I’m a T-Shirt Maker With Gay Customers and Gay Employees. I Still Was Sued.

[RoosGirl]

What do you think of businesses being forced to serve blacks at lunch counters?

I understand where they were coming from when they crafted the law, but I think it does more harm than good.  If someone doesn't want to serve me I'm happy to know that and take my business elsewhere.  I have no interest in forcing someone to sell me anything because I know I can go up the road and find someone else that is happy to help.  I'd rather know up front and spend my money accordingly.  A truly free market would take care of the "problem children".

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

My business is very much an extension of my home and of my person. There should be no controlling factor other than me. If my mindset causes me to do things that harm my ability to conduct business, invariably I will pay for that in the open market, causing failure, and that should be punishment enough.

That is very much my view as well.

However, history taught me that, a very short time I was born, businesses run by racists did not suffer and fail.  I am convinced they would today, and I know they wouldn't get any of my business.  But something was different back then.

I don't think racists made up a large percentage of the population.  if they did, since so many people alive before the civil rights era are still with us, I should see a lot more racists than I do.  Government may have forced them to change their actions, but I don't believe it can change their minds.  Therefore, I believe that there wasn't a lot of racism, but a lot of complacency.  And I believe that the civil rights laws have crushed that complacency, and that's a good thing.

Could we get rid of them now (as if government would ever give up any authority to tell us how to act)?  Should we keep them until everyone who lived before them has passed?  Maybe a generation or two after that?  Do I support giving up a bit of liberty to stomp out something that I abhor?  Do I have the right to compel you to do so?  Do we go back to an ugly world in the hopes that people will come around on their own, eventually?  These are the questions which pose a serious potential thorn in the side of my philosophy.

All I can say for sure is that it disgusts me that such laws might be (or have been) "necessary", and I hope one day they live be laughed at as frivolity. 

[roamer_1]

However, history taught me that, a very short time I was born, businesses run by racists did not suffer and fail.  I am convinced they would today, and I know they wouldn't get any of my business.  But something was different back then.

I would take exception to that remark. There are rib joints in the South where you will not be served if  you are not black, or in the company of blacks. There are areas in Chicago that I am personally aware of where you will not be served if yo are not the right ethnicity.

There are even Jewish delis which will not serve you, or will serve you poorly if you are not outwardly Jewish - All of these have been within my personal experience.

I have also already exampled Amish, Hutterite, and Mennonite groups, and hillbillies, that serve only their insular community, and even the Dutch will express a preference to doing business with Dutch people.

There are loads and loads of examples where bias is still present in the open market, and there should be no other treated as a sacred cow.

[Cyber Liberty]

That is very much my view as well.

However, history taught me that, a very short time I was born, businesses run by racists did not suffer and fail.  I am convinced they would today, and I know they wouldn't get any of my business.  But something was different back then.

I don't think racists made up a large percentage of the population.  if they did, since so many people alive before the civil rights era are still with us, I should see a lot more racists than I do.  Government may have forced them to change their actions, but I don't believe it can change their minds.  Therefore, I believe that there wasn't a lot of racism, but a lot of complacency.  And I believe that the civil rights laws have crushed that complacency, and that's a good thing.

Could we get rid of them now (as if government would ever give up any authority to tell us how to act)?  Should we keep them until everyone who lived before them has passed?  Maybe a generation or two after that?  Do I support giving up a bit of liberty to stomp out something that I abhor?  Do I have the right to compel you to do so?  Do we go back to an ugly world in the hopes that people will come around on their own, eventually?  These are the questions which pose a serious potential thorn in the side of my philosophy.

All I can say for sure is that it disgusts me that such laws might be (or have been) "necessary", and I hope one day they live be laughed at as frivolity.

The "riding in the back of the bus" was an issue then too, but IIRC, that was not a policy of the bus companies, it was city ordinances that set that rule.

[DiogenesLamp]

I would take exception to that remark. There are rib joints in the South where you will not be served if  you are not black, or in the company of blacks. There are areas in Chicago that I am personally aware of where you will not be served if yo are not the right ethnicity.

There are even Jewish delis which will not serve you, or will serve you poorly if you are not outwardly Jewish - All of these have been within my personal experience.

I have also already exampled Amish, Hutterite, and Mennonite groups, and hillbillies, that serve only their insular community, and even the Dutch will express a preference to doing business with Dutch people.

There are loads and loads of examples where bias is still present in the open market, and there should be no other treated as a sacred cow.

People keep trying to remake man.   "Racism" or  tribalism is an  inherent trait of human nature,  but people want  to condition it out of humanity. 

I believe it evolved as a survival mechanism,  because one group not genetically attached to an individual will have no good genetic reason for refraining from killing the outlier,  and good genetic reasons for doing so.   


But Liberals want mankind to become a new kind of man.   It's pie in the sky dreaming,  and it is the dominant reason why communism cannot work.   The nature of man keeps emerging despite their best efforts to teach it out of us. 

[INVAR]

People keep trying to remake man.   

They like to remake God into their own image too.  Ascribe behaviors He says are sinful into acceptable and good behaviors and call anyone living by and eschewing sinful behavior to be the evil they must purge from society.

[roamer_1]

People keep trying to remake man.   "Racism" or  tribalism is an  inherent trait of human nature,  but people want  to condition it out of humanity. 

And I am alright with that... As long as no one is being violent.
Doesn't bother me at all when I run into bias, especially if it is out front. No skin off my nose if they're too good for my money... I will just go somewhere else that thinks all money is green... or those among my kind, where I would likely be shopping anyway.

I believe it evolved as a survival mechanism,  because one group not genetically attached to an individual will have no good genetic reason for refraining from killing the outlier,  and good genetic reasons for doing so.   

I don't think it is necessarily even a bad thing - My BIL is black, and I did not give my blessing on the marriage, figuring it was a lousy thing to do to an eventual kid - One of my best friends growing up was half black, half Mexican, and I know first hand the abuses he went through...

As it turns out, my nephew has not experienced much overt racism, being among redneck folks, where people are invariably judged upon merit, at least eventually.

[The_Reader_David]

People keep trying to remake man.   "Racism" or  tribalism is an  inherent trait of human nature,  but people want  to condition it out of humanity. 

I believe it evolved as a survival mechanism,  because one group not genetically attached to an individual will have no good genetic reason for refraining from killing the outlier,  and good genetic reasons for doing so.   


But Liberals want mankind to become a new kind of man.   It's pie in the sky dreaming,  and it is the dominant reason why communism cannot work.   The nature of man keeps emerging despite their best efforts to teach it out of us.

We have a winner!

It's not Republicans who should be asked if we "believe in evolution", but Democrats.  As bears on public policy, what is good for society and individual human beings, the good commended by the view of Man as the fallen deiform nexus of the material and spiritual and by the view of Man as the ape who walks erect and whose reasoning capacity has reached the point of apprehending the laws of nature, are remarkably similar and both conservative.  In the political sphere the opposition is not between Darwin and Genesis, but between either Darwin or Genesis and Rousseau.

[Hoodat]

What do you think of businesses being forced to serve blacks at lunch counters?

@DiogenesLamp

The Colorado bakery case is not a matter of 'who is getting served', but rather 'what is getting served'.  The issue is the cake - not the purchaser of the cake.

But the answer to your question is this - YES, the business should be compelled to serve blacks at lunch counters.  And they should be served from the exact same menu as whites.  Capisce?

However, just because they are black, the restaurant owner shouldn't have to offer them something new that is not available to the white customers.  Likewise in this case, the baker sells one wedding cake, and will sell that wedding cake to anyone regardless of whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.  The baker will not sell a same-sex wedding cake to anyone regardless of whether the customer requesting one is heterosexual or homosexual.

[Wingnut]

  158 posts later and nothing has changed.   Cept Jazzyhead had a time out.  How wonderful life is when you are in the world!

[RoosGirl]

8888crybaby158 posts later and nothing has changed.   Cept Jazzyhead had a time out.  How wonderful life is when you are in the world!

 

[Sanguine]

8888crybaby158 posts later and nothing has changed.   Cept Jazzyhead had a time out.  How wonderful life is when you are in the world!

Hey, Wingy! 

[Wingnut]

Hey, Wingy!

I'm not really here.   It is the ghost of wing.

[Sanguine]

I'm not really here.   It is the ghost of wing.

[INVAR]

Good rebuttal of this entire sick issue:

Christians are “free” to think whatever thoughts they want in their heads (a generous concession, to be sure), and they’re “free” to be as religious as they want while within the walls of designated religion buildings, but anything beyond that is oppressive. Meanwhile, Leftists can force you to make a cake, they can force you to share the bathroom with the opposite sex, they can force you to fund the abortion industry, they can force you to pay for their birth control, they can force all sorts of beliefs and doctrines on your kids in the school system, they can literally march down the street half naked in a celebration of sodomy and hedonism, and none of that can be construed as oppressive. In fact, you’re oppressing them by objecting to it.

It’s truly amazing that they’ve been able to frame the argument this way. Somehow, they succeeded in redefining “force” as “refusing to do what we tell you.” They were greedy in their lie, and it paid off. Rather than being satisfied with shoving their ideology down our throats and pretending they haven’t shoved it down our throats, they went for the home run and claimed that we’re shoving our beliefs down their throats by not swallowing whatever crap they feed us. And they got away with it. Many Christians have bowed down and apologized for not being quite submissive enough, and now they lay their like beaten dogs, awaiting instructions from their cultural overlords.

I am not one who will lay down at the demand of tyrants and hedonists.

[Jazzhead]

The Colorado bakery case is not a matter of 'who is getting served', but rather 'what is getting served'.  The issue is the cake - not the purchaser of the cake.

But the answer to your question is this - YES, the business should be compelled to serve blacks at lunch counters.  And they should be served from the exact same menu as whites.  Capisce?

However, just because they are black, the restaurant owner shouldn't have to offer them something new that is not available to the white customers.  Likewise in this case, the baker sells one wedding cake, and will sell that wedding cake to anyone regardless of whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.  The baker will not sell a same-sex wedding cake to anyone regardless of whether the customer requesting one is heterosexual or homosexual.

Actually, I agree with most of this, until you get all stupid at the end.   This issue is indeed serving all customers from the exact same menu.    The business owner determines the menu - hamburgers by the lunch counter, wedding cakes by the baker.   A black customer has the right to be served a hamburger, but not to demand grits that aren't on the menu.   By the same logic,  any customer - gay or straight - has the right to be provided with a wedding cake if that is what the baker advertises he's in business to provide.   

[Hoodat]

By the same logic,  any customer - gay or straight - has the right to be provided with a wedding cake if that is what the baker advertises he's in business to provide.

By definition under Colorado law, a wedding is a ceremony between one man and one woman (regardless of sexual preference).  The baker makes wedding cakes for such ceremonies (regardless of the sexual preference of the person buying the cake).

[Jazzhead]

By definition under Colorado law, a wedding is a ceremony between one man and one woman (regardless of sexual preference).  The baker makes wedding cakes for such ceremonies (regardless of the sexual preference of the person buying the cake).

 

[Sanguine]

 :smash:

[Cyber Liberty]

By definition under Colorado law, a wedding is a ceremony between one man and one woman (regardless of sexual preference).  The baker makes wedding cakes for such ceremonies (regardless of the sexual preference of the person buying the cake).

I usually stop talking to people who call me stupid and then roll their eyes at me. @Sanguine is correct, the horse is dead.

[Jazzhead]

I usually stop talking to people who call me stupid and then roll their eyes at me. @Sanguine is correct, the horse is dead.

A wedding cake is a wedding cake.   

[Cyber Liberty]

A wedding cake is a wedding cake.

You have already made your stand known:  Screw your bigoted tribal religious beliefs and bake the damned cake.  Everything else is just the icing of justification.

[Jazzhead]

You have already made your stand known:  Screw your bigoted tribal religious beliefs and bake the damned cake.  Everything else is just the icing of justification.

Calm down.  All I've been saying is that if you advertise a service,  be true to your word and provide it.   Mr. Phillips is currently not taking orders for custom wedding cakes - that's exactly what he should be doing if he wants to remain true to his self-styled religious beliefs.

But what he can't do is use religion to justify discrimination.   This distinction between "wedding cakes" and "same-sex wedding cakes" is bogus.  Either sell wedding cakes or don't.   Just stay true to your word and don't violate the law by arbitrarily humiliating your customers who seek the very service you advertise to provide.   

[goatprairie]

Actually, I agree with most of this, until you get all stupid at the end.   This issue is indeed serving all customers from the exact same menu.    The business owner determines the menu - hamburgers by the lunch counter, wedding cakes by the baker.   A black customer has the right to be served a hamburger, but not to demand grits that aren't on the menu.   By the same logic,  any customer - gay or straight - has the right to be provided with a wedding cake if that is what the baker advertises he's in business to provide.

"any customer - gay or straight - has the right to be provided with a wedding cake if that is what the baker advertises he's in business to provide"

Yes, the customer has the right to purchase any product the baker (or other business owner) chooses to provide.  But the baker (or business owner) does not have to provide a product the customer demands though.
If I sell widgets painted only certain colors,  the customer can request a different color than what I advertise, but he has no right to demand it. If he doesn't like my business, he has the right to go to another business that will give him the color he wants. That's the way freedom works.

[Ancient]

Calm down.  All I've been saying is that if you advertise a service,  be true to your word and provide it.   Mr. Phillips is currently not taking orders for custom wedding cakes - that's exactly what he should be doing if he wants to remain true to his self-styled religious beliefs.

But what he can't do is use religion to justify discrimination.   This distinction between "wedding cakes" and "same-sex wedding cakes" is bogus.  Either sell wedding cakes or don't.   Just stay true to your word and don't violate the law by arbitrarily humiliating your customers who seek the very service you advertise to provide.

So if they sell cakes topped with a bride and a groom and that is what they offer... not discrimination?  That is a product they can advertise...  or are you going to change the goal line again?

The left changed the definition of wedding cake, are they free to correct it or come up with a new untainted one?