CalvinBall wrote:she is Colombian

Slowhand wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:she is Colombian

That may have been the joke.

My grandpa used to refer to anyone of Spanish descent as "Mexican", which obviously meant that they spoke "Mexican". And of course black people were just "colored".

Slowhand wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:she is Colombian

That may have been the joke.

jerseyhoya wrote:On balance, I'd rather it was legal to refuse and people boycotted/shamed the proprietor for being a backward dbag. If it got to the point where rather than isolated incidents it became actually difficult for gay couples to find people to work their weddings, then I'd say there was a compelling state interest to overrule the individual's religious beliefs in these cases and to compel them to provide the service or face fines. But I would imagine these incidents will be rare and dwindling, and they don't need state interference to rectify them.

drsmooth wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I think it should be legal for a business owner to refuse to provide a service that conflicts with their personal beliefs (like baking a cake for a gay wedding) if they're so inclined.

baking a cake is against the personal beliefs of a baker? Dafuq bidness of yours is what I DO with the goddamn cake, bakerman?

see, if you believe FREEMARKETSFREEMARKETSFREEMARKETSFREEMARKETSFRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEMARKETS, you can't be caught out in public believing any such a thing as you say you think/believe, because as long as the money is green, FREEMARKETSFREEMARKETSFREEMARKETSFREEMARKETSFRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEMARKETS .

see the problem?

In a true free market, any private business could refuse any customer for any reason. And any employment application.

Not advocating for such, but, you know, if you believe FREEMARKETSFREEMARKETSFREEMARKETSFREEMARKETSFRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEMARKETS, you don't want the gummint telling private businesses who should be their stakeholders.

but see, that would put the lie to the idea that FREEMARKETSFREEMARKETSFREEMARKETSFREEMARKETSFRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEMARKETS is some kind of force of nature, because it would be immediately obvious to true FREEMARKETSFREEMARKETSFREEMARKETSFREEMARKETSFRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEMARKETS participants (see what I did there) that it is economically insane to turn customers with legal tender away from one's shoppe merely because one harbors any sort of chancrous bias against the legal tender holders - just as it would be insane not to hire capable workers because they're shes, or coloreds, or homos

but you know all of that is mostly bunkum because it turns out significant numbers of job-creating society savers actually prefer to act against their 'natural' free market economic interests, degraded as they are by their perverse insistence on injecting their cultural preversions into the thing.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:GOD FUCKING DAMNIT THE LAW IS MUCH BROADER THAN A GODDAMN CAKE

There is a reason inclusive organizations are reconsidering conventions and events in Indiana and it's not because they are worried their members can't get a piece of cake.

I know I know "That's great! The invisible hand of he free market is already pushing Indiana away from the law!"

The Nightman Cometh wrote:GOD FUCKING DAMNIT THE LAW IS MUCH BROADER THAN A GODDAMN CAKE

There is a reason inclusive organizations are reconsidering conventions and events in Indiana and it's not because they are worried their members can't get a piece of cake.

Werthless wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:On balance, I'd rather it was legal to refuse and people boycotted/shamed the proprietor for being a backward dbag. If it got to the point where rather than isolated incidents it became actually difficult for gay couples to find people to work their weddings, then I'd say there was a compelling state interest to overrule the individual's religious beliefs in these cases and to compel them to provide the service or face fines. But I would imagine these incidents will be rare and dwindling, and they don't need state interference to rectify them.

I know everyone is probably shocked, but I agree with this. I'd rather see if there is a problem before we come up with a government solution.

The Geno's/Pat's example is a good one. There was a ton of press/backlash about it.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:+1, see you guys at the conference

[Reveal] Spoiler:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:You're misrepresenting the law in the same way. You are taking the most reasonable possible application of the law and presenting it as if it will be the only application when you know that is not the case.

Under the terms of the law, a pizza place could refuse to serve a slice of pizza to a gay person based on sincerely held religious beliefs against the lifestyle the gay person lives. Although for your purposes of course you wouldn't want to frame the argument in that context

td11 wrote:

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Werthless wrote:Also, it's easy to be dumbfounded by the objections to the law if all of the examples that you can think of are positions that you support. Should a cake maker be compelled, via thread of state action, to provide services celebrating:

1. satanic weddings
2. animal sacrifices
3. terrorist bombings
4. a Donald Trump wedding

I would argue no, that a small business should feel free to decline business. Luckily, the country is moving in such a way that fewer and fewer folks would decline business because the person is in a protected class (disabled, minority, etc).

Werthless wrote:But alas, that's probably not the intent of your post, because docsmooth.

Slowhand wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:she is Colombian

That may have been the joke.

My grandpa used to refer to anyone of Spanish descent as "Mexican", which obviously meant that they spoke "Mexican". And of course black people were just "colored".