Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



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) 1146

Why should I provide a citation? I provided the citations the last 20 times you said this same exact drivel just a few days ago. But you didn't pay attention then, and I doubt you will now. If you truly care that much and just happened to miss them (several times in a row) try your post history.
---

This is a public discussion, i.e. a discussion in the public. For the benefit of me and everyone, I shouldn't need to dig up old conversations on other threads.

In any event, I don't recall any very convincing sources.

When you act in the public market you are no longer acting as a private citizen, but as a public accommodation. you are offering goods and services in exchange for money, be it a motel, restaurant, lawyer, or bakery.

"public accommodation" is very narrowly defined. It does not imply that business is anything but private. Business is by definition only conducted between two parties. No other party is involved.

define:business: noun
1. a person's regular occupation, profession, or trade.
2. the practice of making one's living by engaging in commerce.

People do not lose their rights just because they get into business. Saying "you didn't have to go into business, you asked for it" is called victim blaming. That is not OK.

No person ever, in the formation of capital, in their employment, or otherwise, agreed that they could be compelled to serve another person. When the Constitution protect's someone's rights, it doesn't say "People shall have the right to..." no, it says "Congress shall make no law." Not no laws about people, or corporations, or certain races. No law.

a private citizen acting in a private manner has religious freedom.
his business does not.

A sole proprietor is a private citizen acting in a private manner.

If you do yard work for pay, sell cookies from your own kitchen, or are hired by an employer, that's all sole proprietor business: It goes on your form 1040.

And denying services for discriminatory reasons IS illegal and is not a thought crime.

Pray tell, how am I supposed to prove said "reason" that another business declined me service? They don't have to tell the truth.

You're criminalizing the act of having a bad reason for declining someone's service. Deciding different punishments for the same action, based on a person's purported beliefs, is a violation of due process. The court decided "separate but equal" was unconstitutional a long time ago, catch up to modern times please.

The basic protected classes established under Federal Law are

Note the distinct lack of sexual orientation.

In addition some states and cities have recognized other protected classes in addition to the these. For ex, in Washington DC (and a few states) you cannot discriminate on the basis of political ideology.

So it would be illegal for a Jewish bakery to decline catering for neo-nazis. Just the sort of thing I want the state doing in my name. ...that last sentence there was sarcasm.

First, you have to be engaging in interstate exchange, as opposed to intrastate exchange.

Second, and more importantly, contracts made under duress are null and void. Even when it's the state that is forcing agreement.

e.g. You can't order a photographer to show up at an arbitrary wedding, and dictate what you'll pay them when they refuse to quote a price.

And allow me to quote what you said:

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?

Are you going to answer that question or not? (I'm looking for a "Yes, I'll answer with this: I concur/dissent because...")

Comment: Re:Fuck so-called religious "freedom" (Score 1) 1146

[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) 1146

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) 1146

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) 1146

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) 1146

"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) 1146

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) 886

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) 886

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) 886

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) 886

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) 886

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).

"Call immediately. Time is running out. We both need to do something monstrous before we die." -- Message from Ralph Steadman to Hunter Thompson

Working...