Welcome to Thunderdome

GORDON wrote:

TPRJones wrote:Sexual orientation that is other than heterosexual is not broken.

That right there is the entire debate broken down bumper-sticker sized.

Then nature and many other species must be really broken.

We actually have her on pills to try to make her less of a fucking bitch, and therefore more likable and easier to get along with.

How's that working? Did you ever get along with her, even before she went insane?

TPRJones wrote:Sure he's a bigot. And he's free to stop baking wedding cakes. Nothing broken about that, the baker is just making a choice about how he or she interacts with society, and society has set up rules that mean those choices have consequences.

Except you're not talking about social consequences. You're talking about legal consequences. That is forcing people to enter a business arrangement at the barrel of a gun. If you wanted to talk about social consequences where people stop using them, then I'd agree with that. When you start talking about use of force, then we part ways as I am far more libertarian than that.

No, the owner entered into a arrangement with the US, state, and local gov't when they decided to start a biz in some certain spot. In exchange for being counted as a biz entity, the owner(s) agree to play by the rules the gov't sets. If they would care to offer that service as a private citizen and NOT as a fully fledged biz, then they're more than welcome to refuse that service to whatever race, colour, creed, ethnicity, height, or weight of people they want.

When you start talking about use of force, then we part ways as I am far more libertarian than that.

Please note that I didn't say if it was good or bad, just stated the facts of the matter. On that particular issue we generally agree. I think that any business owner should be able to refuse service for any reason. But that's not what's on the books, and my point was that the baker isn't "broken" as you claimed.

If the government can force a person into a legal business contract at the barrel of a gun, can they force people into social or civil contracts?

Vince wrote:If the government can force a person into a legal business contract at the barrel of a gun, can they force people into social or civil contracts?

Dunno. Let's check around for some court-mandated church attendance. Oops, I mean, 'Al-Anon meetings'.

Alhazad wrote:

Vince wrote:If the government can force a person into a legal business contract at the barrel of a gun, can they force people into social or civil contracts?

Dunno. Let's check around for some court-mandated church attendance. Oops, I mean, 'Al-Anon meetings'.

Hmmm.

Vince wrote:If the government can force a person into a legal business contract at the barrel of a gun...

See, you've already started off being wrong. No one is forcing that baker to continue to bake wedding cakes. The government is putting certain limitations on what they can and can't do if they choose to continue to do so, but if they quit baking wedding cakes altogether they are not going to be shot or imprisoned.

If the mob ensures they lose the ability to make a living, which leads to bankruptcy and eviction at the hands of the county sheriff, doesn't that count?

Only if you are saying it because you think sheriff's enforcing bankruptcies are a problem. The first part where the mob ensures they have no more customers is not because the governmnet forced them "into a legal business contract at the barrel of a gun".

Heck, with your version there's not even a place to blame the government for the first part where they go lose the ability to make a living. The mob themselves shut them down by refusing to spend their money there. What would you have the governmnet do, force the mob to buy their cakes at gunpoint?

I like how gofundme actually changed their rules to make sure you couldn't land on your feet when the mob came after you. That's the side of the argument I want to be on... salt the earth.

TPRJones wrote:

Vince wrote:If the government can force a person into a legal business contract at the barrel of a gun...

See, you've already started off being wrong. No one is forcing that baker to continue to bake wedding cakes. The government is putting certain limitations on what they can and can't do if they choose to continue to do so, but if they quit baking wedding cakes altogether they are not going to be shot or imprisoned.

Indeed. The biz owner willingly enters into a contract with the gov't by virtue of founding their biz in this country as opposed to others. In doing so, they get some benefits individual private citizens do not. They also get regulations attached to those benefits, and one of those is who you can and can't refuse service to and why. There are plenty of others, like building codes, health codes, insurance rules, etc., that you're also expected to follow.

If the mob ensures they lose the ability to make a living, which leads to bankruptcy and eviction at the hands of the county sheriff, doesn't that count?

You mean if the market mob uses its collective wallet as leverage and takes it commerce elsewhere?

When one deals with the government in any capacity, it is always understood that the government's words are ALWAYS backed with the threat of violence, isn't it? The IRS doesn't have a massive ammo budget because they aren't willing to escalate.

it is always understood that the government's any authority figure's words are ALWAYS backed with the threat of violence, isn't it?

Fixed. That's what any relationship between two entities who do not trust each other will devolve into unless there's some commonly agreed upon line in the sand that neither side would be douchey enough to cross.

Exactly?

Yes, but what is that a reply to? That's where I'm confused. I can't find anyone ever stating that governments aren't using force up there.

You took issue with the term "at gunpoint."

TPRJones wrote:

Vince wrote:If the government can force a person into a legal business contract at the barrel of a gun...

See, you've already started off being wrong. No one is forcing that baker to continue to bake wedding cakes. The government is putting certain limitations on what they can and can't do if they choose to continue to do so, but if they quit baking wedding cakes altogether they are not going to be shot or imprisoned.

Ah... so they are forcing them to give up their livelihood at the barrel of a gun. Gotcha!

TPRJones wrote:Only if you are saying it because you think sheriff's enforcing bankruptcies are a problem. The first part where the mob ensures they have no more customers is not because the governmnet forced them "into a legal business contract at the barrel of a gun".

Heck, with your version there's not even a place to blame the government for the first part where they go lose the ability to make a living. The mob themselves shut them down by refusing to spend their money there. What would you have the governmnet do, force the mob to buy their cakes at gunpoint?

I would have the government not be involved. Taking either side is tyranny. The forcing of someone to do something against their conscience at the barrel of a gun. Either baking the cak or supporting the baker.

The gov't cannot be 100% uninvolved in biz due to the regulations and revenue in play. Hell, you might not even be able to open a biz in a spot unless it's zoned correctly.

The forcing of someone to do something against their conscience at the barrel of a gun.

Again, the owner has implicitly agreed to these rules the second they sign the legal document that creates a company. They do that of their own free will. If they aren't or they don't understand the rules, then they shouldn't sign it. They are entirely free to move to any one of the cheery places that will let them discriminate against customers in that manner.