Originally posted by GlobalistI am. The baker has the freedom to not bake the cake if he wishes, I agree.
As a fellow liberal I would think you would be about liberty and the freedom to do as you please.
Where I disagree is when we're talking about companies and corporations, which shouldn't have the same freedoms as human beings. Companies and corporations need a little government oversight imo, to protect the consumers.
Originally posted by Firefly218
I am. The baker has the freedom to not bake the cake if he wishes, I agree.Where I disagree is when we're talking about companies and corporations, which shouldn't have the same freedoms as human beings. Companies and corporations need a little government oversight imo, to protect the consumers.
Customers need very little protection in our current court of social justice warriors, consumer money chooses who stays open,
Originally posted by snowdragonI know you think you want a total corporation-driven capitalistic wonderland where government doesn't interfere, but you don't really want that.
Customers need very little protection in our current court of social justice warriors, consumer money chooses who stays open,
Originally posted by Firefly218
I know you think you want a total corporation-driven capitalistic wonderland where government doesn't interfere, but you don't really want that.
That is false, I just don't want mom and pop shops driven down. Market factors can decide their fate, using the govt is force on everyone.
Originally posted by Firefly218
I know you think you want a total corporation-driven capitalistic wonderland where government doesn't interfere, but you don't really want that.
By the way, fricken every aspect of corp goverance is dictated by laws pushed by LARGE corporations..................the govt is complicit.
Originally posted by snowdragonIt does become a problem though if the only haircut salon in town doesn't serve black people, doesn't it? Or if the only dental practice in the area decides to not treat old people above the age of 60. Discrimination from "mom and pop" places can be just as harmful as from huge Insurance Companies.
That is false, I just don't want mom and pop shops driven down. Market factors can decide their fate, using the govt is force on everyone.
Originally posted by Firefly218
I am. The baker has the freedom to not bake the cake if he wishes, I agree.Where I disagree is when we're talking about companies and corporations, which shouldn't have the same freedoms as human beings. Companies and corporations need a little government oversight imo, to protect the consumers.
I know you think you want a total corporation-driven capitalistic wonderland where government doesn't interfere, but you don't really want that.
Originally posted by RockydonovangIf the person wants to discriminate against gays in his personal life, he has the full right to do so. If he wants to discriminate against gays through his business, he's gonna get his ass regulated.
The company isn't baking the case, the person owning the
company is.
Originally posted by RockydonovangYour interpretation of his views doesn't concern me.
Strawman. He doesn't want "total" deregulation, he's Cleary arguing for "little" regulation.
Originally posted by RockydonovangHe says quite clearly that "consumer money chooses who stays open", which in my opinion implies that he thinks the free market should take care of all humans rights violations. He also says that SJWs will protect disenfranchised consumers instead of the government, which is a bizarre at best argument for government minimalism.
Interpretation? You mean what he explitcly said?
And besides all that what exactly are you trying to say anyways? Because I'm not trying to get bogged down by a useless semantics debate. If you disagree with my interpretation of his comment, then so be it.
Originally posted by Firefly218
He says quite clearly that "consumer money chooses who stays open", which in my opinion implies that the free market should take care of all humans rights violations. He also says that SJWs will protect disenfranchised consumers instead of the government, which is a bizarre at best argument for government minimalism.
Seriously though what human rights are being violated? How is refusing to serve someone a violation of that person's life liberty or property?
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Interpretation? You mean what he explitcly said?
You still have not answered the critical question. Why does any third party institution have a choice as to where one's labor allocated. The product transformed by his own energy has become the material embodiment of the baker's idea and vision. The baker has placed his stamp of ownership over his creation by mixing his labor in with the clay. Everyone has a right to the labor of his body and the work of his hands. There is no externality at play here. Your own pedantic thoughts on where the baker's bread is irrelevant as you did not bake the cake. It is not your property. There is no middle ground. You either accept the right to property, or you don't. Don't beat around the bush.
Originally posted by EmperordmbI see y'alls perspective in this case, that cakes are not a matter of life or liberty. I also agree that a person can't really be forced to bake a cake.
If he thought the free market should take care of all humans rights violations he'd be an anarchocapitalist.Seriously though what human rights are being violated? How is refusing to serve someone a violation of that person's life liberty or property?
What irks me though is the idea that if a baker can discriminate based on sexuality, that then means a haircut salon can discriminate based on ethnicity, and going further, why can't a dentist or a grocery discriminate?
I'm open to correction on this point, but it seems to me that this is a very dangerous slippery slope.
Originally posted by Firefly218
He says quite clearly that "consumer money chooses who stays open", which in my opinion implies that he thinks the free market should take care of all humans rights violations. He also says that SJWs will protect disenfranchised consumers instead of the government, which is a bizarre at best argument for government minimalism.And besides all that what exactly are you trying to say anyways? Because I'm not trying to get bogged down by a useless semantics debate. If you disagree with my interpretation of his comment, then so be it.
There is no "human" right to one's labor. One cannot simply posit rights to actions which he finds disagreeable. You have to demonstrate a right's existence. I believe in Lockean/Aristotelian rights. Something cannot be a right if we cannot enjoy without the compulsion of another. I do not have a human right to the fruits of your labor nor do I have a right to be compensated for my grievances. This is a textbook example of Hobbesian absurdity.