Page 14 of 23
Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:46 am
by Leisher
Malcolm wrote:GORDON wrote:Malcolm wrote:
It's the same rules for everyone. If you want to operate a biz, you must follow the state's rules. If you don't like them, move to another state or get your own. If you want to use GoFundMe to raise cash, you have to follow their rules. If you don't like them, get your own server, your own DNS, your own web pages.
Why does gofundme get to make their own rules, but the bakery doesn't?
Because GoFundMe isn't operating in the state of Oregon, where a biz may not discriminate against customers because of the sexual preference. If GoFundMe was HQ'd in a place that prohibited discrimination based on your legal status, then they'd be doing something illegal, much like the bakers are.
No.
You're abandoning your core argument and trying to let hypocrisy slide by on a technicality.
Reminder: I'm in the middle on this one, but I will point out bullshit when I see it.
Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 11:08 am
by Malcolm
GoFundMe denying service to people that might hurt their rep sounds more legit than people refusing to "participate" (and butchering the meaning of that word) in something their chosen faith finds distasteful. Like I said pages ago, if the biz owner can demonstrate that baking a cake for a gay wedding is going to kill their future profits, I might listen.
Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 11:09 am
by GORDON
Malcolm wrote:GoFundMe denying service to people that might hurt their rep sounds more legit than people refusing to "participate" (and butchering the meaning of that word) in something their chosen faith finds distasteful. Like I said pages ago, if the biz owner can demonstrate that baking a cake for a gay wedding is going to kill their future profits, I might listen.
Vince called it a while ago... there seem to be two sets of rules in place.
Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 11:13 am
by Vince
Apparently rights are bound to profits or something. Makes no sense.
Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 11:31 am
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:Malcolm wrote:GoFundMe denying service to people that might hurt their rep sounds more legit than people refusing to "participate" (and butchering the meaning of that word) in something their chosen faith finds distasteful. Like I said pages ago, if the biz owner can demonstrate that baking a cake for a gay wedding is going to kill their future profits, I might listen.
Vince called it a while ago... there seem to be two sets of rules in place.
That's because one of your biz owners is trying to drag their religion into commerce while the other is choosing politics and reputation. State is separated from former and not the latter, and biz is a state institution. Additionally, you have owners trying to apply their religion's views to the state institution of marriage and using that as justification for refusing to participate in the state-run arena that is private biz operations. The state gives you religious freedom in your home and your temple or equivalent thereof, not your business.
Edited By Malcolm on 1430237089
Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 12:52 pm
by Leisher
GoFundMe denying service to people that might hurt their rep sounds more legit than people refusing to "participate" (and butchering the meaning of that word) in something their chosen faith finds distasteful. Like I said pages ago, if the biz owner can demonstrate that baking a cake for a gay wedding is going to kill their future profits, I might listen.
I can easily point out examples where businesses would want to discriminate to save their business and future profits. Let's start with the nightclub industry...
That's because one of your biz owners is trying to drag their religion into commerce while the other is choosing politics and reputation. State is separated from former and not the latter, and biz is a state institution.
Oh, ok! It's ok to discriminate based on politics and if your reputation will be by current public sentiment. It's not ok to discriminate based on your own personal beliefs.
That clears it up. No hypocrisy there!
Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:03 pm
by TheCatt
I don't think GoFundMe should have canceled that fundraiser. And the baker should have made the cake.
Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:07 pm
by Malcolm
Leisher wrote:I can easily point out examples where businesses would want to discriminate to save their business and future profits. Let's start with the nightclub industry...
K, long as they don't violate the federal laws covering such things.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".
It's ok to discriminate based on politics and if your reputation will be by current public sentiment. It's not ok to discriminate based on your own personal beliefs.
Politics are also your personal beliefs. I find the difference between it and religion is chiefly that "god" gets replaced by "the public good." After that, it looks mostly the same to me. But I'm not the Constitution or the law. Also, the Bill of Rights grants freedom of religions NOT to corporations, but to citizens. The current legal system also says corporations are not people. It's why a company cannot plead the fifth. Finally, seeing as how GoFundMe is not basing their bias on "race, color, religion or national origin," they seem to be on solid legal ground on both the state and national level.
They are still pretty much being dicks, though, if that's a rule they changed after the campaign began.
Edited By Malcolm on 1430241337
Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:15 pm
by TPRJones
Vince called it a while ago... there seem to be two sets of rules in place.
There has been no evidence of this anywhere. I've seen some links to people claiming so, but so far they've all been clearly misrepresenting things in order to push a political agenda, not making an actual cogent point.
Can you clarify what you mean?
Oh, ok! It's ok to discriminate based on politics and if your reputation will be by current public sentiment. It's not ok to discriminate based on your own personal beliefs.
On the difference between the bakery and GoFundMe: the bakery broke the law by refusing to do business based on sexual orientation. GoFundMe is refusing to assist criminals. There's a whole world of difference there and equating the two is wildly disingenuous.
So far the arguments used by the bakery and their ilk are exactly the same things that were used to justify the outlawing of interracial marriage and even the basis of slavery. That hardly speaks well towards their moral position. If we allow them to stop serving gays because they hate gays, shouldn't we also allow them to stop serving blacks because they hate blacks?
Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:18 pm
by Malcolm
Here are all the places where the biz owner would have legal standing to refuse based on the fact that homosexuality is a crime, and even though it's not lit up, you can include Russia.
Of course, there might also be some other things there labeled "criminal" which would make the move difficult.
Edited By Malcolm on 1430241548
Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:19 pm
by Vince
I think the baker should have made the cake. I don't think the government should FORCE the baker to make the cake.
Government is force. I approach these things with the question, "Are you okay with the government coming in with guns drawn to enforce this law/rule?"
I am NOT okay with the government coming in and forcing a baker at gunpoint to make a cake for someone for whom they do not want to make a cake. So I think the government has no business in this.
Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:20 pm
by Malcolm
Vince wrote:I think the baker should have made the cake. I don't think the government should FORCE the baker to make the cake.
Government is force. I approach these things with the question, "Are you okay with the government coming in with guns drawn to enforce this law/rule?"
I am NOT okay with the government coming in and forcing a baker at gunpoint to make a cake for someone for whom they do not want to make a cake. So I think the government has no business in this.
Then the baker has no business baking. The gov't very much has an interest in seeing commerce flourish in their sector. Biz owners that can arbitrarily terminate transactions before they begin don't facilitate that.
Edited By Malcolm on 1430241650
Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:21 pm
by Vince
TPRJones wrote:On the difference between the bakery and GoFundMe: the bakery broke the law by refusing to do business based on sexual orientation.
I've seen no evidence of this. Can you show me where they told the gay people they didn't serve gay people? Can you show me where they said "We can't do any business with you"?
Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:23 pm
by Vince
Malcolm wrote:Vince wrote:I think the baker should have made the cake. I don't think the government should FORCE the baker to make the cake.
Government is force. I approach these things with the question, "Are you okay with the government coming in with guns drawn to enforce this law/rule?"
I am NOT okay with the government coming in and forcing a baker at gunpoint to make a cake for someone for whom they do not want to make a cake. So I think the government has no business in this.
Then the baker has no business baking. The gov't very much has an interest in seeing commerce flourish in their sector. Biz owners that can arbitrarily terminate transactions before they begin don't facilitate that.
So you're okay with the government coming in and forcing them at gunpoint.
You apparently have no belief in free market principles as well.
Noted.
Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:27 pm
by Leisher
I don't think GoFundMe should have canceled that fundraiser. And the baker should have made the cake.
Agreed.
K, long as they don't violate the federal laws covering such things.
It's very easy to get around federal laws covering such things. However, before I go into a bunch of examples, I think this might be a discussion for a different thread so we don't derail this one. Start it if you'd like to have that discussion. It's fun to point out the hypocrisy in laws.
They are still pretty much being dicks, though, if that's a rule they changed after the campaign began.
They're both being dicks. That's my point. One is allowed to do it because it fits public pressure, the other not so much.
On the difference between the bakery and GoFundMe: the bakery broke the law by refusing to do business based on sexual orientation. GoFundMe is refusing to assist criminals. There's a whole world of difference there and equating the two is wildly disingenuous.
That made me laugh. Yes because I'm sure GoFundMe would put their campaign back up if they made the cake, but still wanted to fight the law that requires them to do so. Implying their only reason for pulling the campaign is because the baker "broke the law" is wildly disingenuous.
They're caving to public pressure. End of story.
Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:28 pm
by Malcolm
Vince wrote:Malcolm wrote:Vince wrote:I think the baker should have made the cake. I don't think the government should FORCE the baker to make the cake.
Government is force. I approach these things with the question, "Are you okay with the government coming in with guns drawn to enforce this law/rule?"
I am NOT okay with the government coming in and forcing a baker at gunpoint to make a cake for someone for whom they do not want to make a cake. So I think the government has no business in this.
Then the baker has no business baking. The gov't very much has an interest in seeing commerce flourish in their sector. Biz owners that can arbitrarily terminate transactions before they begin don't facilitate that.
So you're okay with the government coming in and forcing them at gunpoint.
You apparently have no belief in free market principles as well.
Noted.
This country hasn't had a free market in forever. And if the gov't has to step in to ensure that all the biz owners play by the same basic rules, then fucking fine, come in and enforce things.
I've seen no evidence of this. Can you show me where they told the gay people they didn't serve gay people? Can you show me where they said "We can't do any business with you"?
Yes, I can, and I did pages ago.
A judge for the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) recommended a lesbian couple should receive $135,000 in damages for their emotional suffering after Sweet Cakes by Melissa refused to make them a wedding cake.
“Under Oregon law, businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot turn customers away because of race, sex, disability, age or religion. Our agency is committed to fair and thorough enforcement of Oregon civil rights laws, including the Equality Act of 2007.”
Right there.
Edited By Malcolm on 1430242154
Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:29 pm
by Leisher
Malcolm wrote:Here are all the places where the biz owner would have legal standing to refuse based on the fact that homosexuality is a crime, and even though it's not lit up, you can include Russia.
Of course, there might also be some other things there labeled "criminal" which would make the move difficult.
Most of those red countries have something in common...
Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:29 pm
by Malcolm
Leisher wrote:Malcolm wrote:Here are all the places where the biz owner would have legal standing to refuse based on the fact that homosexuality is a crime, and even though it's not lit up, you can include Russia.
Of course, there might also be some other things there labeled "criminal" which would make the move difficult.
Most of those red countries have something in common...
Yeah, they seem to enjoy living centuries in the past.
Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:35 pm
by Vince
TPRJones wrote:So far the arguments used by the bakery and their ilk are exactly the same things that were used to justify the outlawing of interracial marriage and even the basis of slavery. That hardly speaks well towards their moral position. If we allow them to stop serving gays because they hate gays, shouldn't we also allow them to stop serving blacks because they hate blacks?
Actually, the reason the government got involved with marriage to begin with was to stop interracial marriages.
Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:38 pm
by Vince
Leisher wrote:Malcolm wrote:Here are all the places where the biz owner would have legal standing to refuse based on the fact that homosexuality is a crime, and even though it's not lit up, you can include Russia.
Of course, there might also be some other things there labeled "criminal" which would make the move difficult.
Most of those red countries have something in common...
Also, if you showed the US and which states had a legal standing to refuse based on homosexuality not being a protected class, it would be most of the US states.
Indiana being one of them which made this whole thing kind of silly.