Businesses Refusing Service To Certain Customers

[sangha]

Funny how so many people are willing to prove what we have written here to be correct.
This thread is begining to degenrate into "Wah,wah,wah,why won't everybody love me,tell me how great I am, and do and think what I tell them to".

What do you think the right's whining about PC is all about?

It boils down to "Wah,wah,wah,why won't everybody love me,tell me how great I am, and do and think what I tell them to?"

 

[joG]

Public accommodations do not have any right to association, and never have. The laws prohibiting businesses from discriminating are older than the constitution

As was crucifixion. I love your so reliably false justifications. They are wonderful, sometimes.

 

[joG]

You can't be serious.

If half your vendors stopped working with you because of the color of your skin, you really think that wouldn't have any negative effect on you at all?



The problem is that the objections are applied so selectively that it is difficult to take it seriously.

Do bakers routinely ask if the individuals getting married were adulterers, or engaged in pre-marital sex, or keep the Sabbath, or disrespect their parents, or commit blasphemy?

If the baker claims that blacks and whites should not associate, and cites religious reasons for doing so, is that now acceptable?

It's obvious that not only are the religious requirements applied inconsistently and in a discriminatory manner, but would also make a truck-sized loophole in anti-discrimination laws.



Yes, that's because it is discrimination.

If a Marine walked into the bake shop and asked for a cake with a Marine (or a Muslim) holding an assault weapon and spraying bullets everywhere, should the baker refuse service and call the police?

Is there a long record of mass shooters buying celebratory cakes before they start a killing spree, that none of us know about?

Are Christians the only ones who can order cakes like these?

What a glorious cake!

 

[sangha]

As was crucifixion. I love your so reliably false justifications. They are wonderful, sometimes.

You bring up crucifixions and talk about *my* reliably false justifications??

Your arguments are really getting desperate and pitiful. Every time someone disagrees with you, you start insulting

 

[joG]

You bring up crucifixions and talk about *my* reliably false justifications??

Your arguments are really getting desperate and pitiful. Every time someone disagrees with you, you start insulting

What was insulting about that? It was a compliment on the high quality of your satire.

 

[sangha]

What was insulting about that? It was a compliment on the high quality of your satire.

I'll add dishonesty to The List of Reasons Why JoG's Posts Fail

 

[joG]

I'll add dishonesty to The List of Reasons Why JoG's Posts Fail

And all this just because I pointed out that this is a false argument: "The laws prohibiting businesses from discriminating are older than the constitution" to justify this: "Public accommodations do not have any right to association, and never have." But, of course, it goes much further. The argument is almost certainly incorrect as well as obviously the second is. It is obtuse to argue that public accommodations laws have nothing to do with free association, which they are meant to restrict. I hope you do not really mean that.

 

[sangha]

And all this just because I pointed out that this is a false argument: "The laws prohibiting businesses from discriminating are older than the constitution"

You didn't point anything out. You merely claimed it was false.

to justify this: "Public accommodations do not have any right to association, and never have." But, of course, it goes much further. The argument is almost certainly incorrect as well as obviously the second is. It is obtuse to argue that public accommodations laws have nothing to do with free association, which they are meant to restrict. I hope you do not really mean that.

Public accommodations laws have nothing to do with free association rights, and never have. While you may think our legal history is irrelevant or"obtuse", legal experts realize that precedent is what the law is based on.

 

[joG]

You didn't point anything out. You merely claimed it was false.


Public accommodations laws have nothing to do with free association rights, and never have. While you may think our legal history is irrelevant or"obtuse", legal experts realize that precedent is what the law is based on.

We all know about precedent. But again you use a false argument by quoting "experts" who "realize" something or other instead of explaining how a law can "have nothing to do" with the subject it regulates.

 

[sangha]

We all know about precedent. But again you use a false argument by quoting "experts" who "realize" something or other instead of explaining how a law can "have nothing to do" with the subject it regulates.

I didn't say that public accommodations law have nothing do with the subject (ie public accommodations) it regulates.

I said PA laws have nothing to do with the right to association.

Reading is fundamental

 

[joG]

I didn't say that public accommodations law have nothing do with the subject (ie public accommodations) it regulates.

I said PA laws have nothing to do with the right to association.

Reading is fundamental

Do you really believe, what you say?

 

[sangha]

Do you really believe, what you say?

I not only believe it, I can prove it.

 

[Verthaine]

So lie to them to avoid getting in trouble.

You do realize I've said that before (several time,I believe).
All you have to say is "I'm sorry,but due to circumstances beyond our control we cannot forfill your order".
If feel you must provide an explanation, "We are overbooked and understaff" works perfectly fine.

It's funny how law sometimes encourages dishonesty.

Welcome to the real world.

 

[Henrin]

You do realize I've said that before (several time,I believe).
All you have to say is "I'm sorry,but due to circumstances beyond our control we cannot forfill your order".
If feel you must provide an explanation, "We are overbooked and understaff" works perfectly fine.

Both of which are lies.

Welcome to the real world.

I already knew that was how the country works. I just find it sad is all.

 

[joG]

I not only believe it, I can prove it.

Do so. This should prove interesting.

 

[Verthaine]

Both of which are lies.

Yes they are.
What's you point?
If that's what it takes to survive in the business world,so be it.
It's a jungle out there.
In the jungle, there is nothing wrong with camoflage,which is a form of lying.

 

[sangha]

Do so. This should prove interesting.

i've said several things. Which do you want me to prove?

Then, you try and do the same. Prove that businesses have a right to associate freely

 

[Visbek]

What a glorious cake!

Heh... I did a search for cakes with gun decorations on them. Some of them were very impressive.

 

[joG]

i've said several things. Which do you want me to prove?

Then, you try and do the same. Prove that businesses have a right to associate freely

I was referring mainly to your statement that PA has nothing to do with free association.

PS: I did not say that businesses actually have the right to freely associate, but that people should. So it does not make sense to ask me to prove they do.

 

[joG]

Heh... I did a search for cakes with gun decorations on them. Some of them were very impressive.

That is a pacifist dream cake.

 

[Henrin]

Yes they are.
What's you point?
If that's what it takes to survive in the business world,so be it.
It's a jungle out there.
In the jungle, there is nothing wrong with camoflage,which is a form of lying.

I don't usually hide the points of the things I say. I said what I meant. Lying to hide your true motivations is not behavior I will endorse people do nor do I think it is a good thing that the law encourages it.

 

[Henrin]

i've said several things. Which do you want me to prove?

Then, you try and do the same. Prove that businesses have a right to associate freely

It's right there in the first amendment.

Your turn.

 

[sangha]

I was referring mainly to your statement that PA has nothing to do with free association.

OK. No problem

If public accommodation laws were limited by a public accommodations right to associate freely, then there wouldn't be any public accommodations laws prohibiting any form of discrimination. That is because anti-discrimination laws, by definition, limit a PA from associating with (or not associating with) whomever it chooses.

IOW, if businesses had a right to associate freely, then every anti-discrimination law would be clearly unconstitutional. Since these laws have survived constitutional challenges, it must be because there's nothing unconstitutional about limiting a businesses ability to associate freely. The only way such limitations can be constitutional is if business do not have a right to freely associate.

PS: I did not say that businesses actually have the right to freely associate, but that people should. So it does not make sense to ask me to prove they do.

People *DO* have the right to associate freely. PA laws do not apply to individuals

Individuals can not be forced to not discriminate because they *DO* have a right to associate freely. PA's can be forced to not discriminate because they DO NOT

 

[sangha]

It's right there in the first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I don't see anything in there about businesses or public accommodations

 

[AGENT J]

OK. No problem

If public accommodation laws were limited by a public accommodations right to associate freely, then there wouldn't be any public accommodations laws prohibiting any form of discrimination. That is because anti-discrimination laws, by definition, limit a PA from associating with (or not associating with) whomever it chooses.

IOW, if businesses had a right to associate freely, then every anti-discrimination law would be clearly unconstitutional. Since these laws have survived constitutional challenges, it must be because there's nothing unconstitutional about limiting a businesses ability to associate freely. The only way such limitations can be constitutional is if business do not have a right to freely associate.



People *DO* have the right to associate freely. PA laws do not apply to individuals

Individuals can not be forced to not discriminate because they *DO* have a right to associate freely. PA's can be forced to not discriminate because they DO NOT

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


I don't see anything in there about businesses or public accommodations

KNOCK IT OFF SANGHA!!!!!!
Stop posting facts, common sense, logic and truths!!! It totally destroys the lies posted in this thread and makes them look very stupid.