SCOTUS to review Masterpieces Cakes Case

>>8501067
There should be total freedom to discriminate, and refusing to make a specifically gay cake isn't even discrimination like simply refusing to serve a gay couple is.

America's freedom is dying by the day.

>>8501138
t. misandrist feminist

>>8501138
God you're an idiot

>>8501160
yea...?

>>8501349
Don't be.

>>8501074
Can you explain to me how they're different?

>>8501554
It's the difference between only stocking man+woman pairings of little cake figures and refusing to sell figures to gays.

File: excuse-me.jpg (518KB, 4096x4506px) Image search: [Google]

518KB, 4096x4506px

>>8501067
>No one should discriminate

Their business. Their property. Their choice. If they don't want more money they should be able to refuse service to anyone they like. It's a retarded business move but they should be allowed to make it. Now it they were a public servant like a police officer or a firefighter then you would have a point here. Forced to pay taxes? Then you're entitled to the services those taxes pay for. But in all other cases you can't force people to engage in commerce or contract with you.

I love how /lgbt/ is full of paleoconservatives.

>>8501824
Believing in personal property rights in the domain of business is not paleoconservative. It's liberal.

>>8501843
dont forget the difference between personal and private property, comrade

>>8501587
It wouldn't be impossible to special order the figures for that specific instance. The guy in the video seemed set on not finding a workaround for his lack of gay cake figures.

>>8501863
There's only one kind of property: property. Anything that you don't have the rights to the control, use, and disposal of is not really your property. You don't own the police, or the sidewalk, or your tax money. But you own yourself and your business. And if you disagree with that then our conception of rights of ownership are simply irreconcilable.

File: 1452105822305.jpg (92KB, 500x376px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 500x376px

>>8501870
He shouldn't be obligated to find one. If I have a car dealership and I don't like 2002 Honda Accords, I have no obligation to stock 2002 Honda Accords. I have no obligation to favilitate the buy or sale of 2002 Honda Accords. If somebody comes into my office asking for a 2002 Honda Accord then I am under no obligation to point him to the optimal way of getting one, despite the harm it would do to my business. Quite the contrary, anyone who comes to my dealership knowing that I don't wish to ever deal in 2002 Honda Accords is very much in the wrong. The intention of their actions is not a business transaction but antagonization. They may be morally in the right about their judgment of my business practices. They may point out that every car I keep on my lot is objectively worse than a 2002 Honda Accord of a similar mileage. But that doesn't change the fact that I have made the personal and professional decision not to deal in 2002 Honda Accords. (cont)

File: 1489954988806.jpg (260KB, 1280x847px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 1280x847px

>>8501944
>>8501870
And nobody has any right to force me to. If a car enthusiast with a particular affinity for 2002 Honda Accords wanrs to purchase or lease one then they must explore other options. If there are no available dealerships willing to stock those cars then there may be a great business oppertunity in serving the neglected market for 2002 Honda Accords. However, if the costs of attempting to stock and sell 2002 Honda Accords outweighs the money made by there sale, then there is a tangible economic reason not to stock 2002 Honda Accords. And the enthusiast has no right to demand that his niche market be served at a loss to the dealers. But more than likely such a venture would not be exceptionally expensive. Therefore anyone with a particular inclination can serve such a market. In which case the only people who can be blamed for the lack of the availability of 2002 Honda Accords, are the very people who would like to purchase 2002 Honda Accords, for they put the burden of serving the market on others and complain that their needs are not met as they would be had they been serving themselves.

>>8501067
I found it annoying they filmed the baker but didn't show a similarly respectful video of the gay couple.

So I watched this to counter the emotional impact. Different couple, same issue. Both videos are propaganda, might as well watch both sides.

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000003765330/how-a-love-story-triumphed-in-court.html

>>8502049
Actually, now that I'm further into the video, it's a different issue. But still related.

>>8501074
Here's my problem with this guy. It's okay to not want to bake a gay cake, I mean it's weird, but you wouldn't go to a halal restaurant and ask for pork. My problem with him is that even if you don't ask for a gay cake, if you say you're gay or strongly hint that you're gay he'd probably refuse service on that basis. They're gonna review this, maybe probably side with him, and then he'll go on thinking he can deny gay people instead of just gay cakes.

>>8501819
I disagree, because we don't live in a post-scarcity economy. Running a business takes up space and consumes resources, and by doing so deprives its competitors of access to those resources. So "just buy from someone else if we discriminate against you" isn't really a valid solution, since discriminators are not only refusing to provide you with a good or a service, they are making it difficult for others to do so as well.

>>8501890
That sort of pure property doesn't really exist in any developed country anymore. The only kinds of property that you have that kind of absolute rights to are those kinds of property that aren't even really acknowledged by the law in the first place. But basically everything significant that you can claim ownership of - a house, land, computer software, etc, there are some restrictions on your right to do whatever you want with it, even if that something does not involve other people or their property. Essentially, we live in an economy of labor, not one of property.

>>8501067
It's bad because it opens the doors to discrimination in other areas. How long until hospitals can turn patients away for being lgbt?

>>8501944
>>8501951
Unlike 2002 Honda Accord enthusiasts, gay people's identities are not contingent on the products they consume. We're talking about the sale of a cake here, not cake figures. Gay couples were refused service on religious grounds. If these were gay cake figure enthusiasts then economic feasibility would be a consideration, but wedding cakes in general are not associated with a particular identity. I think your argument would be valid if you were able to draw a connection between gay people and a hypothetical gay cake. Additionally, I don't understand your last point about customers of niche markets being the real reason for lack of supply.

>>8502104
Honestly, while I agree that not wanting to serve gay couples is a rather shitty attitude to have, it's his privately owned business, therefore his right. Government should never be allowed to step in over a matter like this.

I do however believe that any backlash over said refusal of service from the public is more then welcomed. And besides, you are a fucking cake maker, I feel like wanting to expand your gay clientele should be a huge priority, y'know? We fucking love throwing parties where cakes get involved.

File: 1495977877432.jpg (73KB, 604x453px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 604x453px

>>8502131
Ownership is not deprivation. You can't suggest that the finite nature of a resource is an argument for effective deprivation of one by another simply by actor B refusing to share it with actor A. This doesn't even hold when B holds 50% or even 100% of the resource because, ignoring for a moment the ridiculousness of suggesting that anyone could own 100% of the wedding cake market while choosing not to service it deliberately, deprivation is predicated on a sense right to the object in question. If someone marries a man you aren't deprived of his affection. You were never entitled to it in the first place. A person can only deprive you of their property or service when we take the word deprivation to simply mean that you go without something, and nothing else is implied. In this definition, all private property in general deprives the entire world of the use of it. This conception of the nature of deprivation and property is so unbelievably arrogant and entitled that it can't be used as a serious reason for the check on refusal of service or even of any consideration of property rights whatsoever. It effectively states that the man at any given corner if the earth is deprived by the entierty of the human species simply by virtue of their also existing on the earth, and needing to make use of the goods therein. It says nothing of the moral value of this phenomena. Indeed there is no moral value in this truth. All that you've done is stated that the world is finite. But it does not follow that in a finite world, others should ration their portions with consideration of anyone in particular nor does it perscribe any course of action in particular. It's a simple truism. This conception of deprivation by ownership must necessarily begin with the idea that had this person not possesed what you wanted then you would have it, and their witholding it from you is not within their rights of ownership. This simply is not true.

>>8502169
So is there no one willing to make a cake for a gay wedding in their area? If not then why has no gay baker decided to service the market? If there aren't enough gay people to make servicing them worth their while then the question is answered there. If there are enough gay people to support a bakery that also serves them in addition to straights then the problem is that nobody sympathetic to gay marriage is willing to serve the market for gay marriage wedding cakes. Plain and simple the problem then lies in everyone who feels the cause is worthy, but not worth their time. And despite it not being worth their time they wish to force the task on a recalcitrant 3rd party. You cannot force people to serve you, plain and simple. It's morally repugnant as random prejudice.

>>8502188
It is absolutely not a right to refuse service on the basis of something completely innocuous that someone can't control and that precedent was set with desegregation in the 90s. Businesses are also not people. It is therefore ANTI American. Or is "justice and liberty for all" a pipe dream?

>>8502277
But making cakes ourselves is hard and less of a triumph than compelling bigots under threat of prison to do it for us!

>>8502305
Right here >>8501349

Biblethumpers are so fucking backwards.

>>8502277
You presented two situations here: the "gay wedding cake" market is or is not economically feasible. I'm positing that this is misguided because the idea of a gay wedding cake depends on some fundamental difference between hetero and homo cakes, and this is not true. Your grounds for discriminating against gay customers is that serving them is inherently different from serving straight customers, that the product sold is not identical because of the sexual orientation of the customer. Because they're identical, gay customers ought to be "covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores." My guess is that the courts will side with the gay customers in this case because homosexuals are a protected class of people and thus the Civil Rights Act will apply here.

>>8502293
Shh, anon and I are talking.

>>8502464
The point of contention here is that my judgement was philosophical while yours was legal. They are in fact covered under the Civil Rights Act. But speaking in the abstract about the nature of rights I would certainly say that the civil rights act was a mistake.

>>8502243
>Ownership is not deprivation.
In many cases it is. If I own something, then that gives me the "right" to prevent others from using it.

> ignoring for a moment the ridiculousness of suggesting that anyone could own 100% of the wedding cake market while choosing not to service it deliberately
But the "whole market" isn't what's relevant here. We're talking about the local market. Maybe absolute deprivation, as in nowhere in the earth would sell it to you, is highly unlikely, but it's far more likely that one could control a sufficient proportion of the local market that you'd have to go well out of your way if they decided to refuse to deal witt you.

>If someone marries a man you aren't deprived of his affection.
That's because the man isn't property to be bought or sold. Presumably, if a man marries someone, it's because their affection is directed at that other person, rather than me. Now, if the man was willing to marry two people, but the state decreed he could only marry one, then the state is wronging him, and whichever one of us he ends up not marrying. Likewise, if that man DID have affection for me, but was somehow forced to marry this third person whom he had no feelings for, then both the man and I would have been wronged by whoever forced them to marry.

>>8502243
> You were never entitled to it in the first place. A person can only deprive you of their property or service when we take the word deprivation to simply mean that you go without something, and nothing else is implied. In this definition, all private property in general deprives the entire world of the use of it.
The key detail is that, until something is claimed as private property, everyone has POTENTIAL ownership of it, a potential that has not yet materialized. Until the shopkeeper sells the last item in their inventory, I have the POTENTIAL to buy it. But once it's sold, then one person's potential materializes and everyone else's vanishes. So in that regard, there IS a deprivation - if 5 people wanted it, but none had yet bought it (but no one else wanted it), then each has a notional 20% claim to that item. Once one person does attain it as private property, than that person's claim increases to 100%, while everyone else's drops to 0%.

>This conception of the nature of deprivation and property is so unbelievably arrogant and entitled that it can't be used as a serious reason for the check on refusal of service or even of any consideration of property rights whatsoever.
The notion of "entitlement" only makes sense once you accept the premise of private property. Thus you cannot use it to counter arguments against private property, because that is using the conclusion as its own justification.

>>8502659
>If I own something, then that gives me the "right" to prevent others from using it.
Which is why bakeries can't be required to sale gay cakes.

>>8502243
>It effectively states that the man at any given corner if the earth is deprived by the entierty of the human species simply by virtue of their also existing on the earth, and needing to make use of the goods therein.
Realistically, if two people on Earth are sufficiently far enough apart, the effect they have on each other's ability to consume resources is negligible. But it is absurd to say that multiple people competing for limited resources does not affect the share of those resources which each person may attain. If you actually believe that, then you would have to agree that you would not suffer from having another person move onto your land and consume its resources. Sure, they might not be "entitled" to those resources, but if you believe that increasing the number of people competing for a limited resource does not reduce each person's share of that resource, then you surely also believe that sharing your limited private property with them would not result in any objective loss to you. Or in other terms, if there were only one person on the earth, they would have de facto rights to all the resources on the earth. But if you add more people, then it becomes necessary for them to share.

>>8502693
That's basically a tautology, not an actual reason.

>>8502743
stop using logic with imbeciles.
they can't keep up.

>>8502743
???

>>8502659
The point that you're missing here is that you wanting X doesn't give you a title to X.

>>8502786
>that
>logic

>>8502791
So what does give one a "title to X"? Does the "title to X" even exist?

>>8502788
They're merely stating the immediate implications of the concept of exclusive property, without saying anything about why that concept exists. It's the equivalent of saying "they won because they scored more goals than the other team".

>>8502293
Great, they'll make your cake.
Except you won't know if they are bigots or not, and if they are they will make it taste like salt and vinnegar.

And you still can't sue someone is they do a crappy job on purpose, you can only stop being their client.

>>8502826
>And you still can't sue someone is they do a crappy job on purpose
What is medical malpractice?

>>8502676
Potential ownership is a worthless idea. Just having the chance to do something is irrelevant to actually doing it in most tagible ways. This deprivation is the extinguished possibility of you obtaining X but your wanting X does not give you any right to X and the sheer existence of X doesn't give you a claim to it. This is why I made the distinction between the ethical notion of deprivation that you used and he purely physical one. A person not havibg something they want is not slighted by the other who does have it. This is the essence of the term entitlement as I used it already. To be so arrogant as to claim a right to something originating in your desire to have it without regard for the prior circumstances of the object of your desire.

>>8502822
It was the previous anon, who it was addressed to, who stated the concept exists.

>>8502850
>but your wanting X does not give you any right to X
So how does someone HAVING X give them a "right" to it?

>To be so arrogant as to claim a right to something originating in your desire to have it without regard for the prior circumstances of the object of your desire.
My argument is specifically based on the "prior circumstances of the object of your desire". The prior circumstances were that I previously had a positive percentage chance of bringing it into my possession. If that percentage chance then drops to 0, then I have suffered a loss.

>>8502706
Suffering or the lack there of isn't the point in this line of reasoning. The point is within, as I said before, the term entitlement. Even if you were to ignore any conception of property rights. If this origin of a stake in X as originating from the desire for X holds universally then you have the same claim to X that the holder of X does. If you suffer for your lack of X it doesn't matter because B holds X and A does not. Unless you say that B has an obligation to alleviate the suffer of A to his own detriment which is then just so overwhelmingly arrogant and self centered that I'm not sure we can continue to discuss anything. The argument can be made that B has a responsibility to provide A with an amount of X such that A will be relieved of discomfort and B will not be significantly harmed, but even if we ignore the fact that this is more often than not impossible especially because of the subjective nature of the idea of harm, it completely discounts any peculiarities of A, B, and X that may be used in calculations of the distribution of X. (cont)

Furthermore why is anyone but the holder of X distributing X? This conception of stake effectively means that nobody ever owns anything since their ownership is entierly subject to the whims of the many A's that may covet their X's. This entire idea of rights to X ammounts to nothing more than a justification for getting what one wants when it's convenient for them. Because none of these principles are logically sound when applied universally. Furthermore if there is such a way to quantify harm subjectively then you find that you will always necessarily be harming B by forcing exchange with A. A utilitarian view of these interactions finds the net good done in these interaction to be 0. It's quite good if you're A but B is instead made to pay a variable price for A's desires. This is sub optimal. The bottom line is that you would like to control the distribution and disposal of X regardless of whether or not the possibility of your attaining X is still greater than zero.

>>8502813
That could be a very large field of discussion but most would agree that if I hold X and you cannot wrend if ftom me without threatening force or violence then you're in the wrong to still attempt to take control of X all other things being equal. You can make all kinds of destructionist or existentialist arguments to get around this. But the core of the event is that you mug a guy for his stuff. That's what's happening here.

>>8502894
Physically holding an object and having the capacity to use it gives you a greater claim to that object than a man who simply wants one with all things considered equal. Or at least most commonly considered as sane persons would say so. You can't suffer a loss of something that you never had in the first place.

Are you a theif or something?

>>8502936
>>8502938
>>8502955
>X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX XXX X

>>>/x/

>>8502936
>Unless you say that B has an obligation to alleviate the suffer of A to his own detriment which is then just so overwhelmingly arrogant and self centered that I'm not sure we can continue to discuss anything.
As far as I'm concerned, it depends on the relative degrees of the suffering and detriment. That's what decides where the obligation lies. No matter what you do, you're going to run into cases where people's needs and desires conflict.

>A utilitarian view of these interactions finds the net good done in these interaction to be 0.
That assumes that everyone gains equal value from the possession of given property. Otherwise, there is no guarantee that the negative utility to the one losing property is exactly equal to the positive utility of the one gaining it.

>>8502976
>Physically holding an object and having the capacity to use it gives you a greater claim to that object than a man who simply wants one with all things considered equal.
>Are you a theif or something?
So are you saying that a thief who succeeds in their crime has a greater claim to the stolen goods than the one who formerly had it, but now merely desires it?

>You can't suffer a loss of something that you never had in the first place.
Obviously, but again that only makes sense if you ignore the concept of potential. And ignoring the concept of potential implies that value/utility is not conserved, and it is possible for value to spontaneously come into existence.

>>8501067
If faggots can demand a christcuck baker bake them a faggot wedding cake then dumb fuck shitlibs shouldn't be able to discriminate against white men and said discriminated white men should get millions of dollars.

>>8503044
>shitlibs shouldn't be able to discriminate against white men
This isn't actually something most liberals would disagree with.

>>8503057
Lol
Huff post
Everyday feminism
Every single college English, sociology, ends in studies and any Marxist leftist bullshit professor
Salon
Cnn
Dailybeast
The trace
Buzzfeed
White privilege conference
Common core
Jezebel
And on and on

>>8503057
>what are quotas

>>8502991
The problem with this is that suffering is subjective, cannot be quantified, and is not the subject of a 3rd party's will. The appeal could be made that I deserve for my transition, complete with surgery and clothing to be paid for by some person B. If I have extraordinary dysphoria that demands these things to be taken care of in order for me to be comfortable, and B not only has the resources to fix these problems for me but is also my aesthetic superior, thus her efforts will close the gap between our material and aesthetic circumstances, it doesn't change the fact that you've robbed B to enrich A, and that one is harmed for the sake of another against their will. The fundamental inability to objectively measure the subjective phenomena of discomfort means that we each assign different values to the same sets of X Y and Z. Unless you had a divine insight into the minds and manners of all person's A through Z you have no hope of making fair judgements of distribution of subjects of desire based on subjective harm. As a transwoman would place an almost illogically high value on femininity, a transman would not. They have different values of the same comodities. The relative values of X are not fixed. And you have no more right or ability than B to decide the weighted value of X(A,B).

>>8503000
Once the theif robs a man all things are no longer equal now are they? There are prior circumstances. This is why I asked if you were a theif. The basic axiom that all your arguments flow from is "I want X" and your entire series of rhetoric has been an effort to justify relieving B of X through any means necessary. Your potential is not consequental. Unless potential is universally consequential, in which case the total change in potential of all actions is 0. The probability of actors C through Z to utilize asset X becomes zero at the moment that B's probability becomes 100%. The potential is preserved but now concentrated. However because it doesn't reside specifically with you, you're upset. Value and utility are not conserved and potential is not important. Apple seeds have the potential to grow a tree and feed a family. But if the tree is never planted then there are no apples and the family starves all the same as if the potential were realized by someone else. The potential is neigh worthless until it is realized. Your problem is not with the fact that potential is realized. Your problem is the possibility of potential being realized by someone who isn't you! The man who holds the seeds, the action of the seeds being planted is worth infinitely more than the the infinite potential other person's planting of those seeds! However your entire argument pivots on the fact that the fruits do not belong to YOU!

>>8503073
Oh wow, nice buzzwords. Got any actual sources?

>>8503138
>>Your problem is the possibility of potential being realized by someone who isn't you!
No. I don't care if that other person realizes potential or not. What I do care about is losing the possibility of realizing that potential myself. It doesn't matter to me if that potential is lost by someone else realizing that potential, or by them just doing something to ensure that no one is ever able to realize that potential. Ideally, I'd like for everyone to be able to realize their potential, but none of that changes the fact that making it impossible for me to realize a potential, one which I previously had a chance of achieving, is still causing me to suffer a loss.

>>8503192
>Got any actual sources?
>>8503083

>>8503192
You are just so self centered it's mind-boggling.

>>8501067
Ok, sure, but the queer cake shop has to bake birthday cakes for all the Westboro Baptist people and wedding cakes for 6yo Aisha's marriage to Mohammed Abdul down at the local Isis mosque. Two way street.

>>8503322
Guarantee they wouldn't be as discriminatory as the homophobic religious nuts.

Someone go stir up a fuss at a muslim business refusing to make gay food for you so we can watch the libfags fall all over themselves to defend it :3c

>>8503335
>literally defending child rape

>>8503418
Your argument was retarded. Child-rape, child-marriage and ISIS are never going to be embraced in the U.S.

>>8503476
Do you think people should be forced to show "tolerance" or not? You can't have it both ways.

>>8503192
But you're not actually losing anything. If you don't buy that thing, you were never going to. That cake was always going to go to the straight couple and not to you, it was fated.
You actually have no chance of attaining anything until you have attained it.

>>8503192
I'll give you some imaginary property to make up for you losing your imaginary claim so somebody else's shit.

>>8503580
Comparing kids being harmed to two consenting adults that love eachother isn't a fair comparison.

However, on this gay discrimination topic in general, I am biased and think people refusing service to someone because their religion says so is bullshit. Especially choosing what parts of their religion to follow.

You can hate gay people because of your religion? What about women that cut their hair? Or people that wear mixed cloths? Or divorcees? It would make more sense if they really followed their holy books and hated EVERYONE their books say to, instead of picking and choosing the groups they want to hate on. So this is more of a pet peeve to me.

>>8504337
Enforce tolerance by law or not. It's a yes or no question.

>>8504337
>old testament and new testament are the same thing meme

epin

>>8504396
You're so right, when we look at NT we find that figs are cursed and women aren't to speak in church. I see these rules followed at all times, so we better ban gayness on religious principle.

>>8504396
>expecting logic from a child rape apologist

>>8503218
That's not a source.

>>8503225
Not an argument.

>>8503580
It is intolerant to be tolerant of intolerance.

>>8503965
In other words, I'm being deprived of the chance of purchasing a cake because of the baker's homophobia.

>You actually have no chance of attaining anything until you have attained it.
That's utter nonsense. It's equivalent to saying everyone is guaranteed to live forever until the moment that they die.

>>8503982
You need to realize that before either of us obtained the product, all EITHER of us had was a potential claim. What you call an "imaginary" claim. So neither of us had an advantage in that regard, we were even. But then, somehow, you obtained the product, and I did not. Why? Neither of us were "entitled" to that product, right? So what real legitimacy does your "claim" to that physical object have? Why do you "deserve it", but others do not?

>>8504348
Not them, but no, "tolerance" is a stupid basis for a law. It would basically mean anyone is free to ignore the law so long as that's what they want to. A better basis would be avoidance of harm. Discriminating against gays is harmful because it deprives them of access to goods and services. Child marriage is harmful because children are unable to consent.

>>8508015
>That's not a source.
Quotas are a clear example of it. Unless you're claiming they don't exist?

>>8508073
The claim was that liberals tend to oppose businesses being required to serve white men. Bringing up quotas is not evidence of that.

>>8501138
The right wing gays claim to have outgrown gay pride and hate the parades, yet shriek when they are escorted away.

when da muzzies get here and have to service erryone and cant do private road shit, remember to order cake.

>>8504396
Because either one of them is logical, right?

>>8508108
No, the claim was that shitlibs like you shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against white males. You know, like how quotas do.

Before you pretend you're not lying, here's the exact post >>8503057

>>8508287
Go away pedo.

>>8508332
Most ``shitlibs" would be perfectly okay with abolishing ``quotas" if provided credible evidence that people were not discriminating against the minority. That's in fact the whole reason for things like affirmative action in the first place, because otherwise discrimination WOULD occur. So if you can demonstrate that that premise is false, then there would be no more desire for affirmative action. It's not because "white people have privilege and therefore deserve to suffer" or nonsense like that.

>>8508376
Not only is that justification untrue (see the SCOTUS cases on affirmative action) but it's admitting you were wrong from that start, that you shitlibs do indeed support discrimination against whites and males, sexist racist bigots that you are.

>>8508383
>(see the SCOTUS cases on affirmative action)
Please show me where the SCOTUS said that "white people deserve to suffer because they have privilege".

>that you shitlibs do indeed support discrimination against whites and males, sexist racist bigots that you are.
No, the whole reason we support things like affirmative action is to prevent discrimination. Whereas people who oppose it think discrimination is okay as long as it's done by private entities rather than the government. Affirmative action is supported for the same reason why people say cake shops shouldn't be able to discriminate against gays: denying people equal opportunities is immoral, regardless of whether it's done by governments or private entities.

File: 194265412943.png (92KB, 785x314px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 785x314px

B A K E
T H E
F U C K I N G
C A K E

>>8508420
Go learn the case law instead of making it up in your head and posting your fanon.

>>8508420
>denying people opportunities is immoral
>hence why its okay to pass a significantly more qualified cis white male scum because the company needs to hit its quota of black girls hiding in the break room on their phones

>>8508429
You're the one who claimed that the justification I indicated is untrue per the SCOTUS, why don't you back up your claims.

>>8508497
And again, find me a liberal who says "it would be good for a black person to get a job over a white person who is significantly more qualified". That's an accident of the system, not what it's designed to do. It would be like accusing Boeing of supporting the death of innocent people simply because plane crashes do inevitably occur from time to time.

>>8508574
>why don't you disprove my baseless and ignorant claim
>when you've already won the actual argument regardless by demonstrating how i lied that we shitlibs aren't sexist racists
How about I don't.

>>8508605
>>why don't you disprove my baseless and ignorant claim
This is what basically every liberal I know says about affirmative action, that it exists specifically to counter the discrimination against minorities and women that would otherwise occur. If you believe their justification is something else, why don't you at least SAY what you think it is so I can consider it. I'm not obligated to refute your arguments unless you actually make them.

>>when you've already won the actual argument regardless by demonstrating how i lied that we shitlibs aren't sexist racists
You have won precisely nothing. You haven't even stated why you think ``quotas" exist, unless your silence in response to my posts indicates that you do in fact believe that liberals (despite many of them, including the most politically powerful ones, being white men themselves) think white men should be punished for being privileged. And if that is what you're claiming, then it's still on you to find evidence. All you've done is made claims that are ultimately tangential to the argument and then insisting that you've won, without proving anything. Not that I really expected someone who goes around talking about ``shitlibs" to argue in good faith anyways...

>>8508639
Go be racist somewhere else shitlib bigot. This is the LGBT board, not sexism general.

File: cake.jpg (401KB, 960x1280px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 960x1280px

>>8501067
If people want to have a public business then they need to serve the public.
Otherwise we go back to lunch counters that won't serve blacks, etc.
The Supreme Court will re-affirm this, so prepare for a summer of BTFO /pol/tards bitching about cakes.

If you don't want to bake cakes for faggots then don't open a public bakery.
It's not like you have to watch the faggots butt fuck in front of you.
How stupid are you to turn away business because your "feels" think it is icky?
Grow the fuck up.

>>8508666
You're the one who injected race and sex into the discussion way back in >>8503044. Which, mind you, wasn't replying to anyone but the OP (which did not mention race either). So if you don't think discussion of race and sex belong on this board, you shouldn't have brought them up in the first place.

And you of all people should realize that accusing someone of being sexist and racist isn't an argument. It is a valid criticism of someone's beliefs if true, but where exactly have I said anything racist or sexist? I even said that I'd be willing to oppose affirmative action if there was evidence that it was no longer serving to prevent discrimination against minorities. But instead you just accuse liberals of hating white men, telling people "not my job to educate you" when asked for evidence, and then when people disagree with you, you call them a racist sexist bigot. You know, basically the sort of thing a ``shitlib" would do. You're being the very thing you criticize.

>>8508780
>where have I said I'm a racist sexist?
>I even said sometimes I'd be willing to oppose racism and sexism!

>>8508821
So if I don't active oppose racism and sexism with my every breath, I'm racist and sexist? Yeah, you're really sounding like the worst of the SJW stereotype right now. But please, if you think I'm being racist and sexist, indicate how I'm doing so, I can't stop doing something if I don't know what it is. And as I said, I don't believe Affirmative Action to be racist or sexist since it exists specifically to prevent discrimination. My view is that jobs should be determined by a combination of one's ability and their need, not their race and gender. If quotas turn out to be the best way to achieve that, then yes, I do support them, and I don't see how that could be racist. And when I asked for more information on your viewpoint you just went into "not my job to educate you". You haven't even done anything to suggest you believe liberal ideology to be anything other than "make whitey suffer because of reasons".

But we are really getting off topic here. So if you have something valuable to add, please make an effort to explain it, don't keep evading the issue and insulting people.

>>8508881
>I don't believe discriminating against people on the basis of sex of race is sexist, racist or discrimination
Then why are you even here, when every homophobe can pull the same line, "I don't believe it is, period"?

Go back to /pol/ with your fellow sexists and racists, shitlib bigot.

>>8508906
I specifically said that I support Affirmative Action and so on only to the extent that it works to counteract existing discrimination. If, in the absence of Affirmative Action, there would not be any net discrimination against minorities, then I would completely oppose it. That's the whole point, it's not because I have any personal attachment to Affirmative Action, it's because I believe in taking appropriate action to oppose discrimination. You're only looking at the act itself, saying that Affirmative Action involves prioritizing black applicants and therefore saying it "discriminates against people based on race", while ignoring what might happen otherwise, namely black people being denied a fair chance of working by racist employers. And if you think trying to prevent that is "racist", I don't know what to tell you.

>>8508981
>i specifically said that i don't support all racism or sexism!
Right, you don't support it when it's against a race or sex you aren't bigoted against. That's normal for bigots.

File: go-away.gif (1MB, 350x197px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 350x197px

>>8508981
go away

>>8508906
Just saying, "libshits" aren't /pol/, /pol/ is retarded republican

>>8509049
>racist
check
>sexist
check
>party affiliation

Two out of three is enough for them to get along.

>>8508999
You do realize that by opposing Affirmative Action, without providing any evidence that it is no longer necessary, YOU are essentially supporting discrimination. Again, I'd be perfectly happy to see the end of Affirmative Action if abolishing it would not result in an increase in discrimination. But instead you're arguing that the only way to oppose discrimination is to pretend it doesn't exist.

>>8501067
I think there needs to be some nuance to whatever ruling.

I do think that a small business like the bakery in question here should have the right to refuse to serve customers for any reason, even extending to employment. It's not as though there aren't many alternatives here so a small business discriminating isn't going to have any hugely detrimental effects on anyone's quality of life, and even if there weren't alternatives not having a cake isn't a huge problem.

But larger or more important businesses, like say housing and utility companies, or a major business employing thousands of people, shouldn't be allowed to discriminate in service or employment because the effects of that would be far more severe.

>>8512260
>But larger or more important businesses, like say housing and utility companies, or a major business employing thousands of people, shouldn't be allowed to discriminate in service or employment because the effects of that would be far more severe.

And it would be easy to separate both. Since corporations cannot have a religion, so they can't claim moral objection on religious grounds.

This case has some interesting implications for the legal definition of art. Is a commisioned cake art? If it is, then the anti-discrimination laws are creating the big no-no of compelled speech.

>>8513104
>If it is, then the anti-discrimination laws are creating the big no-no of compelled speech.
How? I'm pretty sure that the anti-discrimination laws don't say anything about what the cake has to be like, just that you can't refuse to serve someone for being gay.

"issue"

>>8501138
They're criticising the pride parade, not calling for the legal ability to force the pride parade to allow police officers or gay neo-nazis to march in the parade.

They're arguing for limited government power, they're not saying people can't be criticized for the decisions they make. They're just saying that the government using the force of law to force Christian bakers to cater gay weddings is an overreach of government power.

Now you understand the nuance.

File: cigarette-warnings-e1296604893773.jpg (78KB, 598x360px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 598x360px

>>8513104
Compelled Speech isn't this unheard of boogeyman the internet thinks it is.

I just see the forcing Christian bakers to cater gay weddings things as basically throwing religious rights under the bus for the sake of gay rights. If we were talking about the idea that somebody should serve hungry gay people food or give them a place to live, yeah obviously that should be legally protected, even if religious doctrine specifically spoke out about it.

Compelling people to cater gay weddings though? Does the government really need to get involved? Really?

>>8513953
But there isn't a clear lone drawn between the two and this ruling could be used to justify the latter.

>>8513958
Religious rights and Gay rights both have legal protections so this is inherently a blurry issue.

I think Christians that won't rent two men a hotel room with a single bed because they might do the devils work in it can fuck right off, but on the issue of catering a gay wedding I think that's really think the '''''right''''' to gay wedding catering is so frivolous I would lean to protecting religion above gay rights.

My problem with this is that it is literally the law being brought in to protect gay peoples feels by destroying the livelihood of the devoutly religious. When we ALREADY allow say, pastors, to do straight weddings and refuse to do gay ones on religious grounds, but apparently we will only make that exception for people actively in the Church.

Gay people aren't dying on the street because they can't get their gay wedding catered. This isn't an issue that actually threatens gay peoples livelihoods in any way shape or form. It is just ridiculous. Religious rights are protected like gay rights and it makes absolutely no sense to protect the right of gay people to be able to live without their feels getting hurt over the right of the religious to be able to make a living for themselves while following a strict religious code. Especially when society ALREADY allows double standards in regards to gay marriage and straight marriage, why the hell draw the line here?

The issue with not allowing legal gay marriage like straight marriage, in the first place, was that it limited gay peoples ability to live as well as straight people, as they would never want to be in a straight marriage, but it limited things like their financial ability. No gay marriage threatened gay peoples livelihood.

Wedding cakes are purely ceremonial. They are not in any way shape or form some shit people actually need. Any sort of right to compel the religious to bake them for you, with the government threatening their livelihoods if they don't, is a rediculous overstep.

File: image.jpg (65KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 720x720px

another irrelevant manufactured issue put out to pasture

At least some funny stuff has come out of this

like all those companies that pulled out of investments in any flyover state that proposed laws allowing businesses to discriminate based on their faith because they "don't want to support hate" even though literally all of those companies invest and trade in countries that still put gays to death based on religious law

>>8513996
Your property rights and freedom of association end where my feelings begin.

>>8508758
its called having integrity which I'm guessing you have none

>>8513421
But that's the thing. The baker did not object to serving a gay couple, he objected to specifically making a cake commemorating their marriage. He argues that being forced to bake the cake violates his rights by making him support actions he does not support.

>>8513953
Why then should Christians be compelled to serve Muslim couples?

>>8515404
>>8513953

If you want to run a public business then you have to serve the public. That is the law.
Otherwise we go back to the days when people would just arbitrarily pick and choose who they would allow into their business which causes a lot of public disturbances (expensive to deal with for the municipality) and is simply discrimination.
If you have a problem with various members of the public then you shouldn't run a public business, just keep it private.
The reason civilizations have laws is so that they can run smoothly.
If there are assholes always causing problems because of their invisible sky-daddy beliefs then it is just unnecessary and needs to be eliminated.

>>8515479
>If you want to run a public business then you have to serve the public. That is the law.
It certainly fucking shouldn't be.

Gays should have gotten killed by nazis

What the fuck is this

Private businesses can do whatever the fuck they want especially if it's commissioned work and refusing business

If you don't like it don't give them your money

By declining your business they are losing your money as well

This is stupid and hopefully they throw this stupid trash case out and favor the cake guy

>>8515666
Well, you're not a supreme court justice so your opinion literally means nothing.
Go back to masturbating.
It is apparently the only thing you're capable of.

>>8515689
>Private businesses

they aren't private businesses
they are public businesses
they serve the public and therefore have to follow public laws
try to keep up

>>8515721
Businesses are allowed to refuse or decline business as they decide, this isn't government controlled

If I get a restaurant and don't want to serve people with blonde hair there is nothing they can do about it

If I get a bakery and don't want to serve homosexuals there is nothing they can do about it

The fact that this is even a legal case and reaching the SCOTUS is pretty fucking dumb

Probably some overblown media red herring to distract from the government actually doing something awful

>>8513996
>>8515011
It basically comes down to separation of church and state. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the discrimination being based in religious belief, it's more that we've already established the principle of anti-discrimination laws, and we don't allow people to violate the law whenever they feel like it just because they claim their religion tells them to. Anti-discrimination laws are not a violation of religious freedom; violation of religious freedom would be banning places of worship, excluding people of certain religions from government benefits, or charging higher taxes on people of a religion. Nobody is forcing them to enter the cake business, and if they can't abide by the laws and requirements of that job, then they are incapable of functioning in that line of work. It would be like saying a devout Muslim seeking work as a wine taster has their religious freedom violated because Islam forbids consumption of intoxicants. It was their own choice to seek that job, and if the requirements of that job are incompatible with their religious faith, they simply have to choose one or the other. Following anti-discrimination laws are simply part of the requirements of a job.

Anti-discrimination laws ARE a violation of freedom of association, but the fact is that absolute freedom of association has not existed in any civilized country for decades if not longer. Even "property rights" are more of a license than actual ownership, given that there are laws that must be followed even on your own private property - if that land was actually owned by you, you would have absolute authority in deciding what the laws would be on that property.

>>8515690
This is why the LGBT lobby needs to end.

Real talk: I hate theists so I'm fine with this solely because fuck theists

>>8515341
If the gay couple specifically requested a cake that was physically different from those he already made, then yeah I'd agree with him, as far as I'm concerned there is no obligation to make cakes with certain features/details, but it is discrimination to refuse to serve someone on the basis of their sexual orientation. If the basis for refusing service was that the customer requested a cake of a sort that his business didn't make, then that wouldn't be discrimination. But if it was a cake no different than the ones he already made, and only refused to sell it to a gay couple because he didn't want to "support homosexuality", then that argument is pretty silly. If that was a valid argument, it would equally be valid to refuse to pay taxes because you don't support certain government programs.

>>8515404
Because religion is a protected class, it's not valid to refuse to serve someone on the basis of their religion.

>>8515689
>Private businesses can do whatever the fuck they want especially if it's commissioned work and refusing business
Actually they can't. Try starting a private business that manufactures nuclear or biological weapons. Or just a private restaurant that only serves white people.

>By declining your business they are losing your money as well
And will gain the money of bigots who start supporting them for taking a stand against "the gay agenda".

>>8515744
>Businesses are allowed to refuse or decline business as they decide, this isn't government controlled
Maybe in ancapistan, not in any developed country. "Property rights" in the civilized world aren't actually de facto ownership, they're a contract with the government. Otherwise agents of the government would have no right to enter your property without your consent (even with a warrant). In practical terms, you don't actually own most private property, rather you're merely renting it from the government, who reserves the right to take it back if you violate certain terms.

>>8515744
>Businesses are allowed to refuse or decline business as they decide, this isn't government controlled
That is precisely where you're wrong.
Read the law and then get back to me.

>>8515792
>Because religion is a protected class, it's not valid to refuse to serve someone on the basis of their religion.
And sexual orientation is also a protected class in certain states. Why do these religious snowflakes think they're any different? It used to be the Mormon religious right to exclude negroes.

>>8515792
>If the gay couple specifically requested a cake that was physically different from those he already made, then yeah I'd agree with him, as far as I'm concerned there is no obligation to make cakes with certain features/details, but it is discrimination to refuse to serve someone on the basis of their sexual orientation. If the basis for refusing service was that the customer requested a cake of a sort that his business didn't make, then that wouldn't be discrimination. But if it was a cake no different than the ones he already made, and only refused to sell it to a gay couple because he didn't want to "support homosexuality", then that argument is pretty silly. If that was a valid argument, it would equally be valid to refuse to pay taxes because you don't support certain government programs.

He argues that his objection is that he is forced to make a cake for a gay wedding, which in his view constitues him showing support for said wedding. He's certainly leaning very heavily on the art angle, saying that the cake in question would have been unique and a work of art, and that these are the factors that lead him to deny service.

>>8516061
>a cake
>unique and a work of art

Do you think the Supremes will buy that argument?

>>8515976
I agree with you though. I'm saying that denying service to someone on the basis of their religion IS discrimination on the basis of religion, but expecting people to follow the same laws as everyone else despite their religion saying otherwise isn't.

Is it true they asked for a penis cake?

I don't think that's true but I can't find sources.

I hope they make it illegal for women to refuse sex with pre op trans woman

>>8516069
I don't know, which is why I said it has implications for the defintion of art.

File: gaywedding.jpg (53KB, 468x380px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 468x380px

>>8516514
>a penis cake
>for a wedding

hmmmm, seems legit

>>8516522
If your business is having sex with the public, then yeah, you probably shouldn't refuse pre op trans women.

>>8516559
I know, but I need concrete evidence to the contrary to convince someone otherwise.

>>8516563
Bad news for prostitutes!

You want the law to literally force them to have sex, aka get raped, and you still think you're the one on the goodies' side!

File: 1000_750_csupload_49125580.jpg (75KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1000x750px

>>8516564
>please help me argue that those bad gays forced their sexuality on the poor christian baker!

it didn't happen, mong

>>8516601
I think the point is more that regarding sexual activity as fungible labor is depraved to begin with. Many people only become prostitutes because they have literally no other option, so they don't "consent" in any meaningful way in the first place.

>>8515782
That's the tl;dr of all the shit I said in this thread.

>>8517136
Sophistry to cover your hypocrisy.

>>8518871
No, what's hypocritical is to pretend that consent is only an issue in the prostitution industry when trans people are involved. Seriously, do you think it's common for prostitutes to simply refuse to have sex with a guy because he's ugly and they're not attracted to him?

>>8520184
I hardly think that would be hypocrisy if it was true but I didn't say that in any case.

>>8512260
A business operates sort of under license from the government. This isn't new and has been seen in old world laws such as an English pub is not able to refuse someone a glass of water.

It's not the case that a business is a free sovereign entity that is able to establish it's own rules. Even if you own a piece of land within a country that ownership is not sovereignty of that land. That land ownership is more like a license from the government for an individual to do certain things with that land.

A business is therefore a public space that offers services. The law has certain protections and rules that guarantees citizens are able to enter public spaces and use services.

>>8513953
Rights of make believe vs the rights of real life? I think that's an easy choice to make.

>>8520272
>A business operates sort of under license from the government.
>It's not the case that a business is a free sovereign entity that is able to establish it's own rules.
Your household operates under the government. It is not a free sovereign entity.

Bring back sodomy laws.

>>8515721
What you define as a public or private business?
The definition I found states that the difference is that private businesses have shares that are privately held and are not traded publicly.
You say they are public businesses as they serve the public, so therefore do private businesses not serve the public

>>8520890
How do you think? It's entirely arbitrary, just based on feels.

The fact that he or she doesn't know the actual meanings of public and private just shows how much they are speaking from a place of no reason.

>>8520755
>Your household operates under the government. It is not a free sovereign entity.
I don't think anyone is actually denying that. If it was a free sovereign entity, there would be absolutely no government laws that you would have to abide by on your private property. That clearly isn't the case.

>Bring back sodomy laws.
If that's what you want, you can always vote for Mike Pence in 2020.

>>8520890
>>8521054
They're not using public and private in the conventional economic sense, but the point is clear regardless. Private entities under modern government are not sovereign institutions, in all instances they operate under license from the government. When looking at things from a classical liberal or libertarian perspective, it makes far more sense to think of "property ownership" in modern countries as not true ownership at all, but rather a rental contract with the government that actually owns the land. The government permits you to make use of the land, so long as you agree to the terms of the contract.

>>8521431
>If that's what you want, you can always vote for Mike Pence in 2020.
It's better than you deserve.

>>8521474
I'm not even gay, but why? Banning gay sex isn't going to make you richer, happier, or healthier, all it's going to do is impose suffering on those who do enjoy it. We've already seen enough of that attitude among supporters of the current presidency, and it sure isn't something that's going to make this country great again.

>>8521576
Because it's a logically acceptable thing by the logic of the arguments in this thread.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

>>8521651
>Because it's a logically acceptable thing by the logic of the arguments in this thread.
It's only logical in a very abstract sense, when you focus on the "can" without the "should". For a government policy to be enacted, it is not enough that the government have the ABILITY to enact the policy, but also have a sufficient reason to do so.

>Live by the sword, die by the sword
Which becomes a useless oversimplification when you use it to argue that any change has a total of zero utility value. And that's basically what you're arguing here, that you should never use government to make the world a better place, because you wouldn't like it if the government was used to make the world a worse place. And most decent governments are specificially designed to facilitate them being used for good, but making it harder to use them for evil. That's why we have things like the Constitution and checks and balances. And the fact that the best example you can come up with to demonstrate your fallacious reasoning is anti-sodomy laws - something with negative net utility - seems to suggest that your whole argument is faulty.

>>8521775
>but also have a sufficient reason to do so.
Yet that wasn't the argument given in defense of the violation of rights this thread is about. So why should the homophobes have to make any argument for sodomy laws besides that the state may?

>that you should never use government to make the world a better place, because you wouldn't like it if the government was used to make the world a worse place.
But that's exactly what I'm suggesting here. The homophobes say the sodomy laws will make the world a better place, and since both they and the totalitarians itt defend their move, who am I to doubt that it's the right one?

Again, it's better than what the people here deserve.

>something with negative net utility
I disagree.

>>8521805
>Yet that wasn't the argument given in defense of the violation of rights this thread is about. So why should the homophobes have to make any argument for sodomy laws besides that the state may?
Clearly an argument WAS given, or the issue would have died long before reaching the supreme court.

>I disagree.
Explain why, then. The only people who will even NOTICE the presence of anti-sodomy laws are the people who actually desire to have gay sex. So you're basically claiming that allowing people to do what they want in the privacy of their own homes is harmful. In which case you're not in any position to call anyone a totalitarian, lol.

File: i can.jpg (26KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 480x480px

>>8521847
protip: oral sex between a man and a woman is illegal under the sodomy laws.
it affects more than just "the people who desire to have gay sex".

>>8521860
>protip: oral sex between a man and a woman is illegal under the sodomy laws.
>it affects more than just "the people who desire to have gay sex".
Fair enough, but that's still missing the point. You're accusing others of being totalitarian while saying people having consensual sex in the privacy of their own home is harmful. And furthermore, anti-sodomy laws are MORE totalitarian in anti-discrimination laws. In the case of anti-discrimination laws, the gay couple wants to buy a cake, and the government is stepping in to rule in favor of the gay couple. So it's a pre-existing conflict that the government is taking a side on. In the case of anti-sodomy laws on the other hand, both participants want to have sex and there is no conflict, until the government steps in to create one.

>>8521847
>Explain why, then.
Because it's what they deserve for hating freedom.

>>8521860
Updated federal sodomy laws shouldn't do that.

>>8521893
>Because it's what they deserve for hating freedom.
You would hate freedom too if your freedom was denied and others demanded the freedom to harm you. They just see your "freedom" for what it is - nothing other than straight privilege.

>>8521903
>You would hate freedom too if your freedom was denied and others demanded the freedom to harm you.
Exactly why I want those others to suffer what they want to inflict.

>>8521907
>Exactly why I want those others to suffer what they want to inflict.
Which will just convince them that they were on the side of justice all along. They feared that you would use your "freedom" to harm them, and now you're doing exactly that. So I fail to see how that is supposed to convince them that giving homophobes freedom is a good thing.

>>8521918
>They feared that you would use your "freedom" to harm them
No they didn't. They were too blind and arrogant to consider it.

But how do you think they did?

>>8521928
>They were too blind and arrogant to consider it.
So what do you think was their motivation for opposing the "right" of people to discriminate against them in the first place?

So many self loathers itt. If you don't want to bake a cake for gay people that don't get into the cake baking business.

>>8521934
>But how do you think they did?

>>8521958
I didn't respond to that part of your post because I didn't understand what it was referring to. Could you elaborate?

>>8521968
>>8521918
>They feared that you would use your "freedom" to harm them
How did they fear that?

>>8522000
Well because they (people like you) admitted it right here. LGBT said they didn't want to be discriminated against, and you quickly jumped to saying how much you wanted to make it illegal for gays to have sex.

Tell me this: if gay-run businesses decided to refuse service to straights, do you really think every straight person would be okay with that? None of them would say that they're being unfairly discriminated against and deserve to be protected by anti-discrimination laws?

>>8522011
No, you said use my "freedom" to harm them. How did they fear that?

>if gay-run businesses decided to refuse service to straights
Most minorities have exclusive organizations.

>>8501074
How about hospitals? how about ambulances?

>>8501819
>Their business. Their property. Their choice.
Sure and if they choose to ignore the laws of the nation that allows them to opperate then they can get shut down.
A buisness is not anation onto itself.

>>8522038
>No, you said use my "freedom" to harm them. How did they fear that?
Discrimination is a form of harm, even if a minor one. The fact that you respond to criticism of your freedom to discriminate by expressing your desire to make homosexuality illegal just shows what harm you would be willing to do to homosexuals if you had more "freedom".

>Most minorities have exclusive organizations.
Most of those "organizations" do not take the form of a business that denies service to people based on demographics.

>>8522038
>my all-white, no fags allowed golf club is no different than organizations targeted at poor minorities!

>>8522042
>Sure and if they choose to ignore the laws of the nation that allows them to opperate then they can get shut down.
Bring on the federal gay sex ban.

>>8522060
You have yet to provide a single benefit that would result from that other than protecting your precious feefees.

>>8522051
>shows what harm you would be willing to do to homosexuals if you had more "freedom".
Namely?

>>8522068
>other than protecting your precious feefees.
???

>>8522075
You have clearly stated that you desire that gay people be subjected to physical violence merely for having sex - something that doesn't affect you in the slightest. I don't know how far you'd go, but you're clearly too unhinged and irrational to be trusted with any authority over the lives of LGBT people.

>>8522083
Please, tell me. How does homosexuals having gay sex affect anyone other than the participants, considering none of those other people will even know about it? And please tell me how you can call yourself a defender of "freedom" when you say that people who disagree with you don't deserve to have consensual sex in their own homes?

>>8522086
So "shows what harm you would be willing to do" actually means nothing at all.

>>8522092
They use their freedom to harm others. So they don't deserve it.

>>8522109
>So "shows what harm you would be willing to do" actually means nothing at all.
It's a very strong indication though.

>They use their freedom to harm others. So they don't deserve it.
Are you just repeating words without knowing what they mean? Please explain how they can be harming others by saving sex, when they do it with consenting individuals on their own private property, and nobody else even knows about it?

Like, I think I get the game you're trying to play here, you're saying legalizing gay sex is "harmful" to the same extent that allowing businesses to discriminate against gay people is. But here's the thing - discriminating against gays does have a real if miniscule effect on them. It reduces their ability to access goods and services, even if only by a small amount. And no matter how small it is, it's an infinitely larger effect than the effect that gay people having sex has on you.

And furthermore, if a gay person wants to buy a cake and the cake shop doesn't want to sell to gays, then somebody's going to go home unhappy. There's no way around it. Either the gay person gets their way, or the cake shop gets their way. You can say all you want about "negative rights" and all that, but no matter what you say, that conflict is still there. Somebody is going to experience some amount of suffering. So the only "harm"-based argument to justify their right to discriminate against gays is to claim that the baker suffers more from selling cakes to gays than the gay person suffers from not being sold a cake.

>>8522133
>It's a very strong indication though.
That I would do that exactly?

>Please explain how they can be harming others by saving sex, when they do it with consenting individuals on their own private property, and nobody else even knows about it?
No, wanting to ban bakers is harming others.

>>8522133
(cont.)

But two gay men having sex is a totally different issue. They both want sex to happen, and there is no third party to that "transaction" - they're doing it in one of their homes, with no one else around, no one to even observe or perceive it. It's not like the cake shop issue at all, it's not a case of opposing, incompatible desires - it's a case of desires that can BOTH be fulfilled completely with no issue.

But now you're saying it would be beneficial for you to step in and decide that they shouldn't have sex. What say to you even have on this matter? You aren't even a party to this transaction - it doesn't affect you, you're not a participant, so how is forbidding an act that would give both parties pleasure without affecting anyone else going to prevent harm? Please, explain this.

And if you're going to say "well the government has a say because they control the country", then sure, they have a RIGHT to intervene. But what is their actual motive? In the cake shop case, the idea is that they step in to resolve a dispute, one that already exists. But here, there is no dispute until the government steps in - they're not acting in the interests of any of the participants.

>>8522140
>That I would do that exactly?
That you would be willing to support gay people being physically harmed for wanting to have sex.

>No, wanting to ban bakers is harming others.
So answer my question from before: if gays decided to refuse service to straights, and straight people demanded anti-discrimination laws as a result, you would then be in favor of making it illegal for straights to have sex?

>No, wanting to ban bakers is harming others.
And so you think two wrongs makes a right? You think making gay people suffer is going to make them realize "hey, those Christian bakers are decent people like us, it's wrong of us to force our demands on them?" Please tell me however every other oppressed group in history started to see their oppressors as people just like them after being forced to live as second class citizens.

>>8522153
>In the cake shop case, the idea is that they step in to resolve a dispute, one that already exists. But here, there is no dispute until the government steps in - they're not acting in the interests of any of the participants.
Other people object to it happening. That's a dispute and all the government is doing is resolving it.

>>8522109
New anon here;
If you're not just shitposting, HOW does fags having the freedom to fag it up harm people?

Are you refering to the cake bullshit? They recieved donations far in excess of the tiny bit they paid over the whole mess. They chose to close the physical shop and switch their buisness to mail-order cake deal so they could be more selective about who they served.
So what's the harm?

>>8522171
>Other people object to it happening. That's a dispute
Again, they're not even part of the "transaction". Nor are they seeking to be part of it. If a straight person wanted to fuck a gay guy and was turned down for it, then you'd maybe have a case. But the people are completely outside of the transaction here, so they don't have any say in it.

>>8522185
>they're not even part of the "transaction".
It's one country.

>then you'd maybe have a case.
Cases are for courts. All I need is an opinion.

>>8522222
wasted get
feel shame

>>8522170
>That you would be willing to support gay people being physically harmed for wanting to have sex.
How does my "freedom" do that?

>>8522222
>It's one country.
So you think it would be okay for the government to make straight sex illegal and throw you in jail for it?

>Cases are for courts. All I need is an opinion.
Opinions are meaningless. Anyone can have an opinion.

>>8522232
You have essentially declared your intent to do as much to harm gays as you are legally allowed to. Only the fact that you do not have exclusive, absolute control over the law prevents you from outlawing homosexuality. If the only reason you don't harm gays is because you aren't allowed to, that doesn't exactly speak to you being a good person.

>>8522272
>You have essentially declared your intent to do as much to harm gays as you are legally allowed to.
Not at all. Only enough to make the point.

>Only the fact that you do not have exclusive, absolute control over the law prevents you from outlawing homosexuality.
That makes no sense. It's pointless if it's not put into law in the normal way.

>>8522296
>Not at all. Only enough to make the point.
It's still a pretty poor point, since it just makes it look like the "muh freedoms" crowd wants to make gays suffer, rather than just be left alone.

>>8522296
>It's pointless if it's not put into law in the normal way.
Ever heard of dictators?

>>8522309
>the "muh freedoms" crowd
Isn't that you? You're the one saying gays should have a freedom.

You make it look like the muh freedoms crowd only care about freedom when it comes to gay people.

>Ever heard of dictators?
FYI the US doesn't have one.

>>8522338
>Isn't that you? You're the one saying gays should have a freedom.
You're the one making a huge deal about how anti-discrimination laws are taking away people's freedom. Seriously, do you think that being expected to include gay people among your customers is anywhere near as much of a restriction of freedom as being forbidden by law from having consensual sex with your partner is? Just try to think about it for a moment.

>You make it look like the muh freedoms crowd only care about freedom when it comes to gay people.
No, when I brought up hypothetical discrimination against straight people that was supposed to be seen as an example of a bad thing, not something that I consider positive. I believe that one's freedoms should not generally depend on their race, sexuality, etc - I do however believe that certain freedoms are more important and valuable than others. For example I consider the freedom to have consensual sex in private more important than the freedom to discriminate.

>FYI the US doesn't have one.
Sure, but that doesn't make your original point any clearer. Perhaps you could elaborate?

>>8522368
>is anywhere near as much of a restriction of freedom
How much restriction is acceptable in your opinion?

>Sure, but that doesn't make your original point any clearer. Perhaps you could elaborate?
The point is that the anti-freedom gays learn their lesson and see what their views really mean. It has to come from the people. A dictatorship wouldn't have banned the bakers' freedom on the ground of public opinion in the first place.

>>8522388
>How much restriction is acceptable in your opinion?
It depends on circumstances. Ideally none, but as I see it discriminating against people does have the effect of reducing their de facto freedom, so there isn't any "zero freedom loss" answer in that case.

>The point is that the anti-freedom gays learn their lesson and see what their views really mean.
Again, I don't think that would get the point across. You do realize that even in "civilized" countries, even gay sex has in many cases only been legalized for a few decades? They certainly don't think that centuries of living as second class citizens was to "teach them the meaning of freedom" or anything like that, so if you bring back sodomy laws they'll just think straights are being regressive. If you really want to turn the tables, you should go into a gay-run restaurant with your friends, start talking about how gays are disgusting and weird (but steer clear of "fighting words" or anything that disrupts the peace), and if they refuse to serve you, sue them for discrimination.

>>8522404
>but as I see it discriminating against people does have the effect of reducing their de facto freedom
How so?

>>8522431
Because such a business generally serves all members of the public. If they target a specific demographic to deny them service, then it essentially means that demographic is being denied equal access to that good.

>>8522461
How is that reducing their freedom though?

>>8522506
Because they are rendered unable to do something that other citizens take for granted. It's not restricting they're de jure freedom because it's not like they're actually denied rights on paper, but the fact is that if one group in particular is being denied service, that group lacks the practical freedom to do something that all other people are generally able to do. It's like a building not being wheelchair-accessible - in some countries it isn't a legal requirement, but it still means people who use wheelchairs are prevented from doing something that the rest of the population has no issue with.

>>8522671
>Because they are rendered unable to do something that other citizens take for granted.
That's not what freedom is though, and it's also plain wrong because other citizens can be refused service for whatever reason the baker decides too.

>>8522715
I define freedom as "the practical ability to carry out an action". And yes, other citizens CAN be refused service, but in this case they AREN'T, at least not targeted as a group. This isn't about what one has a right to do, or can legally do, but about what actually happens. Discrimination is still discrimination, regardless of its legal status.

>>8522838
You locking your front door reduces my freedom.

>>8526231
Of course it does. So does the government not giving you a $50 million monthly stipend. Every human's freedom is reduced compared to the theoretical maximum, because no human, no matter how privileged, wealthy, and powerful is omnipotent. A truly free human would be able to create life with a mere thought, and create entire universes out of nothingness with the power of their mind.

So no, I won't deny that locking my front door reduces your freedom. But I wouldn't say it's discrimination, or comparable to the cake shop or wheelchair accessibility examples, because the vast majority of people aren't allowed into my house either. Now on the other hand, if I allowed my black neighbors into the house, but not the white ones, that would be discrimination. My criticism is mainly about cases where someone is denied a freedom that the vast majority are able to take for granted.

>>8526273
But why is that other people get relevant?

>>8526287
Society basically evolves to cater to the majority, so if I lack the practical freedom to do something which the vast majority of other people can do, I'm essentially denied the ability to have full participation in society.

>>8526381
If it was the only cake retailer in the country and refused all gay customers, then that's short of full participation. Needing to get a gay wedding cake from a different shop isn't.

The vast majority of people do not rely on one whop they've never heard of. Even people in the same town don't rely on it being open and able to serve them whatever particular cake, color icing, style, etc.

There is no loss of practical freedom involved.

>>8526433
And if it REALLY truely were just about a cake shop that would be one thing.
Personally I don't really care if some shop I'll probably never visit only serves white women named joan.
But it's not just a cake shop, it sets a legal precident for private buisness. Sure you can go to some other cake shop, even if it's the only shop in town or all the others are bigots too, access to cake is not a matter of life or death, but what about hospitals? Ambulances?

>>8501067
They can do whatever the fuck they want. It's their business, their choice.

>>8526456
>Personally I don't really care if some shop I'll probably never visit only serves white women named joan.
So you concede you don't actually on principle care about discrimination.

>but what about hospitals? Ambulances?
What about them? If they are what matters then make a law about them instead.

Do you think is would ever happen in those cases by the way?

>>8526433
>If it was the only cake retailer in the country and refused all gay customers, then that's short of full participation. Needing to get a gay wedding cake from a different shop isn't.
I'd say it could be an issue if the only other cake shop was much further away. There's a spectrum between "literally only one cake shop exists" and "enough cake shops exist that the additional effort to go to a different one are negligible." And personally, if I was denied service by a cake shop, most likely I wouldn't consider it a big deal. But it's more the principle of the thing, I don't want to give them a beachhead to start finding ways to effectively exclude gays from society, and I also don't like how they're using "religious freedom" to justify it, since the REAL argument is based on freedom of association - calling it a religious freedom issue implies that it is permissible to deny people service specifically because of your religious faith, which is something that shouldn't even come up in secular law. Religious freedom means being allowed to practice your faith, it shouldn't be used to justify breaking secular law. The real issue is whether anti-discrimination laws or the right to free association take precedence, but either way, the fact that the denial of service was based on the owner's religious faith shouldn't matter at all as far as the law is concerned.

>>8526465
>So you concede you don't actually on principle care about discrimination.
I'm actually a different anon.
Discrimination is bad but imo more because of the harm it does rather than on principle.
>If they are what matters then make a law about them instead
Well it's great to say that but many of the very same groups fighting against classifying this as discrimination and illegal fight against any new protections for lgbt people and who knows how many people need to be harmed and die until they're forced to do something about it.

I mean it seems that you're arguing that discrimination shouldn't be illegal because it doesn't really hurt people that much and if it does then surely eventually someone will make a band-aid law to cover only the very specific circumstances where you judge enough harm has been done.
That's a bullshit subjective judgement of accpetable harm and I don't know how you think anyone would trust that judgement to the same groups that want to deny all protcetions and allow anything to be done as long as it's to lgbt people.

>Do you think is would ever happen in those cases by the way?
It litterally has happened.
http://bklyner.com/ems-denied-transgender-patient-care-causing-her-death-alleges-sheepshead-bay-lawyer-sheepshead-bay/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyra_Hunter
And you're advocating a legal precidentg that would allow it to continue to happen.

>>8526468
>Religious freedom means being allowed to practice your faith, it shouldn't be used to justify breaking secular law.
It's kinda funny how much some far right christians are so in-denial oblivious to how much they're like extremist muslims.
trying to inact their sharia law, oh I mean "religious freedom"
battling evolution being taught in schools
trying "keep women safe" at home instead of free to go out and work
and the crocodile tears of /pol/ concern trolling about the horrible violent muslims throwing gays off roofs and how we need to empower the far-right to protect gays from them always rings hollow alongside posts of them fantasising about their "day of rope" when they'll have the support to march through the streets and murder all gays

Really if they just never mentioned islam/chistianity by name they'd get along great.

>>8526537
>It litterally has happened.
And it's already illegal regardless of the cake ruling, idiot.

>>8526560
>christians are just as bad as muslims because /pol/ = isil
In case you haven't noticed the one is a single board on this site and the other is a terror organization fighting a war.

But don't let reality get in the way of the lies you need to tell yourself to keep supporting our murder.

>>8532030
The Western religious right is not limited to /pol/. And while they aren't going around murdering people in the streets right now, the fact is that their ideology is just as destructive, some of them literally believe that sharing a society with people who are openly homosexual will doom them to eternal torment. That's the kind of ideology whose adherents will turn violent if they feel they have no other options.

>>8529854
The people who are pushing the "religious freedom" argument want that sort of behavior to be legalized. That is why they must be opposed.