Ok, fess up, which of you goes to college in Madison?

unsung

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

Depends on the business license. A real estate agent, a doctor, and such can't. A baker? Well, I suppose it depends on the laws or the area.

I still stand behind my statement though. Someone who refused to bake a cake is not causing harm to a customer.

Just because an outsider thinks there's no harm, doesn't mean the law shouldn't apply. That's not the best logic to apply to laws.

No victim, no crime.

unsung

rgambs said:

unsung said:

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

I think a small business absolutely should have the right to determine who they do business with. I have a friend who owns a salon, and they keep track of info on their customers. If they no-show twice, they stop taking reservations for them, which virtually means they cant get their hair done there anymore. Seems totally reasonable. But where would you draw the line? Should a Jewish owned bakery be forced to make an Easter cake and write "Jesus is Lord" on it? They should have the right to say no to that too.
I agree that no one should be turned down for race, but how to you enforce that and give the freedom to make decisions to run the business?
And I'd rather have a Costco cake at my wedding than a cake from some bakery I had to take to court.

A big part of the problem is that businesses can't just quietly refuse customers and use legitimate excuses, they have to vocalize their discrimination. That's where the rationalisations break down.

So it comes down to hurt feelings then.

Why not, that's what your side comes down to.
Business owners whose feelings will be hurt if they have to provide services to people they disagree with.

No it isn't. They have every right not to associate with people that they don't want to.

And don't tell me discrimination is always bad either.

Go Beavers

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

Depends on the business license. A real estate agent, a doctor, and such can't. A baker? Well, I suppose it depends on the laws or the area.

I still stand behind my statement though. Someone who refused to bake a cake is not causing harm to a customer.

Just because an outsider thinks there's no harm, doesn't mean the law shouldn't apply. That's not the best logic to apply to laws.

No victim, no crime.

The law says if someone discriminates against you due to you belonging to a protected group, then you're a victim. In the case of the bigoted baker, they had the choice to proceed or not. It would be easier to just say you don't like the law rather then apply bad logic.

unsung

Hurt feelings don't constitute a crime.

Personally I don't demand food, I don't want it to be spit in.

rgambs

unsung said:

rgambs said:

unsung said:

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

I think a small business absolutely should have the right to determine who they do business with. I have a friend who owns a salon, and they keep track of info on their customers. If they no-show twice, they stop taking reservations for them, which virtually means they cant get their hair done there anymore. Seems totally reasonable. But where would you draw the line? Should a Jewish owned bakery be forced to make an Easter cake and write "Jesus is Lord" on it? They should have the right to say no to that too.
I agree that no one should be turned down for race, but how to you enforce that and give the freedom to make decisions to run the business?
And I'd rather have a Costco cake at my wedding than a cake from some bakery I had to take to court.

A big part of the problem is that businesses can't just quietly refuse customers and use legitimate excuses, they have to vocalize their discrimination. That's where the rationalisations break down.

So it comes down to hurt feelings then.

Why not, that's what your side comes down to.
Business owners whose feelings will be hurt if they have to provide services to people they disagree with.

No it isn't. They have every right not to associate with people that they don't want to.

And don't tell me discrimination is always bad either.

Why, so they can avoid hurt feelings?
No victim, no crime.

Go Beavers

unsung said:

rgambs said:

unsung said:

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

I think a small business absolutely should have the right to determine who they do business with. I have a friend who owns a salon, and they keep track of info on their customers. If they no-show twice, they stop taking reservations for them, which virtually means they cant get their hair done there anymore. Seems totally reasonable. But where would you draw the line? Should a Jewish owned bakery be forced to make an Easter cake and write "Jesus is Lord" on it? They should have the right to say no to that too.
I agree that no one should be turned down for race, but how to you enforce that and give the freedom to make decisions to run the business?
And I'd rather have a Costco cake at my wedding than a cake from some bakery I had to take to court.

A big part of the problem is that businesses can't just quietly refuse customers and use legitimate excuses, they have to vocalize their discrimination. That's where the rationalisations break down.

So it comes down to hurt feelings then.

Why not, that's what your side comes down to.
Business owners whose feelings will be hurt if they have to provide services to people they disagree with.

No it isn't. They have every right not to associate with people that they don't want to.

And don't tell me discrimination is always bad either.

When is discriminating against someone solely due to their belonging to a group a good thing?

unsung

rgambs said:

unsung said:

rgambs said:

unsung said:

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

I think a small business absolutely should have the right to determine who they do business with. I have a friend who owns a salon, and they keep track of info on their customers. If they no-show twice, they stop taking reservations for them, which virtually means they cant get their hair done there anymore. Seems totally reasonable. But where would you draw the line? Should a Jewish owned bakery be forced to make an Easter cake and write "Jesus is Lord" on it? They should have the right to say no to that too.
I agree that no one should be turned down for race, but how to you enforce that and give the freedom to make decisions to run the business?
And I'd rather have a Costco cake at my wedding than a cake from some bakery I had to take to court.

A big part of the problem is that businesses can't just quietly refuse customers and use legitimate excuses, they have to vocalize their discrimination. That's where the rationalisations break down.

So it comes down to hurt feelings then.

Why not, that's what your side comes down to.
Business owners whose feelings will be hurt if they have to provide services to people they disagree with.

No it isn't. They have every right not to associate with people that they don't want to.

And don't tell me discrimination is always bad either.

Why, so they can avoid hurt feelings?
No victim, no crime.

They said that they didn't want the business and to go elsewhere. Doesn't sound like hurt feelings to me, it sounds like it is pretty clear.

unsung

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

rgambs said:

unsung said:

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

I think a small business absolutely should have the right to determine who they do business with. I have a friend who owns a salon, and they keep track of info on their customers. If they no-show twice, they stop taking reservations for them, which virtually means they cant get their hair done there anymore. Seems totally reasonable. But where would you draw the line? Should a Jewish owned bakery be forced to make an Easter cake and write "Jesus is Lord" on it? They should have the right to say no to that too.
I agree that no one should be turned down for race, but how to you enforce that and give the freedom to make decisions to run the business?
And I'd rather have a Costco cake at my wedding than a cake from some bakery I had to take to court.

A big part of the problem is that businesses can't just quietly refuse customers and use legitimate excuses, they have to vocalize their discrimination. That's where the rationalisations break down.

So it comes down to hurt feelings then.

Why not, that's what your side comes down to.
Business owners whose feelings will be hurt if they have to provide services to people they disagree with.

No it isn't. They have every right not to associate with people that they don't want to.

And don't tell me discrimination is always bad either.

When is discriminating against someone solely due to their belonging to a group a good thing?

See that is the thing, I never said it was good. But, I do support their right to do so. I also support the free market is going to determine their fate.

unsung

It is like when people say that you can't yell "Fire" in a movie theatre or say "Bomb" on an airplane.

Yes, you can. But you will have consequences for doing so.

PJ_Soul

I find it "interesting" that reacting as the victim of discrimination and bigotry is now boiled down to "hurt feelings", which is an extremely loaded term in the context of legislation/politics.

Go Beavers

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

rgambs said:

unsung said:

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

I think a small business absolutely should have the right to determine who they do business with. I have a friend who owns a salon, and they keep track of info on their customers. If they no-show twice, they stop taking reservations for them, which virtually means they cant get their hair done there anymore. Seems totally reasonable. But where would you draw the line? Should a Jewish owned bakery be forced to make an Easter cake and write "Jesus is Lord" on it? They should have the right to say no to that too.
I agree that no one should be turned down for race, but how to you enforce that and give the freedom to make decisions to run the business?
And I'd rather have a Costco cake at my wedding than a cake from some bakery I had to take to court.

A big part of the problem is that businesses can't just quietly refuse customers and use legitimate excuses, they have to vocalize their discrimination. That's where the rationalisations break down.

So it comes down to hurt feelings then.

Why not, that's what your side comes down to.
Business owners whose feelings will be hurt if they have to provide services to people they disagree with.

No it isn't. They have every right not to associate with people that they don't want to.

And don't tell me discrimination is always bad either.

When is discriminating against someone solely due to their belonging to a group a good thing?

See that is the thing, I never said it was good. But, I do support their right to do so. I also support the free market is going to determine their fate.

So when is it 'not always bad'?

unsung

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

rgambs said:

unsung said:

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

I think a small business absolutely should have the right to determine who they do business with. I have a friend who owns a salon, and they keep track of info on their customers. If they no-show twice, they stop taking reservations for them, which virtually means they cant get their hair done there anymore. Seems totally reasonable. But where would you draw the line? Should a Jewish owned bakery be forced to make an Easter cake and write "Jesus is Lord" on it? They should have the right to say no to that too.
I agree that no one should be turned down for race, but how to you enforce that and give the freedom to make decisions to run the business?
And I'd rather have a Costco cake at my wedding than a cake from some bakery I had to take to court.

A big part of the problem is that businesses can't just quietly refuse customers and use legitimate excuses, they have to vocalize their discrimination. That's where the rationalisations break down.

So it comes down to hurt feelings then.

Why not, that's what your side comes down to.
Business owners whose feelings will be hurt if they have to provide services to people they disagree with.

No it isn't. They have every right not to associate with people that they don't want to.

And don't tell me discrimination is always bad either.

When is discriminating against someone solely due to their belonging to a group a good thing?

See that is the thing, I never said it was good. But, I do support their right to do so. I also support the free market is going to determine their fate.

So when is it 'not always bad'?

A private business owner should be able to refuse service to any person at any time for any reason.

The consequences will then be determined, and should be, but by the market not government.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

rgambs said:

unsung said:

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

I think a small business absolutely should have the right to determine who they do business with. I have a friend who owns a salon, and they keep track of info on their customers. If they no-show twice, they stop taking reservations for them, which virtually means they cant get their hair done there anymore. Seems totally reasonable. But where would you draw the line? Should a Jewish owned bakery be forced to make an Easter cake and write "Jesus is Lord" on it? They should have the right to say no to that too.
I agree that no one should be turned down for race, but how to you enforce that and give the freedom to make decisions to run the business?
And I'd rather have a Costco cake at my wedding than a cake from some bakery I had to take to court.

A big part of the problem is that businesses can't just quietly refuse customers and use legitimate excuses, they have to vocalize their discrimination. That's where the rationalisations break down.

So it comes down to hurt feelings then.

Why not, that's what your side comes down to.
Business owners whose feelings will be hurt if they have to provide services to people they disagree with.

No it isn't. They have every right not to associate with people that they don't want to.

And don't tell me discrimination is always bad either.

When is discriminating against someone solely due to their belonging to a group a good thing?

See that is the thing, I never said it was good. But, I do support their right to do so. I also support the free market is going to determine their fate.

So when is it 'not always bad'?

A private business owner should be able to refuse service to any person at any time for any reason.

The consequences will then be determined, and should be, but by the market not government.

But when you're fighting a harmful attitude that is large enough to sustain itself... this attitude or practice doesn't advance the cause.