Galt's Gulch

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 10 years, 10 months ago
    I live in Arizona. I see these protesters - its entirely PC generated BS. It my understanding that the word homosexual is not even in the bill. A business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone on whatever grounds he or she sees fit. If the owner is discriminatory or a jerk people stop giving him money and he/she goes out of business. There is no need for a law but there is also a false protest afoot that makes those who really don't care begin to loath the homosexual agenda.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ Maphesdus 10 years, 10 months ago
      I've seen reports about business owners who engage in discrimination before, and it doesn't ever cause them to go out of business, since the only people who ever seem to give a crap are the ones who happen to be members of the group that's being discrimated against. No one else ever cares. And since it's usually only minorities that ever really face genuine discrimination (at least in the U.S. - South Africa is a different story), they typically don't constitute a large enough percentage of the business owner's revenue to have any significant impact on him financially. The argument that discrimination automatically leads to bankruptcy is an unfounded claim with no evidence to support it, and a lot to refute it. So of course those who are victims of discrimination are going to try and combat it using other methods, as boycotts alone have been proven to be ineffective.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 10 months ago
        My wife and I recently went over our books together. I cannot imagine saying, "we're going to stop working with [insert minority here]." If we have too many clients, we either hire people or raise prices. It makes no sense to turn away paying customers.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago
          Would that include, say, illegal aliens? Mafia?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 10 months ago
            "Would that include, say, illegal aliens? Mafia?"
            We can't help people do something illegal, but we're not legally required to police for illegal activites. The state bar has strict standards about this. It's come up a few times. We did not turn anyone away, but we made it clear we couldn't help with any illegal activities.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago
        Sounds to me an opportunity for someone to open a competing business that *wouldn't* discriminate against whatever minority seems to be under-served.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by rlewellen 10 years, 10 months ago
        Lawsuits can be expensive. There are false charges of discrimination too. I am not always walking around thinking about the color of people's skin or is that a gay person, when I am forming sentences because I am not in those categories which brings up a different issue. There is a hypersensitivity but not in the case of the florist.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by $ stargeezer 10 years, 10 months ago
    Odd how this has been twisted from a bill that protects a businessman into a bill that will be used to decide who his customers are. Were a bill be passed that requires all LBGT business owners to sell to straight customers, would it get as much play from PMSNBC?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ Maphesdus 10 years, 10 months ago
      Bills are generally passed in response to problems that actually arise in the course of human interaction in society. As far as I'm aware, there has never been an issue of an LGBT business owner denying service to straight people, which wouldn't make sense to do anyway, since a majority of people are straight, and anyone who refused to let a majority of the general public purchase his products would be unlikely to remain profitable, and thus probably wouldn't stay in business very long.

      But regardless, the laws always use neutral language that applies to everyone, anyway. That is, a law which forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation would apply equally to both straight and gay individuals.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by $ stargeezer 10 years, 10 months ago
        Since they involve interaction between same sex (as in one) the laws that be apply. You won't like that and that's ok with me since I believe there are two sexes and several decisions about how to mix them up. I've yet to hear about a chromosome that renders as anything except X or Y.

        And please, before you bombard the thread with questionable quotes from questionable sources as you have done in the past, know that I won't follow anymore of your leads - save it for someone who cares.

        I should have known better than to follow this after I saw that title and that it was from you. Another ginned up title that has very little to do with the subject. Very troll like.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ Maphesdus 10 years, 10 months ago
          I'm not sure what you're saying exactly. Your statement seems rather vague. You say the laws that be apply, but we're not discussing any of "the laws that be" here. This topic is about a law which has yet to be, and in fact may very well not be, if Governor Jan Brewer makes the right decision.

          You mention something about X and Y chromosomes, which I assume means you're talking about the genetics of sex determination for some reason (though I should point out that sex is actually determined by the SRY gene specifically, and not necessarily by the Y chromosome), but frankly I don't understand why you even brought this up. How does biology has anything to do with this particular subject?

          As for the title of the topic, I just used the exact same title that MSNBC used. Are you saying that MSNBC is troll like?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by $ stargeezer 10 years, 10 months ago
            Apart from it took two - and they were not the same - to give you life, biology has nothing to do with it.

            .but I could be wrong about you.
            .
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by $ Maphesdus 10 years, 10 months ago
              I'm aware of the fact that procreation is only possible between members of the opposite sex (though they need not necessarily have opposite chromosomes), but I don't see how that has anything to do with this particular law.

              What exactly are you trying to say?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by rlewellen 10 years, 10 months ago
    That was politics not religion. I had to take on a few people about that very report. Shame on them, for trying to pass such a law, then they threw property rights at me. I had to remind them of the people that were refused service at cafe's in the 50's. If you sell lollipops you sell them to everyone at the same price when there is no added cost.. If you are a private organization like a club you get to choose your members but, you have to put your rules out there and outsiders can't dictate those rules. If you sell your property you can't choose based on race etc. If any person prevents you from conducting your business, you can have them removed or ask them to leave. If you are forced to purchase an item and that action goes against your religious beliefs there should be separate riders to that product that allows all of your employees to purchase any rider they choose.You would have to have an option to give all your employees money in their checks to let them choose the rider they want to purchase. It didn't need to be that complicated, They claim they were trying to prevent people from suing a business for religious objection.I don't appreciate it one bit. Tell the government to get out of the way they had no business there in the first place.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by iroseland 10 years, 10 months ago
    So, I have a few thoughts on this. First we expect business owners to act in their own rational self interest. As such, if the money is good ill bake the cake. At the same time, if someone chooses for fill in the blank reasons that they do not want to serve a group of people. Fine, I only go places I am wanted. If I am not wanted I go where I am. Since these cases seem to be coming up involving creative businesses it would seem for instance that you would want your wedding cake made by someone who will be just as invested in making a great cake as you are in having a great wedding. Using force to get a business to make you a cake might get the cake made but you cannot expect it to be their best work. Also this kind of thinking has consequences. There was a gun shop in Milwaukee that made the news as the place to straw buy. I was a pretty regular customer there. When they were put into a position where they were worried about a straw purchase the "customer" would bust out the race card and talk about getting a lawyer. Since the local police didn't really care you can guess how things went.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by $ rockymountainpirate 10 years, 10 months ago
    In the 1970's in Norfolk, VA there were signs in store windows that read "No Dogs or Sailors Allowed." That was the business owners choice. While dogs rarely spend much money, sailors have been known to alot. Again, a business decision by the business owner about his business and property rights.

    No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago
      He probably figured the harm done or discouragement done to other patrons was greater than the financial opportunity they represented.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 10 years, 10 months ago
    I heard this on local radio and thought it could be of interest to this discussion topic. One of the 3 members of the Arizona senate spoke on another way that this bill could be used, She said, "This bill can be used to protect the right of a gay print shop owner who is approached by a Baptist church to make sermon bulletins which condemn homosexuality as a sin."

    I believe this statement really shows the intent oft he bill and really highlight the PC hype and fear mongering by certain groups seeking to exert their will over the individual.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
    Of course it is prejudice. What's wrong with that? We apply prejudice all the time. Which apple to pick from the pile at the grocery store. Which person to ask on a date. Which hotel to stay at.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by preimert1 10 years, 10 months ago
      Correction, Robbie. We apply judgement all the time--not the same as prejudice. Judgement is to Objectivism as prejudice is to Subjectivism.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
        Please review the definitions for prejudice and bigotry.

        Judgment merely identifies choice. I am identifying more than choice, but actual discrimination. And saying that there is nothing wrong in so doing. You seem to want to shrink from the terms. I see no problem with them.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by preimert1 10 years, 10 months ago
          OK, Robbie, after rechecking the definition of prejudice in Webster's, it appears to be nuanced towards the negative. But I can see that after numerous encounters with fruit, one could form a prejudice (an expected value) for or against which one to pick based on past successes or failures.

          But what's bigotry got to do with it? How did that word creep in to this thread? Not from me.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
            I don't know, and there are too many postings to go through and find it. Heck, it might have merely been me that said to look up the definitions for prejudice, which includes bigotry.
            These terms have been loaded with unnecessary connotations of evil. While they are most often used in connection to people, that is not their only usage. Just saying that discrimination, per se, is not a problem.
            And in particular, people discriminate all the time. While some might call it choice, it is choice based on some criteria - either acknowledged or not.
            We are on a slippery slope that is removing our ability to make those choices - to eliminate discrimination. Choice is fundamental to liberty and freedom, restricting that or eliminating it altogether eliminates our freedom. I resist that at every opportunity.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 10 months ago
        Nonsense. prejudice = judging before experiencing. Until you bite into an apple, you haven't tested whether it's worth buying or not.
        You have to judge by its appearance, and if present, its sell-by date. That's pre-judging.

        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • -2
      Posted by $ Maphesdus 10 years, 10 months ago
      That's not the same thing. That's simply making a selection. Prejudice in this sense refers to bigotry.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago
        maph-one business owner's decision that is illogical, is another business person's OPPORTUNITY. seize the fabulous opportunities from dumbshits
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • -1
          Posted by $ Maphesdus 10 years, 10 months ago
          So individuals should have no recourse to protect themselves when a business owner decides to harm them in some way?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 10 years, 10 months ago
            this is a seriously flawed string of statements. Protect themselves from what exactly? Hurt feelings? What about the owner having to swallow his faith and being made to condone something he cannot support according to his beliefs? Reasonable people would say "You don't want my money? Screw you." They would tell all of their friends and the company would lose more money than just that person. People with an agenda, which is exactly what this is, seek to take control from the OWNER and force their will on his sovereign right to dictate the course of his investment. Whether the business owners decision is logical or pleasing to anyone else is irrelevant BECAUSE it is HIS business, HIS investment, and HIS livelihood that is at stake. This "issue" isn't about religion its about the individuals authority to dictate something he created and operates.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
              Precisely! As a consumer you do not have the right to insist that every provider accommodate you. Would it have been better if the wedding cake provider had simply quoted a price that was outrageously high? I guess that could have been a different way to address the situation, but in a way that would have compromised the owners integrity. They chose not to support the morality of the potential client, that should be their right as private business owners.

              Just, likewise, do potential viewers of the AS series of movies. They do not have the right to insist that this or that be included in the movie. They only have the right to purchase or not to purchase, and to make their opinion known to others.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                -
              • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 10 years, 10 months ago
                Why should the business owner have to lie? The law is unnecessary since the owners authority over his business is already a fundamental law of private ownership and the free market.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  -
                • Posted by $ stargeezer 10 years, 10 months ago
                  except according to some, a business owner MUST be compelled to sell his goods to anybody, including to those who he has a religious difference with. The businessmans moral rights are trumped by a potential clients lifestyle.

                  I agree it's wrong, it flys in the face of every tenant of objectivism, it places their need above the businessmans desire to sell his products to the clients of his choice.

                  The difference? It's about embracing political correctness for need over business, or over the owners strongly held religious beliefs.

                  What would Hank Reardon do.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
                    I say that a business owner has the right to refuse the business of anyone - for any reason that they choose. Not merely on religious grounds.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 10 years, 10 months ago
            harm needs to be force. This can include slander, fraud, etc. force is comprehensive. heck-I'm almost ready to go into the wedding cake business...
            point is there are plenty of options out there....big snit over forcing people to agree with you (rhetorical you).
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
        I'm prejudiced against rotten fruit, ugly people, and seedy hotels. Yes, I agree that I'm bigoted against those things.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ Maphesdus 10 years, 10 months ago
          That's not how the word "bigotry" is used. You're twisting the language.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 10 months ago
            Bigot: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

            I have a strong and "unfair" dislike of rotten fruit, ugly people, and seedy hotels (unfair from the perspective of the grocer, other person, and seedy hotel owner).
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by $ Maphesdus 10 years, 10 months ago
              The term "bigotry" only applies to a dislike of certain groups of people. It does not apply to a dislike of anything else, especially not to inanimate objects like rotten fruit or dirty hotel buildings.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo