Yeah Duke is rich and has followers, but that's not the same as having direct political power. And don't get me wrong because keeping anti discrimination policies on the books for the US government isn't something I'm opposed to at all, I'm talking about private businesses. And just because Duke himself is great with money it doesn't mean all the racists are going to be successful.
Yeah, hundreds of racist who came from all over the country. But we live in a country of more than 350 MILLION people. There could be 100k white supremacist and it still wouldn't even be close to 1% of the population. When you get right down to it, less than 1% is pretty much statistically insignificant. You can have a whole lot of something and still have it be be relatively little when you're comparing it to a big enough number.
And I would definitely prefer that there were no more "Whites only" restrooms too, but if they reappeared all it would really do is let minorities and people who are against racism know where not to spend their money. Capitalism is one of the great equalizers. If a business alienates non racists then it's not going to thrive the way it otherwise would. Sure there will be a few that do well if they're managed by someone as business savvy as Duke, but if they're that business savvy then they'd be as likely to become successful even as things stand. More so actually because right now they're being forced to cater to minorities and minorities are giving them money as costumers. And if they're avoiding giving them business because they know it supports racists, then nothing really changes by allowing a "whites only" sign.
In my experience the law does not suggest indirectly, but states clearly. If he refuses to bake the cake he will face a fine, not forced labour, it's that simple.
More melodramatic nonsense, at no point would the situation escalate to the point of the state taking this guy's life with a firearm. Unless he were to say refuse a fine, and resist arrest to the point of seriously endangering those trying to arrest him. In which case, he would be shot for that reason, not for failing to bake a cake.
It's this sort of escalatory silliness that results in the image of a man being forced at gunpoint to produce a baked good, which would also never happen, and it totally divorced from reality.
The baker in question would face consequences for his actions, relative to his actions. The consequence of breaking anti-discrimination laws = a fine. Of refusing to pay a court fine = arrest. Of resisting a legal arrest = use of force etc. etc. You cannot conflate the consequences without conflating the actions involved as well. Or otherwise we may as well claim getting a parking ticket comes with the threat of execution.
He is a criminal engaging in extortion, he has clearly done something wrong.
No, simply acknowledging that your melodrivel has no bearing on this case whatsoever.
He's just offering protection in exchange for money. He's not directly threatening anyone. Just like the government, "If you want to refuse to commit a sin you have to pay us money, otherwise something bad will happen..."
Come on, Goober. You're comparing fining someone for breaking a law, as being the same to extortion/organized crime. You're going full blown Trumper; never go full blown Trumper.
If the law penalizes someone's constitutional right, then yeah I'm absolutely comparing it to mob tactics. The choice being offered is "sin or face punishment".
By the same token, if an Islamic business owner allowed merchants to offer free samples of food people who came into his place and the government said that he could only do that if he allowed people to offer up pork products too it would be f*cked up
__________________
Last edited by darthgoober on Aug 17th, 2018 at 07:44 PM
Wrong again, I've already told you that your attempt to dress up a fine as an implication of violence is fallacious crap, the government does not say "pay the fine or something bad will happen" like a nefarious drug lord, but clearly states, on paper, that you will face arrest. That arrest will only be violent if you make it so, which is on you, and entirely separate to the act of refusing a fine, just as refusing a fine is an entirely separate act to discriminating against your customers in the first place.
Continue to conflate these actions in an absurd attempt to make out the government as a petty mobster if you like, while making out the bigoted baker as the victim, but it will remain based on disingenuous fantasy.
__________________
Last edited by Beniboybling on Aug 17th, 2018 at 07:54 PM
Fines happen all the time for breaking laws. You can argue that said law needs to be changed so this "Christian" bigot can be a bigot without recourse and that's fine if you want to do that, but your comparison here to actual mob extortion is well, retarded.
Not sure there's a anti discrimination for pork products...
So if the mob guy says "pay the money or I'm going to have you locked up for a while and you'll only be hurt if you resist" then that's not threatening violence?
Breaking anti-discrimination laws, refusing to pay a fine, and then refusing and resisting arrest comes with the threat of force, yes. Breaking anti-discrimination laws in itself does not, and to suggest otherwise is to conflate it with other offences. It's that simple.
respond with a yes beni I understand or don't bother.
Yeah but the law shouldn't force someone to sin. As it stands, we have no idea how this whole thing will play out so it could very well end up that the guy ISN'T violating the law. I'm arguing why that SHOULD be the result.
Suppose someone founds a religion that pushes the consumption of pork products. Should members have the ability to make the demand of our theoretical Islamic businessman? After all, they're both arguing from the position of a protected class, but the Islamic guy is the one who wants to discriminate...
KMC Community Forums
Aug 17th, 2018 05:52 PM
