NY's Proposed Ban on Large Sugary Drinks

[Stoked]

I see where you're coming from, and I understand that you have a certain ideological value system of which I actually think requires quite a lot of courage to live by, especially when many people may disagree with you. That said, I do disagree with you.

The reason being, from a broad perspective, is that it is easy to classify things as black and white but it paints an incomplete picture. In this case, you argue for a persons right to refuse service from the viewpoint that people should have their own personal rights, no matter the consequences. The first problem I see with this idea is that it is dangerous to champion a society with an ethos of exclusion and derision with respect to widespread human traits that are non-controllable for the people that have these traits (being black, gay, a jazzfan etc.), especially if these traits are not hurtful to the people that have them nor to other people around them. Secondly, I also think that people should have basic human rights and should be able to make decisions about who they spend their time with in their personal lives, but in the case of the wedding photographer, she should have known that there would be many kinds of weddings that she would have to work, and as part of her job, that includes gay weddings. If she does not feel comfortable doing this, then she should not have accepted the position.

Finally, most people on this board are not diametrically opposed to one another, rather we tend to have opinions that are like vectors pointing in the same direction, but are of different magnitudes. I and many others on this board are with you on the whole freedom of choice thing, but are not nearly as extreme as you are for the reasons I stated previously, but that doesn't make us wrong.

She does not work for the government. Therefore she should be entitled to refuse to take pictures of whoever she wants for whatever reasons she wants. Now if she was a state employeed photographer then yes she shuts up and takes those wedding pictures.

That is the thing about believing in personal freedom (for me). You need to believe in it even when someone uses the freedom they have to do something you do not like. Personally I think the woman is an idiot for refusing to shoot the wedding but she is free to be an idiot. Just as I am free to take my business elsewhere because she is an idiot.

After her being forced to shoot that wedding (which is an absolute travisty of justice in my opinion) what is next? People being forced to hire her? If not then how do you justify her being forced to do something she does not want to do and a customer not being forced?

That right there is one of my main problems with republicans. They are all for personal freedoms as long as you are doing something they like with it. Like not getting married to someone of the same sex...

 

[One Brow]

She does not work for the government. Therefore she should be entitled to refuse to take pictures of whoever she wants for whatever reasons she wants.

There a simple solution to that. Label herself a "Christian photographer", and only advertise in churches that share her prejudices. She can even call it a ministry, and get tax-exempt status.

Instead, she advertised herself as being willing to serve the general public.

 

[larryselbows]

She does not work for the government. Therefore she should be entitled to refuse to take pictures of whoever she wants for whatever reasons she wants. Now if she was a state employeed photographer then yes she shuts up and takes those wedding pictures.

That is the thing about believing in personal freedom (for me). You need to believe in it even when someone uses the freedom they have to do something you do not like. Personally I think the woman is an idiot for refusing to shoot the wedding but she is free to be an idiot. Just as I am free to take my business elsewhere because she is an idiot.

After her being forced to shoot that wedding (which is an absolute travisty of justice in my opinion) what is next? People being forced to hire her? If not then how do you justify her being forced to do something she does not want to do and a customer not being forced?

That right there is one of my main problems with republicans. They are all for personal freedoms as long as you are doing something they like with it. Like not getting married to someone of the same sex...

I can see where you're coming from and you make a good point.

 

[franklin]

If I'm at a bar and drink too much they have a legal obligation to cut me off = If I'm at a 7-11 and have eaten too much they have a legal obligation to starve me?

 

[franklin]

She does not work for the government. Therefore she should be entitled to refuse to take pictures of whoever she wants for whatever reasons she wants. Now if she was a state employeed photographer then yes she shuts up and takes those wedding pictures.

Do you believe a gay man should be charged gasoline tax to support the public roads on which the photographer depends for her business? Should he be required to pay but disallowed the benefits?

 

[Stoked]

Do you believe a gay man should be charged gasoline tax to support the public roads on which the photographer depends for her business? Should he be required to pay but disallowed the benefits?

That is a pathetic reach. Come on *Franklin...

 

[nightmare3983]

It's hard to keep threads on track around here. I think the ultimate impact of the ban, assuming it passes and survives legal challenges, will be to piss off servers at sit-down restaurants who have to refill drinks more often.

 

[Stoked]

It's hard to keep threads on track around here. I think the ultimate impact of the ban, assuming it passes and survives legal challenges, will be to piss off servers at sit-down restaurants who have to refill drinks more often.

You damn rerailer! I never thought of that but I do not think that will happen as I think most restaurant size glasses are under the propsed limit.

 

[franklin]

That is a pathetic reach. Come on *Franklin...

So you answer yes then? You believe those who depend on public infrastructure should retain the right to Freedom of Association?

 

[Maktub]

It's the MickeyDs and movie theaters of the world that this ban will affect. Street vendors and most restaurants don't go bigger than 16oz.

Seems to me that this ban does a pretty good job at targeting the poor.

 

[Nate505]

Whoa... that's your world "Mr. I hate waiting at stop lights and then ignore the ticket".

But I never claim what I'm doing is legal, though in Colorado not paying a photo ticket isn't illegal.

 

[Stoked]

So you answer yes then? You believe those who depend on public infrastructure should retain the right to Freedom of Association?

"Freedom of association is the individual right to come together with other individuals and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests"

Obviously in this case there is not freedom of association as the other party (the photographer) is not willing to "express, promote, pursue and defend common interests" with the potential client.

As for depending on public infrastructure, the lesbian couple in this case use those roads as well do they not? Using your example one can make the reasonable jump that since everyone uses roads and sidewalks that we should turn over all decisions to government. Since we depend on what they provide for our lively hood. Without roads you cannot get to work, the store, the gas station...so you better ask big brother for a daily schedule of what you should do and say.

All that is happening here is that the government is forcing an individual to partake in mandatory association. I do not need government to tell me who I should do business with and who I need to associate with. What the couple sould have done is taken their business to another photographer and promoted their business and steered business away from that idiotic photographer.

 

[nightmare3983]

Stoked and franklin,

Here's the final court ruling in that photographer case after the photographer appealed the initial ruling by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. I mostly just skimmed throught it, but the gist of the ruling is that the photographer's business was deemed to be a "public accomodation" and in violation of NM's Human Rights Act.

https://www.volokh.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/elanephotographytrialorder.pdf

EDIT: I'm going to add that it's interesting that the court basically ruled that having to attend a same-sex marriage in order to provide services like photography, even if you are morally opposed to such events, doesn't violate your religious rights as long as you aren't required to participate in it. So the moral of the story is, if you have strong opinions about things like religion and homosexuality, you'd better think twice before starting a business.

 

[Stoked]

^^^^Horrendous decision.

 

[The Thriller]

This is so stupid.

It's amazing to me what cities and states will waste their time discussing. I'm sure the biggest problem NY faces is sugary drinks. Crime, poverty, education, health care, nahhhhh no problem. Sugary drinks is definitely something we should concentrate on.

 

[Stoked]

This is so stupid.

It's amazing to me what cities and states will waste their time discussing. I'm sure the biggest problem NY faces is sugary drinks. Crime, poverty, education, health care, nahhhhh no problem. Sugary drinks is definitely something we should concentrate on.

I feel that way when I see congress holding hearings on steroids in baseball.

 

[franklin]

^^^^Horrendous decision.

Don't lie--you tl;dnr'd that.

"Freedom of association is the individual right to come together with other individuals and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests"

Obviously in this case there is not freedom of association as the other party (the photographer) is not willing to "express, promote, pursue and defend common interests" with the potential client.

A simple "yes" would have sufficed.

As for depending on public infrastructure, the lesbian couple in this case use those roads as well do they not? Using your example one can make the reasonable jump that since everyone uses roads and sidewalks that we should turn over all decisions to government. Since we depend on what they provide for our lively hood. Without roads you cannot get to work, the store, the gas station...so you better ask big brother for a daily schedule of what you should do and say.

1. You choose to depend on the infrastructure for your livelihood.
2. Society builds infrastructure that caters to business districts. We all "depend" on the ports and we all pay for the ports in one way or another. We all deserve access to the businesses which occupy the ports. We all deserve access to businesses that occupy freeway exits. Should the guy with the only gas station on an exit in Southern Utah be able to say "sorry less bows you jest gone hafta walk ta Cedar"?

All that is happening here is that the government is forcing an individual to partake in mandatory association. I do not need government to tell me who I should do business with and who I need to associate with. What the couple sould have done is taken their business to another photographer and promoted their business and steered business away from that idiotic photographer.

Step back and think of the implications of your position. The same line of reasoning says Kentucky Whitey businesses have the right to not hire blacks and gays. If you believe that then own up to it with a simple "yes, Stroked believes those who depend on public infrastructure should retain the right to Freedom of Association".

 

[franklin]

This is so stupid.

It's amazing to me what cities and states will waste their time discussing. I'm sure the biggest problem NY faces is sugary drinks. Crime, poverty, education, health care, nahhhhh no problem. Sugary drinks is definitely something we should concentrate on.

They are talking about health care, wise guy. Obesity and poverty are also correlated. Poverty and crime are correlated. Education and poverty are correlated.

 

[Stoked]

Don't lie--you tl;dnr'd that.




A simple "yes" would have sufficed.




1. You choose to depend on the infrastructure for your livelihood.
2. Society builds infrastructure that caters to business districts. We all "depend" on the ports and we all pay for the ports in one way or another. We all deserve access to the businesses which occupy the ports. We all deserve access to businesses that occupy freeway exits. Should the guy with the only gas station on an exit in Southern Utah be able to say "sorry less bows you jest gone hafta walk ta Cedar"?




Step back and think of the implications of your position. The same line of reasoning says Kentucky Whitey businesses have the right to not hire blacks and gays. If you believe that then own up to it with a simple "yes, Stroked believes those who depend on public infrastructure should retain the right to Freedom of Association".

Stop trying to put words into my mouth with all that yes crap. You are better than that, even when you are drunk. If this person wants to be a bigot (which she may very well be) then she has the right to be one. Hopefully society would show her what they think of that and withhold business and that woman (photog) loses out for being a tool.

So if a church that is very much anti-gay agenda wants to hire a homsexual to be their pianist/organist should that person be forced to work there/for them? That is what is being said here. If so then we can do away with dreams and opportunity and society itself will decide where we work and we can just shut up and accept it.

As for their stance on religios freedom in that decision I do not understand how they say she is not participating...she is the photographer. The only ones not participating are the guests who are watching the wedding. One could even make an arguement that they are participating.

Your line of thinking forces people into employment. Often in places they do not want.

 

[One Brow]

So if a church that is very much anti-gay agenda wants to hire a homsexual to be their pianist/organist should that person be forced to work there/for them? That is what is being said here.

No, because people who work in a religious ministry are allowed to discriminate (presumably according to the dictates of their conscience). If the woman had set herself up as a Christian photographer with a Christian ministry, she would have been able to refuse to serve anyone she chose.