california boy Posted April 1, 2016 Posted April 1, 2016 2 hours ago, Storm Rider said: Cal, on a personal level we don't disagree. If I am running a business I am running a business for profit and will serve anyone that is willing to pay. The only caveat is I don't like rude people or piggish, overly-demanding people; I could see myself saying I don't want their business. As I have aged I have learned that life is too short to work with individuals that are too negative regardless of gender, religion, or sexual preference. When you have activists that are looking for the opportunity to sue - this has been common since Rosa Parks purposely got on the bus. For too long cultural myths are created to explain social changes. Activists purposely create what they perceive as sympathetic situations in order to go to court to achieve their objectives. How do business owners defend themselves and their businesses from getting caught up in an activists social vendetta? We can't control the actions of others, but we can control how we react to those actions. It is also one of the great lessons Christ taught. I personally think that the soldier deserved to get his ear sliced off. But I try to remember the love Christ showed even when He was gustified to show no love. We all stumble. We all fail. But we also all know the right thing to do.
Gray Posted April 1, 2016 Posted April 1, 2016 You do have the right to refuse service to customers on the basis that they are rude. Rude isn't a protected class.
thesometimesaint Posted April 1, 2016 Posted April 1, 2016 2 hours ago, Storm Rider said: Cal, on a personal level we don't disagree. If I am running a business I am running a business for profit and will serve anyone that is willing to pay. The only caveat is I don't like rude people or piggish, overly-demanding people; I could see myself saying I don't want their business. As I have aged I have learned that life is too short to work with individuals that are too negative regardless of gender, religion, or sexual preference. When you have activists that are looking for the opportunity to sue - this has been common since Rosa Parks purposely got on the bus. For too long cultural myths are created to explain social changes. Activists purposely create what they perceive as sympathetic situations in order to go to court to achieve their objectives. How do business owners defend themselves and their businesses from getting caught up in an activists social vendetta?
CV75 Posted April 1, 2016 Posted April 1, 2016 14 hours ago, california boy said: In terms of business, I expect every single business to sell their products to whoever walks into the door and asks for them. Treat others with the same respect you would want. Serve all, saint and sinner. Let ALL worship and practice their religion as they see fit. If a Mormon wants to use the bread the baker makes for their sacrament, then let them. If the Catholic church wants to use your flour to make wafers, then let them. If a Jewish youth group wants to wear your tee shirts for a youth activity then let them. If a Muslin sells firewood and a Christian wants to use one of the logs to celebrate a Christmas Yule log, let them. Do we really want to live in a world where we decide how the products we sell are used before we make a sale? It is a ridiculous expectation. How anyone would have any problem with this is really beyond my understanding. There is NO SIN in selling any of these products when the use is non criminal. It seems you’re conflating sinfulness with legality, knowledge and belief, and making your point with scenarios you admit as ridiculous. Is there SIN in selling any of these products when the use is criminal? It depends on whether you know the use is to be criminal or not and sinful or not. Is there is NO SIN in selling any of these products when the use is non-criminal? It depends on whether you know the use is to be criminal or not and sinful or not. Is there CRIME in selling any of these products when the use is sinful? It depends on whether the sinful use is known to be criminal or not. Is there NO CRIME in selling any of these products when the use isn’t sinful? It depends on whether the non-sinful use is known or not, and known to be legal or not. And is "believe” versus “know” the operative word in some of these cases and not others? I don’t see how you’ve answered any of my questions. You aren’t negotiating the overlaps between sin, crime, good deeds, legalities, secularism and religion. This is why public discourse requires multiple points of view with special protection for freedom of religion. Do we really want to live in a world where we decide how the inventions we come up with are used before we apply them? Of course we do. That is why we have institutional review boards (even in business), which is only a more controlled microcosm of what rightly plays out in the public square. In those, the religious point of view is taken very seriously. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted April 1, 2016 Author Posted April 1, 2016 (edited) On 3/31/2016 at 10:11 AM, Jeanne said: This reader has decided. Sometimes Scott, you put your messages and thoughts across as gospel to all (IMO). Not to say that I don't read you or try to understand your points I just wish that you could come across more open and with a little understanding of another's point of view. I plan on working on this myself. Please don't be angry..but you show authority over others that you do not have. This does not mean that I don't have respect for you. I don't agree that I was assuming authority of any kind, let alone authority I do not have, Jeanne. Rather, I was defending myself against a false accusation by calling for a reference and pointing out that the accuser was unable to provide that reference -- just as I would expect you or any other reasonable individual to do. Edited April 1, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
USU78 Posted April 5, 2016 Posted April 5, 2016 On 3/31/2016 at 9:42 AM, consiglieri said: Here you are incorrect, mi amigo. Actually, I support the right of the baker to not be compelled to provide a cake for a wedding . . . any wedding . . . for any reason. The right of the baker is based not in any religious belief, but in the freedom to serve whatever client the baker chooses, and for whatever reason. Government has no place compelling a private citizen to provide goods or services to any customer. Trying to argue that it is only the baker's religious basis for not providing the wedding cake is a bad argument, in my view. It means that a baker without the religious basis may be compelled to provide the wedding cake, but a baker with the religious basis cannot be so compelled. This makes no sense to me, and will doubtless lead to "millions of mischiefs" in courts determining what constitutes a valid "religious basis." I should add here that this argument is based only on my analysis of the federal constitution. Individual states can do whatever they wish, so long as it does not conflict with the federal constitution. Wow ... we agree. Who woulda thunk?
USU78 Posted April 5, 2016 Posted April 5, 2016 On 4/1/2016 at 8:55 AM, Gray said: You do have the right to refuse service to customers on the basis that they are rude. Rude isn't a protected class. It is if the rudeness is attached to a person in a protected class, and a jury of 12 people too dumb to get out of jury duty is feeling particularly generous that day.
thesometimesaint Posted April 5, 2016 Posted April 5, 2016 10 minutes ago, USU78 said: It is if the rudeness is attached to a person in a protected class, and a jury of 12 people too dumb to get out of jury duty is feeling particularly generous that day. Don't worry Mississippi will save the day.
Storm Rider Posted April 5, 2016 Posted April 5, 2016 I think if we just allow the market to care for itself there are no problems. If a business is focused on profits they will serve anyone and everyone that is willing to pay the price of their goods and/or services. If a business is not as interested in profits they will exhibit a host of behaviors: won't work as many hours, not be concerned about customer service, etc., etc., etc. This attempt restructure society and force people to specific behaviors may be healthy for major infractions, but the principle of teaching correct principles is still valid and the better way to go. When we force people in an effort to make immediate social changes we do more harm than good in my opinion.
Recommended Posts