what do you think of this,/lgbt/? https://www.change.org/p/

Religious belief does not entitle you to ignore the law. If you don't want to bake cakes for homosexuals, then bake cakes in private for your family and friends, don't run it as a business where you're subject to anti-discrimination laws. They're not subject to "anti-Christian oppression", they're just upset that being Christian doesn't give them special privileges.

The article also makes the argument that anti-discrimination laws are the same as rape, which is just retarded. For one, they could completely avoid the situation by just not selling cakes, which isn't true of rape - it's not like rape is "well if you consensually have sex with some people, then some people will end up raping you" it's that "whether you ever consent to sex or not, rape is something that can happen". It is implicit in running a business in a country with non-discrimination laws that you agree to not discriminate, so "consent" doesn't even apply. You withdraw consent by ceasing to operate as a business. It's like the EULA terms in software - if you reject the terms, you have to stop using the software. These people are saying the equivalent of "I do not consent to the terms of the EULA, so I am no longer bound by them, but I'm going to keep using the software anyway, and people should be okay with that". They can't have it both ways. Either run a business and don't discriminate, or discriminate and don't run a business.

Also, this behavior would be unacceptable whether or not it was based on religious faith, so it's not "anti-Christian discrimination" - it's merely refusing to grant people religious exemptions from secular anti-discrimination laws.

>>7858172
This OP btfo

>>7858172
>Religious belief does not entitle you to ignore the law.
Sexual orientation does not trump freedom of association.

>>7858172
>implying anti-discrimination laws are a good thing

>refusing to sacrifice to the almighty God of Capitalism
Serves them right.
Only disgusting COMMIES refuse to do business because of something as uncapitalist as "ethics".

>>7858358
>wants the state to enforce "capitalism"
>wants the capitalist freedom to refuse to trade abolished
Nice try comrade.

>>7858401
A true capitalist does not refuse trade.

>>7858414
No, a true capitalist does not seek to force others to trade.

A true capitalist believes in the free market, not the feels market.

>>7858436
A true capitalist would have sold the fucking cake, not refuse because of "muh moral objection".
Making more money > your feels.

>>7858457
True capitalism is the freedom for people not to engage in capitalism.

All trade is a moral judgement.

File: ron.jpg (59KB, 638x419px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 638x419px

>>7858475
Amen.

>>7858475
>Hey we like to buy a cake
>Nope muh feels got it? MUH FEEEEELS
No true capitalist would ever reject the chance to make more profit.
Are you a communist?

>>7858486
Capitalists believe in the freedom to do business with whoever they like. I believe you're mistaking capitalism for greed. They are 2 fundamentally different things.

>>7858493
>letting something as trivial as "who I like" stand in the way of profit.

I bet you don't even sell weapons to the enemy you're currently at war with.

>>7858486
>Hey we like to buy a cake
>Hey we like
>like
See? All capitalism is moral judgement. What you are asking for is "state capitalism" aka national socialism aka being a filthy red.

Capitalism is trade, not profit.

>>7858500
Again, capitalism =/= greed. Morals are perfectly welcome in the free market.

>>7858176
Freedom of association applies to individuals, not businesses. As an individual, you're perfectly free to stop running your business and go run off into the woods or do whatever the hell you want. As a business owner, you do not have any less INDIVIDUAL freedoms than people who don't own businesses. You are however subject to certain regulations regarding how businesses are run, including anti-discrimination laws. And when you register a business, you are agreeing to those regulations; if you don't agree to them, then choose not to register a business, because you can't later on go "well yeah I signed papers saying I'm okay with that, but personally, deep inside my heart, I disagree with it, so it's immoral to expect me to follow those regulations, even though I legally agreed to it." So basically the choice comes down to: register a business and agree to abide by the laws regarding businesses, or don't register a business and not be obligated to abide by those laws.

>>7858493
Capitalism is just greed controlled for the greater good. If there were no greed, there would be no capitalism.

>>7858574
What about laws passed after I open my business? Obviously I didn't agree to those. Also, anti-discrimination laws are still stupid. If someone doesn't want to sell you something, go somewhere else. Next you're gonna tell me "no shirt no shoes no service" is oppressive.

>>7858574
>You are however subject to certain regulations regarding how businesses are run, including anti-discrimination laws.
The laws of man do not supersede natural law.

>>7858594
Don't be stupid, by living in the country you agree to follow all laws including future laws. When the state demands something of you, whether that's baking a cake or turning in your Jewish neighbors, you are violating your social contract not to do so.

>>7858594
>If someone doesn't want to sell you something, go somewhere else.
Easier said than done if the nearest "somewhere else" is a day's journey away. If the only shop owner in some country town denies serve to non-whites, they're essentially making it a whites-only community.

>>7858614
What is "natural law" and where can I find a full listing of what it says?

>>7858620
Baking a cake doesn't result in people being killed or enslaved. It's purely based on feels, basically being "I'm offended that you expect me to sell you a cake". Laws can be immoral, but that's something for the people as a whole to decide - if you think a law is immoral, and the rest of the population doesn't, then the law is going to stay.

>>7858699
>essentially making it a whites-only community

And? If a black man runs a store and says he won't serve non-blacks, I believe that's perfectly within his rights. No one has the right to someone else's services.

Like you said though, The vast majority of places will serve anyone because people like making money. I just believe it should be voluntary.

What do I think?

Holy shit some people really are just delusional fucking dumbasses getting their brain tumor's cocks stroked by the fact that trump is in office

>even when he didn't win pop vote
>& might not have even legally fucking won period
>and has already done illegal shit
>and is the least qualified, and experienced holder in history
>and holy shit so much more but w/e

>>7858766
>even when he didn't win the popular vote
It's almost like he was trying to win the election. You're getting mad at him for winning at chess because you would've won at checkers.

>>7858731
>I believe that's perfectly within his rights. No one has the right to someone else's services.

Well, it isn't up to what you believe.
It is up to the supreme court.
And they said that if you are a public business you have to be open to all the public.
It goes back to the white only lunch counters and drinking fountains of the '60s.
If you can't offer your services to everyone then you shouldn't run a public business.
Just do a private affair.
End of story.

>>7858797
>your beliefs don't matter
>if you can't offer your services to everyone the you shouldn't run a public business

Apparently ethics are only ok as long as the law agrees with you. Stop arguing from authority, anon, it's a fallacy.

>>7858818
This is about the law, not ethics. Rule of law means you can't be exempt from the law just because you disagree with it. And if you want to argue ethics, I don't really see how "I should be allowed to deny service to gays because I think they're gross" is an ethically defensible position.

>>7858699
>forcing people to do what I want isn't enslavement

>>7858818
Stop arguing from ethics, anon, it's a fallacy.
Might = Right

>>7858841
This thread is literally about changing laws.

>ethically defensible position
Two words: moral relativity

>>7858841
Tyrannical laws are nothing to do with rule of law.

>>7858855
I'm arguing that everyone should be able to apply their own ethics, which is basically the opposite of arguing from morality, but ok.

>>7858866
>everyone should be able to apply their own ethics

that doesn't work in a civilized society.
see also The Tragedy of the Commons

>>7858892
It works fine in a free market system. I'm talking purely about businesses, not society as a whole.

>>7858848
It's not enslavement if you can leave (you're free to abandon your business).

>>7858857
Moral relativity means no morals at all.

>>7858859
How exactly is this tyrannical?

>>7858781
Not the point I was making, I don't give a shit if he tries to look good for the people or the electoral college it was a remark on his supporters seeming to think they're in the majority because he won

>>7858916
So I should be able to decide not to pay you, if my ethics allow that?

>>7858957
This is actually where the government IS involved, as one of it's primary purposes is to facilitate contracts between individuals. Basically, it makes sure both sides keep their end of the bargain. I'm not some ancap, anon.

>>7858032
Religion should be a purely private thing.
If you have a business you should offer your services to everyone.
I think the penalty is too high tho.

>>7858937
Your argument is the only moral relativity: what the state says, goes.

>>7859013
No, because "goes" is about compliance with the law. I'm aware that there can be disagreements between law and morality, but "my imaginary friend told me to" is not one of those cases.

>>7858971
>picking and choosing

its not up to you

>>7859093
This is about basic human freedom not to be enslaved.

>>7859162
>baking a cake = being enslaved

wew lad

get out of the kitchen if you can't stand the heat

>>7858172
An ironic thing about this, if a Muslim bakery owner refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, citing his religious beliefs, then the Republicans would use this opportunity to lambaste the Muslim bakery owner as being homophobic and oppressing the gays in an act of "Islamic terrorism".

The GOP cares about your "religious freedom" only if you are a Christian. But I never hear from these same folks defending the rights of Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, neo-pagans, LaVeyan Satanists, and any other non-Christian or non-Jewish religious groups.

>>7859190
>being forced to do labor isn't the same as being forced to do labor, silly

>>7859206
Lol that's not true at all. Steven Crowder did a video on this very topic. He, like many Republicans, are pro-free market and pro-religious rights, even if you aren't a Christian.

>>7859190
>losing the argument
>time to start misgendering

>>7859206
>meanwhile, in leftist 'reality'...

>>7858172
businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone

>>7859209
>being forced to do labor

you're not forced to do labor if that is your bakery.
you have chosen to open a business for profit.
are you really this dense?

>>7859279
If I don't want to serve a patron, and I am coerced into doing so by threat of fines/imprisonment, that is by definition forced labor. It's not that hard to understand if you're anywhere to the right of Stalin.

>>7859296
Then why did you choose to work in the first place? Nobody forced you to get this job. You chose to work to earn money. Now stop being a whiny crybaby and serve that fabulous gay couple!

>>7859296
If you operate in the public sphere then you need to follow guidelines that have been chosen because they eliminate problems and enable society to move forward.
Go live in a cave if you're this stupid.

>>7859317
>You chose to work to earn money.
"It's not slavery, you could be a vagrant if you wanted!"

>>7859317
>why did you choose to work
Because money can be exchanged for goods and services, so long that the person I try and buy those goods and services wants me as a patron.
>stop being a whiny crybaby
This is an entirely hypothetical discussion, but if I opened my own business I have the right to decide who I choose to do business with. This is a cornerstone of capitalism.

>>7859162
It's not slavery because NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO BAKE CAKES. You're free to leave the cake business if you want to. That's not an option for ACTUAL slaves.

>>7859209
You've already consented to doing the labor though. If you're willing to bake 20 cakes for straights each day, but unwilling to bake 18 cakes for straights and 1 cake for gays each day, then clearly the issue has nothing to do with labor.

>>7859246
They didn't say anything about gender you retard.

>>7859275
Then they're not operating legally as a business, at least not in a civilized country. Partially giving up that right is part of the contract between yourself and the government when you register a business.

>>7859296
Okay, how about this. You're free to stop making cakes at any time, but once you refuse to serve a patron, you are forbidden from selling any more cakes until a period of two months have passed. If your problem is really "I don't like being forced to work harder than I want to" and not "I'm a massive homophobe and gays are degenerates REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE", then you'd be fine with such an arrangement.

>>7859343
>enable society to move forward
>implying progress is always a good thing

>>7859350
>I have the right to decide who I choose to do business with

The law disagrees with you.

>>7859346
So employment is slavery then?

>>7859350
>This is an entirely hypothetical discussion, but if I opened my own business I have the right to decide who I choose to do business with. This is a cornerstone of capitalism.
That's only true in "freestanding" capitalism (i.e. ancapism) which doesn't exist in any civilized society on Earth. You can't open a business and sell only to whites without getting sued for discrimination. You may not like it, but that doesn't mean you're entitled to ignore business laws.

>>7859346
>waaaaah! life isn't fair. i have to work!

you also have to breath and take a shit.
just because you don't want to doesn't mean you can stop breathing.
>being this immature

>>7859353
>okay how about this...
I'm not a homophobe and I would gladly make the cake myself in this hypothetical situation. I'm simply advocating for the people who don't want to. Those people probably see ME as a degenerate ( I mean, I'm on /lgbt/), but they have every right to deny me service. Homophobia, transphobia, etc. isn't illegal, and personally I don't believe it should be.

>>7859356
Go back to your stone knives and bearskins, then.

>>7858172
Fuck off, bootlicker, I'm a faggot and people should be able to run a business however the fuck they want.

>>7859357
>>7859365
>the law
Again, this entire thread is about changing the law. Stop using status quo as an argument.

>>7859379
>Homophobia, transphobia, etc. isn't illegal, and personally I don't believe it should be.
Sure but discrimination is already illegal, it's not thoughtcrime, you're free to BELIEVE whatever you want, but actions affecting other people are something different entirely.

>>7859384
I wish I could...

>>7859379
>they have every right to deny me service

you don't understand how the law works.
if you run a public business then you have to serve ALL the public.
you can't pick and choose who you will deal with.
the law was written this way to eliminate conflict.
see also Tenets of Civilization

>>7859366
>literally comparing being forced to bake a cake to biological necessities and still saying it's fine for the government to pass such laws

>>7859387
Being a ``faggot" does not mean you cannot be speaking from a position of privilege.

>>7859391
You have yet to offer a convincing argument for something other than the status quo.

>>7859393
>actions affecting other people
Your acting like people are obligated to other people's work/products/services/etc. If I went up to someone and said, I'll pay you for your shirt, and they said "no," should I be able to sue them for not giving me what I wanted?

>>7859414
So then just don't sell cakes and you won't be subject to such regulations.

>>7859421
No, because I'm not agreeing to sell the shirt to the public. If I put my shirt on sale for a specified price, say $50, and someone wanted to buy it and I said "no, because I don't sell to black people", that would be discrimination.

>>7859428
>if you don't like unfair laws, just don't ever do anything affected by said laws
Is this really your argument?

>>7859421
>If I went up to someone and said, I'll pay you for your shirt, and they said "no," should I be able to sue them

they aren't a public business
they are a private entity
your argument is invalid

>>7859438
How are the laws unfair? You're complaining because the law is preventing you from practicing UNFAIR behavior.

>>7859365
>You can't open a business and sell only to whites without getting sued for discrimination.
Replace 'whites' with 'women' and now you can!

>>7859434
So what's the difference if someone saying "no" and "no because..."? Why is the first okay and the latter not? And if you don't believe the first is okay, are you in favor of banning "no shirt no shoes no service" signs?

>>7859419
>Being a ``faggot" does not mean you cannot be speaking from a position of privilege.
How does someone like this even find 4chan?

>>7859455
>So what's the difference if someone saying "no" and "no because..."? Why is the first okay and the latter not?
It's not about what you SAY, it's about the reason why you say that. If you merely say "no", but always say it to blacks and never to whites, then it won't be too long before people figure out what's up.

>And if you don't believe the first is okay, are you in favor of banning "no shirt no shoes no service" signs?
No, because going out in public without shirt or shoes is not a human right, and furthermore meeting that criteria is reasonably possible for virtually anyone, even those literally living in abject poverty.

>>7859448
The law infringes on the right of association of the business owner. The patron has no rights to the business owner's products/services. This is the big difference.

>>7859487
>brings up people not having certain rights
>proceeds to say people have a right to products and services in the private sector
CongnitiveDissonance.jpg

>>7859490
False. When you open a business you no longer have exclusive rights to your products and services. They are now essentially "owned" by the business contract. By denying service to people for non-legitimate reasons, you are violating the contract.

If you want to maintain exclusive rights to your properties and services, DON'T register a business.

>>7859490
False. Your rights trigger me, so laws to violate them are morally correct.

>>7859524
Despite the name, the ``private sector" implicitly belongs to the public. That's what selling something means, you're making a contract with the public that says "I agree to give you these things in exchange for X". If a member gives you X and you refuse to give them your products/services, you are violating a contract.

>>7858594
Tell the blacks that who could not get houses in nicer areas or in white neighborhoods. Anti-discrimination laws exist because people always find ways to keep undesirables away.

>>7859540
Pro tip: you stop them before they give you X as not to violate the contract.

>>7859540
Where the hell are you getting this stuff from?

>>7859561
Law School
Maybe you should try it sometime since you obviously have an interest in the law and a hunger for knowledge

>>7859677
Link to literally anything backing your private = public = contract stuff.

>>7859696

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_sector

>>7859767
Try again.

>>7859558
The only way to avoid violating the contract is to not agree to it in the first place, or announce that you are terminating the agreement some time in advance.

>>7859862
>States legally regulate the private sector. Businesses operating within a country must comply with the laws in that country.