Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » And So it Begins (Page 6)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   
Author Topic: And So it Begins
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
If I advertise my willingness to be a personal assistant I am absolutely free to discriminate against any employer on any basis regardless of the fact that I am engaging in commerce, in public.
And in that case you are acting as an individual, not a public business entity, so you have the personal freedom to discriminate, while the public business entity is regulated such that it does not have that freedom as a condition of its existence.
I'll only address this point and not the others, because this particular response is simply a non-response to everything Seriati and I said. You've ignored it all and reverted to repeating what you said before. It's a non-starter for us getting anywhere. If you continue to restate that a business is defined as a "public business entity" (a term which you made and and defined yourself) then there's nowhere for us to go. Once you take a false premise and run with it you can get anywhere, and so any point beyond this one cannot be discussed. In short, you have equated opening up a business with signing up for communism, and all your points on the matter reflect this.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
It would seem very strange to be actively 'for' the change while yet thinking it's a sin...
Why? Isn't this precisely, for example, what any libertarian Catholic resigned to the existence of legal marriage would do?
I agree with you that a libertarian Catholic might be resigned to 'let them have it if they want it,' which is morally very different from 'I want them to have it.' In principle if a Catholic thinks something is sinful (even though kmbboots in this particular case doesn't think it is) then it would certainly be that person's duty as a Catholic to try to lower the instances of that sin in the world (through conversation, etc). I can see no case where a Catholic would say "this is a sin, and further I encourage you to go do it." The only connection I'm making is that voting "for" something is encouragement to do it, which is hardly tenuous since if such a law was passed it would inevitably lead to the formal legitimization of the sinful behavior.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
You don't have to imagine it; you can see it. Check any poll on US Catholic opinion on things like birth control, women priests, married priests. And you can see throughout history where the Vatican has clearly gotten it wrong and, eventually, changed position. People who were condemned by the Vatican who are now considered saints and doctors of the Church. Yes, I know what the conservative Catholic websites say. This is exactly what I was talking about with the "creeping infallibility".

I understand, and let me ask you a more fundamental question then, if you don't mind. What makes you a Catholic?

To put this in context, Martin Luther was a Catholic, and he had different ideas on a few doctrinal things (as well as issues of corruption). But his divergent view was incompatible with remaining Catholic and what he turned to is what we now call Protestantism. So aside from the corruption charges, Catholicism - X = Protestantism, where X is some set of doctrines that are disagreed upon.

The context of the question I just asked is, what exact tenets make someone (in your opinion) a Catholic, such that failing to believe in them simply makes you a non-Catholic (e.g. probably a Protestant)? What teaching do you therefore consider infallible that must be believed in order to be Catholic?

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have answered this before. I have no interest in going over it all again. You are welcome to look it up. Otherwise, you will just have to take my word. I belong to one of the oldest and most well respected parishes in the city. They have trusted me to instruct people in the faith. Again, look at the data. Are you going to question the faith of more than half the Catholics in this country (and in Europe)?

If you are really interested, read the books.

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Frankly I prefer when people cherry-pick elements of their religion (while still claiming it as their religion) - it is almost always in the direction I consider more ethical. I wish more people simply "owned it" openly.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Everyone "cherry-picks". Catholicism, regardless of contemporary conservative thinking has a long history of being improved by dissent.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would speculate that it creates uncomfortable dissonance for people to feel they are "authors" of their own belief set while also feeling like they are partaking of an ancient tradition.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Interesting. That is one of the things I like best about being Catholic.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
I would speculate that it creates uncomfortable dissonance for people to feel they are "authors" of their own belief set while also feeling like they are partaking of an ancient tradition.

The catch is to make sure you have thoroughly plumbed the ancient wisdom before deciding you know better and making up something for yourself. This comment isn't directly at kmbboots, but rather at the modern notion often jested at that because something is old that makes is obsolete. I agree in 'cherry-picking' also, with the proviso that I try to keep in mind not to discard thousands of years of work that came before me. I do agree that this is one of the nice things about Catholicism.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
The catch is to make sure you have thoroughly plumbed the ancient wisdom before deciding you know better and making up something for yourself. This comment isn't directly at kmbboots, but rather at the modern notion often jested at that because something is old that makes is obsolete.

The other confusion is actually that because something is old, it is presumed to have more value. I would call that confusion far more pernicious and widespread than the one you mentioned.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If you continue to restate that a business is defined as a "public business entity" (a term which you made and and defined yourself) then there's nowhere for us to go. Once you take a false premise and run with it you can get anywhere, and so any point beyond this one cannot be discussed. In short, you have equated opening up a business with signing up for communism, and all your points on the matter reflect this.
You're slinging words around without any regard for their meaning is a poor dodge for avoiding the point I've been making (especially when you turn what you and Seriati have been doing into an accusation against me)

Equating regulatory compliance with communism is a rightwing FUD tactic, to be sure, but it's pure propaganda- trying to present it as an argument is completely specious. There has never been a question that, especially at the local level, complying with community regulations was part and parcel of that given community allowing you to impose on its resources in the process of operating a business.

The law has established corporate personhood- which is to say that a registered business is effectively a public created entity. When you apply for a business license in the cases where it is necessary, as with a bakery, you are crating a new entity for tax. regulatory, and ownership purposes. It is, very explicitly, a public created entity, whose existence is contingent, in part,m with an agreement to comply with the legal and regulatory framework that it was instantiated within.

One cannot, in the context of a claim of religious protections, violate basic public health standards in operating a bakery. If you firmly believe that you may not cook without the blessings of the rat gods as evidenced by at least five wild rats dwelling in your kitchen, you simply cannot legally operate as a legal bakery or restaurant. You can privately sell cakes to your friends and associates, but once you cross the line into commercial operation- operating as a publicly licensed business and not as a private individual, then the rights of your customers, as enshrined in health code standards take priority over your freedom to effectively include people in your beliefs by selling them infested food. You similarly cannot claim an exception to laws against murder if you believe that a human sacrifice is necessary to keep your kitchen blessed on a regular basis. Religious freedom only pertains to ones behavior in regards to oneself- as soon as you take actions, particularly manifestly harmful actions, regardless of whether it be murder, health code violations, or discrimination based on membership in a class of people where it has been publicly accepted that such represents direct harm (the entire point of defining protected classes in the first place) you ar stepping outside the bounds of acceptable religious liberty and asserting a right to impose your beliefs on others, violating not only the direct rights affected, but also their own religious liberties.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:

The law has established corporate personhood- which is to say that a registered business is effectively a public created entity. When you apply for a business license in the cases where it is necessary, as with a bakery, you are crating a new entity for tax. regulatory, and ownership purposes. It is, very explicitly, a public created entity, whose existence is contingent, in part,m with an agreement to comply with the legal and regulatory framework that it was instantiated within.

I'll avoid the other details and focus on this. Being a "publicly created entity" does not make it a "public entity." It is still a privately owned and controlled entity. This is where you are hopeless equivocating in your terms. And in point of fact corporations are not even publicly created in the first place, they are privately created and publicly registered as corporations. Obtaining a license to run a business doesn't make it a public business any more than obtaining a driver's license makes my car a "public car." The fact that there are rules involved is totally immaterial to whether something is privately or publicly controlled/owned.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It is still a privately owned and controlled entity.
Sure, but that's irrelevant pedantic nitpicking that has nothing to do with the point I was making, and only serves as a strawman distracting from it, since I never suggested that the entity was owned or controlled by anyone by the person it was registered to. That's a qualification completely tangential to the cat that, in order to have it created, they had to agree to abide by the public regulatory framework that allows it to exist.

A business, in the relevant, formal sense as a legal entity, is created under the terms of state law, not by an individual person. It doesn't make any sense at all to say that people magically create legal entities on their own.

Someone can do business privately- without applying for such a legal entity and its benefits- and I've noted that doing so generally means that the person has fewer regulatory obligations- but that's not relevant to the kind of business in question- one that's using the public regulatory framework to operate on a commercial basis. One that is public facing, not operating purely via private channels. Commercial businesses are ones that are open to the public. HEnce public entities. there's no assertion of public ownership there, only accurately identifying their facing in the market.


On the main point - unless you're seriously asserting that it should be possible to get religious exemptions to any law preventing harm to others based on "honest religious conviction" then your position is only coherent if you're presenting the false assertion that allowing businesses to collude to exclude people as a class does not manifestly harm that class of people. This is demonstrably false as evidenced by the discriminatory abuses that the civil rights acts that established the notion of protected classes in the first place helped correct.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
The part I still have a hard time getting around is how to set aside the opinion of the Pope (or several Popes) and the Catechism on a particular subject. Without meaning to denigrate your position on this, how do you justify it?

I should have mentioned this earlier, but you're actually demonstrating the very reason that the court's DON'T try to parse people's religious beliefs. You can't speak authoritatively about anyone else's religion. Even if you were correct about a faith as a whole, it doesn't matter because its the personal faith of the person that matters.

And for the record, there are quite a few mainline Christians who are not anti-gay, including as KMBoots pointed out several denominations (for which those opposed to homosexuality are the ones operating outside of doctrine).
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Which collusion doesn't currently exist, and you've provided no evidence of. Which is why I referenced unthinking application of rules originally designed to deal with Race, where there was ample evidence of such collusion as a historical matter.
It certainly does exist- which is why this is a civil rights issue and multiple bakers and other businesses have been found refusing such services.
If it exists provide evidence of the attempts to collude to prevent gay weddings from having wedding cakes. Collusion is a very specific concept. Provide your evidence, or admit you overstated once again.
quote:
The entire point of establishing practiced classes is that history shows us that all businesses, by the nature of the market, tend toward collusion unless regulated not to.
Another unsupported assertion.
quote:
We're not talking about an isolated case of bigotry here,
We're not talking about bigotry at all, unless you have some facts to introduce that aren't in evidence.
quote:
we're talking about widely distributed bigotry that,
Unless you mean to define religious belief as bigotry, we're not talking about that either.
quote:
where present, reduces consumer market access, and will, in some areas have a net effect of representing an effective lockout of a given class of people because enough businesses in that area would force others to comply with their religious assertions in order to access any business services in or across industries.
Which part would be a concern, except you skipped over the actually providing facts to support it. There is no shortage of bakers willing to prepare wedding cakes for gay weddings. And in fact, even before applying legal remedies this baker found themselves the target of active collusion to put them out of business, as they were targeted by a boycott that threatened to boycott anyone who even worked with them. Hard to see a case of collusion, where the community weight was so heavily on the other side that it destroyed the business completely.
quote:
And, in this case, the contract is between the person that wants to create a business entity and the public authority that issues the licenses to create such.
It's not a contract, notwithstanding your desire to twist terms to make an untenable argument work.

And since its mandatory, and non-negotiable it doesn't matter what you call it when you create the choice between violating religious beliefs or not earning a living.
quote:
Religious liberty is a good thing, but legally, the only person that you should be able to hold to those standards is yourself, even if that means opting to forgo greater profit margins or make other personal sacrifices because of religious adherence.
Lol, that's exactly what they did. They forgo the opportunity to a greater profit by refusing to make the cake.
quote:
Anything short of that is using public law to impose the need to satisfy your religion on others.
You should take a class in logic, cause you have yet to explain how refusing to be someone's slave is forcing your religion on them.

The rest of your posts are really just non-responsive reassertions of points that have been refuted. Feel free to continue to make up your own version of law and assert it strongly, its complete nonsense, but you don't seem willing to consider the positions in good faith.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
There is no shortage of bakers willing to prepare wedding cakes for gay weddings.
Would you feel differently if there were in fact a shortage? Or if we were talking about something more important than cake?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Obtaining a license to run a business doesn't make it a public business any more than obtaining a driver's license makes my car a "public car."
BAd comparison. In context, drivers licence authorizes you as a public vehicle operator. That doesn't the vehicle itself is public property- it means that you can operate it in the appropriate public medium for it, so long as you follow the public rules for doing so. You don't not create the authorization and then register it- it's the process of registration that creates the authorization, which is a public constructor that only has meaning in terms of the regulatory framework that creates it.

Similarly, and given collection of business assets- a business that you owned is not the same thing as the legal entity created in the process of registering it with the proper regulatory authorities so that you can operate it on a commercial basis- to use the public infrastructure for business created by the laws and regulations for operation- the specific market that those laws define and regulate access to.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Unless you mean to define religious belief as bigotry, we're not talking about that either.
Bigotry enshrined as a religious value is still bigotry. It doesn't magically stop being bias just because one believed a divine authority commanded it.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
There is no shortage of bakers willing to prepare wedding cakes for gay weddings
That was the argument made to support segregated restaurants, drinking fountains, etc... It's as specious now in this case as it was in the fight for racial civil rights.

quote:
And since its mandatory, and non-negotiable it doesn't matter what you call it when you create the choice between violating religious beliefs or not earning a living.

Inflicting harm on others is not covered under religious freedom. Unless you want to assert that not allowing someone who earnestly believed that must add a tablespoon of rat feces to every thing they baked as a religious obligation was having their religious liberty impinged upon when the health department decides to shut them down for it.

Part of earnestly holding a given religious belief is opting yourself out of actions that might otherwise be more profitable based on your personal convictions. If you hold a conviction that that is incompatible with the public regulations against harming others in a given field, then it is on you to pick a different vocation, not on the public to allow you to harm others to satisfy your religion.

[ May 04, 2015, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You should take a class in logic, cause you have yet to explain how refusing to be someone's slave is forcing your religion on them.
You say this while reiterating a false assertion. Forcing someone to conform to your religious standards before allowing them to purchase a commercially offered service under the auspices of a public business license from you is impeding your religion on them.

Slavery remains a completely specious assertion in light of the fact that the commercial business license requires compliance with the a regulatory code that prevents you from doing harm to others, including by refusing service to them based on class characteristics where such a refusal has been legally acknowledge to be harmful.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
There is no shortage of bakers willing to prepare wedding cakes for gay weddings.
Would you feel differently if there were in fact a shortage? Or if we were talking about something more important than cake?
Yes. The whole mechanism that is being leveraged here was built for race, and in the face of systemic efforts to discriminate. There was forced collusion to prevent those who might have been willing to not discriminate to toe the line. There are in fact two opposing rights here, religious freedom and equal protection. I'm not ever going to accept EITHER as absolute.

But and this is a big but, forcing personal service is an extraordinary circumstance. It really is one of the grossest impositions you can make to not give someone a choice to not participate in an activity. Forcing a doctor to treat someone on death's door seems reasonable to me, forcing someone to bake a cake a lot less so. I'd like to see a better tuned remedy.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
There is no shortage of bakers willing to prepare wedding cakes for gay weddings
That was the argument made to support segregated restaurants, drinking fountains, etc... It's as specious now in this case as it was in the fight for racial civil rights.
And you objected to me categorizing your application of the system designed to correct racial injustice as unthinking. Lol.
quote:
Inflicting harm on others is not covered under religious freedom.
Seriously man, stop with this absolutely broken logic. You have no right to force someone else to do something, period. You can't reconstrue someone refusing to be your slave as a harm to yourself.

You'd probably understand it, if say the government tried to force the Amish to keep electronic records, but you refuse to comprehend it here. It's either bad faith or inability, either way, why should we keep trying to explain it? Show me some evidence of a good faith attempt at comprehending the point.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Someone can do business privately- without applying for such a legal entity and its benefits- and I've noted that doing so generally means that the person has fewer regulatory obligations- but that's not relevant to the kind of business in question- one that's using the public regulatory framework to operate on a commercial basis. One that is public facing, not operating purely via private channels. Commercial businesses are ones that are open to the public. HEnce public entities. there's no assertion of public ownership there, only accurately identifying their facing in the market.

I know there's no way you'll ever say yes to this, but I have to ask anyhow. Are you suggesting that by incorporating a business (using public apparatus to change the constitution of a business) you make it "public", but by opening a business and refraining from incorporating it you keep it private? Would this mean that an incorporated bakery would not have the right to refuse service based on religious beliefs, but a non-limited-liability bakery would have its religious privilege intact since it didn't use the incorporation procedure to 'transform it'?

quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Obtaining a license to run a business doesn't make it a public business any more than obtaining a driver's license makes my car a "public car."
BAd comparison. In context, drivers licence authorizes you as a public vehicle operator. That doesn't the vehicle itself is public property- it means that you can operate it in the appropriate public medium for it, so long as you follow the public rules for doing so. You don't not create the authorization and then register it- it's the process of registration that creates the authorization, which is a public constructor that only has meaning in terms of the regulatory framework that creates it.

Similarly, and given collection of business assets- a business that you owned is not the same thing as the legal entity created in the process of registering it with the proper regulatory authorities so that you can operate it on a commercial basis- to use the public infrastructure for business created by the laws and regulations for operation- the specific market that those laws define and regulate access to.

When you obtain your driver's license you are not only merely registering your car, but also gaining access to public infrastructure such as roads and bridges. You didn't build these things yourself, and so your 'car experience' is transformed when you get a license from being restricted to driving around on your private property to having unlimited access to the public system. This makes the analogy identical to incorporating, where you take a business (which includes implements, personnel, assets, capital, etc) and incorporate it, thus gaining access to the public infrastructure and rule set that goes with it. It's the same thing, and in neither case does signing up with the public apparatus switch either the business or the car into being "public." They remain private, with no one other than the owners deciding what route they will take and where to go.

quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
The part I still have a hard time getting around is how to set aside the opinion of the Pope (or several Popes) and the Catechism on a particular subject. Without meaning to denigrate your position on this, how do you justify it?

I should have mentioned this earlier, but you're actually demonstrating the very reason that the court's DON'T try to parse people's religious beliefs. You can't speak authoritatively about anyone else's religion. Even if you were correct about a faith as a whole, it doesn't matter because its the personal faith of the person that matters.

And for the record, there are quite a few mainline Christians who are not anti-gay, including as KMBoots pointed out several denominations (for which those opposed to homosexuality are the ones operating outside of doctrine).

I meant that particular point in the context not of parsing beliefs in order to qualify for religious exemption, but rather just as part of an offhand comment I was making that the expectation of a given Christian to have a problem with homosexuality is going to be fairly high. I accept your correct and kmbboots' about the numbers, and if it ends up at around 50/50 that still means that finding a religious person who has a problem with it will be quite regular and not some kind of weird religious anomaly that no one's ever heard of. This is in response to people saying that we'll have to go to court to look up the Bible whenever someone makes a wild claim about some obscure religious belief. I rather expect that whenever these issues do come up it won't be obscure cases at all but will be large hot-topic issues.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Are you suggesting that by incorporating a business (using public apparatus to change the constitution of a business) you make it "public", but by opening a business and refraining from incorporating it you keep it private? Would this mean that an incorporated bakery would not have the right to refuse service based on religious beliefs, but a non-limited-liability bakery would have its religious privilege intact since it didn't use the incorporation procedure to 'transform it'?
Applying for any public entity status, not jsut a LLC- if you apply for a commercial license, you are contracting to comply with the associated regulations.

If you're baking out of your kitchen individually contracting with people on a private basis, there is still some amount of regulation you need to comply with, but not the same kinds that you'd have to follow from operating a commercial establishment, like a bakery.

quote:
It's the same thing, and in neither case does signing up with the public apparatus switch either the business or the car into being "public."
Only if you use a completely different sense of the term "public" than I was using, and explicitly made clear I was not using. "Public" as in the commercial sense of "open to the public" and the sense of "existing in the context of public law" not as in "publicly owned"
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
I meant that particular point in the context not of parsing beliefs in order to qualify for religious exemption, but rather just as part of an offhand comment I was making that the expectation of a given Christian to have a problem with homosexuality is going to be fairly high.

Honestly though it's not. In some denominations sure, but the same is true about certain ethnic groups and religions. Something like 75% of the US identifies as Christian, if your imputation where accurate it would be an open and shut case.

The issue though is more about extremism. These bakers represent a very small minority of the religion, and some denominations not at all.

So even the 50/50 thing is the wrong question, that's just a general bias, to find someone whose this committed and would take it this far, I'd guess you're really talking about somewhere between 1-5% (and I doubt it's that high).

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Are you suggesting that by incorporating a business (using public apparatus to change the constitution of a business) you make it "public", but by opening a business and refraining from incorporating it you keep it private? Would this mean that an incorporated bakery would not have the right to refuse service based on religious beliefs, but a non-limited-liability bakery would have its religious privilege intact since it didn't use the incorporation procedure to 'transform it'?
Applying for any public entity status, not jsut a LLC- if you apply for a commercial license, you are contracting to comply with the associated regulations.

If you're baking out of your kitchen individually contracting with people on a private basis, there is still some amount of regulation you need to comply with, but not the same kinds that you'd have to follow from operating a commercial establishment, like a bakery.

So your complaint with Seriati's interpretation of your comments lies in the distinction between "do as you're told or else starve", which you say isn't what you mean, and "do as you're told or else stay home in the kitchen." I'm happy we've cleared up that great misunderstanding of his.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's an equally as spurious characterization of what I've been saying, sure.

You're falsely implying that operating a commercial enterprise is both the default state of employment/business, and that it's an unconditional right. It's neither- in fact the law makes if perfectly clear that society will only grant you a license to operate on a commercial basis if you agree to comply with the rules that it has established to define its market; that there are a set of minimum standards that all businesses must hold to in order to ensure competitiveness and public access.

If you have religious objections to the minimum market standards represented by the regulations you agree to comply with as a condition of being granted a commercial license, then you are opting yourself out of that possible path for making money, with your only religious protection recourse lying withing your ability to show that the regulation both does not serve to protect the public from harm and that it actually targets people like you because on your religious beliefs.

Neither of these is even remotely the case when it comes to nondiscrimination laws.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
You can't be Catholic and "choose" to be for gay marriage. You simply will have rejected the Church's authority if you believe that.
kmbboots might disagree. [Smile]


You think? [Smile]
So does Ireland. Most resoundingly.

Why Thousands Of Catholics Voted For Marriage Equality In Ireland

quote:
“A lot of people who vote ‘yes’ on Friday will be at church on Sunday,” Rev. Pádraig Standún, a Catholic priest in Western Ireland, told the Washington Post. “They won’t be any less Catholic. In fact they might be even more so, because they’re following the words of Jesus and showing more love.”

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Provided the views on SSM refer solely to civil marriage rather than the sacrament is there even any conflict with doctrine? Render unto Caesar and all that?
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Depends on who you ask.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry. That wasn't a very good answer. In my opinion, the answer is "certainly". It is also the answer of at least one of the priests quoted in the article I linked. On the other hand, the Vatican has argued otherwise and the Irish bishops urged "no" votes.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And in point of fact corporations are not even publicly created in the first place, they are privately created and publicly registered as corporations.
A month late, but I need to point out that this is dead wrong as pertains to corporations, which are specifically created by state action, and always have been.

It is quite distinct from publicly registering a private business.

Incidentally, I don't see what the big deal is about buying a wedding cake somewhere else if you can't get Christian Fundamentalists to endorse your marriage. I find Xtian homophobes hilariously irrational on this issue (i.e., very selective in their Biblical interpretations for permissible behavior) but can't you just order a cake, and write your own names on it, putting two grooms on top, etc.?

Not hiring a baker because they're gay would be a different matter entirely.

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't see what the big deal is about buying a wedding cake somewhere else if you can't get Christian Fundamentalists to endorse your marriage.
Because, especially in heavily biased areas, that basically makes you shut out of the market- especially where people will refuse to patronize those that will willingly do it, so that they can't stay in business. It's something that actively happened on racial terms until the relevant civil rights act put a stop to it by legally requiring equal access. That way both the bogus "they can go elsewhere" when "elsewhere" didn't exist excuse was nullified as well as the "I can serve them or people will boycott me" excuse.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There's also a harm in being turned away from a business; it's an affront to a person's dignity (which may or may not be relevant depending on which Justice's writing you're reading). I'd have less of a problem if the baker put up a sign saying no gays or divorcees. That way, I'd know to just avoid the place and not get part way through the cake procuring process before having the door slammed in my face.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyr,

Are they refusing to sell a cake period or refusing to write "Adam & Steve" on it?

It is not my understanding that the catering shop refuses to sell to gay people -- which would of course be outrageous. It's the making of a wedding cake that is specifically gay-themed. Am I wrong?

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KidTokyo:
It's the making of a wedding cake that is specifically gay-themed. Am I wrong?

They're refusing to sell/deliver a cake for a wedding, period. (Unless they're being overtly garish about it, there isn't much theme beyond "wedding" to the cake, with the possible exception of a topper for it. But they're not willing to even entertain the notion of planning one to make the question of whether such was asked for relevant. They're just flat out refusing to produce a cake if they will have to drop it off in a place where the reception will be held for a gay couple's wedding.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They're just flat out refusing to produce a cake if they will have to drop it off in a place where the reception will be held for a gay couple's wedding.
If that is the case then they are discriminating against the customer on the basis of being gay, rather than refusing to endorse a specific message -- in which case I agree the discrimination is illegal.

My point is a bakery should not have to write a particular message or put two grooms on top of a cake if it doesn't want to -- but there are no grounds for refusing to sell an otherwise speech-free cake.

There, that was easy.

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What's your take on the wedding photographer example, Kid? I am not sure there's a way to separate the business activity and the speech in that case.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
What's your take on the wedding photographer example, Kid? I am not sure there's a way to separate the business activity and the speech in that case.

This, and also the fact which Seriati (I think) mentioned before, which is that there's a difference between refusing to sell a cake off the shelf for a gay wedding (which would be outrageous) and refusing to take a commission to make a custom cake for a gay wedding. The former is selling a pre-made good, the latter is providing a service. The decoration of the custom cake is not necessarily the only relevant factor since the baker would nevertheless have to engage himself in an activity that was specifically going to serve a cause he didn't believe in.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
What's your take on the wedding photographer example, Kid? I am not sure there's a way to separate the business activity and the speech in that case.

This, and also the fact which Seriati (I think) mentioned before, which is that there's a difference between refusing to sell a cake off the shelf for a gay wedding (which would be outrageous) and refusing to take a commission to make a custom cake for a gay wedding. The former is selling a pre-made good, the latter is providing a service. The decoration of the custom cake is not necessarily the only relevant factor since the baker would nevertheless have to engage himself in an activity that was specifically going to serve a cause he didn't believe in.
The distinction between goods and services is an interesting one. That helps clarify some muddled thoughts I have had on the subject. The level of involvement of the provider, to me, a key component of when the provider can refuse to provide to a customer. Defining a good as something that does not involve a meaningful level of involvement by the provider allows for a framework where goods don't allow for provider discrimination, while services can allow for providers to refuse based on customer characteristics.

I may be abusing those words, but this works for me.

Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
philnotfil,

Just to clarify, I believe that refusing goods or services based on customer characteristics is legal under most normal circumstances no matter how stupid the reason. The exception is in cases where the customer is part of a protected class and the provider is refusing specifically because the customer is part of that class. This intersectional scenario is, to my understanding, the one we're chiefly discussing. In this scenario there may well be an important distinction between goods and services.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1