Mississippi governor signs law allowing businesses etc to refuse gay people

CheesySpartan wrote:

DWags wrote:

You're actually saying that a cake store which writes letters on a cake would t have the ability to write letters on a cake, and forcing a doctor to specialize in a surgical procedures are alike?

Well, OK then.

As far as "openly" discriminating well like all Americans I hope we at least just covertly discriminate. However, if it makes you feel better, I guarantee you if a tobacco store in Louisiana said "no negroes allowed, it would be swamped with good ol boys by sun down.

FWIW the cake store in OR closed in October (3 months after the incident) so the community did ultimately react.

xsanguine wrote:

DWags wrote:

You're actually saying that a cake store which writes letters on a cake would t have the ability to write letters on a cake, and forcing a doctor to specialize in a surgical procedures are alike?

Well, OK then.

As far as "openly" discriminating well like all Americans I hope we at least just covertly discriminate. However, if it makes you feel better, I guarantee you if a tobacco store in Louisiana said "no negroes allowed, it would be swamped with good ol boys by sun down.

They are both services being performed. So yes, Dwags, they are alike.

xsanguine wrote:

CheesySpartan wrote:

FWIW the cake store in OR closed in October (3 months after the incident) so the community did ultimately react.

This is exactly how it should work.

xsanguine wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

His job is in the SERVICE industry so yes. Do your job or go dig some ditches if you can't handle handing over some bagels to Marcie and Beth the lesbian softball teammates for cash.

We're not talking about what someone can or cannot handle. We're talking about the morality (or lack thereof) of coercion.

I.B. Fine wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

This is exactly how it should work.

Correct, but didn't the lawsuit and associated costs have something to do with it as well?

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

We're not talking about what someone can or cannot handle. We're talking about the morality (or lack thereof) of coercion.

You can argue that every law on the book is the form of coercion. Is every law then immoral because it coerces people into doing certain things under threat of penalty? Is that the stance you are taking? Is it then immoral to be penalized by threat of prison for murdering my neighbor because he's playing his stereo too loud?

xsanguine wrote:

CheesySpartan wrote:

FWIW the cake store in OR closed in October (3 months after the incident) so the community did ultimately react.

This is exactly how it should work.

xsanguine wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

You can argue that every law on the book is the form of coercion. Is every law then immoral because it coerces people into doing certain things under threat of penalty? Is that the stance you are taking? Is it then immoral to be penalized by threat of prison for murdering my neighbor because he's playing his stereo too loud?

Nope. Murdering someone is an act of force against someone's will. That's not even close to two parties consenting to an agreement (or not consenting to an agreement).

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Nope. Murdering someone is an act of force against someone's will. That's not even close to two parties consenting to an agreement (or not consenting to an agreement).

Where is the line drawn at then? Is a traffic ticket for running red lights immoral?

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I'd open up a hot dog stand.. and have some sort of sign stitched with a bible verse on it.. to make sure the "christians" knew they were welcome.

Then, as each "christian" bit into their hot dog, I'd have the staff trained to moan in ecstasy.. as lights started flashing and a disco ball descended from the ceiling.. some Gay SeXXX club music pumping from the speakers.

that would be pretty sweet.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I'd open up a hot dog stand.. and have some sort of sign stitched with a bible verse on it.. to make sure the "christians" knew they were welcome.

Then, as each "christian" bit into their hot dog, I'd have the staff trained to moan in ecstasy.. as lights started flashing and a disco ball descended from the ceiling.. some Gay SeXXX club music pumping from the speakers.

that would be pretty sweet.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

This is exactly how it should work.

What if it didn't work that way? What if enough people didn't care how that bakery treated gay people and they were still in business?

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

This is exactly how it should work.

What if it didn't work that way? What if enough people didn't care how that bakery treated gay people and they were still in business?

xsanguine wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

What if it didn't work that way? What if enough people didn't care how that bakery treated gay people and they were still in business?

Consensual agreements (in other words, freedom) should be paramount. I've been turned away from places of business because I didn't "fit in". I just found another barber. The place is still there serving a community that rarely tips and a community that can't afford anything beyond basic services.

DWags wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

What if it didn't work that way? What if enough people didn't care how that bakery treated gay people and they were still in business?

My example of a tobacco store in Louisiana exactly. It's why we need protection.

All that said, it's 2017. WTF is wrong with us? HUSBAND AND HUSBAND. This matters because? I can't believe I'm even talking about this shit.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Consensual agreements (in other words, freedom) should be paramount. I've been turned away from places of business because I didn't "fit in". I just found another barber. The place is still there serving a community that rarely tips and a community that can't afford anything beyond basic services.

Was it ok for black people to be denied service at restaurants because they didn't "fit in"? Are you advocating for a return to the separate but equal mentality prior to the civil rights movement of the 60's?

xsanguine wrote:hahahahahhaa....

Bob, I lost it on that one...

xsanguine wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

Was it ok for black people to be denied service at restaurants because they didn't "fit in"? Are you advocating for a return to the separate but equal mentality prior to the civil rights movement of the 60's?

That was segregation enforced by the government. The same problem just the coin flipped over.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

That was segregation enforced by the government. The same problem just the coin flipped over.

I think I may be misreading this, but are you saying that it's ok if the government enforced businesses to give everyone of all orientations haircuts, or cakes, or what have you, just like the government eventually forced restaurants to serve people of all colors?

xsanguine wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

I think I may be misreading this, but are you saying that it's ok if the government enforced businesses to give everyone of all orientations haircuts, or cakes, or what have you, just like the government eventually forced restaurants to serve people of all colors?

Nah. What I'm saying is that government should not be involved in the decisions of consenting adults. I don't believe the state (or anyone for that matter) should be in the business of initiating force on anyone, period.

P Rob wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Nah. What I'm saying is that government should not be involved in the decisions of consenting adults. I don't believe the state (or anyone for that matter) should be in the business of initiating force on anyone, period.

You mean like let the market decide?!?! STOP WITH THAT CRAZY TALK!

P Rob wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Nah. What I'm saying is that government should not be involved in the decisions of consenting adults. I don't believe the state (or anyone for that matter) should be in the business of initiating force on anyone, period.

You mean like let the market decide?!?! STOP WITH THAT CRAZY TALK!

DWags wrote:

P Rob wrote:

You mean like let the market decide?!?! STOP WITH THAT CRAZY TALK!

So, if I want to hire Mexicans who work harder for less but maybe walked over from Nogales last but they're consenting is that cool? Why can't I hire them, pay and tax them and let them go back home everyday?

xsanguine wrote:

DWags wrote:

So, if I want to hire Mexicans who work harder for less but maybe walked over from Nogales last but they're consenting is that cool? Why can't I hire them, pay and tax them and let them go back home everyday?

Because the government tells you no.

Rocinante wrote:The problem with your fucking idiotic "market" bullshit is its all a fantasy. Markets incentivize the quashing of competition which makes them never "free" by design. Which is why we neeed regulation. So sick of this ignorant mantra.

Rocinante wrote:The problem with your fucking idiotic "market" bullshit is its all a fantasy. Markets incentivize the quashing of competition which makes them never "free" by design. Which is why we neeed regulation. So sick of this ignorant mantra.

DWags wrote:

Rocinante wrote:The problem with your fucking idiotic "market" bullshit is its all a fantasy. Markets incentivize the quashing of competition which makes them never "free" by design. Which is why we neeed regulation. So sick of this ignorant mantra.

I think since the deregulation of the airlines 4 companies control 85% of the market.

To be fair I think both sides of the isle were for it.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:Also Goose. if you're reading this. If you responded more like X I would engage you more often.

DWags wrote:

Rocinante wrote:The problem with your fucking idiotic "market" bullshit is its all a fantasy. Markets incentivize the quashing of competition which makes them never "free" by design. Which is why we neeed regulation. So sick of this ignorant mantra.

I think since the deregulation of the airlines 4 companies control 85% of the market.

To be fair I think both sides of the isle were for it.

LooseGoose wrote:

DWags wrote:

I think since the deregulation of the airlines 4 companies control 85% of the market.

To be fair I think both sides of the isle were for it.

And although uncomfortable flying somewhere is substantially cheaper than before deregulation.

DWags wrote:No Goose, not quite. Our time in history made us think that shit worked. It didn't. In the following year of deregulation, oil prices dropped by about 70%, maybe you don't remember gas lines, or the embargo, or Jimmy Carter telling us to wear a sweater, but I do. When a bunch of new airlines got in the game, oil prices when downward, it did become much cheaper to fly.

One of my ex players is a pilot, he was telling me that the ten years before deregulation prices fell, way more rapidly than they did after deregulation. Now, you can be charged for a bag overhead, big time for checking bags on etc. Since degregulation, we've seen 4, now three companies corner the market, charge us for carry ons, etc. So, don't confuse oil prices coming down with deregulation of the airlines working. I'm not so sure it did.