Bake My Cake

[babe]

I was going to tell him to bake his own damn cake! What does he think this is, some kind of communistic bake each others cakes forum?

I'd give OB some points if he did a ten page multiquote dissecting the political error and implications of your total failure to understand the nuances of your anti-LGBT rights position deriving from your lack of appreciation for the subtleties of attitudes that are insensitive to special targeted groups who need more public understanding, enforced with the tip of some jack-booted thugs if not ACLU lawyers.

The legal point of our courts on the issue is that "open to the public" means open to the entire public.

I would add, of course....purely my own concern and I'm sure none of your own... that a public web site or business that disenfranchises people for opinions, may be testing new legal waters.

 

[babe]

Well, in response to LogGrad, who has common sense, I will confess that this is all in fun. I love the irony of the subject.

 

[babe]

I'd like to share some out-of-the-bubble things I've heard on talk radio.

Sean Hannity had Diamond and Silk on air today discussing their experience with Facebook. They take it pretty serious that they've been censored without recourse through the company channels. That leaves only legal channels.

But I also heard some folks stating that there is a plan to compete with Facebook afoot, to give a large piece of the market an alternative. Same with You-Tube. The new service might be called "Real Tube" and might actually maintain a policy of honoring 1st Amendment personal rights.

Meathead Zucker has already had millions of liberals cancel their accounts because a Trump contractor may have used data mined from FB to help Trump just the same way Obama did it to win in 2008 and 2012. Now conservatives are dumping FB accounts over not just privacy concerns but bias and discrimination they have experienced.

I think you can make a buck shorting social media giants right now.

 

[Gameface]

I'd give OB some points if he did a ten page multiquote dissecting the political error and implications of your total failure to understand the nuances of your anti-LGBT rights position deriving from your lack of appreciation for the subtleties of attitudes that are insensitive to special targeted groups who need more public understanding, enforced with the tip of some jack-booted thugs if not ACLU lawyers.

The legal point of our courts on the issue is that "open to the public" means open to the entire public.

I would add, of course....purely my own concern and I'm sure none of your own... that a public web site or business that disenfranchises people for opinions, may be testing new legal waters.

Babe, I support the right of a business to refuse to do things that they are not comfortable doing. I believe that a business owner actually owns their business.

I'd like to think that we lived in a world where the rules of the game meant that if a cake baker wanted to deny their services to LGBTQ+ people that on the one hand they could refuse service, and on the other hand it would mean they lost business to another baker who was happy to bake cakes for LGBTQ+ people. I believe in the concepts of libertarianism. Firmly and fully. I just realize that I don't live in a libertarian world. As such the laws need to regulate the game that actually exists, not the fantasy I hope for.

Businesses deciding to refuse service to a certain segment of the population, banding together in such an effort according to their mythology, or at least their personalized interpretation of their mythology, creates a coercive effect on the economy. It skews the normal market forces that would otherwise drive business owners to the best business decision. I'm not sure of your brand of libertarianism, but mine always said it was essentially protect your own interests and expect others to do the same, the only thing that was out of bounds was lying, cheating, stealing and coercion.

The coercion bit is what made me realize just how incompatible bastardized versions of libertarianism are in our current society. That's why I stopped beating the drum. Solve for coercion and you'll have me fully back on board, babe.

 

[babe]

Babe, I support the right of a business to refuse to do things that they are not comfortable doing. I believe that a business owner actually owns their business.

I'd like to think that we lived in a world where the rules of the game meant that if a cake baker wanted to deny their services to LGBTQ+ people that on the one hand they could refuse service, and on the other hand it would mean they lost business to another baker who was happy to bake cakes for LGBTQ+ people. I believe in the concepts of libertarianism. Firmly and fully. I just realize that I don't live in a libertarian world. As such the laws need to regulate the game that actually exists, not the fantasy I hope for.

Businesses deciding to refuse service to a certain segment of the population, banding together in such an effort according to their mythology, or at least their personalized interpretation of their mythology, creates a coercive effect on the economy. It skews the normal market forces that would otherwise drive business owners to the best business decision. I'm not sure of your brand of libertarianism, but mine always said it was essentially protect your own interests and expect others to do the same, the only thing that was out of bounds was lying, cheating, stealing and coercion.

The coercion bit is what made me realize just how incompatible bastardized versions of libertarianism are in our current society. That's why I stopped beating the drum. Solve for coercion and you'll have me fully back on board, babe.

This all makes pretty good sense to me, as stated. You be you, I ask for nothing less, really.

I am probably not very consistent generally. I don't mind having people explore the incongruities or ignorance present in my little essays. I'm not much inclined to try to present socially-accepted, normative, or "consensus" views, even if I understand them..... or, God-forbid, embrace them.....

I do my bit here for the fun, and educational value, or the exercise. I don't have much of a temper, or much inclination to censorship or force.

I would like, speaking from ideal values, like to have a broad-based free speech view in the little conversations I engage in.

 

[Gameface]

This all makes pretty good sense to me, as stated. You be you, I ask for nothing less, really.

I am probably not very consistent generally. I don't mind having people explore the incongruities or ignorance present in my little essays. I'm not much inclined to try to present socially-accepted, normative, or "consensus" views, even if I understand them..... or, God-forbid, embrace them.....

I do my bit here for the fun, and educational value, or the exercise. I don't have much of a temper, or much inclination to censorship or force.

I would like, speaking from ideal values, like to have a broad-based free speech view in the little conversations I engage in.

Me too, babe.

I think Dutch crossed lines and I think he was spreading propaganda for a specific group that has nothing to do with the Utah Jazz. I laid that out and will let it lie. He couldn't control himself enough to stick around, I had nothing to do with his last (possibly last few) infractions. There is a certain level of decency that needs to be maintained, Dutch was not able to act decently.

PW got a minor infraction and then came back as an alt. She was an inflammatory poster and should expect an infraction here an there. You get suspended have the respect for Jason to serve your suspension. I've done it. I don't make alts when I get suspended. Just go to the penalty box and do your time. This is Jason's web site.

 

[One Brow]

no, I'm not announcing a marriage. I'm looking at the people who have bakeshops who really don't want to serve the entire contemporary community. And transposing the legal implications of the recent court rulings that in fact order business that are open to the public to be open to the whole public.

There's some insanely influential dude in Washington today, speaking to a large group of folks many of whom owe him for campaign contributions, trying to blow off the public outrage from the fact that a Trump campaign service provider may have mined Facebook to help target political ads or campaigns more effectively..... you know, exactly what Obama did in 2008 to the highest praise of our media and pundits, who applauded him as a true political genius and the exemplar of a new age in political strategy......

But if Trump does it, it's gotta be a crime.

Obama used his own campaign site to set up a coordinated media campaign among the people who signed up for it. Cambridge Analytica used surveys that were not explicitly political, and then followed not only the survey takers, but also their friends, who had not taken the surveys nor signed up for anything. These are not the same thing, not even close.

However, Trump did not do it, and no one is talking about it being a crime at that point. Quit whinging.

I'd give OB some points if he did a ten page multiquote dissecting the political error and implications of your total failure to understand the nuances of your anti-LGBT rights position deriving from your lack of appreciation for the subtleties of attitudes that are insensitive to special targeted groups who need more public understanding, enforced with the tip of some jack-booted thugs if not ACLU lawyers.

What a sad day when people who want to treat others like second-class citizens can't rely on using government resources and benefits to do so[/sarcasm].

 

[One Brow]

Babe, I support the right of a business to refuse to do things that they are not comfortable doing. I believe that a business owner actually owns their business.

However, the business is a distinct legal entity. If your business goes bankrupt, you don't pay the business debts. The business will pay a much lower rate of taxes on revenue than a baker pays for a wage. The government allows you to create this legal separation to encourage investment, they should be allowed to set limits on how it behaves.

If a baker wants to discriminate, they can start a private club or just be a contractor-for-hire, and no one will be able force them to bake anything. For that matter, in the Masterpiece case, the baker could have sub-contracted the work out to another baker to make in the same style, and not touched the cake himself.

 

[Gameface]

However, the business is a distinct legal entity. If your business goes bankrupt, you don't pay the business debts. The business will pay a much lower rate of taxes on revenue than a baker pays for a wage. The government allows you to create this legal separation to encourage investment, they should be allowed to set limits on how it behaves.

If a baker wants to discriminate, they can start a private club or just be a contractor-for-hire, and no one will be able force them to bake anything. For that matter, in the Masterpiece case, the baker could have sub-contracted the work out to another baker to make in the same style, and not touched the cake himself.

That's kind of what the whole second part was about, that we don't live in a libertarian world, so we need rules based on the world (non-libertarian) that we do actually live in.

The coercion part is me giving babe exactly what it would take to bring back on board to the current libertarianism which is oddly trying to insert itself into a non-libertarian shaped hole. I believe that libertarianism can only work as a whole system. There needs to be protections against coercion. There needs to be significantly enhanced liability standards. But those are just a few things, it is a top to bottom entire system type of problem. Many libertarians think that the U.S. is fundamentally constructed on libertarian principles, it's not. We'd need a completely new constitution if we wanted to actually become libertarian.

 

[babe]

We also need a completely new constitution if we want world management through non-elected UN agencies/officials. The New World Order is a complete fraud. Sure, our founders included some dreamers/Masons/schemers who thought they were bringing in a new world order, displacing an old one. The old one was elitists of various stripes unfettered by considerations about human rights. Monarchists, formal state religions with clerics and businessmen holding sway over the ignoramuses who thought were doing good to hold a little plot of land to grow some food and keep a cow.

I don't think the progressive agenda is much more than a fraud to the benefit of oligarchists/corporatists, and it's the people who suffer. Kinda tired of little special interests being paraded about on the public media stage as "progress". It ain't my parade, and the puppeteers are working for themselves.

I think we can make the American constitution a standard for nations in general..... start a new "club" where in order to join, a country needs to prove up on fair elections and human rights. Right now, the club would be 0. I don't think there is one country that really does that. The British commonwealth? nah, the Queen still has some privileges that can be used if necessary to protect the realm.....

I think the UN is a façade for the Brit imperialists adapted, under the circumspect purposes of Lord Cecil Rhodes, to keep the black/brown hordes outside the castle walls of real power.

I think the Russia, China, maybe even Inda, Brazil, and a few other countries are working on a new alignment.

 

[Gameface]

We also need a completely new constitution if we want world management through non-elected UN agencies/officials. The New World Order is a complete fraud. Sure, our founders included some dreamers/Masons/schemers who thought they were bringing in a new world order, displacing an old one. The old one was elitists of various stripes unfettered by considerations about human rights. Monarchists, formal state religions with clerics and businessmen holding sway over the ignoramuses who thought were doing good to hold a little plot of land to grow some food and keep a cow.

I don't think the progressive agenda is much more than a fraud to the benefit of oligarchists/corporatists, and it's the people who suffer. Kinda tired of little special interests being paraded about on the public media stage as "progress". It ain't my parade, and the puppeteers are working for themselves.

I think we can make the American constitution a standard for nations in general..... start a new "club" where in order to join, a country needs to prove up on fair elections and human rights. Right now, the club would be 0. I don't think there is one country that really does that. The British commonwealth? nah, the Queen still has some privileges that can be used if necessary to protect the realm.....

I think the UN is a façade for the Brit imperialists adapted, under the circumspect purposes of Lord Cecil Rhodes, to keep the black/brown hordes outside the castle walls of real power.

I think the Russia, China, maybe even Inda, Brazil, and a few other countries are working on a new alignment.

I stopped reading because you're not talking about what we were talking about.

 

[babe]

The kernel idea behind "Libertarian" has to do with human liberty, I suppose. What ever gets in the way of any personal or human rights?

Government.

From the dawn of civilization, until now.

So if you have any real libertarian views, you need to recognize that government needs the management..... not the people.

 

[One Brow]

The kernel idea behind "Libertarian" has to do with human liberty, I suppose. What ever gets in the way of any personal or human rights?

Government.

People with power, whether in the government or otherwise. When there is anarchy, the warlords get in the way human liberty. When there is a single denomination with a majority, religious people do. When a skin color dominates, racists get in the way of personal liberty.

Most libertarians are perfectly fine with people interfering with other people's liberty, as long as they are not the government. We all have our blind spots.

 

[babe]

Pretty concise summary.

After noticing the intensity of local animosities, which I think is general around the world, between people of essentially the same race but maybe another tribe, I think we need to use a term for this other than the trite "racist".

People are people. People sometimes hate other people. Hate is a pretty loaded term. It doesn't serve the purpose of understanding or helping people see the root. We should have laws that set the standards generally for what we really cannot or should not expect people to endure. Equal protection under the law, equal rights. The term "illegal" would serve, then, and we could do something about besides preach sunday school.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

 

[Gameface]

I believe in some languages they have better words to describe "outsiders" or the "other." But it does essentially come down to a form of tribalism. Whatever distinction that can be made to separate the "us" from "them" will be used. It seems to be a pretty deep seeded aspect of the human way of looking at the world.

Obviously we can all have various, sometimes parallel, sometimes overlapping, sometimes contradictory "tribes." I mean I hate Lakers fans. What kind of sense does that make? But it's true. I see someone with a lakers sticker on their car and I automatically make negative assumptions about them.

It can be even more ridiculous. The way I drive home from work there is a spot where a lot of people turn left from a larger road onto a smaller road. I keep on the larger road until the next light. I didn't even realize it consciously until the other day, but I don't like the people that turn left there. The reason I realized it was because I wasn't going home right away and had somewhere else I needed to go, so I was was going to turn left there and I caught myself looking around hoping that no one would see me turning left there and assume I was one of "those people." And before anyone goes there, the neighborhood that way is pretty similar to mine, some of it is newer and the houses a little bigger, so probably a little more expensive on average.

People are funny.

 

[babe]

the human logic of "otherization" carries a sort of notion that human standards or values don't exist in the "others". At the primal level, it is a classification that opens the door to doing all kinds of mischief/evil stuff.

notions of universal human rights, like the right to life, with laws establishing penalties for murder, represent societies' determination to protect citizens and/or shut down those excuses for evil.

also, in thinking of my comments above, I would like to clarify that some references to specific discrimination seem necessary when the problem is deeply entrenched. But where it could serve as well, I'd prefer laws written in regard to damaging actions against people, and universal in application.

I remember reading Alan Stang's "It's Very Simple" back in 1965, where he argued that a business owner should be within his rights to refuse service to blacks.... and outlined Martin Luther King's communist associations. I talk to communists too, and sometimes agree with them on some things.... lol.....but I think now that "Open" means "Open to All", and I really don't think a business has a right to refuse service to anyone..... well, except to deadbeat customers who haven't paid for the services they've received, or people who don't qualify on objective credit criteria. In that sector, cash is King, and overcomes the exception.

I think Facebook, Google and some other Deep Pockets proprietors are set for some multi-billion dollar lawsuits which will reference the Supreme Court's Bake My Cake decision.

wish I were a lawyer.... hey.... maybe I will become one.

Refusing equal service to clients based on their political speech is going to become the next civil rights battle. Or even arbitrarily putting some people on a back seat in the internet bus.....

Open to the Public is open to the public on equal terms.

 

[babe]

OK. I'll do my own back-and-forth on this.

The SCOTUS in the Age of British Intellectualism (roughly 1890-2020, say) has pursued a line of thought that defies the clear intent of the US Constitution as discussed and drafted by the original disputants. The ideas at the root of the US Constitution's design included very little reduction of States' prerogatives, and pointedly insisted on clearly stated declarations of citizen rights with regard to the Federal governments' proclivities for power grabs of various kinds.

In a Socialist society, as envisioned by British intellectuals, the government must become the caretaker, and the power of the government must derive from a sort of interested set of moneyed folks and their intellectual shills. We have gone far, far down the primrose path with these charlatans, and it is almost beyond our reach to recover the concept of actual human rights.

The SCOTUS, in taking upon itself the mantle of Supreme Constitutional Obliterator and Totalitarian Undertaker of Society, which is the actual philosophical underpinning of the SCOTUS label in progressive usage, has walked us away from private property rights, freedom of association, and the privileges of doing our own thinking and doing what we think is best in our personal business.

So, yeah, the thinker in me agrees with Bullet in his above statement that a person should have the choice in doing business. The nice little sign over the counter "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" means the proprietor is claiming an inherent God-given right to be a fussy little old biddy or an outright bigot in this business. No reason need be resorted to as any excuse.

So anyway, Bullet says this site is Jason's and Bullet upholds the human liberties all proprietors should have. It's their business.

So Jason can post a sign at the door and say "We reserve the rights of personal liberties derived from ownership of this site, and have the perfect right to refuse admittance to anyone, or to remove anyone's account." Most of us have paid no price for admittance, we have no entitlement to service.

But do we want, as a society at large, to do business this way? Do we want to insist that others treat us with some specific standard of respect and equality?

The "Bake My Cake" ruling says we do, and it is in effect a rule of law that imposes a duty of civility in doing business. I run into such rules in managing my rentals. Abiding by those rules has cost me nothing, and in fact I have found that people who are in the GLBT community make very good renters. They rarely push the limits of the rental agreement, and take very good care of the rented property.... pay the rent on time. Never have had a GLBT renter skip out on rent.

 

[babe]

I'll keep bumping this topic.

I'm hearing a lot of conservatives of various types reporting that their media hosts.... twitter/google/facebook.... are doing stuff that is discriminatory..... with no explanation being given. When forced to comment because of a rising tide of questions, the replies are vague and general, referring to "community standards"

Newspapers and TV news has long done this.... insists on still doing it.... because they are owned by people who have "joined the club" of basically "management" for our national or world "community" of their own vision. For "news" this is called bias, and is false on the level of being fundamentally dishonest in the claim of objectivity.

For facebook or twitter, the future can be seen in Europe right now.

https://reason.com/archives/2015/04/26/the-slow-death-of-free-speech-in-britain

 

[babe]

internet platforms like Facebook and Google are de facto community squares enjoying virtual monopolies on public access. Where else can you go, really, to do your thing.

Like JazzFanz, ownership carries a favored perspective on stuff. General rules on civility are rather susceptible, like ref calls in a basketball game, to whatever management wishes to see, and wishes to ignore. A lot less objective in nature in online communities than refs, generally. Well, unless it's playoff time, it seems.

So for whatever Social Justice Warriors we have amongst us, it is essentially a human rights issue like the bake shop case. There probably was nothing like a monopoly in the communities where GLBT activists went scouting to find a case to take to court. They probably went to ten shops before finding one owned by a dogmatic, overly-concerned Christian who would think to have scruples against doing the job.

Maybe more than ten. Maybe a hundred, even. It might have taken months of searching for someone who would refuse. I dunno about you, but I like to seize on the marginal business that walks into my shop, and do whatever it takes to have a sale. I wouldn't even think of objecting to who my customer is.

I don't agree with Bulletproofs assessment that a business is a legal entity any more than an individual is where there can reasonably be a distinction about conscience or comfort about doing business. Open to the Public is a clear standard. It is simple and straightforward, and should be a legal standard for all business. You can have a choice, either business or personal, about private acts, policies, principles, and the people you choose to serve. You can be private and "invitation only" or "members only". I'd say you can post the sign saying exactly who you will serve if you want. Blacks Only, Whites Only. Members Only. Contractors Only. Wholesale. Retail. That is your business.

If you post a sign that says "Open" it means "Open to the Public".

A site like JazzFanz could post a sign "Mormons Only", "Democrats Only", or "Marxists Only" whatever ownership wants, but like Facebook or Google, if there is no sign at the gate otherwise, it means "Open to the Public".

It might be a good idea to post the sign "Utah Jazz Fans Only" considering some of the people who come here to rub us the wrong way..... lol..... nah, we can handle that well enough, just give and take.

I can deal with folks who just hate me for who I am, or what I say, just fine. I don't bother to go where I imagine the folks would have no trouble agreeing with me. And no, I'm not "Mormon" or "Conservative" enough to just fit in with sites who post their gate rules that way. So I like JazzFanz. It's the best place I've ever found for a discussion on politics, precisely because of folks like Bullet and Red.

yah I sorta hate it when some react so hard to ignoramus conservatives that a slew of questionable offenses/infractions are resorted to, to run him/her "outta town". I might not agree with their view, but I like to see a range of views. Still, I think courtesy and civility are necessary standards even here. I might claim the "JazzFanz Thickest Skin" award, and consider the poor folks who can't stand reading a simple Christian's pathetic little defense of Noah's Flood or the Tower of Babel, or the destruction of Jericho or whatever, as just simpletons themselves with no better intellect. Of course the Bible wasn't written by the Finger of God and reflects in a large measure the pious but perhaps baseless comfortable views of another age. Of course The New World Order is a sorta brave pious new deal for the world whose underpinnings will need to be revised as we go along. It's a human attribute to resort to "Faith" in support of nationalism, or internationalism, or whatever we are hoping will make the world better. It's also a human attribute that whatever we know or could know today, we still won't know it all, not for a thousand epochs to come.