RE: Refusal of Goods and Services

RE: Refusal of Goods and Services (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

KenDckey -> RE: Refusal of Goods and Services (1/16/2017 10:07:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods Presumably a conservative idea is always right, even if it resembles a progressive idea that is always wrong. Not at all what he said. There does not seem to be any concern when those on the left discriminate against conservatives but let someone on the right do the same thing and there is Hell to pay. Demonstrating the partisan selective outrage that he's is complaining about the left monopolising in his original post, yes. Have you really drank too much of that potent koolade to understand that it's hypocrisy whichever side displays a double standard that favours them? And it is that very hypocrisy he is pointing out. The left has been not just complaining about but prosecuting the very things they now embrace as their right, and consider even a negative opinion to be violating their rights while thinking that they are perfectly within their rights to ruin the lives of those who disagree with them. Your right the left is full of hypocrites. And so is the right, obviously. Either the same standards apply to both or they apply to neither: arguing otherwise is dramatic organ sting hypocrisy. Exactly. If you are going to prosecute a cake maker for his religious belief, then you must also prosecute a dress maker for his political belief when their belief denies a service or product to someone they oppose based upon their beliefs. Political correctness in action.

Musicmystery -> RE: Refusal of Goods and Services (1/16/2017 10:19:22 AM)
This is a tough area. I don't take on every client who approaches me (nor do most high end services); I talk with them, ask questions, see whether they'd be a good fit (a) for what I do and (b) for the kind of person I want to work with. That doesn't mean beliefs or race or nationality or religion -- though a fundamentalist Christian would probably not want to in the first place, for example, so there's some self-screening going on (and there should be, I think) -- but it does mean that I'm clear on who my ideal clients are and I don't work with people I don't want to work with. This prevents a host of problems and makes everyone's life more peaceful. But it is getting to choose whom I take as a client, vs. having to take on anyone interested. Discrimination based on standard law is another thing, I think: no blacks or no gays or or Jews or Muslims presents a different set of problems. But -- I know a lot of business women who only work with women. And technically, sure, it's discrimination. So does the business owner get to decide the niche? And can this cross over to illegal separation? It's not as simple here as yes or no. I'm not sure what legal standard would clarify it.

Wayward5oul -> RE: Refusal of Goods and Services (1/16/2017 10:36:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery This is a tough area. I don't take on every client who approaches me (nor do most high end services); I talk with them, ask questions, see whether they'd be a good fit (a) for what I do and (b) for the kind of person I want to work with. That doesn't mean beliefs or race or nationality or religion -- though a fundamentalist Christian would probably not want to in the first place, for example, so there's some self-screening going on (and there should be, I think) -- but it does mean that I'm clear on who my ideal clients are and I don't work with people I don't want to work with. This prevents a host of problems and makes everyone's life more peaceful. But it is getting to choose whom I take as a client, vs. having to take on anyone interested. Discrimination based on standard law is another thing, I think: no blacks or no gays or or Jews or Muslims presents a different set of problems. But -- I know a lot of business women who only work with women. And technically, sure, it's discrimination. So does the business owner get to decide the niche? And can this cross over to illegal separation? It's not as simple here as yes or no. I'm not sure what legal standard would clarify it. So going along with this line of thinking, what makes you different from a small business baker? Or a high-end fashion designer? What about your business strikes you as key in terms of being able to screen clients, as opposed to a small bakery, who normally does not? A baker, small business or big business, is creating art. Is it that a small bakery can't afford to turn away clients by discriminating? Or lose business because of bad publicity because of discriminating? Where a high-end baker can? If Melanie Trump declares that she wants Dior to dress her for the Inauguration, and Dior refuses to due to political beliefs, should Melania be able to take Dior to court for it?

Musicmystery -> RE: Refusal of Goods and Services (1/16/2017 10:47:58 AM)
That's the point, WS. It's not as simple as "Nuh-uh." There ARE some clear lines, though. The owner can ask a restaurant patron to leave--it's private property. But not because that patron is black--that's illegal.

Wayward5oul -> RE: Refusal of Goods and Services (1/16/2017 11:03:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery That's the point, WS. It's not as simple as "Nuh-uh." I know. I'm just trying to flesh out wherever where some lines can be drawn, because its hard for me too. I see some cases of these in the news and I agree with it, and some cases in the news and I disagree. But I'm not always certain that I am being consistent about it, and it bothers me.

vincentML -> RE: Refusal of Goods and Services (1/16/2017 11:08:49 AM)
quote: If Melanie Trump declares that she wants Dior to dress her for the Inauguration, and Dior refuses to due to political beliefs, should Melania be able to take Dior to court for it? The Trump ladies are not a protected class. Nor is political opinion. Simple as that.

Lucylastic -> RE: Refusal of Goods and Services (1/16/2017 11:38:30 AM)
only trumps lawyers could make a case for political persuasion

BamaD -> RE: Refusal of Goods and Services (1/16/2017 11:38:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods Presumably a conservative idea is always right, even if it resembles a progressive idea that is always wrong. Not at all what he said. There does not seem to be any concern when those on the left discriminate against conservatives but let someone on the right do the same thing and there is Hell to pay. Demonstrating the partisan selective outrage that he's is complaining about the left monopolising in his original post, yes. Have you really drank too much of that potent koolade to understand that it's hypocrisy whichever side displays a double standard that favours them? And it is that very hypocrisy he is pointing out. The left has been not just complaining about but prosecuting the very things they now embrace as their right, and consider even a negative opinion to be violating their rights while thinking that they are perfectly within their rights to ruin the lives of those who disagree with them. Your right the left is full of hypocrites. And so is the right, obviously. Either the same standards apply to both or they apply to neither: arguing otherwise is dramatic organ sting hypocrisy. Exactly. If you are going to prosecute a cake maker for his religious belief, then you must also prosecute a dress maker for his political belief when their belief denies a service or product to someone they oppose based upon their beliefs. Political correctness in action. And if we apply the standards of the left, the dress maker is still in trouble. To say (successfully ) that someone should be sued out of business if they agree with you, but later when someone you agrees with it you pretend it is just fine is hypocritical. After you have lost when arguing against those suits you take the position that it is now settled law and good for the goose , good for the gander there is no hypocrisy. Unless, as it seems once you argue on one side even if the law says you are wrong you have to stick to that position. This of course means that the Democratic party must still support slavery and the Klan. If not they must be, by your "logic", be hypocrites.

Musicmystery -> RE: Refusal of Goods and Services (1/16/2017 11:40:17 AM)
Standards of the left? Wasn't it standards of the right that raised the issue?

BamaD -> RE: Refusal of Goods and Services (1/16/2017 11:41:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: If Melanie Trump declares that she wants Dior to dress her for the Inauguration, and Dior refuses to due to political beliefs, should Melania be able to take Dior to court for it? The Trump ladies are not a protected class. Nor is political opinion. Simple as that. And it is a political attack against Trump, it is as simple as that.

Musicmystery -> RE: Refusal of Goods and Services (1/16/2017 11:49:34 AM)
What president HASN'T been attacked?

MrRodgers -> RE: Refusal of Goods and Services (1/16/2017 11:54:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey try again guys and read what I said, and hopefully the article. Why not ? Besides that fact that I can't believe NR is reduced to bitching about fashion. Are they worried this might cause Trump to change his rent-seeking ways ? Maybe NR is worried Trump will stop seeing women first as bimbos and whether they are hot or not and let's be honest...a nice piece-of-ass.

Lucylastic -> RE: Refusal of Goods and Services (1/16/2017 11:54:48 AM)
About a dress? only Bill unless I missed one?

mnottertail -> RE: Refusal of Goods and Services (1/16/2017 12:24:07 PM)
I wouldnt dress anyone in the Trump crime syndicate unless they paid cash up front, all of it, and the bills were inspected by the treasury, and they signed total indemnification papers. They are known deadbeats, and nutsuckers. Ahhhh, but I repeat myself.

dcnovice -> RE: Refusal of Goods and Services (1/16/2017 1:08:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery That's the point, WS. It's not as simple as "Nuh-uh." I know. I'm just trying to flesh out wherever where some lines can be drawn, because its hard for me too. I see some cases of these in the news and I agree with it, and some cases in the news and I disagree. But I'm not always certain that I am being consistent about it, and it bothers me. Oh, thank God. Actual adults who grasp that this is a complex, thorny topic. [:)]

dcnovice -> RE: Refusal of Goods and Services (1/16/2017 1:24:06 PM)
FR In the unlikely event that my Mr. Right decides I'm his Mr. Right and we marry, I wouldn't feel the need or desire to force a baker to make our cake. I'd much rather give the business to someone who'd like to have it. On the other hand, I wouldn't have much patience with a pharmacist who refused to fill a legitimate prescription of mine because it violated his or her beliefs.

mnottertail -> RE: Refusal of Goods and Services (1/16/2017 1:34:44 PM)
It is clear, dc that there is no great universal bottom line, rule the world, heres how it is gonna be. Moralism is a rather miasmatic trip down to memory lane. And individual as well, like you say, you would not screw around with the cakemaker, yet another would take great umbrage and demand the right under the law. You will always be welcome at Pottery Barn, so...half the battle and all that rot.

vincentML -> RE: Refusal of Goods and Services (1/16/2017 1:37:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: If Melanie Trump declares that she wants Dior to dress her for the Inauguration, and Dior refuses to due to political beliefs, should Melania be able to take Dior to court for it? The Trump ladies are not a protected class. Nor is political opinion. Simple as that. And it is a political attack against Trump, it is as simple as that. Civil Rights Law does not shelter politicians. Why would you think it does?

dcnovice -> RE: Refusal of Goods and Services (1/16/2017 1:46:54 PM)
quote: You will always be welcome at Pottery Barn, so...half the battle and all that rot. Alas, the one in Georgetown closed. [:(] I'm still in grief counseling.

BamaD -> RE: Refusal of Goods and Services (1/16/2017 3:24:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice FR In the unlikely event that my Mr. Right decides I'm his Mr. Right and we marry, I wouldn't feel the need or desire to force a baker to make our cake. I'd much rather give the business to someone who'd like to have it. On the other hand, I wouldn't have much patience with a pharmacist who refused to fill a legitimate prescription of mine because it violated his or her beliefs. The pharmacist would be a problem, it would be life threatening and unacceptable.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875