MasterJaguar01
Posts: 2445
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
Aylee brought up a very interesting point in another thread about an individual having control over his/her art. Also, I had an interesting debate with Bama vis-a-vis where a line is drawn between liberty of a business owner VS discrimination against an individual.
Aylee's point, got me to rethink my own position a bit. Where do I draw the line?
My opinion:
1) If you sell pre-defined goods or services then sell them equally and fairly to everyone or don't sell them at all.
2) However, if your service is an "art" (i.e. You start from a blank canvas every time and use your creativity to develop something unique for your customer), than you are exempt.
This would include cakes, paintings, home decorating, EVEN catering.
This goes back to my central belief that individuals have religious liberties. Businesses do not. If someone is an artist (IMO), he/she is operating as an individual as much or more than he/she is operating as a business.
The Constitution guarantees rights for individuals. (Not businesses).
*****************************************************************************************
That being said... All you libertarian "Businesses can be run by their owners the way they see fit. Let the free market deal with discrimination" Watch this video.
http://youtu.be/q7ePFollQQE
You HAVE to support WalMart here (despite their despicable decision). They are running the business. (In fairness, the gentleman in the video is not claiming they do not have a right. He is just politely asking for an explanation :)
Anyway, you can't have it both ways. If you really believe that businesses can discriminate any way they want, than you have to support WalMart here :)
If you work for an employer, your not an individual as far as the law is concern with regards to civil rights in this fashion (a lawyer could make this even more specific if you want). The business's product is 'cake making'. You, are part of that cake making process, just like the oven and batter. Do ovens and batter have civil rights now? Now then, most companies that sell cakes to the public usually have set prices for set dimensions. An unusual shaped cake could be custom ordered. However, the amount of 'cost' is still figured out by the amount of 'materials' used. Most people are not mathematicians, and basically 'eye ball it'. The problem without using a set measurement is opening the door to all sorts of problems. The business could, without awareness or agenda, sell two different cakes, of two different shapes, but with the same amount of 'cake materials' used; thereby making the one whom got the higher bill feeling they got robbed/discriminated.
Hence why many large retail companies that make cakes, have very specific criteria for the final price based on the amount of 'cake materials' used. Which is ALSO why many small businesses land themselves in small claims courts. After a time or two in court, the owner sits down and figures out the specifics. The problem is the perception. A cake store discriminates against someone without realizing it. You, see the video on youtube along with a few others and make an unconscious thought that all or many bakers perform this practice.
But that doesnt address your video of the guy with the cake. That seems more like an oversight on Wal-Mart's side then discrimination of one flag for another. Usually corporate will tell the 'brick and mortar' stores how to create and charge for cakes. On the day or two this guy tried to get both flags created, could the employee just be having a bad day? Or one desiring to sabotage things? Could one of this guy's friends actually work at Wal-Mart? An that guy denied one flag and created the other? Its plausible.
Bottom line is, your trying to make an argument that doesn't work in the long run for anyone. The US Supreme Court fucked up by allowing businesses to have 'religious rights' (the liberal minority explained that). A company that is open to the public, and sells to the public, MUST ALSO, accept whatever steps into their place of business wishing to buy. Granted there are exceptions and clauses to this rule. Which means the christian baker must sell a cake to the gay couple just the same as the agnostic baker has to sell a cake to the christian couple. If they do not wish to sell to the public, then closing up shop for good, might be a good idea.
As much as I often enjoy reading your posts... This one makes absolutely no sense. Nor is it even relevant to the OP in any way.
I'm talking about art VS pre-defined good/service. Your paragraph about being part of the process has no relevance. Nor does the 2nd paragraph (nor is it clear what you are trying to say)
Your last paragraph asserts that I am making a point that doesn't work for anyone in the long run? Really? What point would that be? You then go on to assert the US Supreme Court f'd up by allowing businesses to have religious rights? First of all, I have been saying in this and dozens of other posts that individuals have religious liberties and not businesses. Secondly, what Supreme Court decision are referring to? The one that allowed same-sex marriage?
It must be that it is late at night... I have to say, your entire post does not follow in logic, nor relevance, and is not even close to clear or sensical in any way.
|
Discrimination Service VS Product - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread