- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: AZ Senate Passes 'Right to Discriminate' Bill
Posted on 2/27/14 at 6:53 pm to LSUnKaty
Posted on 2/27/14 at 6:53 pm to LSUnKaty
quote:
So much wrong with this post.
Government doesn't enable business, business enables government.
What doesn't your beloved government stop taking tainted money from all these bigots
I would think ya'll would relish the idea of ANY group being able to disconnect from the tyranny of the state in even the tiniest of details...yet ya'll seem incredibly offended at the thought of someone being able to choose if they want access to courts or the freedom to choose who they do business with. I think it is a pretty simply decision...don't want to tradw with people you disagree with / don't like? Are you in business with the public? Then pick and choose your customers any way you like...just do not ask the group that you choose to not trade with to foot the bill for any sort of action requiring the court system.
Look, I don't think a person should be forced to do business with anyone for any reason. If, however, you are in a business where you are serving the public and you choose to not serve any segment of the public due to race, relgion, sexuality...whatever...then you should be man enough to agree that you will not use the court system to collect bad debts or protect you from attempts to collect your bad debt. Is that really that high a bar for ya'll to get over?
4
Posted on 2/27/14 at 6:57 pm to germandawg
You posted that again? 
Posted on 2/27/14 at 6:58 pm to germandawg
quote:I have no issue with that.
Look, I don't think a person should be forced to do business with anyone for any reason. If, however, you are in a business where you are serving the public and you choose to not serve any segment of the public due to race, relgion, sexuality...whatever...then you should be man enough to agree that you will not use the court system to collect bad debts or protect you from attempts to collect your bad debt. Is that really that high a bar for ya'll to get over?
Posted on 2/27/14 at 7:37 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:Well he did add some more ya'll to the mix of horeshit.
You posted that again?
Posted on 2/27/14 at 7:39 pm to Jbird
quote:that's a word in need of an "s" . . . . or a "w"
horeshit
Posted on 2/27/14 at 7:41 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:I hate my fricking ancient fingers!
that's a word in need of an "s" . . . . or a "w
Posted on 2/27/14 at 7:42 pm to Jbird
quote:Considering the context, it was a "w" . . . . . . . . amirite
that's a word in need of an "s" . . . . or a "w
I hate my fricking ancient fingers!
This post was edited on 2/27/14 at 7:43 pm
Posted on 2/27/14 at 7:46 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Considering the context, it was a "w" . . . . . . . . amirite
Posted on 2/27/14 at 9:49 pm to germandawg
quote:
Look, I don't think a person should be forced to do business with anyone for any reason. If, however, you are in a business where you are serving the public and you choose to not serve any segment of the public due to race, relgion, sexuality...whatever...then you should be man enough to agree that you will not use the court system to collect bad debts or protect you from attempts to collect your bad debt. Is that really that high a bar for ya'll to get over?
This is nonsense.
If I can't use the court system I pay for, can I not be subject to their jurisdiction if I choose to "be man enough" to collect my debts myself using whatever means my "manliness" provides.
Business owners pay for those services through taxes.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 10:25 pm to Turbeauxdog
I assume this has been posted somewhere:
LINK
signed by 11 law profs from Harvard, UVA, Stanford, Notre Dame, etc.
LINK
quote:
Some of us are Republicans; some of us are Democrats. Some of us are religious; some
of us are not. Some of us oppose same-sex marriage; some of us support it. Nine of the
eleven signers of this letter believe that you should sign the bill; two are unsure. But all of
us believe that many criticisms of the Arizona bill are deeply misleading.
The federal government and eighteen states have Religious Freedom Restoration Acts
(RFRAs). Another twelve or thirteen states interpret their state constitutions to provide
similar protections. These laws enact a uniform standard to be interpreted and applied to
individual cases by courts. They say that before the government can burden a person’s
religious exercise, the government has to show a compelling justification.
signed by 11 law profs from Harvard, UVA, Stanford, Notre Dame, etc.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 10:26 pm to germandawg
quote:
Look, I don't think a person should be forced to do business with anyone for any reason. If, however, you are in a business where you are serving the public and you choose to not serve any segment of the public due to race, relgion, sexuality...whatever...then you should be man enough to agree that you will not use the court system to collect bad debts or protect you from attempts to collect your bad debt. Is that really that high a bar for ya'll to get over?
I think the bakery guys would have gladly sold the gay dudes everything in the store. You're piping off like they denied the gays a loaf of bread. They just didn't want to create a cake for a homo wedding.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 11:00 pm to son of arlo
It's a really interesting deal.
Should a cake business be able to just deny service to someone based on that it's a gay marriage? It's legally tricky.
it makes total sense that they could certainly deny certain content on the cake.
it makes sense that they could refuse to go to the event on religious grounds.
Not sure that it makes sense that they should be able to refuse to bake the cake.
Making a law about it is tricky though. Lot of unintended consequences could occur.
Should a cake business be able to just deny service to someone based on that it's a gay marriage? It's legally tricky.
it makes total sense that they could certainly deny certain content on the cake.
it makes sense that they could refuse to go to the event on religious grounds.
Not sure that it makes sense that they should be able to refuse to bake the cake.
Making a law about it is tricky though. Lot of unintended consequences could occur.
Posted on 2/28/14 at 4:45 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
This is nonsense.
If I can't use the court system I pay for, can I not be subject to their jurisdiction if I choose to "be man enough" to collect my debts myself using whatever means my "manliness" provides.
Business owners pay for those services through taxes.
Yes, business owners pay for those services with their taxes. So do groups that some business people would prefer not to do business with...in this case it is gay people but it could be Jews, black folks...whatever. We all pay for the court system to operate...everyone of us. We also pay for and enjoy all sorts of other things as a collective...roads, for instance, military protection....the list is exhaustive. It would not be possible to limit the use of these things by those who do not wish to trade with people they don't like. It is very easy, however, to prevent someone access to the court system. If they have a bad debt I would think they would much rather collect it themselves than allow the group(s) that they prefer not to trade with to assist them.
It seems to be the consensus, however, that it is OK to choose not to trade with certain groups but when you need the collective effort INCLUDING members of that group for things like roads and military protection and collecting debts it is acceptable for them to assist you. To me this seems hypocritical...of course that is the foundation of Christianity so I am not surprised that so many of you have no problem with it.
ANd no, you can't opt out of being a citizen simply because you don't want to trade with certain groups. The only way that you will not be subject to OUR court system is if you move out of the jurisdiction of that court system and become a citizen bound to some other nations court system.
Posted on 2/28/14 at 4:54 am to tigersruledude
quote:
It's a really interesting deal.
Should a cake business be able to just deny service to someone based on that it's a gay marriage? It's legally tricky.
it makes total sense that they could certainly deny certain content on the cake.
it makes sense that they could refuse to go to the event on religious grounds.
Not sure that it makes sense that they should be able to refuse to bake the cake.
Making a law about it is tricky though. Lot of unintended consequences could occur.
What did the bakery do to suggest that they wouldn't do it on religious grounds? There is the problem....and one that shouldn't exist. I woould think you could simply deny this sort of service to anyone at any time simply by telling them you couldn't accomodate their schedule or pricing the service so high that they would go elsewhere.
A person shouldn't be forced to behave in this manner though, if you are stupid enough to base business decisions on religious grounds when your business is not related to any religion then you by god ought to be able to show your ignorance to the public.
This is borderline anti-social behavior, however...not a bad thing in and of itself...and should come with some sort of price. That price should be denied access to public resources that can be quantified easily...like the court system. There are probably other more or less pay as you go public resources that you should be willing to give up in the interest of making your point but I can't think of any. Hell I would settle for your being denied access to bankruptcy protection alone. That seems like an even trade for such borderline anti-social behavior.
Of course if you are going to make these sorts of decisions in business you probably don't want to give up the protection of bankruptcy because more than likely your ignorant arse is going to need it....
Posted on 2/28/14 at 6:18 am to germandawg
quote:
What did the bakery do to suggest that they wouldn't do it on religious grounds? There is the problem....and one that shouldn't exist. I woould think you could simply deny this sort of service to anyone at any time simply by telling them you couldn't accomodate their schedule or pricing the service so high that they would go elsewhere.
Well how were the Colorado bakers discriminating? Even by the state laws against discriminating for sexual orientation I don't see how this case usurps that law? The gay couple wasn't denied service, only a certain type of service. And if you use the argument ," well they bake wedding cakes for the public so they have to bake a cake for the gay couple" while this is true for regular wedding cakes, they don't bake gay wedding cakes for anyone, straight or gay!
This post was edited on 2/28/14 at 6:20 am
Posted on 2/28/14 at 5:23 pm to Revelator
quote:
Well how were the Colorado bakers discriminating? Even by the state laws against discriminating for sexual orientation I don't see how this case usurps that law? The gay couple wasn't denied service, only a certain type of service. And if you use the argument ," well they bake wedding cakes for the public so they have to bake a cake for the gay couple" while this is true for regular wedding cakes, they don't bake gay wedding cakes for anyone, straight or gay!
I don't think there is any discrimination here in a legal sense...at least not when it happened...that of course could change.
I don't think a business owner should be forced to trade with anyone. If you are in business and trading with the public at large and decide you no longer want to trade with any group for any reason you should have that right. Expecting to use that same groups tax dollars for any reason seems dishonest to me...if you don't want their business you shouldn't want them assisting you in any way. Again it would be impossible to quantify what % of say police protection is bought by the group in question so there is no way that you could limit that type of societal benefit. On the other hand limiting access to our courts is something that could more than compensate society for the groups help in managing your affairs.
Lets say you have a bad check from one of your customer. Why would you accept the sheriff's office assistance in collecting that debt and and recovering your stolen property when the group you choose not to trade with help pay for that service from the Sheriff? It seems like you would be wanting your cake and to eat it also....
Page 36 of 36
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News