Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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:Fuck so-called religious "freedom" (Score 1) 1029

[Citation Needed]

People don't lose their rights just because they get into business.

No one is obligated to provide any reason for denying service. So what you're really proposing is criminalizing certain reasons for saying "no". We have another name for that: thought crime.

Also: I never mentioned any particular "value", you're the one who read "homesexuality" into that.

Comment: Re:Fuck so-called religious "freedom" (Score 1) 1029

First, no such implication was made. I might have an objection to making any arbitrary product. It has nothing to do with the person looking to buy. I don't generally have a way of knowing which sexual orientation or national origin someone is, or a way to verify even if they told me.

Second, you're implicitly assuming that there's some acceptable reason to force someone to do something (at least without any prior agreement/contract). There is not.

There's no reason to need to know the reason for declining business, unless you're actively looking to be intolerant of other's opinions. I don't generally deny or force someone's business for any reason.

Comment: Re:Freedom to discriminate == no protection ... (Score 1) 1029

The logical consequence is if you start discriminating against said religion, you lose your legal ability to compel people to serve you against their will.

Which means in the end, no one can force anyone to do anything. Which I'm sort of down for.

Comment: Re:These are real laws that can do real harm (Score 1) 1029

No it is not. It is an attempt to enshrine bigoted ideology into law against a group of people who have done them no harm. Just because it is pandering does not mean it will not do real harm.

Google "define:bigot": "a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions."

If you're intolerant of another person's beliefs, so much that you have to get the law to force them to obey you... doesn't that make you a bigot?

BULLSHIT. Plenty of racist homophobes actually support this nonsense. This is legislation that specifically targets minority groups that by definition do not have the population to fight back directly. "Ohh, 1% of our customer base is angry with us, whatever will we do..."

Hitler supported it, therefore it must be wrong!

Do you seriously think that the owners of Chick-Fil-A or Hobby Lobby wouldn't force their religion on others if given the chance?

No, not really. Every time a customer walks in is a chance to proselytize. And they don't.

Some do: What do you think the Salvation Army is doing around holiday season?

Comment: Re:For those wanting a 'free market' solution.. (Score 1) 1029

"The Jim Crow laws were racial segregation state and local laws enacted after the Reconstruction period in Southern United States that continued in force until 1965 mandating de jure racial segregation in all public facilities in Southern U.S. states (of the former Confederacy), starting in 1890 with a "separate but equal" status for African Americans. " via Wikipedia

In what world is legally mandating discrimination a "free market"?!?

Comment: Re:Fuck so-called religious "freedom" (Score 5, Insightful) 1029

The bill isn't banning "all products". It's saying you can't be compelled to do something you don't personally agree with.

If I walked into a bakery and legally compelled them to bake a cake depicting a same-sex couple that they don't want to bake... aren't I the one imposing my values?

Comment: Re:Do It, it worked in AZ (Score 1) 880

The provision is unconstitutional, as it violates the right to free association and the court's requirements to uphold contracts, which the courts have found also includes duress. That's assuming any jurisdiction at all, most day to day business is intrastate, not interstate.

If a person walks into a bakery, demands an order, demanding a certain price, that's called... a null and void contract. No court in the US upholds agreements made under duress.

I don't hold it against you though, not very many high schoolers are taught about common law these days. (See, I can be condescending too.)

Comment: Re:Do It, it worked in AZ (Score 1) 880

Two words: "Sole proprietorship"

Even corporations, being owned by multiple individuals, have rights, as this is what allows them to make contracts, and be held accountable to agreements they make. No rights = steamroll over you like a natural disaster, no accountability, no justice.

Next myth?

Comment: Re:Do It, it worked in AZ (Score 1) 880

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) 880

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) 880

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) 880

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.

Committees have become so important nowadays that subcommittees have to be appointed to do the work.

Working...