As a Libertarian, far too many on my side buy the crap Alex Jones peddles.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson

The hijacking of the Republican Party by the religious right and now the altright has made it all but impossible for me to vote republican and I would say 20 years ago I'd have been a safe bet. Every time I hear Rino or the other bullshit tags they give someone they disagree with while fawning over Ted Cruz or Trump or huckabee or back in the day Gary Bauer I want to scream.

I test fairly middle of the road on all the stupid politics tests you find. Hard to be a fiscal conservative and social center/left these days.

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George

I don’t disagree with any of that...in fact I’d say it supports my original contention.

_________________
Mr. Trump is unfit for our nation’s highest office.- JD Vance
If you committed violence on that day, obviously, you shouldn’t be pardoned.- JD Vance on the J-6 insurrectionists

I think you found new objects for target practice.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY

If we can agree that writing on a cake is an expression of someone's first amendment right, then you have argued quite explicitly that someone is obligated to use their protected rights in ways dictated by others, with the consequence for noncompliance being punishment ordered by the government. If that doesn't violate that someone's 13th amendment protection against involuntary servitude, then we might as well not even offer the protection.

I am going to have to go with Brick on this one. We have housing discrimination laws for a reason. Rick is being quite reasonable in his approach- if you're willing to offer those services to one person, then is no reason to refuse those services to another because the second person is gay.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You

Ok, so no involuntary servitude protection, then. I just want people to be aware of what they're arguing for. It's nice to think of it purely as "anti-discrimination", but the actual implementation of it is compulsory service under threat of court-ordered punishment. That sounds a lot like "involuntary servitude" to me.

Are you pro discrimination or are you just making another one of these arguments where you really aren't for the things it appears you are arguing for? Why do you routinely appear to be arguing for things that nearly everyone believes is abhorrent? You're not a lawyer or a politician but you love semantic arguments. I don't think you're a bad guy or post things out of hate but I rarely understand why you make some of the arguments you make.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

Whether you agree or not, his argument is logically sound. Forcing someone to do business with someone else is a violation of their rights. But an individual business refusing to do business with someone is not a violation of that person's rights. That person is free to shop elsewhere. This is where I start to hate Liberal arguments. Whether you agree with JLN here or not, his argument is not racist or discriminatory. It is based on principle.

Nas, should you be forced to do business with someone who wears a KKK outfit into your establishment?

You are usually reasonable about these things. Why start saying someone is pro-discrimination?

_________________

I think that when the service involved revolves around a right protected by the bill of rights (speech via baking, photography, videography, writing, speaking, etc.), to force people to ply those rights in ways they disagree with, or to punish them for not wishing to ply those rights in ways that displease them, is a violation of their 13th amendment right to not be forced into involuntary servitude.

Yes, he's helping to support my family. Unless I have a sign up explicitly prohibiting certain clothes. I'm not going to make JORR drink from a different water fountain because we have different political views. It is wrong no matter how you look at it.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

Well, I disagree. I think you should be able to tell anyone wearing a klan outfit to get the hell out of your establishment before you blow their brains out. That's just me.

_________________

I disagree and I've been consistent on this. If that guy or woman isn't doing anything but wearing an outfit I dislike I should serve them like anyone else. What happens when chas doesn't want to serve me because I have a Malcolm X t-shirt on or JORR refuses to serve me because I have a Hillary Card in my wallet?

Being ignorant or a bigot isn't principled. These businesses use public services that we all pay for and should serve everyone. If I make "traditional" wedding cakes but decide I don't want to make them for gay couple MANY appear not to have an issue with it. Leash if your daughter and my son were getting married and someone refused to make them a cake because they're an interracial couple you would have a problem with it. Most people would. Our government would too.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

First off, I wouldn't let my daughter marry your son.

Now, before everyone gets appalled, it has nothing to do with race. It's because I've met Nas.

Seriously, though, if that scenario came about, regardless of whether the baker was black or white, I would want to know how they felt upfront. I would prefer that they let us know how they felt. That way, we could take our business to someone who is more worthy of it. I wouldn't want to do fuckin' business with some asshole who was forced to do business with us even though they were "against" the wedding or whatever else.

To your first paragraph, the answer (in my opinion) is that those businesses are gonna die a slow death. If you live in any area that is even remotely populated, you are going to have potential customers of all shapes, sizes, colors, beliefs, and religions. If you choose to discriminate on who you provide goods or services to, your business is going to die a quick death, not a slow one. Making money is hard, and it would impact your clientele beyond just the people you are refusing to serve, IMO. Others would stop going there.

_________________

In theory that sounds right but that argument was made 60 years ago and if it wasn't for a law I probably still wouldn't be able to have a drink or cigar with you all in some areas. Why? People generally don't give a fuck.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

I can respect your argument that my stance is only good in theory, and that may be true. I would hope not, but I understand what you're saying.

I will just add once again that things like Jim Crow laws were government-sponsored. Had those not existed, there may have been more integration prior to their repeal. We can't know for sure, though.

_________________

If I may, my consternation is with compelling people to provide a very particular kind of service, ones which make use of their protected rights and effectively grants the rights by proxy to the customer. Commissioned works, if you will, not selling an apple or an omelette or gasoline.

A guy like Mike Rowe shouldn't be compelled to narrate a documentary on the upside to implementing sharia law, if it offends his sensibilities or even his religious leanings. When you're pulling a dent for a guy or gal, the dent doesn't change if they are muslim or black or a woman, so their state of being really has no impact (heh) on the dent or your ability to pull it, so fixing it in no way reasonably offends you. However, if you are asked to write something on a cake, affix certain things to it, photograph a wedding, write a speech or a book, paint a commissioned family portrait, and so on, those are all things that bring YOU the person, and YOUR rights into providing a service. And I think at that point, the 13th should protect those who are offended or displeased by what they are asked to do with their protected rights.

I agree. I was just not being so academic about it.

_________________

If there is a chance this was correct it would have been used to end segregation laws.

The government gets to regulate commerce. They can compel businesses to do many things. Not discriminating is one.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Rick, do you think a private business run by Jews should be forced to serve someone wearing a Nazi uniform?

_________________

Yes! Where do you draw the line if the answer is no? As a lawyer Shakes doesn't have to represent the guy but if he owned a Starbucks he should serve the asshole coffee.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

Most people would simply find someone else to perform the service. It's still discrimination nonetheless.

_________________

Um,I like Malcolm X. He was correct on a lot of things.

_________________
When I am stuck and need to figure something out I always remember the Immortal words of Socrates when he said:"I just drank what?"

Of course.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Though it should be pointed out Nazi and gay person aren't really a good comparison.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

I had a situation that speaks to this at the now defunct Blackfinns on Kinzie/Clark. I wanted to use their space to host an event. They okd us for the event initially. Once I stated that we were bringing a DJ they nixed it. They nixed it even though they do allow DJs. Once I informed their event planner of the style music that was to be played they killed it. Stated that it ran counter to their "brand". I simply found another spot whose "brand" wouldn't be offended and held the event. I felt it was some bullshit but I also realized that it was their loss because I guaranteed them upwards of 600 people. Less than a year later their doors were closed.

_________________

The opposite happens more often. MANY people flock to a spot because certain things aren't allowed. We do it too. We don't go to lounges or clubs that have a young crowd because there is a good chance something dumb will happen. We like the no gym shoe policy because it generally keeps out the crowd that will likely start trouble. When bigots find out shit like this they flood places with money and donations. Remember that bigot that got about a million in donations for refusing to serve gays?

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

Us guys who have to glue it to our forehead tend to be a little cocky

I draw the line nowhere. That's my entire point. People should be free to serve whoever they want.

And you know you're my guy, but your last sentence is completely contradictory. There is absolutely no distinction between making a lawyer represent someone and making a coffee shop serve someone (unless the lawyer is a government employee). You may draw a distinction in your mind, but that is not a tenable legal position.

_________________