that isn't the information coming from him. He is saying he will not design a cake against his beliefs. As opposed to some random cake just being there and him going "no, you can't have this because you are gay".
Do you think if you and another man went in there kissing all over each other and then ordered any random item...he would have refused to serve you?
Originally posted by Emperordmb
So would you force a jew to make a multihundred dollar super fancy cake for a neonazi rally?I mean... it's just a cake amirite? As long as there's nothing nazi-like in the design that jew should be forced to make the neonazi's a super pimped out cake.
They will say political party is not a protected class.
Originally posted by SurturHe said he will not make a cake for a gay wedding. So it doesn’t matter which type of cake is being asked for, he simply won’t make a cake for a gay wedding.
But that isn't the information coming from him. He is saying he will not design a cake against his beliefs. As opposed to some random cake just being there and him going "no, you can't have this because you are gay".
Hypothetically if the gay couple’s favorite superhero is Spider-Man and they ask for a Spider-Man themed wedding cake, the cake maker would refuse because it is for a gay wedding.
Originally posted by EmperordmbThis is a common argument coming from your side. Discrimination based on sexuality and discrimination based on political beliefs are 2 different animals. A gay marriage is a celebration of love while a Nazi rally is a celebration of hatred. Also I don’t remember gay people killing millions of Christian, meanwhile I DO remember Nazis killing millions of Jews.
So would you force a jew to make a multihundred dollar super fancy cake for a neonazi rally?I mean... it's just a cake amirite? As long as there's nothing nazi-like in the design that jew should be forced to make the neonazi's a super pimped out cake.
But yes, in your given scenario I would like to think that the Jew would make the cake. If it’s a standard celebration cake, that’s the jew’s job so...
Originally posted by Firefly218
He said he will not make a cake for a gay wedding. So it doesn’t matter which type of cake is being asked for, he simply won’t make a cake for a gay wedding.Hypothetically if the gay couple’s favorite superhero is Spider-Man and they ask for a Spider-Man themed wedding cake, the cake maker would refuse because it is for a gay wedding.
But before you were saying standard cake and now you are talking about custom themed cakes. He does not want to do a custom cake for a gay wedding. That is what it seems like to me.
So you are saying he said he would refuse to sell them any wedding cake regardless? Because again there is conflicting information.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
This entire debate is based on a faulty premise. Regardless of legal context, no individual here has the right the product which Jack makes. This in some sensem is equivalent to forcing a gay man to have sex with a girl so he doesn't have to be discriminatory.
I agree, but I also want to get the details correct. Some have said he wasn't unwilling to sell them a standard wedding cake. Others have said no he was completely opposed to selling them any wedding cake at all.
Originally posted by SurturYes, any wedding cake regardless. All wedding cakes are custom made because they need to be huge enough for s hundred people. Those kinds of cakes aren’t just kept on the shelves.
But before you were saying standard cake and now you are talking about custom themed cakes. He does not want to do a custom cake for a gay wedding. That is what it seems like to me.So you are saying he said he would refuse to sell them any wedding cake regardless? Because again there is conflicting information.
Originally posted by Firefly218
This is a common argument coming from your side. Discrimination based on sexuality and discrimination based on political beliefs are 2 different animals. A gay marriage is a celebration of love while a Nazi rally is a celebration of hatred. Also I don’t remember gay people killing millions of Christian, meanwhile I DO remember Nazis killing millions of Jews.But yes, in your given scenario I would like to think that the Jew would make the cake. If it’s a standard celebration cake, that’s the jew’s job so...
But to me discrimination is unjust treatment, that is what it boils down to. Isn't religion also protected? So we treat one protected class unjustly in order to make sure they treat another protected class justly?
Originally posted by Firefly218
Yes, any wedding cake regardless. All wedding cakes are custom made because they need to be huge enough for s hundred people. Those kinds of cakes aren’t just kept on the shelves.
Well like I said there just seems to be conflicting information, when is the next date for this trial?
Originally posted by Emperordmb
So would you force a jew to make a multihundred dollar super fancy cake for a neonazi rally?I mean... it's just a cake amirite? As long as there's nothing nazi-like in the design that jew should be forced to make the neonazi's a super pimped out cake.