Mississippi governor signs law that allows businesses to refuse service to gay couple

[Ahovv]

I feel like many of the individuals in this thread are short-sighted and missing several points on freedom.

Should a Jewish baker be forced to make a cake for neo-nazis? I say no.

[Endus]

All of your points are speculative. You're suggesting in the caveman scenario that two intelligent beings would just immediately resort to violence instead of arriving at a mutually beneficial arrangement. And I think that's the basis at which I and some others differ from the other group that encompasses you and the above poster. I'm a little more optimistic, you seem pessimistic.

No, I was pointing out the simple fact that without some form of government, there is no means by which to prevent individuals taking advantage of other individuals. And punching someone in the face and taking what you want is a "better" transaction than trading fairly for it; you give up nothing in exchange for what you wanted, meaning it's a net positive (for the puncher, at least).

It was a simple example, but the core point is this; self-interest is a big driver of human activity. Without government restricting how we can act in that self-interest, some people will be abusive for their own benefit. That abuse necessarily impacts on the activity of others, by the nature of being abusive, and thus a free market is an impossibility, as long as people are involved and free to engage in it (which is pretty fundamental to the concept).

Just like many others here, you argue points that are not even remotely germane to what I said in any way. You also make incredible hyperbolic leaps - like the lesbian being raped statment - to try to prove your point.

That's called a reductio ad absurdum; if your principles, at their most extreme, lead to a ridiculous conclusion, then your principles are irrational.

I said that bi-sexuals staying with one sex over the other was MAKING A CHOICE. That's it!! WTF else have they done if they have NOT made a choice? I could not give a flying fuck that they are still attracted to members of the same/opposite sex. My only point - they ONLY one - is that they DID make a choice, which YOU, and several other of your sycophants, argue is really not the case. /smh

No, we said that their choice was not about their sexual orientation, which is entirely unchanged by any such decision they make. A bisexual choosing to have a relationship with a member of the opposite sex doesn't make them heterosexual. They remain bisexual, even if they're exclusively with that partner for 50 years.

[NineSpine]

The free market is based on a simple bartering system that can exist outside a governmental structure.

The problem is that that system NEVER EXISTED. Barter doesn't happen until the government has established enough rules that you can readily compare the value of goods by comparing it to currency.

Currency provided by the government simply helps the bartering system. Because the government provides a service to society doesn't allow it to control the decisions of its people. What you're describing is a nightmare scenario..

There was no bartering system. People lived communally before governments.

Really not sure what's hard to understand bud.

The problem here is you keep assuming this cute little silly story about cavemen trading apples and furs is reality, or ever was reality. There is zero anthropological evidence for such an arrangement. All evidence shows that the progression was:

1. Communal living.
2. Government's arise and create currency, typically in the form of war debts.
3. This currency and the government's protection of property cause markets to arise.
4. People can barter if needed because the currency and property protections allow them the ability to adequately gauge the value of goods comparatively.
5. More complex markets arise.
6. Silly people ignore all of the previous and think it started with cavemen trading apples and furs.

[neocount]

I feel like many of the individuals in this thread are short-sighted and missing several points on freedom.

Should a Jewish baker be forced to make a cake for neo-nazis? I say no.

Agreed.

/10chars

[NineSpine]

You should be allowed (and are allowed) to refuse anyone for any reason provided that you own/operate the business. If you're working for someone else though, you signed away that right. Bigoted and stupid though it may be, let them do it. That's just lost money for them, and bad press (can't think of the better word).

Once the people learn which places discriminate, that place will get less business and eventually lose too much. It's stupid from a business standpoint to refuse sales. No sense even making an issue out of it.

That's factually inaccurate. A business open to the public can't discriminate based on race, gender, ethnicity, or religion. That's federal law.

[Deleted]

if you don't care so much ransath then why are you arguing so hard against it?

I am not arguing against anything. Not sure what you mean by that?

I believe that in the majority of instances that homosexuality is not a choice - but that sometimes it CAN be. I do not believe in the absolute, as some do. Sorry, just like all of you here, we all have our own opinions. That is MY opinion.

Consequently, that is why I do not liken homosexuality to skin color. It is undeniable that there is no choice whatsoever in skin color - but that is not the case with homosexuality. Some homosexuals can choose NOT to act on their natural impulses - a black person can NEVER choose not to be black.

Now, I am neither condemning nor condoning a homosexual if they choose NOT to act on their natural impulses. That is not pertinent to this discussion. I am merely stating a qualifier for why I have the opinion that I do.

And because I have this opinion, I believe it is fine for a Christian baker to not bake a cake for a homosexual couple if they fell it would violate their beliefs. Also, a Christian based adoption agency should not be FORCED by the state to place a child with a homosexual couple if it goes against their beliefs. That does not mean I agree with either of those statements - it just means that I agree with the State to make that decision through it's duly elected officials.

[Endus]

The free market is based on a simple bartering system that can exist outside a governmental structure. Currency provided by the government simply helps the bartering system. Because the government provides a service to society doesn't allow it to control the decisions of its people. What you're describing is a nightmare scenario...

Really not sure what's hard to understand bud.

Because outside of that government, what stops someone from threatening to kill your family if you don't shut down your business? What stops them from stealing all of your stock and/or destroying your production line?

All of those restrict competition within that market, meaning it isn't free.

[wheresmywoft]

Once again, I never said it did.

Am I really going to have to produce 5 quotes for you to see what you said?

You suggested that a private business should be able to refuse service. Thus bypassing rules.

And now you're providing definitions of public and private as if it changed the fact that you wanted them to be able to bypass rules.

[neocount]

Am I really going to have to produce 5 quotes for you to see what you said?

You suggested that a private business should be able to refuse service. Thus bypassing rules.

And now you're providing definitions of public and private as if it changed the fact that you wanted them to be able to bypass rules.

My original post here had the words "should be allowed" - implying a change in government regulations as they apply to private business.

[Deleted]

An adoption agency should not have any right to refuse couples based on their cult's beliefs.

I don't give a flying eff about stores refusing to sell things to people but adoption agencies should not be making choices based on their cult but on the children.

[Endus]

Consequently, that is why I do not liken homosexuality to skin color. It is undeniable that there is no choice whatsoever in skin color - but that is not the case with homosexuality. Some homosexuals can choose NOT to act on their natural impulses - a black person can NEVER choose not to be black.

Those homosexuals remain homosexual, regardless of that choice. That's what you keep ignoring, because you clearly do not understand what sexual orientation is.

Hence my extreme example. If a man kidnaps a lesbian woman, and rapes her repeatedly over months, despite her only sexual actions being heterosexual in nature, that doesn't change her orientation. If you're a gay man who chooses to marry a woman, then one of two things is true; you're either actually bisexual, or you're forcing yourself to engage in sexual activity you have no normal inclination to; it's not much different than a guy "choosing" to give another dude a blowjob in prison in exchange for protection.

And because I have this opinion, I believe it is fine for a Christian baker to not bake a cake for a homosexual couple if they fell it would violate their beliefs. Also, a Christian based adoption agency should not be FORCED by the state to place a child with a homosexual couple if it goes against their beliefs. That does not mean I agree with either of those statements - it just means that I agree with the State to make that decision through it's duly elected officials.

All you're really saying here is that you support prejudicial discrimination against people on the grounds of their sexual orientation.

[Deleted]

No, we said that their choice was not about their sexual orientation, which is entirely unchanged by any such decision they make. A bisexual choosing to have a relationship with a member of the opposite sex doesn't make them heterosexual. They remain bisexual, even if they're exclusively with that partner for 50 years.

That is nothing more than YOUR absolutism. You have no way of knowing if that is a factual statement.

A person may have been bisexual and been attracted to the same sex. They then acted on those impulses and found that sexual relations with the same sex was revolting. They then had sexual relations with a member of the opposite sex and found those to be fulfilling (or vice versa for both of those) - leading them to make a conscious decision to CHOOSE one over the other, therefore negating the sexual dogma you ascribe to.

[ro9ue]

Because outside of that government, what stops someone from threatening to kill your family if you don't shut down your business? What stops them from stealing all of your stock and/or destroying your production line?

All of those restrict competition within that market, meaning it isn't free.

Now you're just parsing words. It's a market. Whether you want to now say it's "free" because of the security of the government I would then say it's not "free" because of the restrictions placed on it by the government.

That's not the point at all.

This is about the role of the government in a market, in human transactions. They can't control your decisions.

[Lenonis]

I believe that in the majority of instances that homosexuality is not a choice - but that sometimes it CAN be. I do not believe in the absolute, as some do. Sorry, just like all of you here, we all have our own opinions. That is MY opinion.

That's fine, but this whole argument is irrelevant as both choices and non-choices are held as protected classes, so what, truly, is the point in this debate? Even if sexuality was as changeable as your shirt, it is irrelevant to the consideration of whether it should be a protected class.

a black person can NEVER choose not to be black.

Well, if you want to get super technical about it there are treatments that can be obtained to change skin color -- or makeup, or whatnot that could cause you to, at least to some degree, choose your skin color.

And because I have this opinion, I believe it is fine for a Christian baker to not bake a cake for a homosexual couple if they fell it would violate their beliefs. Also, a Christian based adoption agency should not be FORCED by the state to place a child with a homosexual couple if it goes against their beliefs. That does not mean I agree with either of those statements - it just means that I agree with the State to make that decision through it's duly elected officials.

All this seems to imply, to me at least, is that you feel that discrimination should be allowed. Even though history has shown that never works out well. So yes, you can hold that opinion, but don't act so surprised and taken aback when people attack you for it.

[Army Dreamer]

Mississippi governor signs law that allows businesses to refuse service to gay couple

Where is the problem?

[Endus]

That is nothing more than YOUR absolutism. You have no way of knowing if that is a factual statement.

Given that I understand what sexual orientation is, yes, I'm completely certain it's factual.

A person may have been bisexual and been attracted to the same sex. They then acted on those impulses and found that sexual relations with the same sex was revolting. They then had sexual relations with a member of the opposite sex and found those to be fulfilling (or vice versa for both of those) - leading them to make a conscious decision to CHOOSE one over the other, therefore negating the sexual dogma you ascribe to.

You're either describing someone who was never actually bisexual, or someone who had a bad experience with a terrible partner and chose not to act on certain attractions as a result. Either way, it doesn't remotely support your case. In the latter, they remain bisexual, they're just avoiding certain partners they're otherwise attracted to. Much like how my ex-wife was blonde, so I'm likely to avoid dating blondes in the future; that doesn't mean I'm not attracted to them.

[Deleted]

All you're really saying here is that you support prejudicial discrimination against people on the grounds of their sexual orientation.

That is an extremely short-sighted conclusion to draw. Since you believe that, no point in further discussion.

Have a nice day.

[Lenonis]

A person may have been bisexual and been attracted to the same sex. They then acted on those impulses and found that sexual relations with the same sex was revolting. They then had sexual relations with a member of the opposite sex and found those to be fulfilling (or vice versa for both of those) - leading them to make a conscious decision to CHOOSE one over the other, therefore negating the sexual dogma you ascribe to.

Then they aren't bisexual. This really isn't nearly as difficult as a concept as you are making it out to be.

As everyone else has pointed out you are confusing orientation with behavior.

Behavior is the choice. Orientation is not.

[Fang7986]

no it's called laws. if you choose to live in a society you have to abide by them or leave for a different society that will support your "freedoms" in reality you only have the freedoms that are assigned to you by the current conditions you are living in. so all your screaming about freedoms is just noise. society has decided that if you own a public business accessible to the public YOU MUST ALLOW ANY LAW ABIDING CITIZEN TO ENTER YOUR SHOP AND TAKE THE REASONABLE STEPS TO ENSURE THEY ACCESS IT. if you are unwilling to let just anyone in their is a very simple solution....don't make your store available to the general public.

the problem is if a currently law abiding person who happens to be on the sex offender registry is denied service from a store people cheer.

[Endus]

Now you're just parsing words. It's a market. Whether you want to now say it's "free" because of the security of the government I would then say it's not "free" because of the restrictions placed on it by the government.

Actually, the point was that you either have restrictions from the government, or restrictions from other actors in the market. In no realistic case is there a "free" market without restrictions on behaviour.

This is about the role of the government in a market, in human transactions. They can't control your decisions.

So you'd be okay with a competitor murdering your entire family if you don't shut down operations?

Because otherwise, the government is controlling (or at least influencing) your competitor's decision whether or not to take that action.