US Supreme Pizza Part II: Bake a Cake

Originally posted by The Ellimist
It's funny because you [b]outright stated that differences exist but then get angry when others even remotely imply it because anyone who thinks so must be a racist bigot (except for you!!) [/B]

"You have to explain why my argument was a red herring, you can't just say it!"

*posts meme in response to quote that literally answers the aforementioned question (point 2)*

Originally posted by Beniboybling
The freedom to exchange money for goods and services, yeah.

It's not a freedom if people force you to do said exchange, that's where market forces can determine the outcome of a business rather then the govt "pointing a gun" to determine the outcome.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
"You have to explain why my argument was a red herring, you can't just say it!"

*posts meme in response to quote that literally answers the aforementioned question (point 2)*

Originally posted by snowdragon
It's not a freedom if people force you to do said exchange, that's where market forces can determine the outcome of a business rather then the govt "pointing a gun" to determine the outcome.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
wicked burn, man. you got me again.

It protects the freedom of the person facing discrimination by forcing the businesses to treat them justly, market forces cannot do this and aren't dictated by a solid ethic.

What a load of PC SJW BullShit.

Beni, the way to improve your reputation after Ant made you into a joke isn't to become a Lord Lucien clone.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]What a load of PC SJW BullShit. [/B]

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Beni, the way to improve your reputation after Ant made you into a joke isn't to become a Lord Lucien clone.

Spoiler:
i for one, like lord lucien

I sometimes like him too, but you're not very good at emulating him and people don't view him as a horrible debater* so the "wait, is he just doing this to cover up his inadequacies?" doesn't pop up in anyone's minds.

* not that he was a very elite one but few people here remember.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
And no, establishing a policy in which you do not serve or permit entry of certain persons in regards to your business is an action. You are actively refusing them a service that you are providing everyone else. Inaction would be not providing a service or a place of entry in the first place. And that's fine, nobody is suggesting we force bakers to bake gay wedding cakes when they don't provide a wedding cake service in the first place, but if they do, their practice has to comply with discrimination laws.

You're wrong. It is not an action. It is inaction. Okay, now that that is covered and you're clearly wrong, anything substantive to talk about?

You: Make this cake at the threat of violence because it's the law.
Me: You do not have to make a cake if you don't want to.

Obviously, you've some how twisted this discussion into both being actions...because you don't like the fact that you're wrong. So you'd rather play word games? Lame. True sign you have no substantive argument when you have to resort to petty word games instead of addressing the points.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
I will not force people to think or say in a way I like, I will expect people to act in accordance with the law when they do act, and the system of ethics it uploads.

Oh...right...and...aren't you arguing that you want to force a business to do, act, say, and think what you think is right?

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Was this supposed to be some kind of gotcha? Try explaining what aspect of my argument was a red herring. 🙂

This has been covered already by others. If others can see it, not sure why you think this troll game works.

[i]

Oh...right...and...aren't you arguing that you want to force a business to do, act, say, and think what you think is right?

[/B]

Typical Leftist Progressive Thinking.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're wrong. It is not an action. It is inaction. Okay, now that that is covered and you're clearly wrong, anything substantive to talk about?

You: Make this cake at the threat of violence because it's the law.
Me: You do not have to make a cake if you don't want to.

Obviously, you've some how twisted this discussion into both being actions...because you don't like the fact that you're wrong. So you'd rather play word games? Lame. True sign you have no substantive argument when you have to resort to petty word games instead of addressing the points.

Oh...right...and...aren't you arguing that you want to force a business to do, act, say, and think what you think is right?

I will not force people to think or say in a way I like, I will expect people to act in accordance with the law when they do act, and the system of ethics it uploads.

This has been covered already by others. If others can see it, not sure why you think this troll game works.

I think your done here, dadoodoo. Until next time. 🙁

Your attempts to imitate Tempest are pretty cringey, lmao.

Lol, Tempest, Lucien, your mum? Which is it?

The first two aren't mutually exclusive, lmao. Your grasp of logic is just awful.

Also did you just assume characteristics based on protected demographic data (gender + age + marital status)? Hypocrite!

Alright man, maybe go harass Neph instead, I dare say you'll have better luck. 🙁

Again, cringe.

I do love how I hear crickets in response to the obvious point that you need to grasp group differences if you're going to measure discrimination based on group outcomes. I suspect statistics isn't your strong suit, so maybe a "I don't understand, can you explain it again?" is needed. 👆

Still rambling on?

It's called linear regression btw.