Rules For Traditionals: How People In Wedding Trades Can Defend Themselves

[Seawytch]

Yeah, a business should have to do that if you get rid of PA laws....

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

If you abolish PA laws, a business should have to list who they won't serve right on their front fucking door.

 

[Dragonlady]

If you were a baker employed by a bakery and you refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, your boss would fire you and hire a baker who would do what he or she is hired to do.

There is no difference here.

 

[dblack]

Yeah, a business should have to do that if you get rid of PA laws....

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

If you abolish PA laws, a business should have to list who they won't serve right on their front fucking door.

Ok. Why is that a problem? What I was asking is if that was a valid way to avoid PA laws, in response to Joe's claim that PA laws are merely requiring businesses to do what they promised. It's clearly not allowed, which means it isn't as simple as that. PA laws are an attempt to force them into such a "promise" whether they want to or not - or rather, simply for the "privilege" of being allowed to conduct business.

 

[dblack]

You really want to claim there's no potential for harm?

Of course not. But there's potential for harm in nearly everything we do. Should everything be illegal? And more to the point, should humiliation be illegal?

 

[dblack]

If you were a baker employed by a bakery and you refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, your boss would fire you and hire a baker who would do what he or she is hired to do.

There is no difference here.

The difference is that the boss can't also fine you or throw you in jail.

 

[danielpalos]

Just because you "feel" that Gays are somehow unworthy of your best effort simply because they are Gay, that "feeling" could be extended to every other group of American citizens.

When are you going to get it through your head that you can't force someone's "best effort" out of them. It's impossible. If you don't like the service and/or quality of products you're getting, take your business somewhere else. You liberals are absolutely fucking ridiculous with your entitlement bullshit.

Is it to much to ask of the right to favor doing what they are paid to do over that which they are not paid to do in public venues.

 

[SwimExpert]

Is it to much to ask of the right to favor doing what they are paid to do over that which they are not paid to do in public venues.

Yet again: You cannot force anyone. Either they are willing to do the job you want, or they are not. If they are not, you go find someone else. Simple as that. It's no different than when you go to work. If you aren't willing to do the job you were hired to do at a satisfactory level, you are dismissed and the company finds someone else. They don't drag you into court and cry crocodile tears that they deserve hundreds of thousands of dollars from you because you were lazy.

 

[bodecea]

Yeah, a business should have to do that if you get rid of PA laws....

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

If you abolish PA laws, a business should have to list who they won't serve right on their front fucking door.

I see no problem with that...right with the "No shoes, No shirt, No service" sign.

 

[danielpalos]

Is it to much to ask of the right to favor doing what they are paid to do over that which they are not paid to do in public venues.

Yet again: You cannot force anyone. Either they are willing to do the job you want, or they are not. If they are not, you go find someone else. Simple as that. It's no different than when you go to work. If you aren't willing to do the job you were hired to do at a satisfactory level, you are dismissed and the company finds someone else. They don't drag you into court and cry crocodile tears that they deserve hundreds of thousands of dollars from you because you were lazy.

They are in business to provide a service on a for-profit basis to clients. There is no preference for ideology on a for-the-profit-of-lucre basis in Commerce.

 

[martybegan]

If you were a baker employed by a bakery and you refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, your boss would fire you and hire a baker who would do what he or she is hired to do.

There is no difference here.

The difference is that the boss can't also fine you or throw you in jail.

Bingo.

 

[danielpalos]

Should we ask religious authorities for religious justice on Persons practicing religion with some alleged authority?

 

[dblack]

Daniel. Wake and bake?? Take it easy, man.

 

[bripat9643]

No one's pointing any guns at the gays. However, Christians who decline to do business with them have guns pointed at them to strip them of their businesses and their life savings, so your claim that Christians are not being oppressed is obvious horseshit. Declining to bake you a cake is not oppression.

I'm sorry, when has anyone "pointed a gun" at anyone here?

yes, businesses who don't follow the law WILL be penalized. Just like businesses that don't provide safe workplaces, sell unsanitary food, or discriminate on other factors like race or religion. Businesses aren't people. Businesses don't have religions.

The government pointed guns at the owners of the bakeshop who declined to bake a cake for two queers.

Do you actually understand how laws are enforced? "Penalties" are enforced with guns. If they weren't, no one would pay them. Business owners do have religions. The owners are the ones paying the fines.

You don't want to do business with gays, don't open businesses gays might patronize. It's kind of that simple.

In other words, queers are using the law to oppress business owners. It doesn't matter how much you dance around the facts. That's the bottom line.

 

[SwimExpert]

Public accommodations laws are necessary

No they aren't.

proper

Not really, at least not most of the time.

and Constitutional regulatory measures as authorized by the Commerce Clause

Cool story bro.

regulatory policy whose sole intent is to safeguard the integrity of the local market and all other interrelated markets.

If that's what you believe, then you need to grow up. The intent of most public accommodation laws is to stamp out discrimination. Period.

It is perfectly appropriate for states and local jurisdictions to require business open to the general public to accommodate all members of the community, thus facilitating commerce beneficial to the community as a whole.

Wrong. That you are a sniveling lifelong fry maker is what makes you incapable of even comprehending how wrong you are.

There is no law anywhere that requires all people to accommodate everybody. Not accommodating people is a standard part of every business. I don't accommodate people who can't or don't want to pay the price I am asking them to pay. I don't accommodate people when we don't have the capacity to add yet another person on a busy day. I don't accommodate people who are asking for what I feel are unreasonable requests, or requests that I simply don't feel like accommodating. I also refuse to accommodate people who behave poorly, who create a scene, who are hostile and abusive to my staff, who threaten to sue the business or who attempt to use threats of online reviews to get what they want. Just to name a few standard reasons I don't accommodate people.

Public accommodation laws do not require a business to accommodate everyone. They merely create special classifications that prohibit non-accommodation due to special reasons. That being said, they are largely failures. Discrimination still occurs every single day, it's merely dressed up in other forms of pretext.

Now, the most important thing to say in response is this, so pay attention:

Nothing you said has any relevance, nothing you said actually addresses the subject. Your entire post is a fallacy of irrelevance because all you have done is launch off on a tangent while ignoring the question of whether it is good public policy to create new laws that give special protections to gay people, forcing other people to do business in a way they may not want to do or which may object with their personal beliefs. Nowhere do you address the actual issue of the thread. Your entire post is a tap dancing around the entire subject by waxing poetic about public accommodation laws, generally, in hopes that it will slide down a slippery slope and stick. As such, I will not further debate the merits or lack thereof of public accommodation laws generally.

 

[danielpalos]

Daniel. Wake and bake?? Take it easy, man.

oh, sure; now that i want to ask some religious authorities.

 

[bripat9643]

Of course they do, you fucking moron. What do you call a $135,000 fine, if it's not force? The problem with arguing with liberal morons is they simply ignore the accepted definition of words.

I call it, "proper use of governmental authority".

Yeah, that's what the Nazis called it as well.

This business could have settled this for a lot less simply by apologizing for the behavior and promising not to do it again. Of course, they were already run out of business because the COMMUNITY was so outraged by their actions that no one patronized them anymore.

That's totally irrelevant.

They are neither necessary nor proper nor authorized by the commerce clause. The "integrity of the local" market is just a meaningless bullshit abradacabra liberal justification for violating the rights of property owners. Business owners should be free to associate with whomever the wish to associate with, which means the should be free to decline any customers they don't want to serve. Infringing on property rights is beneficial to no one other than the thugs who run this fascist police state we all suffer under.

Quite the contrary. We as the public are ALREADY subsidizing businesses. We pay the taxes that pay for police, fire, roads, infrastructure, regulation to make sure that products they buy are safe, courts to make sure their vendors don't cheat them, education so their employees can read simple instructions, and so on. Businesses cannot exist without support from the Public, something you "Libertarians" don't seem to understand. .

Businesses also pay taxes, numskull. Furthermore, they pay the salaries of all the people who have their kids in school. In reality businesses pay for everything because all the money that pays for the items you listed originates in a business. Also, businesses can easily exist without the government providing any of the things you listed. They did it in the past and they can do it in the future if the government quit providing it. The bottom line is that none of that justifies forcing business owners to serve anyone they don't want to serve.

So when the Public comes in and says, "Hey, we'd like to get one of those wedding cakes you advertised as making, and we're queer as a three dollar bill!" they'd better damned well make that cake.

You mean when queers make such demands. The queers can go fuck themselves. They have no right to force any business to serve them.

 

[bripat9643]

When are you going to get it through your head that you can't force someone's "best effort" out of them. It's impossible. If you don't like the service and/or quality of products you're getting, take your business somewhere else. You liberals are absolutely fucking ridiculous with your entitlement bullshit.

Actually, there's a whole line of law that allows you to sue and get damages if you don't get someone's best efforts. It's called "Commerce Law".

No there isn't, dumbass. How are you ever going to prove someone didn't give their best effort in designing a cake?

 

[SwimExpert]

Because public accommodations laws are Constitutional, no one is being denied his freedom nor are any civil rights being violated.

Spoken like a true moron who doesn't have the first conception of law or of freedom.

Just because a law is constitutional does not mean that the law does not infringe upon someone's freedom. Slavery was constitutional, but that was a major infringement on peoples' freedom. Sobriety check-points are constitutional, but they are are an infringement on freedom.

I don't believe you would find a piece of case law anywhere that ever would claim that a challenged law did not infringe upon peoples' freedom. Instead, the courts recognize that laws are inherently an infringement upon freedom, and they seek to weigh the reasonableness of that infringement based on specialized criteria.

 

[SwimExpert]

When are you going to get it through your head that you can't force someone's "best effort" out of them. It's impossible. If you don't like the service and/or quality of products you're getting, take your business somewhere else. You liberals are absolutely fucking ridiculous with your entitlement bullshit.

Actually, there's a whole line of law that allows you to sue and get damages if you don't get someone's best efforts. It's called "Commerce Law".

Epic fail.

 

[danielpalos]

Of course they do, you fucking moron. What do you call a $135,000 fine, if it's not force? The problem with arguing with liberal morons is they simply ignore the accepted definition of words.

I call it, "proper use of governmental authority".

Yeah, that's what the Nazis called it as well.

This business could have settled this for a lot less simply by apologizing for the behavior and promising not to do it again. Of course, they were already run out of business because the COMMUNITY was so outraged by their actions that no one patronized them anymore.

That's totally irrelevant.

They are neither necessary nor proper nor authorized by the commerce clause. The "integrity of the local" market is just a meaningless bullshit abradacabra liberal justification for violating the rights of property owners. Business owners should be free to associate with whomever the wish to associate with, which means the should be free to decline any customers they don't want to serve. Infringing on property rights is beneficial to no one other than the thugs who run this fascist police state we all suffer under.

Quite the contrary. We as the public are ALREADY subsidizing businesses. We pay the taxes that pay for police, fire, roads, infrastructure, regulation to make sure that products they buy are safe, courts to make sure their vendors don't cheat them, education so their employees can read simple instructions, and so on. Businesses cannot exist without support from the Public, something you "Libertarians" don't seem to understand. .

Businesses also pay taxes, numskull. Furthermore, they pay the salaries of all the people who have their kids in school. In reality businesses pay for everything because all the money that pays for the items you listed originates in a business. Also, businesses can easily exist without the government providing any of the things you listed. They did it in the past and they can do it in the future if the government quit providing it. The bottom line is that none of that justifies forcing business owners to serve anyone they don't want to serve.

So when the Public comes in and says, "Hey, we'd like to get one of those wedding cakes you advertised as making, and we're queer as a three dollar bill!" they'd better damned well make that cake.

You mean when queers make such demands. The queers can go fuck themselves. They have no right to force any business to serve them.

dude, the laity is called that for a reason. just ask for some really hot lesbo chics to help out.