Why do most gays vote democrat?

Discuss the news, current events, politics, etc.

Re: Why do most gays vote democrat?

Unread postby Derek » 22 March 2020, 21:16

Rym2018 wrote:
poolerboy0077 wrote:Republicans: The government that governs best, governs least.

Also Republicans: We have to issue shelter at home and quarantine orders amid this pandemic.


Reality seems to show time and again how meaningless that argument is.


Yes because it’s a pandemic. Both democrats and republicans seem to agree on this during a pandemic. California and New York are currently governed by democrats and they also issued shelter at home and quarantine orders. Don’t you agree with this?

That one flew right over your head. Republicans talk up small government, but that's a talking point that gets shelved any time there's an actual problem to deal with. It's not an honest or effective philosophy of governance.

Rym2018 wrote:And I disagree with your notion that discrimination is equal to assault. Assault is a physical attack, and the government has the duty to protect our life, freedom and property. Not wanting to bake a cake might be discrimination, but it is not physically attacking a person; it does not threaten the life nor the property of the person being discriminated, and the person asking for the cake does not have the right to demand services from another free person.

Do you think Civil Rights was an example of government overreach?
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 6221
+1s received: 2257
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: Why do most gays vote democrat?

Unread postby Severelius » 22 March 2020, 21:20

Rym2018 wrote:Shouldn’t the small government “stay out of my business” ideology of the republican party be more appealing for gays?

The Republican party preaches small non-invasive government but when it comes to any minority group at all really what they are actually all about in practise is big government control to keep said minority groups as minimised and oppressed as they can.

Neither of the parties is truly 'small government.' It's just that Democrats typically use the government to try and help lift minority groups out of oppressive circumstances while Republicans like to use government to keep those same groups in their oppressive circumstances.
User avatar
Severelius
 
Posts: 3558
+1s received: 623
Joined: 6 May 2014, 20:49
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Why do most gays vote democrat?

Unread postby poolerboy0077 » 22 March 2020, 21:24

Derek wrote:
Rym2018 wrote:
poolerboy0077 wrote:Republicans: The government that governs best, governs least.

Also Republicans: We have to issue shelter at home and quarantine orders amid this pandemic.


Reality seems to show time and again how meaningless that argument is.


Yes because it’s a pandemic. Both democrats and republicans seem to agree on this during a pandemic. California and New York are currently governed by democrats and they also issued shelter at home and quarantine orders. Don’t you agree with this?

That one flew right over your head.

Well, he is a Republican...
Blow: "Nowadays even Liam can release an album of his screechy vocals and it'll probably go #1..."
Ramzus: I can admit that I'm horny just about 24/7
homomorphism: I used to not think your name was deshay and that Erick was just being racist
Hunter: sometimes I think I was literally born to be a pornstar
User avatar
poolerboy0077
 
Posts: 8899
+1s received: 2285
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:20
Country: United States (us)

Re: Why do most gays vote democrat?

Unread postby Marmaduke » 22 March 2020, 21:28

Guys, I think this might genuinely be a baking grievance. OP is a closeted professional baker and is upset that, in order to hide his sexuality, he must make a show of refusing to bake gay sponges and thus open himself to financial penalties from the Chamber of Commerce.
Marmaduke
 
Posts: 7202
+1s received: 2198
Joined: 23 December 2012, 17:56
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Why do most gays vote democrat?

Unread postby Derek » 22 March 2020, 21:31

poolerboy0077 wrote:
Derek wrote:
Rym2018 wrote:
poolerboy0077 wrote:Republicans: The government that governs best, governs least.

Also Republicans: We have to issue shelter at home and quarantine orders amid this pandemic.


Reality seems to show time and again how meaningless that argument is.


Yes because it’s a pandemic. Both democrats and republicans seem to agree on this during a pandemic. California and New York are currently governed by democrats and they also issued shelter at home and quarantine orders. Don’t you agree with this?

That one flew right over your head.

Well, he is a Republican...

I'm getting more a Rand libertarian vibe.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 6221
+1s received: 2257
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: Why do most gays vote democrat?

Unread postby Rym2018 » 22 March 2020, 21:41

Marmaduke wrote:I've certainly heard about businesses being fined for refusing service on grounds of LGBT discrimination, yes. But we're not talking about people's business lives, are we? You've been quite explicit. We're talking about people's private and personal lives. I would be interested for you to show an example of someone finishing work for the day, getting home and being shocked to find a representative of the US Government insisting that they must bake a rainbow unicorn gateaux?

Are we now only talking about whether bakers should be obliged to bake cakes of many colours? Or are you asserting that the government has a duty to protect freedom, apart from in cases of discrimination? How do you define freedom within the context of the responsibility a state holds to it citizens?


It seems you’re differentiating between a person’s private life and a person’s private business. For me, a private business is part of someone’s private life. My private property, like my car and my house, is part of my private life. If I decide open a private business, presumably I’m investing my own money, which I acquired with my own labor. Thus, my private business and everything in it is my private property. If I have a private bakery and a religious person comes in asking for me to bake a cake with “God Hates Gays” on it, I should have the right refuse, because it’s my private business. And if that’s what I believe, it would be extremely hypocritical on my part to then turn around and not extend that same right to a religious person.

As I alluded earlier, in the “small, limited government” view, the state’s responsibility is to protect our life, our liberty, and our property. In a free society, if I want to live my life and manage my private business as I see fit, I must extend that same right to others. The moment I demand the government regulate other people’s lives and private businesses, I open up the possibility that one day someone is going to demand the government regulate my life and private business.
Rym2018
 
Posts: 25
+1s received: 4
Joined: 18 February 2018, 02:41
Country: United States (us)

Re: Why do most gays vote democrat?

Unread postby Marmaduke » 22 March 2020, 21:57

Rym2018 wrote:
Marmaduke wrote:I've certainly heard about businesses being fined for refusing service on grounds of LGBT discrimination, yes. But we're not talking about people's business lives, are we? You've been quite explicit. We're talking about people's private and personal lives. I would be interested for you to show an example of someone finishing work for the day, getting home and being shocked to find a representative of the US Government insisting that they must bake a rainbow unicorn gateaux?

Are we now only talking about whether bakers should be obliged to bake cakes of many colours? Or are you asserting that the government has a duty to protect freedom, apart from in cases of discrimination? How do you define freedom within the context of the responsibility a state holds to it citizens?


It seems you’re differentiating between a person’s private life and a person’s private business. For me, a private business is part of someone’s private life. My private property, like my car and my house, is part of my private life. If I decide open a private business, presumably I’m investing my own money, which I acquired with my own labor. Thus, my private business and everything in it is my private property. If I have a private bakery and a religious person comes in asking for me to bake a cake with “God Hates Gays” on it, I should have the right refuse, because it’s my private business. And if that’s what I believe, it would be extremely hypocritical on my part to then turn around and not extend that same right to a religious person.

As I alluded earlier, in the “small, limited government” view, the state’s responsibility is to protect our life, our liberty, and our property. In a free society, if I want to live my life and manage my private business as I see fit, I must extend that same right to others. The moment I demand the government regulate other people’s lives and private businesses, I open up the possibility that one day someone is going to demand the government regulate my life and private business.

You're confusing the nature of ownership in relation to a business and don't seem to fully understand what responsibilties business ownership comes with and how those responsibilties are tied into anti-discrimination law. You absolutely have the right to own a business, paid for by the sweat of thine own brow, but you can't pick and choose the laws you'll follow in relation to it's operation.

As an example, your car. Paid for by the fruits of your own labour, is your property. There is no reasonable expectation that I would pass your car on the street and assume that I was welcome to make use of it. In fact, your car ownership doesn't discriminate at all. I have every bit as much right to use your car as anyone else you didn't know that just happened to walk past it; a nice, equitable none.

We can apply this thinking to a business. If you decide to buy a service business, be it baking cakes or selling shoes, you do so knowing that you're open to the public. You rely upon it. As such, you cannot discriminate against who can use your services unreasonably. You can't hang a sign in the window saying Asians aren't welcome to buy shoes, just as much as you can't hang a sign in the window saying gays can't buy cakes. And with equitable access comes equitable service. In your bakery, unless you are proscriptive around people only ordering from a menu, or have clearly a signed, fair and open restriction on the sorts of cakes you sell, then everyone has as much right to come in and order a non-offensive cake from you as anyone else and you're obliged to treat them as you would anyone else and bake the fucking cake.

So when Chad comes in, wanting to buy a wedding cake iced with two grooms, you can't tell him to leave. It's not an offensive cake. He has as much right to buy his wedding cake at your shop as anyone else. You don't have a sign up saying "no wedding cakes" and he only came to you because his straight friends bought their wedding cake from you and recommended you. To refuse him is discrimination on grounds of sexuality. He should have the liberty and freedom to expect that he will be treated equitably in any public business he enters.

Why is Chad's freedom and liberty of no consequence to you? Why does he not count? Why is his freedom not protected by the government when yours is?
Marmaduke
 
Posts: 7202
+1s received: 2198
Joined: 23 December 2012, 17:56
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Why do most gays vote democrat?

Unread postby Magic J » 22 March 2020, 22:02

Isn't it also a matter of professionalism? I accept that I could be treated by a doctor who is privately homophobic, but I and the institution they are part of would expect them to conduct their work to the best of their ability regardless of that, and to keep it to themselves.

In this specific case, I would suggest that any professional cake maker oversteps their bounds and is, at the very least, acting in an unprofessional manner if they refuse to make an order for a customer due to their perceived sexual orientation. It can be looked on as a matter of honour and duty, that one can extend tolerance in their dealings with other individuals. This is right and proper for a liberal society.

That's my liberal defence. :P

Rym2018 wrote:If I have a private bakery and a religious person comes in asking for me to bake a cake with “God Hates Gays” on it, I should have the right refuse, because it’s my private business. And if that’s what I believe, it would be extremely hypocritical on my part to then turn around and not extend that same right to a religious person.

They seem like slightly different matters. Such a statement could fall under the purview of anti-discrimination laws.
Watched over by Machines of Loving Grace
User avatar
Magic J
 
Posts: 1095
+1s received: 768
Joined: 20 December 2012, 23:06
Location: Scotland
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Why do most gays vote democrat?

Unread postby Marmaduke » 22 March 2020, 22:05

Magic J wrote:Isn't it also a matter of professionalism? I accept that I could be treated by a doctor who is privately homophobic, but I and the institution they are part of would expect them to conduct their work to the best of their ability regardless of that, and to keep it to themselves.

In this specific case, I would suggest that any professional cake maker oversteps their bounds and is, at the very least, acting in an unprofessional manner if they refuse to make an order for a customer due to their perceived sexual orientation. It can be looked on as a matter of honour and duty, that one can extend tolerance in their dealings with other individuals. This is right and proper for a liberal society.

That's my liberal defence. :P

Rym2018 wrote:If I have a private bakery and a religious person comes in asking for me to bake a cake with “God Hates Gays” on it, I should have the right refuse, because it’s my private business. And if that’s what I believe, it would be extremely hypocritical on my part to then turn around and not extend that same right to a religious person.

They seem like slightly different matters. Such a statement could fall under the purview of anti-discrimination laws.

Ah yes, I'd forgotten all about the solemn vow of duty made by all whom seek to join the Most Honourable Company of Cake Makers. I believe they have a guild hall just off Buckingham Gate. Lovely cornicing.
Marmaduke
 
Posts: 7202
+1s received: 2198
Joined: 23 December 2012, 17:56
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Why do most gays vote democrat?

Unread postby Magic J » 22 March 2020, 22:16

Marmaduke wrote:Ah yes, I'd forgotten all about the most solemn vow of duty made by all whom seek to join the honourable company of cake makers. I believe they have a guild hall just off Buckingham Gate. Lovely cornicing.

:lol:

A "sense of professionalism", then, not a formal profession. I had doctors in mind since issues around whether doctors can refuse abortion due to conscience have a somewhat similar basis. :P

Statement still stands though. There's an ethical duty of tolerance if you reap the benefits of living in a liberal society, in addition to your potential ethical duties stemming from whatever religion you may observe.
Watched over by Machines of Loving Grace
User avatar
Magic J
 
Posts: 1095
+1s received: 768
Joined: 20 December 2012, 23:06
Location: Scotland
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Why do most gays vote democrat?

Unread postby Marmaduke » 22 March 2020, 22:28

Magic J wrote:
Marmaduke wrote:Ah yes, I'd forgotten all about the most solemn vow of duty made by all whom seek to join the honourable company of cake makers. I believe they have a guild hall just off Buckingham Gate. Lovely cornicing.

:lol:

A "sense of professionalism", then, not a formal profession. I had doctors in mind since issues around whether doctors can refuse abortion due to conscience have a somewhat similar basis. :P

Statement still stands though. There's an ethical duty of tolerance if you reap the benefits of living in a liberal society, in addition to your potential ethical duties stemming from whatever religion you may observe.

I wasn't joking. There's actually a vow. Once upon a time, I wanted to join. I remember being a young boy, not much older than 10 when my Father took me to the Cake Makers Hall for attestation before permitting me to undertake the trials.

I had to don the ceremonial toque blanche and a golden apron and stand before the Grand Patissier. He had me stand with my right hand upon the solid silver ceremonial stand mixer and with my left hand raised recite the cake maker's oath;

I, Marm. A. Duke, before this most esteemable company of cake makers, Her Majesty the Queen and the Lord God Almighty, do solemnly vow that I will be steadfast and true in my gathering of the dry ingredients, I will be prudent and just in my gathering of the wet ingredients, and with pateince and wisdom I will combine them inkeeping with the finest traditions of this company. Without thought of class or creed, I shall endeavour to create such baked goods as are required by the imagination of the people to the very best of my ability. So help me god.


It's all coming back to me now. Sadly, I failed the trials on day one. We were tasked with presenting a Devon cream tea. I presented jam first. Despite being only 10, a middle aged man promply called me a Cornish prick and literally kicked me into the street.
Last edited by Marmaduke on 22 March 2020, 22:33, edited 2 times in total.
Marmaduke
 
Posts: 7202
+1s received: 2198
Joined: 23 December 2012, 17:56
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Why do most gays vote democrat?

Unread postby Derek » 22 March 2020, 22:30

Magic J wrote:Statement still stands though. There's an ethical duty of tolerance if you reap the benefits of living in a liberal society, in addition to your potential ethical duties stemming from whatever religion you may observe.

Ethical duty? Civic tolerance? Liberal society? I dunno man, I think I'd rather get back to arguing that the Fair Labor Standards Act was a crime against Logic and we need to get children working as chimney sweeps again.
User avatar
Derek
 
Posts: 6221
+1s received: 2257
Joined: 21 December 2012, 02:12
Country: United States (us)

Re: Why do most gays vote democrat?

Unread postby Sullivan » 22 March 2020, 23:23

Rym2018 wrote:Shouldn’t the small government “stay out of my business” ideology of the republican party be more appealing for gays?

Not if you assume that at least some of us are intelligent.
User avatar
Sullivan
 
Posts: 654
+1s received: 196
Joined: 25 July 2013, 02:12
Location: Chicago
Country: United States (us)

Re: Why do most gays vote democrat?

Unread postby Rym2018 » 23 March 2020, 05:47

Derek wrote:That one flew right over your head. Republicans talk up small government, but that's a talking point that gets shelved any time there's an actual problem to deal with. It's not an honest or effective philosophy of governance.


The philosophy behind small government is the idea that the government’s duty to it citizens is to protect their life, liberty and property. Thus, any action of mine that harms others may be regulated by the government. So during a pandemic, if by the simple fact of going outside may put other people’s life in danger, a temporary quarantine order may be appropriate.

Derek wrote:Do you think Civil Rights was an example of government overreach?


I think Civil Rights was appropriate because it was the government itself engaging in discrimination. Remember, there were actual racist Jim Crow laws on the books that everyone had to follow. Now, to be philosophical consistent, where I think Civil rights went too far was where it banned discrimination by private people. Nonetheless, it only banned discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. I can live with that.

And yes, I’m more of a libertarian type of conservative. (as a side note, Rand Paul tested positive for coronavirus today)
Last edited by Rym2018 on 23 March 2020, 05:51, edited 1 time in total.
Rym2018
 
Posts: 25
+1s received: 4
Joined: 18 February 2018, 02:41
Country: United States (us)

Re: Why do most gays vote democrat?

Unread postby Rym2018 » 23 March 2020, 05:49

Severelius wrote:The Republican party preaches small non-invasive government but when it comes to any minority group at all really what they are actually all about in practise is big government control to keep said minority groups as minimised and oppressed as they can...Republicans like to use government to keep those same groups in their oppressive circumstances.


Can you give an example of how minority groups are being oppressed by republicans?
Rym2018
 
Posts: 25
+1s received: 4
Joined: 18 February 2018, 02:41
Country: United States (us)

Re: Why do most gays vote democrat?

Unread postby Rym2018 » 23 March 2020, 06:24

Marmaduke wrote:You absolutely have the right to own a business, paid for by the sweat of thine own brow, but you can't pick and choose the laws you'll follow in relation to it's operation.


I agree with you. The issue is, what should those laws be? You believe there should be laws dictating how people run their own private business. I believe people should run their private business as they see fit.

Marmaduke wrote:If you decide to buy a service business, be it baking cakes or selling shoes, you do so knowing that you're open to the public. You rely upon it. As such, you cannot discriminate against who can use your services unreasonably. You can't hang a sign in the window saying Asians aren't welcome to buy shoes, just as much as you can't hang a sign in the window saying gays can't buy cakes.


So far I agree with you.

Marmaduke wrote:And with equitable access comes equitable service. In your bakery, unless you are proscriptive around people only ordering from a menu, or have clearly a signed, fair and open restriction on the sorts of cakes you sell, then everyone has as much right to come in and order a non-offensive cake from you as anyone else and you're obliged to treat them as you would anyone else and bake the fucking cake.


But “non-offensive” is subjective. Am I obliged to bake a cake for a skin head racist who wants a cake for their local KKK chapter anniversary? Or do I have the right to deny service based on the activity he is engaging in?

Marmaduke wrote:So when Chad comes in, wanting to buy a wedding cake iced with two grooms, you can't tell him to leave. It's not an offensive cake.


Again, “offensive” is subjective. It may not be offensive for Chad, but for a christian or a muslim it might.

Marmaduke wrote:He has as much right to buy his wedding cake at your shop as anyone else. You don't have a sign up saying "no wedding cakes" and he only came to you because his straight friends bought their wedding cake from you and recommended you. To refuse him is discrimination on grounds of sexuality


No, it’s discrimination based on the activity he is engaging in. If Chad wants to buy a cake for his sister’s birthday, and the owner refuses to bake a cake for him because he’s gay, then that would be an example of discrimination on grounds of sexuality.

Marmaduke wrote:Why is Chad's freedom and liberty of no consequence to you? Why does he not count? Why is his freedom not protected by the government when yours is?


Chad’s freedom and liberty is not being infringed. No one is imposing anything on him. He can still get married and buy a cake from someone who voluntarily wants to engage in business. If the baker is forced to bake a cake with the threat of punishment, it is his freedom that is being infringed. Chad would be the one imposing something on the baker.
Rym2018
 
Posts: 25
+1s received: 4
Joined: 18 February 2018, 02:41
Country: United States (us)

Re: Why do most gays vote democrat?

Unread postby Rym2018 » 23 March 2020, 06:39

Magic J wrote:Isn't it also a matter of professionalism? I accept that I could be treated by a doctor who is privately homophobic, but I and the institution they are part of would expect them to conduct their work to the best of their ability regardless of that, and to keep it to themselves.

In this specific case, I would suggest that any professional cake maker oversteps their bounds and is, at the very least, acting in an unprofessional manner if they refuse to make an order for a customer due to their perceived sexual orientation. It can be looked on as a matter of honour and duty, that one can extend tolerance in their dealings with other individuals. This is right and proper for a liberal society.

That's my liberal defence. :P


I actually agree with you on this. If a business owner is perceived to be acting in an unprofessional manner, there should be consequences. In a free society, those consequences ought to be imposed by the community by not doing business with that person until they go bankrupt. That actually happened with a florist. The florist refused to decorate for a lesbian wedding. The lesbian couple posted negative reviews on the florist website. When people found out, the florist started loosing business, until they had to closed. There was no need for the government to step in and impose anything on anyone. Everything was done voluntarily.
Rym2018
 
Posts: 25
+1s received: 4
Joined: 18 February 2018, 02:41
Country: United States (us)

Re: Why do most gays vote democrat?

Unread postby Marmaduke » 23 March 2020, 08:59

Rym2018 wrote:
Marmaduke wrote:You absolutely have the right to own a business, paid for by the sweat of thine own brow, but you can't pick and choose the laws you'll follow in relation to it's operation.


I agree with you. The issue is, what should those laws be? You believe there should be laws dictating how people run their own private business. I believe people should run their private business as they see fit.


No, see, you're doing it already. You're trying to argue around the laws as they apply to suit your own personal argument. You can't do that. The law does not exist to serve the individual, it serves to protect the whole. Much like being innocent until proven guilty, the burden of proof rests with the instigator of the argument. In this case, it's you. It's not up to me to sell you on why the law should apply. It's up to you to sell us on why it shouldn't. "I bought this business with my money" is a fact, sure, but it's not a reason.

Rym2018 wrote:
Marmaduke wrote:And with equitable access comes equitable service. In your bakery, unless you are proscriptive around people only ordering from a menu, or have clearly a signed, fair and open restriction on the sorts of cakes you sell, then everyone has as much right to come in and order a non-offensive cake from you as anyone else and you're obliged to treat them as you would anyone else and bake the fucking cake.


But “non-offensive” is subjective. Am I obliged to bake a cake for a skin head racist who wants a cake for their local KKK chapter anniversary? Or do I have the right to deny service based on the activity he is engaging in?


The word offensive is subjective, but that's not a string in the bow of your argument the way you think it is. The KKK is a banned, racist organsiation. As such, nobody is it liberty to expect that they have the right to bring non-members into any aspect of involvement with it. No. You do not have to the KKK a cake. In fact, baking the KKK a cake may well be a criminal offence. You'd arguably be supporting a banned organisation. Do you see how it might be an offensively facecious argument to compare the wedding of two men to the movement for the ethnic cleansing of America?

Rym2018 wrote:
Marmaduke wrote:So when Chad comes in, wanting to buy a wedding cake iced with two grooms, you can't tell him to leave. It's not an offensive cake.


Again, “offensive” is subjective. It may not be offensive for Chad, but for a christian or a muslim it might.


Again, you're not understanding the concept of subjectivity. You just don't understand the word as the law applies

If Chad had come in to buy a cake for his husband's birthday, a request for that cake to have a graphic depiction of a prostrate man in a jock strap and the text "Daddy's Little Spunk Bucket" that cake is offensive. You can refuse to bake that cake because that cake is offensive by virtue of it's composition, not because it's LGBT. You could be equally expected to refuse that cake if a straight couple had asked for it. That is called the reasonable person test. And yes, before you say it, the word "reasonable" is subjective. It's meant to be. You see, contrary to your belief that subjectivity is a vague and unproductive tool, it's actually a fundemental building block of organised society without which there would either be Orwellian opression or we'd be living in a scene from Mad Max. Subjectivity is a great moderator.

As an example, you clearly believe that Homosexuality is morally abhorrent in and of itself and hold the personal belief that you should be able to walk the streets and shout "evil faggot cunt" and with pointed gesticulation steer your moral indignation at anyone and everyone you see fit. The law protects the man in the street from your verbal assaults because it acknowledges your behaviour as offensive by the standards of the reasonable person. He's the great mythical arbitrator of our times. Moreover, you can face consequence of his judgement, because whilst you may not verbalise it quite the same way I have, you know that what you did was wrong by the standards of most people, or at least you should. "Subjective" is not the word you can use to hide behind your predjudices and pretend the law doesn't apply. It's the word that requires you, the member of a society, to moderate his personal beliefs and bring them into line with the collective good. You can scream "evil faggot cunt" at your TV in the privacy of your own home all you want. Once you leave your home, you're in the public domain and must abide by the judgement of the reasonable man.

Rym2018 wrote:
Marmaduke wrote:He has as much right to buy his wedding cake at your shop as anyone else. You don't have a sign up saying "no wedding cakes" and he only came to you because his straight friends bought their wedding cake from you and recommended you. To refuse him is discrimination on grounds of sexuality


No, it’s discrimination based on the activity he is engaging in. If Chad wants to buy a cake for his sister’s birthday, and the owner refuses to bake a cake for him because he’s gay, then that would be an example of discrimination on grounds of sexuality.


So refusing him buying a cake for his sister would be because he was gay, but refusing to bake him a wedding cake wouldn't be because he was gay, but because weddings are fundamentally offensive? Taking on board the points above, I'd be interested to see you argue the subjective case in relation to fair treatment. Because, as you know, the business owner does not get to pick and choose the rules. If you open a business, you do so knowing at the start that your personal code is not what you live by. You abide by the law.

Rym2018 wrote:
Marmaduke wrote:Why is Chad's freedom and liberty of no consequence to you? Why does he not count? Why is his freedom not protected by the government when yours is?


Chad’s freedom and liberty is not being infringed. No one is imposing anything on him. He can still get married and buy a cake from someone who voluntarily wants to engage in business. If the baker is forced to bake a cake with the threat of punishment, it is his freedom that is being infringed. Chad would be the one imposing something on the baker.

Chad's liberty is unquestionably being infringed by you the baker telling him that his wedding, which doesn't impact you at all, is offensive and so he's not allowed to buy his cake from you. You are imposing that restriction on him. What if all the other bakers follow your lead and tell Chad his cake is offensive? He can't have a cake shipped in from out of state, that's prohibitively expensive. What protection, what guarantee, does Chad have that he can celebrate his love as freely as anyone else under the law without these protections?

The baker is not forced to bake the cake under threat. He is a business owner. He is required to make the cake by law. You continue to fundamentally misunderstand that just because you have a small business and it is wholly owned, you cannot run it by your own law. You have to follow the same rules as every other business. You know that going in, you don't buy a business on the assumption that you have to write a fucking charter on the laws within your doors. You know the game, you pay your money, you take your choice. If your bigotry stands in the way of you treating everyone equitably, don't open a bakery.

On a broader note, do you perhaps think it's a fair assumption that your own internalised homophobia is unduly colouring your argument and preventing you from seeing things from another perspective? I mean, libertarian as you are, I understand that exposing yourself to things that might broaden your understanding of the world around you seems unecessary when simply reacting to the world in knee-jerk order seems to have steered you fairly well so far, but still?
Marmaduke
 
Posts: 7202
+1s received: 2198
Joined: 23 December 2012, 17:56
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Why do most gays vote democrat?

Unread postby Magic J » 23 March 2020, 11:02

Rym2018 wrote:I actually agree with you on this. If a business owner is perceived to be acting in an unprofessional manner, there should be consequences. In a free society, those consequences ought to be imposed by the community by not doing business with that person until they go bankrupt. That actually happened with a florist. The florist refused to decorate for a lesbian wedding. The lesbian couple posted negative reviews on the florist website. When people found out, the florist started loosing business, until they had to closed. There was no need for the government to step in and impose anything on anyone. Everything was done voluntarily.

It's plausible that the market is the best indicator of demand, but to suggest that the market is a useful moral arbiter seems a tad reckless.

I certainly believe there should be laws regarding how someone runs their business. A business operates within a society, which provides the roads the freight travels on, the schools which educate the staff, the business loans which incentivise development, the emergency services which will come to the rescue of you and your property, etc etc. Given this, isn't there some imperative for business owners to act responsibly, with some mind towards the common good?

Surely you also have a duty of protection as well? Like, I'm pretty on board with regulations on using dangerous materials in foodstuffs. I don't really want to have to painstakingly check my birthday cake for hidden razorblades or whatever, so I'm more or less fine with the courts specifying that and punishing transgressors.
Watched over by Machines of Loving Grace
User avatar
Magic J
 
Posts: 1095
+1s received: 768
Joined: 20 December 2012, 23:06
Location: Scotland
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Why do most gays vote democrat?

Unread postby poolerboy0077 » 23 March 2020, 14:13

You literally picked the most inopportune moment to be making this government overreach argument. You still haven’t addressed the discrepancy.
Blow: "Nowadays even Liam can release an album of his screechy vocals and it'll probably go #1..."
Ramzus: I can admit that I'm horny just about 24/7
homomorphism: I used to not think your name was deshay and that Erick was just being racist
Hunter: sometimes I think I was literally born to be a pornstar
User avatar
poolerboy0077
 
Posts: 8899
+1s received: 2285
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:20
Country: United States (us)

PreviousNext

Recently active
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 21 guests