Originally posted by Robtard
So you're saying it's okay to deny service on sexual orientation but not race? Sorry, both are similar acts of bigotry. Just legal now.
It's not even legal now, the Supreme court didn't make it legal for all cake bakers, flower cutters, hair stylists to deny service.
I'm for the market to determine a lot of those factors in today's world. We are in a world where instant communication can suck the life out of your business if the community/market you are in doesn't agree with your behaviors.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Another restaurant owner: Sorry, due to my beliefs I cannot allow someone with your political leanings that are bigoted and harmful towards transgender people to stay.^ I wonder if there is a term for that.
I fixed that for you to be accurate.
Not sure there's a term, but it's refusing service to people because they're bigots. Maybe it is bigotry against bigots.
Originally posted by snowdragon
It's not even legal now, the Supreme court didn't make it legal for all cake bakers, flower cutters, hair stylists to deny service.I'm for the market to determine a lot of those factors in today's world. We are in a world where instant communication can suck the life out of your business if the community/market you are in doesn't agree with your behaviors.
Whatever it is, it's still an act of bigotry what the baker did.
Then let's make it all legal, you can deny a service that you would give to another for any reason, be it you don't like their sexual orientation, color of skin, racial background, physical capabilities, religion etc. Free Market will sort it all out.
Originally posted by Robtard
Whatever it is, it's still an act of bigotry what the baker did.Then let's make it all legal, you can deny a service that you would give to another for any reason, be it you don't like their sexual orientation, color of skin, racial background, physical capabilities, religion etc. Free Market will sort it all out.
Sure......
The baker didn't show intolerance, you keep looking for that in this discussion. By not baking a wedding cake for a gay couple he didn't show intolerance or hatred, want a birthday cake ok, want a cupcake fine. This was a more nuanced situation that you want to take to an extreme to justify your current position that once again Kennedy (who was for gay marriage) said otherwise.
Originally posted by Playmaker
You should be able to deny service to anyone at anytime for any reason.
Cool. Not what I'm talking about though then, what the baker did was a clear act of bigotry against people because of their sexual orientation; no different than denying people a cake because you don't like/agree with their race.
If we're cool with that, then we should be cool with denying people because they're in a wheelchair if someone is bigoted against the disabled, or Religion, if someone is bigoted against Jews or Christians or Hindus etc. Or Nationality, the list goes on.
Originally posted by snowdragon
Sure......The baker didn't show intolerance, you keep looking for that in this discussion. By not baking a wedding cake for a gay couple he didn't show intolerance or hatred, want a birthday cake ok, want a cupcake fine. This was a more nuanced situation that you want to take to an extreme to justify your current position that once again Kennedy (who was for gay marriage) said otherwise.
Replace "gay wedding" with "interracial wedding" and you suddenly have an issue and see intolerance though. That right there should let you know that what the baker did was indeed an act of bigotry:
'The baker didn't show intolerance, you keep looking for that in this discussion. By not baking a wedding cake for an interracial couple he didn't show intolerance or hatred, want a birthday cake ok, want a cupcake fine. This was a more nuanced situation that you want to take to an extreme to justify your current position that once again Kennedy (who was for gay marriage) said otherwise.'
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Looking at the legal side of things:That's....not what he said:
Huckabee privately benifitting was never mentioned int he tweet. You're welcome to test whether his claim aligns with the law, but he didn't say what you said he did.
I am not sure if you're purposefully having a reading comprehension problem are you just didn't understand what you read.
Confirming in a public tweet that you were kicked out is not an endorsement.
P1: Assume x is a negative comment about a business.
P2: Assume y is a positive comment about a business.
P3: Assume x and y must be mutually exclusive by nature.
P4: Definition of endorse:
to recommend (something, such as a product or service) usually for financial compensation
to approve openly
Conclusion 1.a:
Confirming a business did x is not y. Therefore, x is not an endorsement, by definition. Furthermore, x and y must, but definition, be mutually exclusive. Thus, 1.a{P1, P2, P3, and P4} = T
(The above is messy and not done correctly, but it is close enough that you get the point)
Conclusion 1.b:
Because of 1.a, your statement, "That's....not what he said: Huckabee privately benifitting was never mentioned int he tweet..." is not appropriate or correct. You are wrong. Your logic is fundamentally flawed.
Let's try again:
There are two statements or points about ethics violations that this former Ethics Head made:
1. SHS used her public office for private gain - his first tweet. Specifically, 5 CFR 2635.702(a), talks about coercing a business to do an action because of her political office.
2. SHS used her public office violate the endorsements ban - his second tweet. Specifically 5 CFR 2635.702(c).
Neither of those two cases are true at all. He's a damn filthy liar and no amount of stretching interpretations of those rules can lend a conclusion that fits his 1 and 2.
1. She did not use her public office to coerce a company for private gain.
2. She did not violate the endorsements ban because she very clearly did NOT endorse anyone.
Do you understand where you went wrong?
Originally posted by Robtard
Not what I'm talking about though then, what the baker did was a clear act of bigotry against people because of their sexual orientation;
Really? Was it bigotry for him to refuse to decorate a Halloween cake or a divorce cake or lewd bachelor party cakes? The baker didn't even refuse to service the gay couple. They could have bought anything they want in the store they so desired. They could have even bought a wedding cake. He refused to service a gay wedding.
How is that bigotry? Tell me why someone should be forced to do so.
Originally posted by Robtard
no different than denying people a cake because you don't like/agree with their race.
And there's a reason that Jim Crow had to be law in the South. Because other shopkeepers would simply serve people that someone else refused to do business with. If you don't want to serve blacks at your store. Fine. Someone else will gladly do so and accept their money.
Originally posted by Robtard
Replace "gay wedding" with "interracial wedding" and you suddenly have an issue and see intolerance though. That right there should let you know that what the baker did was indeed an act of bigotry:'The baker didn't show intolerance, you keep looking for that in this discussion. By not baking a wedding cake for an interracial couple he didn't show intolerance or hatred, want a birthday cake ok, want a cupcake fine. This was a more nuanced situation that you want to take to an extreme to justify your current position that once again Kennedy (who was for gay marriage) said otherwise.'
See, just because you wordsmith a statement doesn't make your position correct.
Let me elaborate my position on the market vs govt.
The Govt is a hard force that is slow moving, hard to correct and generally reaches too far when it does reach out because it can't keep up with changing cultures etc. The Govt is ALWAYS the stick.
The Markets are a soft force that can make rapid adjustments and revolve more closely with the culture we live in. Social media can impact your business/livelyhood in minutes. The Markets are supposed to be the carrot but can also be the stick.
I don't see the intolerance the way you are explaining it, I watched videos of both sides on different media outlets, I listened to the supreme court hearing, read kennedy's statement. I believe business should have the right to choose who they serve, the govt has laws protecting people and market forces are better used to change behaviors.
Originally posted by Playmaker
Really? Was it bigotry for him to refuse to decorate a Halloween cake or a divorce cake or lewd bachelor party cakes? The baker didn't even refuse to service the gay couple. They could have bought anything they want in the store they so desired. They could have even bought a wedding cake. He refused to service a gay wedding.How is that bigotry? Tell me why someone should be forced to do so.
And there's a reason that Jim Crow had to be law in the South. Because other shopkeepers would simply serve people that someone else refused to do business with. If you don't want to serve blacks at your store. Fine. Someone else will gladly do so and accept their money.
Not sure if one can be bigoted towards Halloween, divorces or sexual images? But we do know bigotry against sexual orientation exist; it's really not different than bigotry towards race.
If you're okay with people saying "No Black people in my store", cool. It's still an act of bigotry though, legal or not.
Originally posted by snowdragon
See, just because you wordsmith a statement doesn't make your position correct.Let me elaborate my position on the market vs govt.
The Govt is a hard force that is slow moving, hard to correct and generally reaches too far when it does reach out because it can't keep up with changing cultures etc. The Govt is ALWAYS the stick.
The Markets are a soft force that can make rapid adjustments and revolve more closely with the culture we live in. Social media can impact your business/livelyhood in minutes. The Markets are supposed to be the carrot.
I don't see the intolerance the way you are explaining it, I watched videos of both sides on different media outlets, I listened to the supreme court hearing, read kennedy's statement. I believe business should have the right to choose who they serve, the govt has laws protecting people and market forces are better used to change behaviors.
By "wordsmith" you mean I changed "gay" couple to "interracial" couple, literally one word changed. Okay then, guilty.
Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure if one can be bigoted towards Halloween, divorces or sexual images? But we do know bigotry against sexual orientation exist; it's really not different than bigotry towards race.If you're okay with people saying "No Black people in my store", cool. It's still an act of bigotry though, legal or not.
That's why you look at intent and behavior behind an action. Psstt the Supreme court didn't feel his actions were bigoted but they did find the local govt displaying bigotry at the baker 😱
Originally posted by Silent Master
No, you "fixed" it in order to justify the owner's bigotry.
Wrong. I did fix it to be more accurate and I correctly stated that the owner was bigoted against bigots.
Doesn't make it right, I still personally think that trashbag Sarah H. Sanders should have been allowed to eat in peace. But hate begets hate, which is what the Cult of Trump loves, until one of their own is targeted and them they cry foul.
Originally posted by snowdragon
That's why you look at intent and behavior behind an action. Psstt the Supreme court didn't feel his actions were bigoted but they did find the local govt displaying bigotry at the baker 😱
The baker's intent was to be bigoted against people because they're gay. I've said I'm cool with it now, let people be bigoted and deny services based on bigoted views.
Doesn't mean I have to personally like it.
Originally posted by Robtard
Wrong. I did fix it to be more accurate and I correctly stated that the owner was bigoted against bigots.Doesn't make it right, I still personally think that trashbag Sarah H. Sanders should have been allowed to eat in peace. But hate begets hate, which is what the Cult of Trump loves, until one of their own is targeted and them they cry foul.
Actually you said "maybe it's bigotry against bigots".
Just like the onwer was ok with "hate" as long as it was directed against someone they disagreed with.