View Single Post
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 02-13-2018, 11:19 AM
foundit66's Avatar
foundit66 foundit66 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,484
Thanks: 10,065
Thanked 15,212 Times in 9,220 Posts
Post Re: A win for free conscience and expresion

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder View Post
Seems you miss the point, the refusals are all based on the intended use.
This is a right as well.
No. I didn't miss your point.
But you sure as heck have (once again because I know I've pointed this out to you in the past) ignored mine.

The problem with your diatribe is you don't recognize that it is our society which votes these individual and specific groups into being included in the law.
They don't pick each and every motivation.
In fact, the vast majority of motivations are not picked.
Thus it's ultimately pointless to just start making up new motivations as strawman arguments.

It would be like me trying to compare rituals of religion and pretending that cannibalism is going to be their next ritual. It's not a real argument.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder View Post
It's not because they were Asians but the known use... and as i said it should NOT be illegal to refuse the sale. and I think PETA and other animal rights groups would agree.
And what you ignore is that in the vast majority of situations IT IS NOT ILLEGAL to refuse sale.
And nobody is arguing that all such situations should be made illegal.
This very mechanism of stating public businesses cannot discriminate based on characteristic_X started over half a century ago.
And in that time we have actually not added that many items to the list. So don't pretend this is all just a domino effect either because it really isn't.

We both acknowledge "it's not because they were Asian", SO THEREFORE IT SHOULD BE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT OUR SOCIETY AND THE LAW ACKNOWLEDGES THIS IS NOT ILLEGAL to refuse that specific sale.



Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder View Post
And in my view you can refuse a legal items to minors IF you have a good "principled" reason. THIS has been upheld in court on occasion as well. NOT just because they are minors though.
And there is no law changing this situation
You're trying to argue against a law by complaining about what it actually does not do.



Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder View Post
and if it's legal ... in your view... to discriminate on to the Rope Sale based on intent then it should be for others as well.
No.
This logic is like saying "If you think it's legal to go 65 MPH on the highway then you should allow people to drive 65 MPH next to the school zone too"



Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder View Post
REPEATEDLY it's be shown that the bakers and florist DO , in act, serve homosexuals with ALL other request. Birthdays, etc.. But this ONE activity/event is refused. So it's NOT "ALL Asians" or "ASSUMED eating" but KNOWN activity that violates their beliefs.
This has already been explained numerous times.
Just because other forms of business service are allowed does not mitigate that an illegal act was performed in a specific situation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder View Post
Bakers have refused to make Cakes with religious verses and cakes that celebrate Trump because personal beliefs are violated… WITHOUT LAW SUIT, why? Because of a CLEAR right of refusal to do so on the grounds STRONG personal convictions.
mr wonder
You are getting into a zone where you refuse to listen.
You make up your own explanation and refuse to listen when others explain the reality.
It's damn annoying and shows when you aren't serious as to understanding the situation...

The list of characteristics by which a person cannot discriminate in business is actually small and very much finite.
The vast majority of motivation reasons ARE NOT COVERED.
At the federal level and in most locations, political orientation is not covered.

Thus if somebody wants to refuse to serve somebody because they are a Democrat / Liberal or Republican / Conservative, that is legal.
Your analogy is like pointing to a 65 MPH zone and trying to declare that the school zone speed limit is somehow invalidated.
Our society has voted on which characteristics they want protected.
And if a majority voted in "political orientation" tomorrow, then a new set of standards would be implemented.

Until then, acknowledge what's really going on here...


Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder View Post
3 things the homosexual lobby do wrong here.
This is one of the areas where you and others on the same page refuse to acknowledge reality.
First, A MAJORITY IN OUR SOCIETY VOTED THESE LAWS INTO BEING.
It's not just "homosexual lobby", but a majority of citizens who wanted and implemented these laws.

Second, IT'S NOT JUST GAYS THAT ARE COVERED.
Laws have existed on the books for over half a century which provide the exact same protection for blacks, women, Christians, Jews, whites, etc.
But you fixate on the one group you don't want included, as you ignore the fact that Christians are already covered.


Such hypocrisy is palpable.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder View Post
1. they want to assume the motives of Bakers, florist etc. are simply universal discrimination against a class, when demonstrably it's NOT the case.
This is just a b.s. comment and if you have a specific case you want to argue on this then point it out specifically.

The truth is that in the vast majority of these cases, THE BAKERS ADMITTED their illegal motives.
There is no need to "assume" they broke the law.
The argument has revolved around justifying them breaking the law and claiming it should be a protected violation


Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder View Post
2. they want to deny the civil rights of another protected class to practice their faith and OPT OUT of participation in activities on the job that violate their faith/beliefs.
I've explained this to you numerous times.
The vast majority of classes are not protected.
People who want to eat dogs are not protected.
Age is typically not protected. (And often the courts upheld justification in laws that govern age discrimination based on intoxication situations)

And, as I have pointed out, Christians are also protected but you say not one peep about them.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

Last edited by foundit66; 02-15-2018 at 05:25 PM..
Reply With Quote