Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Do It, it worked in AZ (Score 1) 849

The Constitution sets limits on the powers of the federal government, as well as its responsibilities and powers.

Many of the state constitutions, like Indiana, further restrict the allowed behavior of the state.

Strictly speaking, states don't issue marriages, they issue marriage licenses, and only has effect for legal or statutory reasons (like taxes, inheritance), as well as anyone who asks for such a marriage license when doing so is lawful. So I'm not sure what point you're getting at.

I'll repeat my question: You're comfortable with compelling a Jewish bakery to cater food for neo-nazis, under threat of fine and/or prison?

Comment: Re:Do It, it worked in AZ (Score 1) 849

You know that the Constitution isn't the only law you have to obey. There's nothing in the Constitution about speed limits, no parking and handicapped parking zones, social security,

If the Constitution hasn't granted Congress the power to pass those respective laws, then they're unconstitutional and will be unenforceable in court. (In practice, the President appoints judges, so over time they usually get their way regardless of what it says.)

The point is, I never signed any contract as a business owner compelling me to serve anyone.

If I sit down at a restaurant and the waiter delivers my order, that's an implicit contract.

If I walk into a supermarket and see a cake "on sale until Tuesday, $19.99 while supplies last", that's an contract.

If I walk into a bakery and ask for a quote for catering, they're under no obligation to serve me (until I accept the quote, that's an explicit contract.) They can turn me down for whatever reason strikes their fancy.

But if you really think businesses should serve "everyone", how do you feel about forcing a Jewish bakery to cater for neo-nazis?

Comment: Re:Well, that's nothing (Score 1) 264

And I don't quite understand how education can be a right if you're not actually entitled to an education.

Forcing someone to give you something is a much different beast than not stopping someone from getting something.

I can't force another person to educate me.

Nor can they stop me from seeking out education.

Got it?

Comment: Re:Do It, it worked in AZ (Score 1) 849

We're talking about a state law here, which presumably represents the general will of the people of the state. If Indiana puts up border signs saying "Welcome to Indiana, Gays may be refused service" it doesn't really matter whether 90%, 1%, or 0% of businesses actually do so - putting it in the law declares it a value of the people of the state.

It's been the law of the land since the beginning, though. Sexual orientation isn't a protected class in Indiana, and the same law already exists in Federal statute, and has been upheld by SCOTUS.

Orthogonal issues: this is not about stocking a particular product, this is about making a product equally available to any person.

A cake depicting a heterosexual couple is a different product than a cake depicting a homosexual couple. In other states, business owners have found themselves in trouble for refusing to sell the latter. Likewise for wedding photography.

I'm aware of no case where people would be turned away because they're known to be a certain sexual orientation. That just doesn't happen (though it could, that is within their right).

Comment: Re:Do It, it worked in AZ (Score 1) 849

Nay, this is a straw man: There's been no reports of businesses refusing service to people by sexual orientation. (How could they tell?)

There have been businesses who have refused to bake cakes depicting such couples, and refused to photograph events with such individuals, who have gotten themselves in trouble with state laws for doing so.

My point is boycotting an entire state for what select businesses within might do is absurd. It applies to any situation.

Comment: Re: Do It, it worked in AZ (Score 1) 849

You may not have noticed, but the Constitution has been amended a few times, so the founders are a bit out of date with many things.

The constitution by definition includes its amendments. If you want to mean otherwise, you say unamended Constitution.

That and a prisoner helps by the state is assuredly not legal property. The way they are treated may not be ideal,but it doesn't claim ownership of anyone.

In the ethical meaning, ownership of another person is, of course, impossible. But if the course of events ends you up in prison, that's pretty much ownership.

Comment: Re:Do It, it worked in AZ (Score 1) 849

The conventioneers can't make money on people that are not welcome in the state hosting the convention. Therefore, it is in conventioneers interest to host conventions in states welcoming to everyone.

No, here lies the misunderstanding. The state is perfectly accepting of all people: It's mandated by the state and Federal Constitution.

If we're going to start boycotting entire geographical areas because select businesses within their boundaries - fractions of a single percent - might refuse service, then... I don't even. Should I start walking into clothing stores demanding they stock clothes to fit my unusual size? Should I walk into coffee shops, demanding they accommodate my taste for foreign music and tea? And when they don't, call for a boycott of all business in the entire state? It's absurd.

Comment: Re:Do It, it worked in AZ (Score 2, Insightful) 849

by diamondmagic (#49340047) Attached to: Gen Con Threatens To Leave Indianapolis Over Religious Freedom Bill

You're free not to operate a store or restaurant if you don't want to serve everyone.

Says who? Which provision of the Constitution grants this authority?

Who determines which classes are protected? It's completely arbitrary.

If a person is denied service, what's their injury? The common law system (not to mention the US Constitution) requires an injured party to bring up a civil lawsuit. If they were extended a written offer to purchase a product, that might be an injury. But if not?

E.g. You want to force a photographer to to work an event they don't want to be at? And then I'm guessing the government will have to investigate if they did a 'good enough' job photographing the event they didn't want to be at.

Or prosecutors have to introspect the inner machinations of the professional to make sure their rationale for accepting a different event was 'good enough' for them to legally decline the one they didn't want to be at. It's absurd, but this stuff has actually happened.

Comment: Re:Do It, it worked in AZ (Score 0, Troll) 849

by diamondmagic (#49339857) Attached to: Gen Con Threatens To Leave Indianapolis Over Religious Freedom Bill

No. Slavery is NOT defined as whether or not you will end up in prison.

Let's ask Google: a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them."

If there was ever a modern day, legalized slavery, forcing someone to bake a cake for you sounds otherwise be imprisoned by the government sounds awfully darn like just like that.

Simply put, if you are selling a service, you pay different taxes than in you are purchasing groceries for your personal consumption.

Do you file a 1040? That's sole proprietor income. You're probably working for an employer, no different than the kid next door if I hired them to do my lawn, no different than if I sold baked goods from my own house. Still a sole proprietorship, it's all taxed the same.

Once you get out of high school (and maybe leave high school libertarianism behind) you will learn the difference. Maybe.

Are you trying to start a UID pissing match? And you call me a high schooler? (Well, maybe if I registered when I was in kindergarten... I wish...).

(But if you insist, mine's prime.)

In any event, I practice the Constitution as written by the Framers. Blatant attempts to ignore it is not my fault, but nice try on the victim blaming.

Comment: Re:Do It, it worked in AZ (Score 0, Troll) 849

by diamondmagic (#49339581) Attached to: Gen Con Threatens To Leave Indianapolis Over Religious Freedom Bill

You are not a slave when your pizza boss tells you to take the trash out. You can refuse and be fired.

If I say no to my boss, I get fired. That's not slavery.

If saying "no" pits me against the government, I get fined or jailed, and anyone who resists is thrown in prison. That is slavery.

Only those individuals who are operating a business and only in the operation of that business.

Any purchase or sale of goods or labor by an individual is a sole proprietorship. Purchasing food from my grocery store, hiring lawn care, and selling baked goods are all the same kind of business conduct.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Comment: Re:Hmmm (Score 1, Insightful) 257

by diamondmagic (#49339473) Attached to: RadioShack Puts Customer Data Up For Sale In Bankruptcy Auction

You might be able to make that argument... once.

If you know before you walk in that they're going to ask on the way out, then you don't really have an excuse.

It's the same deal in Western societies where you pay for your meal after you eat it: It's just understood that's how it works, and you can be legally liable if you don't.

Comment: Re:Do It, it worked in AZ (Score 0, Troll) 849

by diamondmagic (#49339325) Attached to: Gen Con Threatens To Leave Indianapolis Over Religious Freedom Bill

If you do not have the right to say "yes" or "no" that is not freedom, that is slavery. It is the threat of someone going to a court, ordering me to serve them, under threat of police action. That is wrong, we abolished that over a century ago.

The legal right to do something does not condone exercise of said right.

Not to mention your assertion is very dangerous; a sole proprietorship is a type of business. If a "business" can be required to serve a person, any individual can be required to serve a person.

Now, if I have a written offer of service, say, a price at a supermarket, you can't rescind that offer any faster than you can take the price down. But you can't walk into a bakery and say "I want you to quote me a price on a cake! And it needs to be a similar price to $member_of_some_other_group! And..." etc.

It is the quality rather than the quantity that matters. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 B.C. - A.D. 65)