Do we have a right to not be discriminated against

[lake avenue]

So if they sell wedding cakes that don't have two men or two women then they don't sell it, it's all okay?

Why wouldn't it be?

I could see a potential lawsuit by a gay couple. They would want a top with two men or women for the top and if the cake maker has none, could they not sue?

You can always sue but it wouldn't go anywhere. You could sue them for not selling socks and underwear and that would have the same chances of winning. Cake toppers you can get from Amazon. If they don't stock them then they lose out on the sale. That's it.

The only way they'd be in trouble is if they wouldn't sell what they have because those guys were fags.

Fair enough but how do you prove it? That is why all these laws are comical. When hiring you can choose or not choose to hire because of age, sex, religion. To say otherwise is a lie.

yeah but you can just be taken to court for it so it's not a smart thing to do.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

He'll scream bloody murder that's fiction, that's fiction, ignoring the reality that it was based on.

"The jungle" is a work of fiction. It proves exactly nothing. Government legislation also proves nothing. Most government legislation is promoted by scams and lies. Take the ACA, for instance. Nothing said to justify this monstrosity was true.

Heh. You were right.

PMH is used to being wrong.

No, you just think that I am, because you're a fucking moron.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Bripat does not live in the real world. He fails to understand that no country in the world has unregulated capitalism, for good reason, just like he fails to understand why Adam Smith wanted corporations banned and didn't like inheritance.

Why did Adam Smith want corporations banned? Seems like they generate jobs.

People are not responsible with other people's money. He was a moralist and knew how corporations, joint stock ventures, fucked over people.

'People are not responsible with other peoples money' is the reason?

He must have deplored government.

.

He wasn't a huge fan or enemy. Concentrated power and wealth both made him jumpy, since they are easily abused.

So he did deplore government. I kind of figured.

.

No, he didn't, but he didn't trust them not manipulate the markets and therefore throw them out of balance affecting their natural efficiency. He didn't want anybody, including the wealthy and corporations as well as governments, throwing their weight around for their own benefit. That broke the rules of the game and then the game didn't work correctly.

 

[bripat9643]

Tbh there has to be some level of regulation just to keep companies from filling out meat with sawdust and firing their employees on their sixth birthday like in the old days. The problem is finding the minimum level of regulation necessary to prevent abuse.

I suppose you have evidence that any company filled meat with sawdust?

How would someone only six years old be working?

The Jungle - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
You might want to look into why the FDA was created and why we had to pass child labor laws.

He'll scream bloody murder that's fiction, that's fiction, ignoring the reality that it was based on.

"The Jungle" is a work of fiction written by a socialist. Of course, that's the ony "proof" that your kind needs.

Come on. It was in important expose on really unsanitary food production. Believe it or not, you can be consistent to your principles without putting blinders on and ignoring reality.

It's a work of fiction by a committed socialist. In other words, it's propaganda. Anyone who thinks that is credible is a sucker.

 

[bripat9643]

He'll scream bloody murder that's fiction, that's fiction, ignoring the reality that it was based on.

"The jungle" is a work of fiction. It proves exactly nothing. Government legislation also proves nothing. Most government legislation is promoted by scams and lies. Take the ACA, for instance. Nothing said to justify this monstrosity was true.

Heh. You were right.

PMH is used to being wrong.

No, you just think that I am, because you're a fucking moron.

Hmmm, no, it's because you're a Nazi asshole scumbag who's always wrong.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I suppose you have evidence that any company filled meat with sawdust?

How would someone only six years old be working?

The Jungle - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
You might want to look into why the FDA was created and why we had to pass child labor laws.

He'll scream bloody murder that's fiction, that's fiction, ignoring the reality that it was based on.

"The Jungle" is a work of fiction written by a socialist. Of course, that's the ony "proof" that your kind needs.

Come on. It was in important expose on really unsanitary food production. Believe it or not, you can be consistent to your principles without putting blinders on and ignoring reality.

It's a work of fiction by a committed socialist. In other words, it's propaganda. Anyone who thinks that is credible is a sucker.

As I said, not that one, not a chance in hell.

 

[percysunshine]

So if they sell wedding cakes that don't have two men or two women then they don't sell it, it's all okay?

Why wouldn't it be?

I could see a potential lawsuit by a gay couple. They would want a top with two men or women for the top and if the cake maker has none, could they not sue?

You can always sue but it wouldn't go anywhere. You could sue them for not selling socks and underwear and that would have the same chances of winning. Cake toppers you can get from Amazon. If they don't stock them then they lose out on the sale. That's it.

The only way they'd be in trouble is if they wouldn't sell what they have because those guys were fags.

Fair enough but how do you prove it? That is why all these laws are comical. When hiring you can choose or not choose to hire because of age, sex, religion. To say otherwise is a lie.

yeah but you can just be taken to court for it so it's not a smart thing to do.

.
That sounds like a traffic ticket.

.

 

[Papageorgio]

So if they sell wedding cakes that don't have two men or two women then they don't sell it, it's all okay?

Why wouldn't it be?

I could see a potential lawsuit by a gay couple. They would want a top with two men or women for the top and if the cake maker has none, could they not sue?

You can always sue but it wouldn't go anywhere. You could sue them for not selling socks and underwear and that would have the same chances of winning. Cake toppers you can get from Amazon. If they don't stock them then they lose out on the sale. That's it.

The only way they'd be in trouble is if they wouldn't sell what they have because those guys were fags.

Fair enough but how do you prove it? That is why all these laws are comical. When hiring you can choose or not choose to hire because of age, sex, religion. To say otherwise is a lie.

yeah but you can just be taken to court for it so it's not a smart thing to do.

It is done all the time. It's a judgement call and to prove that would be very tough.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

It's a work of fiction by a committed socialist. In other words, it's propaganda. Anyone who thinks that is credible is a sucker.

It was a work of fiction describing real conditions. Uncle Tom's Cabin is similar. It's a fictional book, but the story isn't the point. The setting is. Unless you're going to tell me that slavery didn't happen and it was all anti-Southern propaganda? Here's some pictures from the era. How old do those coal miners and textile mill workers look to you?

 

[percysunshine]

Why did Adam Smith want corporations banned? Seems like they generate jobs.

People are not responsible with other people's money. He was a moralist and knew how corporations, joint stock ventures, fucked over people.

'People are not responsible with other peoples money' is the reason?

He must have deplored government.

.

He wasn't a huge fan or enemy. Concentrated power and wealth both made him jumpy, since they are easily abused.

So he did deplore government. I kind of figured.

.

No, he didn't, but he didn't trust them not manipulate the markets and therefore throw them out of balance affecting their natural efficiency. He didn't want anybody, including the wealthy and corporations as well as governments, throwing their weight around for their own benefit. That broke the rules of the game and then the game didn't work correctly.

.
Which sort of begs the question...what is the game?

.

 

[dblack]

How would you characterize when it is, and when it's not?

Well, denying someone service based on their creed/race/sexuality could potentially hurt someone (a majority would feel discriminated against, it's pointless to have someone drive to a place just to be denied service, etc).

So, would it be correct to surmise that, in your view, if they didn't know they were being discriminated against because of their race, no harm would be done?

No, it's still discrimination regardless of if the recipient knows it or not.

So, it's the denial of service that does the harm, not the reasoning behind it?

kinda, another situation like this would be if someone was purposely being rude to someone who's mentally disabled. they might not know someone is being mean to them, doesn't mean it's okay to do it.

I'm looking for something that ties discrimination laws to individual rights, and it doesn't add up for me. I don't see how refusing to serve someone can be construed as harming them. Unless you've made some prior commit to provide them with a service, not serving them on demand simply leaves them no worse off than if you weren't there in the first place. I don't see how it harms them. If we are to consider it harmful, and we're claiming that equal treatment by a business is a right just like equal treatment under the law, then I don't see why some people are awarded these rights and some are not.

To be honest, it all sounds like a bunch of sophistry and excuse making. It seems clear that, regardless of the nominal justifications, the government (or society, or "we the people", etc....) has designated certain prejudices as unhealthy for society and is seeking to suppress them. And we're simply using the commerce clause as a wedge to achieve that goal. If there were similar clauses empowering government to regulate religion or speech, we'd see similar efforts to pursue the agenda there. It has nothing to with trade regulation, it's social engineering.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It's a work of fiction by a committed socialist. In other words, it's propaganda. Anyone who thinks that is credible is a sucker.

It was a work of fiction describing real conditions. Uncle Tom's Cabin is similar. It's a fictional book, but the story isn't the point. The setting is. Unless you're going to tell me that slavery didn't happen and it was all anti-Southern propaganda? Here's some pictures from the era. How old do those coal miners and textile mill workers look to you?

Next up, Bripat doesn't approve of child labor laws.

 

[bripat9643]

"Free market" means free of government interference. You believe it means a market with government interference. The term "government regulated free market" is an oxymoron.

Tbh there has to be some level of regulation just to keep companies from filling out meat with sawdust and firing their employees on their sixth birthday like in the old days. The problem is finding the minimum level of regulation necessary to prevent abuse.

I suppose you have evidence that any company filled meat with sawdust?

How would someone only six years old be working?

You might want to look into why the FDA was created and why we had to pass child labor laws:
The Jungle - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Pure Food and Drug Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Federal Meat Inspection Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Keating Owen Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
The History Place - Child Labor in America Investigative Photos of Lewis Hine
MUCKRAKERS

Your last article quotes the jungle, so nothing new there. Chile labor was necessary before capitalism increased the productivity of labor to the point where children didn't have to work. Remember, parents put their children to work in these jobs. The work was mostly dull and repetitive, It was easy for a child to do. The alternative was starvation.

Child labor is mostly a separate issue then regulation of business. Otherwise, you got nothing.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

People are not responsible with other people's money. He was a moralist and knew how corporations, joint stock ventures, fucked over people.

'People are not responsible with other peoples money' is the reason?

He must have deplored government.

.

He wasn't a huge fan or enemy. Concentrated power and wealth both made him jumpy, since they are easily abused.

So he did deplore government. I kind of figured.

.

No, he didn't, but he didn't trust them not manipulate the markets and therefore throw them out of balance affecting their natural efficiency. He didn't want anybody, including the wealthy and corporations as well as governments, throwing their weight around for their own benefit. That broke the rules of the game and then the game didn't work correctly.

.
Which sort of begs the question...what is the game?

.

The only game in town here, capitalism. The true religion of America, praying to the Almighty Dollar.

 

[bripat9643]

I suppose you have evidence that any company filled meat with sawdust?

How would someone only six years old be working?

The Jungle - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Pure Food and Drug Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Federal Meat Inspection Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"The jungle" is a work of fiction. It proves exactly nothing. Government legislation also proves nothing. Most government legislation is promoted by scams and lies. Take the ACA, for instance. Nothing said to justify this monstrosity was true.

Told ya...

So where is the evidence for the "reality?"

In American History, dummy. Do you think we invented this shit just for the hell of it? It was to solve a problem, a big one usually.

Then you should have no trouble citing actual evidence rather than a work of fiction.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Child labor is mostly a separate issue then regulation of business. Otherwise, you got nothing.

I was proving to you that child labor was a thing until laws were written specifically to strike it down. The horrific conditions of the slaughter houses and packing plants had to be fought with the same kind of legislation, which went hand in hand with the banning of child labor and the worker's rights movement. That's the kind of shit a total lack of regulation allowed. That's what it will allow again if given the chance. We need basic standards and regulations. The only valid question is how much.

 

[bripat9643]

It's a work of fiction by a committed socialist. In other words, it's propaganda. Anyone who thinks that is credible is a sucker.

It was a work of fiction describing real conditions. Uncle Tom's Cabin is similar. It's a fictional book, but the story isn't the point. The setting is. Unless you're going to tell me that slavery didn't happen and it was all anti-Southern propaganda? Here's some pictures from the era. How old do those coal miners and textile mill workers look to you?

Children did easy harmless jobs in textile mills, like retying a thread after it breaks. There were some mining jobs where children did some jobs that were dangerous, but dangerous jobs were as common as dirt in those days.

Furthermore, we're talking about regulating business, not parents who put their children to work.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Then you should have no trouble citing actual evidence rather than a work of fiction.

I showed you pictures of the children working in fucking coal mines. I showed you the laws written against the abuses you don't believe ever existed. That's not evidence? -.-

 

[percysunshine]

'People are not responsible with other peoples money' is the reason?

He must have deplored government.

.

He wasn't a huge fan or enemy. Concentrated power and wealth both made him jumpy, since they are easily abused.

So he did deplore government. I kind of figured.

.

No, he didn't, but he didn't trust them not manipulate the markets and therefore throw them out of balance affecting their natural efficiency. He didn't want anybody, including the wealthy and corporations as well as governments, throwing their weight around for their own benefit. That broke the rules of the game and then the game didn't work correctly.

.
Which sort of begs the question...what is the game?

.

The only game in town here, capitalism. The true religion of America, praying to the Almighty Dollar.

Soo ... Adam Smith wanted the game of capitalism to work. He liked capitalism.

That seems a bit weird.

(note to Paint: When you paint yourself into a corner, always have an escape hatch)

.

 

[bripat9643]

Child labor is mostly a separate issue then regulation of business. Otherwise, you got nothing.

I was proving to you that child labor was a thing until laws were written specifically to strike it down. The horrific conditions of the slaughter houses and packing plants had to be fought with the same kind of legislation, which went hand in hand with the banning of child labor and the worker's rights movement. That's the kind of shit a total lack of regulation allowed. That's what it will allow again if given the chance. We need basic standards and regulations. The only valid question is how much.

Child labor ended when it became economically feasible to allow children not to work. Prior to that not working meant starvation. The law only came into place after the economic conditions changed.

What "horrific conditions of the slaughter houses and packing plants?" All you've got on that is a piece of propaganda by a committed socialist. Perhaps you could produce some actual evidence sometime.