First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
Post Reply Why I Left the Left
15539 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/11/17
That is how it is supposed to work, but can you say enough people have enough time to find out enough about what these people are when there is a clearish message that says strongly they are for or against all this stuff, even if they aren't?
958 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Finland
Offline
Posted 2/11/17
American left is actually right in other countries.
mxdan 
11420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 2/11/17 , edited 2/11/17

MysticGon wrote:

Let you in on a little secret, I voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and ticked the box for every Democrat on my ballot. I was never a registered Democrat but their platform was better than the Republicans in my view. Now I think differently and it would appear I'm not the only one...

https://youtu.be/hiVQ8vrGA_8

Enjoy.


Interesting -- I agree with most of what he said. I think it's a piece of a bigger picture that he seems to be missing however and perhaps you as well. I think you probably know what I mean when I say that this idea of regressiveness isn't exactly a 'left' thing. Rather it is a systemic problem that is inflicting both parties at the moment.

It comes from this pervasive idea that your party knows whats right for the world. PrinceJudar (SP?) made a thread a while ago called 'Reason' that I suggest you go read. It brings up some ideas that are very intrinsic on the way people think. I think, a large majority of our population has forgotten how to reason.

If you look at both parties holistically what do ideas come down to today? They are boiled down to semantics of right and wrong and good and evil. I can't speak much for both parties because I don't really identify with them much anymore. But the left is making emotional arguments and the right is completely ignoring ethics -- Both are wrong here. You need to have procedural ethics and you need to use reason. What good is a party that makes decision entirely based off of what they think makes money but ignores ramifications? What good is a party that makes decisions entirely based off of emotion and the totality of people when it doesn't stop to see how it is limiting what they collective can actually do.

Both parties need to balance each other out.

They have become to skewed. Too set in their ways of correctness. They are missing the bigger picture. Decorum has been entirely snuffed out and I think it is largely to with a number of factors running against the American people: Unaccountable media, Schools that teach subjects and not how to think, social seclusion between cities and country side, policy that allows big business to rule decisions, lack of ethics IN our decisions, lack of science in our decisions.

These are a few of the many things contributing to a country that has become tribalist.

I'm no longer under the opinion that it can be fixed. I think it will become worse and honestly, maybe I'm stretching here, but this is how civil wars start.
15539 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/11/17
Oh, it can be fixed. You just have to figure out how. How to slay the dragons without becoming a dragon to slay in turn. How to pressure them from the outside to reform them from within. It is so excitingly possible.
67495 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / US
Offline
Posted 2/11/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:




Except my one problem with his video lies in bakers violating their conscience on the floors of religion. Hell, I'd argue that bigotry is an excuse in itself to discriminate, and we should not afford religion such big room to discriminate just because it is.

Yet I feel that if you, the individual, are not a business, such as a freelance wedding photographer, but own a business that cannot discriminate against black customers, than I feel it would be terribly inconsistent to allow them to discriminate against gay customers. It is not like both have their ties in religion at the height of these antimovements. My conclusion? Religion is nearly meaningless in this debate. Either you should be able to discriminate based on your bigotry, or you shouldn't be able to in most cases. Freedom is the basis for allowing discrimination, not religion. Religion is just a loopy loophole.


In this case, I argue against the ability to discriminate because I want the freedom of walking where I please in public places. Although his sisterhood of nuns is something I wholly agree with. I am not much of an expert in business law, though I would clearly make a distinction between individuals and businesses.


Your problem is that you've never owned a business. You think of "business" as some entity aside from the individual. PUBLIC ENTITIES - such as those traded on the stock market or funded by taxes are just that - PUBLIC - and therefore should be available to ALL the public.

SMALL BUSINESS is a personal endeavor and private citizens using private funds should not be punished for choosing to labor - or not - at the whim of anyone else.

Imagine that you start a small privately owned business. Imagine saving for years, working 14-hour days with no pay to get your own little personal bakery open (pay isn't guaranteed in private business you know - you have to EARN that shit). You buy flour and sugar and other ingredients with money YOU worked for and saved up. You scrape buy, barely able to afford food for yourself after paying for your shop. After a couple years of backbreaking labor, you finally get enough repeat business that you can live on what you earn.

Now some asshat walks in and demands that you serve him. This asshat demands that you use ingredients YOU purchased and that YOU labor for hours on his behalf. For WHATEVER REASON you tell him no. Now this asshat gets upset and sues. The government says that you cannot "discriminate." People call you a bigoted monster, threaten your life, and throw eggs at your house. Your business license gets revoked and all those years of 14-hour days and working for your own livelihood are flushed down the toilet. Your shop shuts down, you can't get a job since you haven't had any 3rd party references for several years, and your house is in foreclosure. If you're lucky, MAYBE you can be a burden on some well-off family member. If you're unlucky - it's homeless shelter time. The so-called "good guys" are the ones who did this all to you.

I would argue that forcing private businesses using private funds to perform a service is unconstitutional under the 13th amendment - "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

What recent law suits mean is that if you EVER refuse to serve a gay person, a church group, or a KKK rally, the government can FORCE YOU TO LABOR ON THEIR BEHALF or you are made bankrupt and destitute for being "discriminatory."

Seems a lot like "involuntary servitude" to me. Does that sound like a free country to you?

Super-short version: BUSINESS is not business - Publicly traded, tax funded, and privately owned institutions are all very different things.
7118 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / Pacific North West
Offline
Posted 2/11/17 , edited 2/11/17
Just wanted to cover a few points here... The first being the baker.. depending on which bakery your referring to makes a world of differance. We had one here in Washington state who knew the Gay couple for years and only drew the line when the message(they felt) was against their beliefs. I can find no fault in that logic. If the customer who had probably shopped their often and never been flat out denied service had an issue with not having a message being put on the cake then they should have gone elsewhere. In the case I am referring to they had been served many a times with no issue. To say "well one may not have been available" is ignorant. In today's modern world(here in the USA) one needs to go no farther then their computer or at worst their local library. There they can order literally just about anything and usually have it shipped within a day or so for a minimal cost. HOWEVER if the bakery in question just flat out refused to do any business with any individual on the basis of their religion, nationality, or sexual orientation.. that I would take issue with.

As to Colleges excluding speakers of a dissenting viewpoint, I believe if they accept $$$ from the govt(cant think of any major colleges that dont) they should not have the ability to do so, as they are required to not discriminate in exchange for taxpayer dollars. Now if it was say a privately funded catholic church that took no $$$ from the govt. then so be it they can be selective about whomever wants to speak at their venues as at that point they become like a private club. Assuming their issue is with the context of the speakers beliefs, and not the speakers race, age. nationality. I know locally we have an all "African American College" which probably doesn't allow other nationalities(have never seen any nor have I bothered to inquire) but they accept $0 from the US govt.so i feel they can do as they please.

Personally I believe in the the freedom of speech. I think if you want to be in the KKK or Black Panthers feel free. Your certainly entitled to speak what you believe. Though where I draw the line is public demonstrations and acts of hate/violence. Planting burning crosses, burning harry potter books publicly, or marching in the streets in pillow cases is not free speech! Those are public acts of hatred and serve only in incite civil strife. I would also like to say banning things some people find offensive is a slippery slope. How would most of you feel if Anime/Manga were banned because people raised a big enough issue about anime being degrading towards women, and makes them out to be sexual personifications. Personally I support EVERY president. I supported Mr. Obama, and I support our current president. I may not agree with some of their beliefs or policies, but I believe each of them is trying their best to do a job I would wager none of us could do any better at. To me its up to the test of time to see what ideas/polices survived long after their presidency is what matters most. Sorry for the wall of text
28414 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 2/11/17 , edited 2/11/17

FootChar wrote:


MysticGon wrote:
I should add a caveat that as long as no one's life is threatened. Once you get past that most basic of human rights we can talk about laws and how far to take them before they become a slippery slope.

There is a lot of suffering between no discrimination and one's life being threatened. At what point do we intervene? Why should we accept any of it all?



Trust me I know. Racism sucks. I'd like to see it eradicated. But it is price of freedom of speech. I know there are still Klan meetings in the boondocks and if I showed up as anything but an obedient house nigger I'll be saying hello to a swamp full of alligators. I also know the same will happen if I go to the hood at certain times wearing certain colors.

The Klan has the freedom to organize and express their assbackwards ideology. Crips like Snoop have the freedom to reference his gang in his music. Only when those threats become real does it become a crime.

When compared to those guys I can see how a small business owner would seem like an easier target for moral outrage. But it's the price of freedom.

Edit: also you have to learn to accept the things you cannot change, like people's minds. You may think you can shame them into accepting your world view but you can't.
28414 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 2/11/17 , edited 2/11/17


You need to understand and empathize with someone in order to reason with them in my opinion. Unfortunately you can't make it a few sentences before accusations, assumptions and presumptions poison the well.

I agree with you. The sad truth is basic civility isn't there. People interact with each other as if they are caricatures or a boss in a video game ready to be vanquished. The differences will remain irreconcilable until people learn how to talk to each other again.
1354 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / Ireland
Offline
Posted 2/11/17
I think it would be better to just leave the entire right wing, left wing labelling crap because both sides have people who are absolutely insane. Very few people are going to have exactly the same views as me or as you. That's why I can't say I'm right or left because its a ridiculous exercise.
24290 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 2/11/17 , edited 2/11/17

dark_paradox_21 wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:




Except my one problem with his video lies in bakers violating their conscience on the floors of religion. Hell, I'd argue that bigotry is an excuse in itself to discriminate, and we should not afford religion such big room to discriminate just because it is.

Yet I feel that if you, the individual, are not a business, such as a freelance wedding photographer, but own a business that cannot discriminate against black customers, than I feel it would be terribly inconsistent to allow them to discriminate against gay customers. It is not like both have their ties in religion at the height of these antimovements. My conclusion? Religion is nearly meaningless in this debate. Either you should be able to discriminate based on your bigotry, or you shouldn't be able to in most cases. Freedom is the basis for allowing discrimination, not religion. Religion is just a loopy loophole.


In this case, I argue against the ability to discriminate because I want the freedom of walking where I please in public places. Although his sisterhood of nuns is something I wholly agree with. I am not much of an expert in business law, though I would clearly make a distinction between individuals and businesses.


Your problem is that you've never owned a business. You think of "business" as some entity aside from the individual. PUBLIC ENTITIES - such as those traded on the stock market or funded by taxes are just that - PUBLIC - and therefore should be available to ALL the public.

SMALL BUSINESS is a personal endeavor and private citizens using private funds should not be punished for choosing to labor - or not - at the whim of anyone else.

Imagine that you start a small privately owned business. Imagine saving for years, working 14-hour days with no pay to get your own little personal bakery open (pay isn't guaranteed in private business you know - you have to EARN that shit). You buy flour and sugar and other ingredients with money YOU worked for and saved up. You scrape buy, barely able to afford food for yourself after paying for your shop. After a couple years of backbreaking labor, you finally get enough repeat business that you can live on what you earn.

Now some asshat walks in and demands that you serve him. This asshat demands that you use ingredients YOU purchased and that YOU labor for hours on his behalf. For WHATEVER REASON you tell him no. Now this asshat gets upset and sues. The government says that you cannot "discriminate." People call you a bigoted monster, threaten your life, and throw eggs at your house. Your business license gets revoked and all those years of 14-hour days and working for your own livelihood are flushed down the toilet. Your shop shuts down, you can't get a job since you haven't had any 3rd party references for several years, and your house is in foreclosure. If you're lucky, MAYBE you can be a burden on some well-off family member. If you're unlucky - it's homeless shelter time. The so-called "good guys" are the ones who did this all to you.

I would argue that forcing private businesses using private funds to perform a service is unconstitutional under the 13th amendment - "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

What recent law suits mean is that if you EVER refuse to serve a gay person, a church group, or a KKK rally, the government can FORCE YOU TO LABOR ON THEIR BEHALF or you are made bankrupt and destitute for being "discriminatory."

Seems a lot like "involuntary servitude" to me. Does that sound like a free country to you?


Yes, yes it does. I honestly do not have a problem with it as long as it operate in a public venue with a significant amount of workers, hence my use of the word public. I am not the smartest person when it comes to legalese, so forgive me.

I do believe that right to refuse can apply in some cases, but nevertheless, it seems my view align with the law, which I just want to be consistent with other categories.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/restaurants-right-to-refuse-service.html



8164 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 2/11/17
"[Leaving] the left" because of these reasons is fine but voting against the left because of these is a misled decission. I agree with a lot of what he mentioned in the video but those reasons are only a fraction of what "the left" is consist of. Furthermore, these generalizations have little to do with what you're voting for (or in this case, against).

You don't have to be a Trump supporter / anti-Democrat to even agree with these. These issues have nothing to do with Trump's incompetent/dangerous cabinet picks, his plan to engage the US in a pointless trade war to appease the whining Nationalists, the effort to rollback the United States to the age of Industrial Revolution (under the guise of "job creation"), his promise to waste billions of dollars to build (and then some to maintain) a useless wall and then lie to the American people that "Mexico will pay for the wall". Sadly, it seems like half this country's population can't tell the difference between a situation where Mexico pays for the wall and an import tax increase that has the word "Mexico" on it (which will be paid for by citizens/residents of the US).

So this man has decided to help doom our economy because of a few whining liberals that were too busy being offended for other people? Dumb move.
Quarlo 
26896 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Shit Face
Offline
Posted 2/11/17 , edited 2/11/17
Unfortunately what we have here in this country are the Corporate Party and the Other Corporate Party. Each party now (with a few exceptions in each camp) now do what is in the best interest of their donors and the large corporations with very little interest in helping those they claim to be their constituents.

Example. Studies have looked at laws that have been passed in the last 20 years. Laws that the general population (regardless of party affiliation) are heavily in favor of are passes less than 30% of the time. While laws that are heavily favored by businesses are passed well over 70% of the time.

So why do we still have the Left and the Right? Votes. You can't get into power (and by extension become ungodly wealthy) without the votes of the people. If you campaigned on the platform of "I'm gonna make myself and corporations richer", no one would vote for you. So your turn to one of the two parties and their Three Legged Stool that props up their party. For the Right it's Religion, Abortion and Guns. For the Left it's the Environment, Gay Rights and the Social Safety Net. So if one party is in favor something, you are automatically opposed to it. So, as long as politicians can keep hammering at the Big 3 of their party they can always whip up the base to keep them in power.

Some of the old talking points that used to be leaning one side or another were Military Spending, Taxes and Big vs Small Government (and by extension States Rights) among many others. Now both sides are in favor of military spending. Both sides raise and lower taxes (the important part is to examine who's getting the tax breaks and who has to make up for the short fall in revenue). Big vs Small Government is a total myth now as both side will ignore it when it suits their purposes.

So when people argue any of the three legs of their parties corporate prop up stool, realize that they are buying into the propaganda. Sure those points may be important to you on a personal level, but what you should be looking at is what politicians are doing when they aren't proselytizing about the Big 3.
24290 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 2/11/17

AlastorCrow wrote:

"[Leaving] the left" because of these reasons is fine but voting against the left because of these is a misled decission. I agree with a lot of what he mentioned in the video but those reasons are only a fraction of what "the left" is consist of. Furthermore, these generalizations have little to do with what you're voting for (or in this case, against).

You don't have to be a Trump supporter / anti-Democrat to even agree with these. These issues have nothing to do with Trump's incompetent/dangerous cabinet picks, his plan to engage the US in a pointless trade war to appease the whining Nationalists, the effort to rollback the United States to the age of Industrial Revolution (under the guise of "job creation"), his promise to waste billions of dollars to build (and then some to maintain) a useless wall and then lie to the American people that "Mexico will pay for the wall". Sadly, it seems like half this country's population can't tell the difference between a situation where Mexico pays for the wall and an import tax increase that has the word "Mexico" on it (which will be paid for by citizens/residents of the US).

So this man has decided to help doom our economy because of a few whining liberals that were too busy being offended for other people? Dumb move.


I would argue it should have been more a case of "leaving the democrats" then abandoning liberal ideals. I have not seen that in the video though, he seems to just classify himself as a classical liberal at that point to differentiate from progressive. Though I agree.
37386 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 2/11/17

dark_paradox_21 wrote:

Your problem is that you've never owned a business. You think of "business" as some entity aside from the individual. PUBLIC ENTITIES - such as those traded on the stock market or funded by taxes are just that - PUBLIC - and therefore should be available to ALL the public.

SMALL BUSINESS is a personal endeavor and private citizens using private funds should not be punished for choosing to labor - or not - at the whim of anyone else.


The legal strategy that Masterpiece and Phillips employed for their defence was a simple one:



Now, notice something important here: at no point in Masterpiece and Phillips' defence was it argued that Masterpiece Cakeshop was not a public accommodation, and therefore ought not be subject to state non-discrimination laws concerning them. Indeed, this very issue was addressed directly in the appeal documentation:


The parties did not dispute any material facts. Masterpiece and Phillips admitted that the bakery is a place of public accommodation and that they refused to sell Craig and Mullins a cake because of their intent to engage in a same-sex marriage ceremony.


The avenue you're trying to defend Masterpiece and Phillips with is a total dead end. The defence didn't even try it, and they were getting so granular that they tried to get off the hook based on typos.

https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/craig-v-masterpiece-opinion


I would argue that forcing private businesses using private funds to perform a service is unconstitutional under the 13th amendment - "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

What recent law suits mean is that if you EVER refuse to serve a gay person, a church group, or a KKK rally, the government can FORCE YOU TO LABOR ON THEIR BEHALF or you are made bankrupt and destitute for being "discriminatory."

Seems a lot like "involuntary servitude" to me. Does that sound like a free country to you?

Super-short version: BUSINESS is not business - Publicly traded, tax funded, and privately owned institutions are all very different things.


This is another thing conspicuously missing from Masterpiece and Phillips' defence, and I expect for a very good reason. There are longstanding historical precedents in common law empowering the state to compel indiscriminate provision of services for businesses deemed to be of particular public interest (especially things like inns or utility providers), and these have carried over in one form or another in US law. There is also to consider relatively newer regulations and precedents establishing that this or that variety of business qualifies as a public accommodation given its nature and enumerating particular varieties of discrimination public accommodations are forbidden from engaging in.

I don't think an appeal to the 13th Amendment would have a snowball's chance in Hell of surviving litigation, but I'm not a legal professional.


Imagine that you start a small privately owned business. Imagine saving for years, working 14-hour days with no pay to get your own little personal bakery open (pay isn't guaranteed in private business you know - you have to EARN that shit). You buy flour and sugar and other ingredients with money YOU worked for and saved up. You scrape buy, barely able to afford food for yourself after paying for your shop. After a couple years of backbreaking labor, you finally get enough repeat business that you can live on what you earn.

Now some asshat walks in and demands that you serve him. This asshat demands that you use ingredients YOU purchased and that YOU labor for hours on his behalf. For WHATEVER REASON you tell him no. Now this asshat gets upset and sues. The government says that you cannot "discriminate." People call you a bigoted monster, threaten your life, and throw eggs at your house. Your business license gets revoked and all those years of 14-hour days and working for your own livelihood are flushed down the toilet. Your shop shuts down, you can't get a job since you haven't had any 3rd party references for several years, and your house is in foreclosure. If you're lucky, MAYBE you can be a burden on some well-off family member. If you're unlucky - it's homeless shelter time. The so-called "good guys" are the ones who did this all to you.


If this story runs in parallel with that of Masterpiece and Phillips the problems in this story all began when I, the hypothetical bakery owner, failed to meet the legal obligations I clearly understood and freely accepted when I applied for a licence to do business in the state of Colorado as a public accommodation.

I'd have no one but myself to blame for my misfortune in this story. I'm not sleeping on a friend's couch without my bakery because the customer I discriminated against was an "asshat", I'm there because I broke the law and apparently obstinately refused to make the required changes and pay the necessary fines to bring my operations back into comport with the law. Getting my licence to do business suspended and eventually revoked is to be expected when I do that. I'm not sleeping on a friend's couch without my bakery because public sentiment turned against me, I'm there because I broke the law and faced the consequences for doing so. Whining about my community thinking me a bad person for what I've done doesn't actually address the substance of the matter in the slightest.

The only legitimate complaint I'd even have is that people threw eggs at my house and threatened me.

24290 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 2/11/17

BlueOni wrote:


dark_paradox_21 wrote:

Your problem is that you've never owned a business. You think of "business" as some entity aside from the individual. PUBLIC ENTITIES - such as those traded on the stock market or funded by taxes are just that - PUBLIC - and therefore should be available to ALL the public.

SMALL BUSINESS is a personal endeavor and private citizens using private funds should not be punished for choosing to labor - or not - at the whim of anyone else.


The legal strategy that Masterpiece and Phillips employed for their defence was a simple one:



Now, notice something important here: at no point in Masterpiece and Phillips' defence was it argued that Masterpiece Cakeshop was not a public accommodation, and therefore ought not be subject to state non-discrimination laws concerning them. Indeed, this very issue was addressed directly in the appeal documentation:


The parties did not dispute any material facts. Masterpiece and Phillips admitted that the bakery is a place of public accommodation and that they refused to sell Craig and Mullins a cake because of their intent to engage in a same-sex marriage ceremony.


The avenue you're trying to defend Masterpiece and Phillips with is a total dead end. The defence didn't even try it, and they were getting so granular that they tried to get off the hook based on typos.

https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/craig-v-masterpiece-opinion


I would argue that forcing private businesses using private funds to perform a service is unconstitutional under the 13th amendment - "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

What recent law suits mean is that if you EVER refuse to serve a gay person, a church group, or a KKK rally, the government can FORCE YOU TO LABOR ON THEIR BEHALF or you are made bankrupt and destitute for being "discriminatory."

Seems a lot like "involuntary servitude" to me. Does that sound like a free country to you?

Super-short version: BUSINESS is not business - Publicly traded, tax funded, and privately owned institutions are all very different things.


This is another thing conspicuously missing from Masterpiece and Phillips' defence, and I expect for a very good reason. There are longstanding historical precedents in common law empowering the state to compel indiscriminate provision of services for businesses deemed to be of particular public interest (especially things like inns or utility providers), and these have carried over in one form or another in US law. There is also to consider relatively newer regulations and precedents establishing that this or that variety of business qualifies as a public accommodation given its nature and enumerating particular varieties of discrimination public accommodations are forbidden from engaging in.

I don't think an appeal to the 13th Amendment would have a snowball's chance in Hell of surviving litigation, but I'm not a legal professional.


Imagine that you start a small privately owned business. Imagine saving for years, working 14-hour days with no pay to get your own little personal bakery open (pay isn't guaranteed in private business you know - you have to EARN that shit). You buy flour and sugar and other ingredients with money YOU worked for and saved up. You scrape buy, barely able to afford food for yourself after paying for your shop. After a couple years of backbreaking labor, you finally get enough repeat business that you can live on what you earn.

Now some asshat walks in and demands that you serve him. This asshat demands that you use ingredients YOU purchased and that YOU labor for hours on his behalf. For WHATEVER REASON you tell him no. Now this asshat gets upset and sues. The government says that you cannot "discriminate." People call you a bigoted monster, threaten your life, and throw eggs at your house. Your business license gets revoked and all those years of 14-hour days and working for your own livelihood are flushed down the toilet. Your shop shuts down, you can't get a job since you haven't had any 3rd party references for several years, and your house is in foreclosure. If you're lucky, MAYBE you can be a burden on some well-off family member. If you're unlucky - it's homeless shelter time. The so-called "good guys" are the ones who did this all to you.


If this story runs in parallel with that of Masterpiece and Phillips the problems in this story all began when I, the hypothetical bakery owner, failed to meet the legal obligations I clearly understood and freely accepted when I applied for a licence to do business in the state of Colorado as a public accommodation.

I'd have no one but myself to blame for my misfortune in this story. I'm not sleeping on a friend's couch without my bakery because the customer I discriminated against was an "asshat", I'm there because I broke the law and apparently obstinately refused to make the required changes and pay the necessary fines to bring my operations back into comport with the law. Getting my licence to do business suspended and eventually revoked is to be expected when I do that. I'm not sleeping on a friend's couch without my bakery because public sentiment turned against me, I'm there because I broke the law and faced the consequences for doing so. Whining about my community thinking me a bad person for what I've done doesn't actually address the substance of the matter in the slightest.

The only legitimate complaint I'd even have is that people threw eggs at my house and threatened me.



I am sure he is arguing against the legality of small business owners not being able to discriminate, but I would argue, in the same vein that he himself offered a dramatized reasoning, in my words, that "the parceling of land for public accommodations and treating them with the same rights as private residents in an otherwise commercial district is likely to end in disaster" with the citation of segregation in businesses in the 20th century. Now it can be argued that blacks made a significant percent of the population versus gays and transgenders, but I think for the sake of moral consistency that the lack of protection for LGBT does not make sense.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.