Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Chaka-Z0]

Muslim or cat worshiper, it won't matter. The issue at hand is does a privately owned business have the right to serve or refuse service to anyone he wants? And I'm thinking the court will rule in favor of the business owner, regardless of the gender, orientation, religion or political affiliation.

A govt. entity, county clerk, etc.. should take all comers, but that is not a privately owned business.

(Bolded) I beg to differ. Pretty sure the rural folks, which have the same power than states that have 10 times the population, which also elects your broken politicians in a broken system, would not be happy about that. And politicians being politicians, will never go against their electoral base's will.

You're the one that have been bloating for weeks, if not months, that the SCOTUS will FINALLY be right-leaning. Why are you arguing with logic and impartiality now? You know damn well it's not gonna happen.

[jelgate]

Ah look at Annoyed, ignoring the Constitution and laws that disagree with him again.

[SGalisa]

...Someone requested music videos at our office's *fancy* Christmas party one year. One of the videos contained the "F" word spoken over and over and over. Apparently, I was the only person in the entire room who heard it, because everyone else was like pretending it wasn't even there... I decided to stop going to that particular Christmas party after that. I really enjoyed the disco-like lighting atmosphere, but there were some *attitudes* there that just ruined the whole evening...

Since then, I decided to (holiday) party with a different group of *crazies* from my 2nd job and actually *enjoy* being with them..!
We eat in a quieter atmosphere and can actually hear each other speak. Quite a contrast from the other party-group. More casual, more friendly & family fun, and less prissy... and amazingly -- not even "Christian" (cause there's a mixture of spiritual "religions"/beliefs in there). I still don't drink, tho...

Props to you!

You did not try to force your beliefs onto everybody and tried to change the music, unless you did and if that's the case, no cookie for you. You just simply stopped going there. You realized your religion is a personal choice and you acted accordingly, not requiring the folks at the party to submit to your constraints.

It's not my party to complain about. I was merely an invited guest (and kept my musical opinions to myself). If the office's business owners don't mind the choice in music selections that were requested, that's their department to deal with. I have no say whatsoever in what goes on there, outside of selecting my own meal and a seat to sit on. Actually, that goes for both holiday party groups.

It's just that I felt obligated more to the fancier 1st group party, because I went to those for many years, admired the *festive* atmosphere, and was one of the people encouraging some of the newbie coworkers in attending the next Christmas party. But often I was left alone (partly from my own shyness), and ignored while AT that same, mentioned party. When the vulgar music videos finally surfaced, I had a decision to make. My hubby hated going because he couldn't hear people, due to the loud music over-powering our voices. I mean, we literally had to speak nearly 2 inches from the other person's ears, just to hear each other converse, and we'd often leave with a migraine headache just from dealing with the extreme (amplifier music speakers) noise levels.

So, I finally caved in and changed my (holiday) schedule to be with my hubby's group, where we both volunteer, and realized it was probably one of the best decisions I've ever made. Mostly everyone (on staff / crew) eats together--in a family-like setting-- after working all day and we can actually hear / listen to each other talk... and while there, we help support each other emotionally after hours, not just during the day's working moments. I treasure this trait, because it's rare. Maybe it's because we're all volunteers and work from our heart with the general public, so the support comes naturally from within our inner being(soul).

Amazingly, I do feel more connected with the people from my 2nd job group, as if we are more than just *coworkers*. That is what I think makes going with the 2nd group more special than attending the fancier office party. People in the 2nd group are naturally more relaxed and unwind (at mealtime) to let go from the stress of the day's work they just put in... than the fancier group unwinding via drinking alcoholic beverages in order to simply communicate with each other (which the liquor acts like a protective mask so that they don't feel uncomfortable when engaging in conversation).

It's as if (many people in) the 1st group are wearing a bunch of (guarded) masks while talking with each other, but the 2nd group doesn't need a mask... Instead, they are basically saying, "hey, if you don't like me the way I am, tuff noogies..." WYSIWYG. Sadly, the 1st group would probably say the same thing, but some of them have (expressed) a nastier attitude about it when they say it, because they've done so while at work. Whereas, the 2nd group seems more accepting of each other's personality differences... and they don't rely on some euphoric, alcoholic "drink" simply to get along with each other, either.

[Annoyed]

Ah look at Annoyed, ignoring the Constitution and laws that disagree with him again.

How am I ignoring the Constitution or the law? The question at hand is: Does a private business have the right to choose whom it serves?

It has clearly been established that it does. Bars/Clubs can exclude people for whatever reason they want or none at all. Many businesses have dress codes.

Forcing a bakery to make a cake for a gay marriage against the wishes of the owner is giving special treatment to the gay couple, violating "equal treatment under the law", and further, it deprives the shop owner of his rights as well.

[Gatefan1976]

How am I ignoring the Constitution or the law? The question at hand is: Does a private business have the right to choose whom it serves?

Nope.

It has clearly been established that it does. Bars/Clubs can exclude people for whatever reason they want or none at all. Many businesses have dress codes.

Wrong again.
Bars are not clubs, and certainly not for no reason. They need to be able to provide a reason why they let the "hot chicks" in, and it's a financial gain, where is the financial gain in not providing a customer who buy's ONE cake as opposed to plenty of drinks? (no matter if it is the guy or the girl who pays for them)

You don't let the poor bum in the club, cause the poor bum has nothing to offer you, and the only thing a business is interested in is money, it's why they exist. If they want to start making moral judgements, they should be a church and have a bake sale instead, it's even tax free. I've got kicked out of a pub (and a club) for wearing my Steel caps because they have a duty of care for their patrons and I could get pissed and start kicking people with them and I NEVER felt discriminated against because the rules made sense.
What risk are my steel caps to a baker, or any other environment where mind altering substances are not legally available?
Pubs and clubs have rules to protect -others-, you want to elevate the rules to protect yourself, to the same level.
This is the definition of apples and oranges.

Forcing a bakery to make a cake for a gay marriage against the wishes of the owner is giving special treatment to the gay couple, violating "equal treatment under the law", and further, it deprives the shop owner of his rights as well.

It does no such thing.
Businesses don't go to church, they don't have opinions, they are fully synthetic organizations that exist simply to create money and trade.
Don't believe me?
Ask a Bank last time it gave a TOSS about the sexual orientation of it's clients.

[Chaka-Z0]

It does no such thing.
Businesses don't go to church, they don't have opinions, they are fully synthetic organizations that exist simply to create money and trade.
Don't believe me?
Ask a Bank last time it gave a TOSS about the sexual orientation of it's clients.

Up to a certain extent yes, businesses are defined as legal persons, or juridical persons in terms of the law. Obviously non-lucrative organizations and cooperative have moral obligations towards their members.

But, business nowadays need to take stand on a multitude of subjects and the standard ''business is just money'' doesn't really work anymore. Businesses have moral obligations too.

Just take Google for instance, they announced a week ago or so that they would not bid for the huge defense contract of the US army in regards to AI because they do not want their tech to be used to do harm. That is a moral stance, and if the sole purpose of Google was to make money they would've gone ahead with it.

As for the baker, if he was incorporated it wouldn't be the same story at all. Until then, he and his business are one and the same on the tax report therefore his personal opinions, as wrong as they seem to me and you, may be taken into account in his decisions and is fully in his right to do so, unfortunately.

[Gatefan1976]

Up to a certain extent yes, businesses are defined as legal persons, or juridical persons in terms of the law. Obviously non-lucrative organizations and cooperative have moral obligations towards their members.

And yet, the US constitution does not recognize them as such, which was the point I was making to Annoyed.
Citizens United, and other various laws do, and in that you are quite correct.

But, business nowadays need to take stand on a multitude of subjects and the standard ''business is just money'' doesn't really work anymore. Businesses have moral obligations too.

Cool, let me take away your petroleum.

Just take Google for instance, they announced a week ago or so that they would not bid for the huge defense contract of the US army in regards to AI because they do not want their tech to be used to do harm. That is a moral stance, and if the sole purpose of Google was to make money they would've gone ahead with it.

It was a win/loss analysis. Terrorists already use google maps to find targets, does google maps or google earth still exist?
Looking overtly bad cost's more than saying "but that's not what we intended". You are forgiving the same excuse people like facebook use.

As for the baker, if he was incorporated it wouldn't be the same story at all. Until then, he and his business are one and the same on the tax report therefore his personal opinions, as wrong as they seem to me and you, may be taken into account in his decisions and is fully in his right to do so, unfortunately.

Fine, make them advertise the fact in advance. If they are so proud of their views, let them be out in the open. "Hey this is billies cake house, we provide quality cakes, as long as you are queer, or don't believe in god, or take a knee, or are from a S***hole country, or illegal, or anything else I don't happen to like"
Let the all powerful "market forces" deal with them.
ALL pubs or clubs I have ever gone to put their conditions outside the pub or club, so you know them before even trying, you even see them on Halal or Kosher food stores, so yeah, let these people put their terms of entry outside the door, so everyone can read they don't want to serve "people they disagree with" rather than product they might not sell.
I don't go to a kosher store looking for pork, cause they don't sell it, but to be denied pork from a bog standard butcher "cause you gay" is a different issue.
One is a stock issue, the other is a head up your arse issue.

[Annoyed]

Nope.

Wrong again.
Bars are not clubs, and certainly not for no reason. They need to be able to provide a reason why they let the "hot chicks" in, and it's a financial gain, where is the financial gain in not providing a customer who buy's ONE cake as opposed to plenty of drinks? (no matter if it is the guy or the girl who pays for them)

Thing is, the law is not allowed to discriminate against or in favor of "hot chicks" or any other type of person. If the law allows a business to choose whom and whom not to serve, that law must be applied equally, to all people.

You don't let the poor bum in the club, cause the poor bum has nothing to offer you, and the only thing a business is interested in is money, it's why they exist. If they want to start making moral judgements, they should be a church and have a bake sale instead, it's even tax free. I've got kicked out of a pub (and a club) for wearing my Steel caps because they have a duty of care for their patrons and I could get pissed and start kicking people with them and I NEVER felt discriminated against because the rules made sense.
What risk are my steel caps to a baker, or any other environment where mind altering substances are not legally available?
Pubs and clubs have rules to protect -others-, you want to elevate the rules to protect yourself, to the same level.
This is the definition of apples and oranges.

It does no such thing.
Businesses don't go to church, they don't have opinions, they are fully synthetic organizations that exist simply to create money and trade.
Don't believe me?
Ask a Bank last time it gave a TOSS about the sexual orientation of it's clients.

You keep forgetting, or consciously ignoring the rights of the owner of a business. They have the right to have opinions and beliefs. It's his property, and he can operate as he sees fit.

[Chaka-Z0]

It was a win/loss analysis. Terrorists already use google maps to find targets, does google maps or google earth still exist?
Looking overtly bad cost's more than saying "but that's not what we intended". You are forgiving the same excuse people like facebook use.

This specific US defence contract's mandate is to improve AI and facial recognition & target identification softwares. Its purpose is to automate drones and enable them to seek & destroy with absolute precision. Google wants nothing to do with that, and on a personal note, for damn good reasons. So no, terrorists do not have access to that technology and its much different than tapping into a satellite to find targets. As for the Google maps being used for nefarious motives, well this was inevitable, if it wasn't google it would've been MapQuest or any other GPS companies.

People don't realize how close we are to a Terminator-like scenario, call me tinfoil I don't give a sh*t, it's real and it's happening right now. Robotics are at least 10-15 years more advanced than what is made public, same goes for most emerging technologies.

[Chaka-Z0]

You keep forgetting, or consciously ignoring the rights of the owner of a business. They have the right to have opinions and beliefs. It's his property, and he can operate as he sees fit.

For a sole/partnership owner-type business? Yes. For an incorporated business? No. Trust me, if the CEO of Corporation starts going around kicking gays out of his shops the Board will fire him/her/apache pronto.

Incorporated businesses aka those that figure on the public stock OR private stock exchange are considered as unique entities, distinct from their owners which become shareholders (can be owner if he/she/apache has 51% or more of the total amount of shares). Then, they can be designated CEO or DG or CFO to manage the business, usually it will be the preference of the owner, some are best for day-to-day managing and others prefer acquisition, etc.

Does that mean that they don't have rights to opinions and beliefs? Of course not, but it means that they gotta be a lot more careful about what they're going to say / which stance the business will take because the ramifications are much grander.

See what happened with Musk? He messed up big time with his false tweet statements, which led investors to believe that he was going to take Tesla private. He was trying to troll the Money Mill Wizards, Short-sellers mages, and he went too far. He was demoted to a mere member by the board, and is now facing a 20 millions lawsuit.

So all-in-all the bakers case is next to meaningless, because this judgement will not be eligible for jurisprudence of the bigger cases to come.

[Annoyed]

For a sole/partnership owner-type business? Yes. For an incorporated business? No. Trust me, if the CEO of Corporation starts going around kicking gays out of his shops the Board will fire him/her/apache pronto.

Incorporated businesses aka those that figure on the public stock OR private stock exchange are considered as unique entities, distinct from their owners which become shareholders (can be owner if he/she/apache has 51% or more of the total amount of shares). Then, they can be designated CEO or DG or CFO to manage the business, usually it will be the preference of the owner, some are best for day-to-day managing and others prefer acquisition, etc.

Does that mean that they don't have rights to opinions and beliefs? Of course not, but it means that they gotta be a lot more careful about what they're going to say / which stance the business will take because the ramifications are much grander.

See what happened with Musk? He messed up big time with his false tweet statements, which led investors to believe that he was going to take Tesla private. He was trying to troll the Money Mill Wizards, Short-sellers mages, and he went too far. He was demoted to a mere member by the board, and is now facing a 20 millions lawsuit.

So all-in-all the bakers case is next to meaningless, because this judgement will not be eligible for jurisprudence of the bigger cases to come.

Here, you do have a point, as the "owner" is not an individual. but a large group of people, whom will not likely all hold the same opinion. But what if a majority of does? They have a shareholders meeting and a vote to not bake cakes for gay weddings is held?

[Chaka-Z0]

Here, you do have a point, as the "owner" is not an individual. but a large group of people, whom will not likely all hold the same opinion. But what if a majority of does? They have a shareholders meeting and a vote to not bake cakes for gay weddings is held?

Main shareholders in a multinational Corp don't give a sh*t about sexual orientation or business operations for that matter. They want money, that's it, that's all. The CEO needs to keep the money flowing towards them or he gets replaced by someone who will.

Welcome to the corporate world.

[aretood2]

Bakeries are not religious, you might as well call a mill religious, and flour and eggs are religious.
You think the chicken babies you murdered to get eggs care about what you do with their corpses?
Life begins at conception, right?

This is a stupid argument. Chicken eggs are not fertilized. To say any different is as idiotic as thinking that women on their periods are killing fertilized eggs.

That is the conundrum here. By refusing to serve the gay couple, the baker is exercising his freedom of choice, but at the same time refusing to serve gays is offering preferential treatment to other customers. Same for the Muslim baker, he would gladly accept to bake a cake with ''allahu akhbar'' inscribed on it but not if it says God Bless America. Isn't that preferential treatment in itself?

Was he refusing to service them or was he refusing to create a product that would betray his own views?

The UK courts didn't see it as discriminatory because they are willing and have been willing to sell to LGBTQ couples and individuals. That's the disconnect I see from the gay rights community. When US southerners refused service to blacks, they didn't refuse to do one or two things, they refused everything because it wasn't the service itself they objected to. It was the black people they objected to. That's what the couple failed to prove in court, that the bakers refused to make them a cake, not because they found the cake objectionable but because they found the couple objectionable.

Here's a question for you all. Do you believe the courts would've ruled in the favor of the baker if he was Muslim?

The UK? I don't know. SCOTUS? I hope so. Not because of the views but because of the principle of free speech and freedom of expression. No individual should be compelled to express anything they disagree with by the state. That just opens a can of worms that will do no one any good. And as you mentioned, if it was incorporated, it would have been different, because there is no individual identity associated with a corporation...well...at least that's how it used to be in the US.

Care to answer my question? What's your opinion?

He does that you know, fails to answer questions...quite often actually. Get used to it.

And yet, the US constitution does not recognize them as such, which was the point I was making to Annoyed.
Citizens United, and other various laws do, and in that you are quite correct.

The Constitution doesn't actually define a person, but common sense indicates that it is an individual acting as said individual. That's the problem with small businesses, there is no difference

Fine, make them advertise the fact in advance. If they are so proud of their views, let them be out in the open. "Hey this is billies cake house, we provide quality cakes, as long as you are queer, or don't believe in god, or take a knee, or are from a S***hole country, or illegal, or anything else I don't happen to like"
Let the all powerful "market forces" deal with them.
ALL pubs or clubs I have ever gone to put their conditions outside the pub or club, so you know them before even trying, you even see them on Halal or Kosher food stores, so yeah, let these people put their terms of entry outside the door, so everyone can read they don't want to serve "people they disagree with" rather than product they might not sell.
I don't go to a kosher store looking for pork, cause they don't sell it, but to be denied pork from a bog standard butcher "cause you gay" is a different issue.
One is a stock issue, the other is a head up your arse issue.

Isn't that what the couple did? They looked for someone who would refuse to make them that particular cake?

[Annoyed]

He does that you know, fails to answer questions...quite often actually. Get used to it.

I did answer his question, after I realized he needed an answer.

According to the way I think about it, a businessowner has the right to refuse service, so I think the baker should have prevailed Muslim, Christian or cat worshiper.

Next time this goes before SCOTUS, seeing that it's 5-4, and heavily leaning towards originalist, I think they will rule for the business owner as well.

I didn't really think it required an answer, with a 5-4 Conservative court, I would have though it obvious.

[SoulReaver]

I didn't really think it required an answer, with a 5-4 Conservative court, I would have though it obvious.

that's not the 5/4 ruling you should be worried about