- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Rand, Ayn. The Fountainhead (p. 11). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
I think we are going to find out if we have reached the point where there is someone to stop you.
Actually, I don't need to pick on Walmart, but I don't believe Target has a bakery.
I offend regularly by connecting the dots between homosexuals and the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). Every practicing homosexual I've spoken to admits to having been introduced to the lifestyle by an older male, so to me the connection is obvious, even if adult homosexuals aren't attracted to minor males. NAMBLA is an equal opportunity perversion society, also endorsing pedophelia in general. A guy or gal who likes little boys/girls? Welcome aboard.
We still regard polygamy as illegal in the U.S., but we do find some institutions that turn a blind eye to Muslims who practice the multiple wife family. I don't think there's been a case defending the practice on religious grounds since the mainstream Mormons abandoned the system, but I have no doubt progressive judges will tie themselves in knots to rule in favor of a Muslim petitioner. Would this be a case where the offender is the justice system itself?
That "radical Muslim" should more accurately be "fundamentalist Muslim", one who believes and strictly practices Islam.
Seems like a Dr. is offended easily. As C. Hitchens noted, "...religion poisons everything".
I built a lot of custom furniture pieces and many for gay couples with not a single issue. However, if a gay couple had requested that I build them some sort of special hand carved lamp in the shape of a penis using black ebony I would have said no. I just don't care what they do in the privacy of their own homes but I refuse to assist them in their sexual expressions or endeavors. I would not build the lamp for a straight couple using White Pine either.
I suppose we all should think about this because it sure could happen. How will you handle the first time you are invited to a gay wedding? My wife works with a gay man who is well above her in the food chain and she loves him. When/if he marries his partner she can certainly attend if she wants to but it will be without me. I do happen to like both of them but I don't believe in gay marriages, My Right.
I always thought of marriage as some sort of religious ritual , but then the government got into it forcing people to abide by their rules. Thats when I decided marriage as defined today is just not worth it.
And that's precisely what it was, too. Following the Civil War, the South wanted to prevent interracial marriages, so they passed laws stating that all marriages had to have a marriage license from the local county. Then the counties could deny licenses (and they also started denying them for close relations). They also saw it as a revenue source, and I've never met a bureaucrat who didn't like collecting money!
We can eliminate the entire "gay marriage" controversy simply by acknowledging that government has no granted authority at either the State or Federal level to interfere with marriage (and this should have been the verdict of the Obergfell decision). Let the various religions choose to recognize each others' ceremonies or not.
I think pretty much everyone has a line they wont cross. What about a lamp in the form of a NAZI insignia, with perhaps a hand carved partially dismembered head of a jew as part of it. I bete a LOT of people would draw the line there.
Personally, I would bake a gay person a cake. Whats the harm in that really? I dont get it.
No! I would not make a NAZI anything but I sure have made some Christian Crosses.
Please forgive me, I was vile to women, and a child molester.
AND I want the companies NAME on it.
So I can take pictures and share with the world.
And hopefully the ACLU will defend me in court.
Dictionary definition mystic me is glad I'm not a baker.
There's still my IRS master, though.
You have an insolent demanding toddler that is standing in the doorway of the business establishment (bakery), wailing out the following "You gonna bake me a f$% cake or I gonna get my daddy to beat the f*%@$# out of you!!!" Daddy, of course, is The State. And daddy has a gun.
You see, a toddler does not know (or care), what a business plan is.
A toddler does not know what a profit and loss statement is.
A toddler does not have a system of methods to hire and maintain good staff.
A toddler does not know how to draft and refine contracts with 3rd party vendors.
A toddler has no concept of inventory management, portion control or ingredient freshness rotation.
A toddler has no clue as to the concept of marketing, product pricing or how to build a customer base.
A toddler knows very little, other than how to make demands to satisfy its immediate feelings.
What I find strange, are the supposed adults that find alignment with the toddler.
Tired of hearing about it. No one should tell anyone whom to associate with...if perverts and government whats to be A-holes then no longer provide those services to anyone.
Ya wana Cake!...go to stop and shop, then put your own stick figures on it.
I wouldn't hold my breath though, it is certainly not likely in this anticivilized period we live in.
both the 9th and 13th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
But a great problem has been created by the passage of the Civil Rights Bill of 1964. Don't get me wrong, I am not in favor of any "states' rights objection to it. It was a good and righteous thing to sweep away the legalized injustices in the laws of the Southern States, and to disallow racial and religious discrimination by the state government, and in taxpayer-paid facilities,i.e.,
public schools, jury rooms, courthouses, etc.
But on his own private property, a man has the natural, individual right to decide who may and may not enter onto the property He has the right of freedom of association, which that Bill denies.
"If the baker loses the case, what does he stand to lose?"
Precisely.
If the gay couple loses the case, they can go to another baker. I would be happy to bake them a cake- whats the harm in that?
An individual's business is a piece of property -- it is an extension of their own body. An individual can choose who they will associate with and who they will avoid. This extends to all of their creative works, including their business. My decision with whom to conduct business (or not) harms no one. It is only through the application of the use of force (threats, coercion, violence) that a business owner would be compelled to provide service or enter into a contract with someone with whom they would choose to have no association.
I am in alignment with blarman's thoughts on this matter.
Otherwise known as the Tyranny of the Majority.
Two wolves and a sheep decide via Democratic Vote what shall be for dinner.
If an individual owns Business X (whether Emergency services or otherwise) AND Business X has a contract to Entity Y and fails to comply with the contract, then there will be justifiable legal action initiated against Business X on behalf of Entity Y for failure to provide product or service. However, if no such contract exists, there shall be no penalty should Business X not provide product or service to Entity Y.
What you are advancing here is a direct violation of an individual's right to association in context of their private business. Life is conditional -- I will conditionally provide my services to individuals based on numerous factors, including, but not limited to: credit worthiness. If an individual has no means, express or implied, to pay me, I will not do business with them.
Go ahead with that Democracy thing... the ending can be computed with mathematical certainty. The individual, who is compelled, by force, to provide services to others that they would prefer not to do business with, will eventually just close their doors... and then disappear... sounds like a book that I have read again for the sixth time.
Whatever democracy is, it is not completely observed, for good reasons.
Legislatures can vote, but their desires are capped by constitutions (eg US)
or upper houses (UK).
It is curious that a poster on this site would give a naive definition of
democracy ignoring property rights and individual freedom.
First, put in place the fundamentals such as property rights, then democracy.
Otherwise you have a system where two foxes and a chicken vote on the dinner menu.
Seems legit.
We discriminate all the time. Some people like red more than they like blue. Some people like blondes and some like brunettes. "Discrimination" in law-making is nothing more than an ideological hammer, and when wielded by the government is a very dangerous thing indeed. Discrimination comes whenever there are choices: the only way to eliminate discrimination is to eliminate choice.
And I would point out that that very threat of government coercion was what caused Jefferson and Adams to sign the Declaration of Independence. I think you completely misinterpret how either of those two gentlemen would have acted in this case.
contracts, even those that now do not speak English such as Zimbabwe, Israel,
Malaysia, ..
There is this problem in enforcing such a contract, you have to show evidence
that there was a non-written contract, and that it says what you say it says.
A court may decide that such a contract means you are open for business,
- that you will deal with blacks whites pinks reds, and with capitalist exploiters or commie spongers regardless (this requirement may now be a statute).
- that you will provide the product or service in the range that a reasonable Joe-customer could expect you to provide.
Should the court also insist that you provide a political advertisement with words
outside the usual experience of such a service?
Would a court order a Hindu owner of a bakery to provide a beef filled cake, even
if the owner did not say his bakery was Hindu?
Consider, an order for wording promoting all inclusive love by
pederasts/pedophiles, or a smoker told to do words for anti-smoking, or v.v.,
A little thought would come up with all kinds of examples on
these lines which are intolerable, and more to the point, could not be inferred by some claimed unwritten contract.
So my view is that a court would - well should, rule that the purported existence of unwritten general business contracts need strong evidence.