PDA

View Full Version : Shouldn't she have to make it?



sandsjames
04-07-2015, 04:47 PM
http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/04/06/dnt-baker-refuses-anti-gay-order.wkmg

I don't think she should have to make anything she doesn't want to, as it's her business, but what's the difference between this and the prior cake incident? It's not up to her to allow her personal opinions to determine whether or not she serves a customer, according to recent events.

hustonj
04-07-2015, 06:04 PM
And this is why the government isn't supposed to positively force activity.

Forcing a man to do labor he does not wish to do is the same as stealing the fruits of the labor he does wish to do.

These are things the government is supposed to PREVENT, not do.

Bos Mutus
04-07-2015, 06:10 PM
Agreed. A cake-maker should not have to make a cake they do not want to. They have a right to protect their brand.

The should, however, have to sell the products they do make to protected groups.

hustonj
04-07-2015, 07:19 PM
Agreed. A cake-maker should not have to make a cake they do not want to. They have a right to protect their brand.

The should, however, have to sell the products they do make to protected groups.

So, you stand on the demand that people should be FORCED (by the government, no less) to work for others against their wishes?

I thought your tag line was "voice of reason"? That poistion is the voice of institutionalized violence.

TJMAC77SP
04-07-2015, 07:32 PM
Agreed. A cake-maker should not have to make a cake they do not want to. They have a right to protect their brand.

The should, however, have to sell the products they do make to protected groups.

So, and I ask this in all seriousness because I think these laws being passed have (some) good and (some) potential bad outcomes....If a gay couple walks into a baker and wants a couple of cupcakes on display they should be sold the items but if they come in and ask for a wedding cake, stating it is for their wedding (as a same sex couple) the baker could refuse service based on religious beliefs?

This scenario is kind of how I have been looking at this situation and was wondering if I am looking at it as it is intended (taking the lawmakers at their word).

Bos Mutus
04-07-2015, 07:50 PM
So, and I ask this in all seriousness because I think these laws being passed have (some) good and (some) potential bad outcomes....If a gay couple walks into a baker and wants a couple of cupcakes on display they should be sold the items but if they come in and ask for a wedding cake, stating it is for their wedding (as a same sex couple) the baker could refuse service based on religious beliefs?

This scenario is kind of how I have been looking at this situation and was wondering if I am looking at it as it is intended (taking the lawmakers at their word).

I don't know whether that is what the law actually say or not...but if it is, then I don't disagree with it.

A business, particularly one that is creative, should have the right to decide WHAT they will make...as mentioned, their brand is on each item they create.

In the above example, if the couple is asking for a cake with two men on top, the baker should be able to refuse that, IMO. If they simply want the exact same cake that a heterosexual couple orders, then he shouldn't be able to refuse it...in that case, he isn't deciding WHAT to make, but WHO to make it for.

Bos Mutus
04-07-2015, 08:01 PM
So, you stand on the demand that people should be FORCED (by the government, no less) to work for others against their wishes?

Well, no, they don't have to work at all. But, if they choose to bring their wares to the public square, then...Yes...in some cases...the govt. should and does make discrimination against protected groups illegal. Such as a landlord must be FORCED to rent to otherwise qualified Jews. A restaurant should be forced to serve blacks at their counter.


I thought your tag line was "voice of reason"? That poistion is the voice of institutionalized violence.

No, it isn't...is the voice of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I'm not advocating violence, I'm advocating the force of law. If someone illegally discriminates against a protected group, they should be sued, not beaten.

You think it is unreasonable to make some discrimination illegal? Are you really against the CRA? ARe you in favor of a lunch counter is Birmingham AL right to hang a "No Blacks allowed" sign in the window so they won't be forced to serve someone they don't want to?

sandsjames
04-07-2015, 09:28 PM
I don't know whether that is what the law actually say or not...but if it is, then I don't disagree with it.

A business, particularly one that is creative, should have the right to decide WHAT they will make...as mentioned, their brand is on each item they create.

In the above example, if the couple is asking for a cake with two men on top, the baker should be able to refuse that, IMO. If they simply want the exact same cake that a heterosexual couple orders, then he shouldn't be able to refuse it...in that case, he isn't deciding WHAT to make, but WHO to make it for.

Agree completely..."I'll make you the exact same thing I make for everyone else". I'm good with that.

sandsjames
04-07-2015, 09:30 PM
No shoes...no shirt...noooooo diiiiiice

Rollyn01
04-07-2015, 09:37 PM
No shoes...no shirt...noooooo diiiiiice

Damn, I left my shirt in the other thread. I guess no gambling for me. :(

USN - Retired
04-07-2015, 10:30 PM
Agreed. A cake-maker should not have to make a cake they do not want to. They have a right to protect their brand.

The should, however, have to sell the products they do make to protected groups.

Are white Christian conservative males a "protected group" in our society?

USN - Retired
04-07-2015, 10:36 PM
I'm not advocating violence, I'm advocating the force of law. If someone illegally discriminates against a protected group, they should be sued, not beaten.


Is it legal to discriminate against someone who is not in a "protected group"?

Bos Mutus
04-07-2015, 10:47 PM
Are white Christian conservative males a "protected group" in our society?

That's three groups, whites, Christians and males....discrimination on the bases of race, religion and sex is illegal.

Of course there are exceptions to everything...but, in general, in the public square, yes they are protected on the basis of race, religion and sex.

garhkal
04-07-2015, 10:48 PM
http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/04/06/dnt-baker-refuses-anti-gay-order.wkmg

I don't think she should have to make anything she doesn't want to, as it's her business, but what's the difference between this and the prior cake incident? It's not up to her to allow her personal opinions to determine whether or not she serves a customer, according to recent events.

Agreed. Though iirc the court opinion was saying that it was only cause of the 'derogatory words' that she refused, not cause of the imagery of the bible..
Though since when has bible versus been derogatory?


Agreed. A cake-maker should not have to make a cake they do not want to. They have a right to protect their brand.

The should, however, have to sell the products they do make to protected groups.

Isn't that a double standard though? How is one ok to not sell to someone they don't want to, but protected classes are an exception?


In the above example, if the couple is asking for a cake with two men on top, the baker should be able to refuse that, IMO. If they simply want the exact same cake that a heterosexual couple orders, then he shouldn't be able to refuse it...in that case, he isn't deciding WHAT to make, but WHO to make it for.

Isn;t that flying in the face of your prior statement of they should still have to sell to protected groups?


Is it legal to discriminate against someone who is not in a "protected group"?

Since Single, White, Male or Christians imo will never 'become a protected group' i feel yes, it seems to be legal to discriminate against those people.. Well based on prior judge rulings and such.

Bos Mutus
04-07-2015, 10:49 PM
Is it legal to discriminate against someone who is not in a "protected group"?

Yes....for example:

It is legal to only hire engineers who have an engineering degree. This is discrimination against people without engineering degrees, but it is perfectly legal. It is not illegal to discriminate on the basis of credentials and/or education...even though someone may have acquired all the knowledge through self-study.

Bos Mutus
04-07-2015, 10:53 PM
Isn't that a double standard though? How is one ok to not sell to someone they don't want to, but protected classes are an exception?

It's not an exception and not a double standard...if the guy makes cupcakes anyone should be able to buy (not discriminated on the basis of a protected category)


Isn;t that flying in the face of your prior statement of they should still have to sell to protected groups?

No...I very specifically said they should get to decide WHAT to make...but, not WHO to sell it to. A cake with two men on it is the product, the people buying it are the WHO.

USN - Retired
04-07-2015, 10:58 PM
That's three groups, whites, Christians and males....discrimination on the bases of race, religion and sex is illegal.

Of course there are exceptions to everything...but, in general, in the public square, yes they are protected on the basis of race, religion and sex.

Are affirmative action programs an example those "exceptions" that permit discrimination against white males?

Bos Mutus
04-07-2015, 11:07 PM
Are affirmative action programs an example those "exceptions" that permit discrimination against white males?

Affirmative action is a very broad term that encompasses a lot of different things, many of which are not discrimination at all...targeted marketing, for example.

Affirmative action that has a racial quota system has been ruled illegal discrimination last I checked...yes, even a white male won that case.

But it is apparently legal for the federal govt. to discriminate in awarding contracts as they "set aside' some strictly for minority-owned businesses...is that discrimination against white males? Absolutely.

So, to answer you question...sometimes. Rarely are cases as simple as a single law and a single factor...but they might have competing interests...so, yes, sometimes other interests take priority over the discrimination.

While not Affirmative Action an "exception" allowing race and gender discrimination might be a movie company who only auditions white males for the part of John F. Kennedy.

You obviously are trying to get to a point somewhere...why don't you just say it?

USN - Retired
04-07-2015, 11:39 PM
Affirmative action that has a racial quota system has been ruled illegal discrimination last I checked...yes, even a white male won that case.

But racial discrimination is still legal... (and a white female lost this case)

On July 15, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit announced its divided decision in the case of Fisher v. University of Texas, which had been remanded to the Fifth Circuit by the Supreme Court in the previous summer. In a 2–1 decision, the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of UT Austin. In its decision, the majority wrote, “It is equally settled that universities may use race as part of a holistic admissions program where it cannot otherwise achieve diversity.”


But it is apparently legal for the federal govt. to discriminate in awarding contracts as they "set aside' some strictly for minority-owned businesses...is that discrimination against white males? Absolutely.

So, to answer you question...sometimes. Rarely are cases as simple as a single law and a single factor...but they might have competing interests...so, yes, sometimes other interests take priority over the discrimination.

So now you are justifying racial discrimination?


You obviously are trying to get to a point somewhere...why don't you just say it?

Life is a journey, not a destination.

sandsjames
04-07-2015, 11:46 PM
So now you are justifying racial discrimination?



Sure. A film maker needs an actor to play the role of a white person...say...Babe Ruth. That is justification, and legal, to discriminate against any non-white actor who tries out for the role.

Bos Mutus
04-08-2015, 05:37 AM
But racial discrimination is still legal... (and a white female lost this case)

As I said...sometimes it is


On July 15, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit announced its divided decision in the case of Fisher v. University of Texas, which had been remanded to the Fifth Circuit by the Supreme Court in the previous summer. In a 2–1 decision, the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of UT Austin. In its decision, the majority wrote, “It is equally settled that universities may use race as part of a holistic admissions program where it cannot otherwise achieve diversity.”


ok...and? I did say there are exceptions...as I recall it can not be a hard and fast quota system...but there could be exceptions that also...


So now you are justifying racial discrimination?


im not justifying anything...I was telling you how it is. I dislike 8a set aside contracts...and they directly affect my livelihood




Life is a journey, not a destination.

I see...you were waiting for me to make some big declaration that racial discrimination is always wrong and always illegal so you could play your big case card....sorry to spoil your fun.

...there are almost no absolutes in the law. So the answer to all your questions is "it depends"....and we'll always be able to find cases to illustrate this.

USN - Retired
04-08-2015, 07:43 AM
im not justifying anything...I was telling you how it is.

It appears that you still have the "active duty" mindset, and feel uneasy questioning the validity of the laws. Your focus is always on "how it is". Now that I am retired, I like to focus on "how it should be". If we are only going to focus on "how it is", then this forum serves no significant purpose.

We are retired from the military, so it is okay to now question the laws of our country.


I dislike 8a set aside contracts...and they directly affect my livelihood

Then go tell your representatives in Congress (I am serious). You can contact them via e-mail. It is easy. I contact my representatives in Congress all the time. Stop accepting shitty laws. You had to keep your mouth shut when you were on active duty, but you are now free to speak your mind.



I see...you were waiting for me to make some big declaration that racial discrimination is always wrong and always illegal.

Then I'll make the declaration - racial discrimination is ALWAYS wrong and SHOULD always be illegal. Is that declaration really so bad?


so you could play your big case card....

"big case card"??


....sorry to spoil your fun.

I wouldn't still be here if I weren't having fun.

Bos Mutus
04-08-2015, 07:57 AM
It appears that you still have the "active duty" mindset, and feel uneasy questioning the validity of the laws. Your focus is always on "how it is". Now that I am retired, I like to focus on "how it should be". If we are only going to focus on "how it is", then this forum serves no significant purpose.

I answered the questions you asked...you didn't ask my opinion on the law, you asked what it was. Prior to your questions, I shared my opinion.


We are retired from the military, so it is okay to now question the laws of our country.

If you'd read my previous posts, it should be clear on those I was expressing my opinion of what the law should be. You might also recall numerous exchanges we've had in the past where I share what I think laws should be...I certainly have never shied away from sharing my opinion.


Then go tell your representatives in Congress (I am serious). You can contact them via e-mail. It is easy. I contact my representatives in Congress all the time. Stop accepting shitty laws. You had to keep your mouth shut when you were on active duty, but you are now free to speak your mind.

I have contacted my representative and Senators many times. Both now and while on active duty...


Then I'll make the declaration - racial discrimination is ALWAYS wrong and SHOULD always be illegal. Is that declaration really so bad?


Bad? No...I just disagree with it. Sometimes there are justifications for it.

Bos Mutus
04-08-2015, 07:59 AM
Are white Christian conservative males a "protected group" in our society?

You asked a factual question about our society, not my opinion.


Is it legal to discriminate against someone who is not in a "protected group"?

You asked a legal question, not my opinion.


Are affirmative action programs an example those "exceptions" that permit discrimination against white males?

Again, you ask for factual answer, not how I feel about Affirmative Action

Bos Mutus
04-08-2015, 08:02 AM
Agreed. A cake-maker should not have to make a cake they do not want to. They have a right to protect their brand.

The should, however, have to sell the products they do make to protected groups.


I don't know whether that is what the law actually say or not...but if it is, then I don't disagree with it.

A business, particularly one that is creative, should have the right to decide WHAT they will make...as mentioned, their brand is on each item they create.

In the above example, if the couple is asking for a cake with two men on top, the baker should be able to refuse that, IMO. If they simply want the exact same cake that a heterosexual couple orders, then he shouldn't be able to refuse it...in that case, he isn't deciding WHAT to make, but WHO to make it for.

See...these are my opinions of how things should be...which is not necessarily how they are.

garhkal
04-08-2015, 08:04 AM
It's not an exception and not a double standard...if the guy makes cupcakes anyone should be able to buy (not discriminated on the basis of a protected category)

No...I very specifically said they should get to decide WHAT to make...but, not WHO to sell it to. A cake with two men on it is the product, the people buying it are the WHO.

Ah.. I misunderstood you. I thought you were advocating that he should be required to sell to whom ever if protected, otherwise he can say 'bugger off'.

Rusty Jones
04-08-2015, 12:58 PM
This is something that will be subject to controversy for years on either side. Whatever you legislate, you're setting a bad precedent.

So a bakery forced to make a cake for a gay couple. Well, now they can be forced to make a cake with a with a penetration design on it, that the customer happens to be picking up right around the same time as a kid and his parents picking up a birthday cake.

On the flipside, by allowing people to refuse to make a cake based on their own personal beliefs; where will it stop? I can almost guarantee that the same people arguing that they should be allowed to do so would immediately change their tune, if Muslim immigrants from a Middle Eastern country who owned a cake shop refused to make a cake a for a Jewish kid's bar mitzvah.

No matter which side wins, everybody loses.

sandsjames
04-08-2015, 01:32 PM
This is something that will be subject to controversy for years on either side. Whatever you legislate, you're setting a bad precedent.

So a bakery forced to make a cake for a gay couple. Well, now they can be forced to make a cake with a with a penetration design on it, that the customer happens to be picking up right around the same time as a kid and his parents picking up a birthday cake.

On the flipside, by allowing people to refuse to make a cake based on their own personal beliefs; where will it stop? I can almost guarantee that the same people arguing that they should be allowed to do so would immediately change their tune, if Muslim immigrants from a Middle Eastern country who owned a cake shop refused to make a cake a for a Jewish kid's bar mitzvah.

No matter which side wins, everybody loses.

As has been said, though, a business should be required to serve everyone. However, they should not be required (especially as it relates to the current topic) to create things that they disagree with.

Bob and Joe come in to order a wedding cake. "Here you go, that'll be $45." Perfectly fine.

Bob and Joe come in wanting a wedding cake with a design the baker finds offensive. "I'm sorry, we don't do that here." Perfectly fine

Bob and Joe come in and order a wedding cake. "I'm sorry, we don't serve gays here." Not OK.

Ezra and Ezekiel come in and order a cake. "Here you go, that'll be $45." Perfectly fine.

Ezra and Ezekiel come in and order a cake with a design the baker finds offensive. "I'm sorry, we don't do that here." Perfectly fine.

Ezra and Ezekiel come in and order a wedding cake. "Sorry, we don't serve religious people here." Not ok.

I guess it just seems pretty simple to me. Maybe I'm missing something.

hustonj
04-08-2015, 01:57 PM
I'm not advocating violence, I'm advocating the force of law.

The force of law IS violence against the judgment of an individual.

The force of law is SUPPOSED to exist to protect the rights of people. It is supposed to exist to protect people form having others violate their rights.

You do not, and never will, have a RIGHT to the things that I produce. We can enter into a private business arrangement where we agree to exchange things of value so that you gain access to my products, but you do not have an inherent right to my products.

Among other things that are WRONG with the Civil Rights Act, is that it uses the force of law (violence) to GIVE YOU the ability to force me into a private business arrangement against my will.

Saying that is right IS supporting violence.

Slavery is supposed to be the way things were once upon a time. Things change because people refuse to accept "the way things are."

Rusty Jones
04-08-2015, 01:58 PM
As has been said, though, a business should be required to serve everyone. However, they should not be required (especially as it relates to the current topic) to create things that they disagree with.

Bob and Joe come in to order a wedding cake. "Here you go, that'll be $45." Perfectly fine.

Bob and Joe come in wanting a wedding cake with a design the baker finds offensive. "I'm sorry, we don't do that here." Perfectly fine

Bob and Joe come in and order a wedding cake. "I'm sorry, we don't serve gays here." Not OK.

Ezra and Ezekiel come in and order a cake. "Here you go, that'll be $45." Perfectly fine.

Ezra and Ezekiel come in and order a cake with a design the baker finds offensive. "I'm sorry, we don't do that here." Perfectly fine.

Ezra and Ezekiel come in and order a wedding cake. "Sorry, we don't serve religious people here." Not ok.

I guess it just seems pretty simple to me. Maybe I'm missing something.

The big problem with your scenario is that it's based on the assumption that those arguining in favor of not forcing cake shop owners to make cakes with gay designs on it (rainbows, etc) actually want those laws to applied equally across the board. You're not that naive, SJ.

If I owned a cake shop, as an atheist, I might... MIGHT get away with refusing to make cakes with religious symbols on it, as long as do the same for ALL religions. Now, what if, as an atheist, I was willing to put any religious symbol on a cake; as long as it wasn't Christian? Let's say you walk toward the front door of my cake shop, you see a Muslim family walking out with a cake that has the moom and star on it. Everything seems good to go for you to ask for a cake with a cross on it, until I refuse to do it. Then what? Are you still going to agree that I have the right to refuse to make a cake that I personally disagree with?

And be honest when you answer that question. Don't just say "yes" to maintain the integrity of your original argument.

Rainmaker
04-08-2015, 03:03 PM
The force of law IS violence against the judgment of an individual.

The force of law is SUPPOSED to exist to protect the rights of people. It is supposed to exist to protect people form having others violate their rights.

You do not, and never will, have a RIGHT to the things that I produce. We can enter into a private business arrangement where we agree to exchange things of value so that you gain access to my products, but you do not have an inherent right to my products.
Among other things that are WRONG with the Civil Rights Act, is that it uses the force of law (violence) to GIVE YOU the ability to force me into a private business arrangement against my will.

Saying that is right IS supporting violence.

Slavery is supposed to be the way things were once upon a time. Things change because people refuse to accept "the way things are."

+1

The meaning of commerce in America has been destroyed by these corrupt judges launching a "progressive" Jihad against the Majority of American People on behalf of their Marxist dictators.

Commerce is supposed to mean producing items of value by and for people needing to purchase those items in order to live and work.

The new meaning of commerce is producing items of little or no value (made by 3rd world slaves) in order to provide a basis to sell yourself a risk free, tax sheltered, stock generating income (that most of the population has no access to) and then buy yourself real assets with the income.

Without Government intervention companies wouldn't get away with lowering standards to give a job to someone who is not as qualified as someone else, just to be "fair", because if they did that, they'd go broke.

It's all a ruse (Ponzi scheme) by the Internationalists and the politicians they own, to make us believe that they're actually providing something of value to the rest of the world.

UncaRastus
04-08-2015, 03:51 PM
"We Have The Right To Refuse Service To Anyone'.

I have seen this sign posted in different places. Legal or illegal?

Rainmaker
04-08-2015, 03:58 PM
"We Have The Right To Refuse Service To Anyone'.

I have seen this sign posted in different places. Legal or illegal?

Bar Sign....
Men: No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service
Women: No Shoes, No Shirt, Free Drinks!

Bos Mutus
04-08-2015, 04:16 PM
The force of law IS violence against the judgment of an individual.

The force of law is SUPPOSED to exist to protect the rights of people. It is supposed to exist to protect people form having others violate their rights.

You do not, and never will, have a RIGHT to the things that I produce. We can enter into a private business arrangement where we agree to exchange things of value so that you gain access to my products, but you do not have an inherent right to my products.

Among other things that are WRONG with the Civil Rights Act, is that it uses the force of law (violence) to GIVE YOU the ability to force me into a private business arrangement against my will.

Saying that is right IS supporting violence.

Slavery is supposed to be the way things were once upon a time. Things change because people refuse to accept "the way things are."

While I see the idealistic intent of your point of view...the Civil Rights Act is more of a practical answer to the problem of large portions of our community being shut out of economic opportunity and equal protection.

Give me a break on the violence and slavery, stuff...having to allow a black kid at your lunch counter is a long way off from slavery, forced to make lunch for someone you don't like, maybe...but again, you choose to bring your business to the public square...no one forced you to open a business at all. But once you do, there are regulations to abide by.

Bos Mutus
04-08-2015, 04:19 PM
"We Have The Right To Refuse Service To Anyone'.

I have seen this sign posted in different places. Legal or illegal?

Not legal, no. They do not have the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone.

They do have the right to refuse service to some people, some times...but not anyone they want.

Rusty Jones
04-08-2015, 04:26 PM
Not legal, no. They do not have the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone.

They do have the right to refuse service to some people, some times...but not anyone they want.

The only places I can recall seeing these signs are places like barber shops and hair salons. And other places where the reasons for reserving that right are fairly obvious and shouldn't have to be spelled out for anyone.

Bos Mutus
04-08-2015, 04:47 PM
The only places I can recall seeing these signs are places like barber shops and hair salons. And other places where the reasons for reserving that right are fairly obvious and shouldn't have to be spelled out for anyone.

You might not have been paying attention...I see them lots of places, restaurants, bars, stores, you name it.

They are not entirely correct, of course, they may not refuse service to protected categories...but, pretty much anyone else.

These signs are often misunderstood as some people seem to think that as long as they put a sign up, they don't have to follow the law...not true, of course.

Sort of like the "Waiver of Liability" things that people sign all the time that says "Hey, you can't sue us, no matter what"...they are often unenforceable and does not allow the business to be reckless or even negligent in most cases. The purposes of those waivers, for the most part, is to make you think you can't sue them and maybe never go ask a lawyer about it.

sandsjames
04-08-2015, 04:52 PM
The big problem with your scenario is that it's based on the assumption that those arguining in favor of not forcing cake shop owners to make cakes with gay designs on it (rainbows, etc) actually want those laws to applied equally across the board. You're not that naive, SJ.

If I owned a cake shop, as an atheist, I might... MIGHT get away with refusing to make cakes with religious symbols on it, as long as do the same for ALL religions. Now, what if, as an atheist, I was willing to put any religious symbol on a cake; as long as it wasn't Christian? Let's say you walk toward the front door of my cake shop, you see a Muslim family walking out with a cake that has the moom and star on it. Everything seems good to go for you to ask for a cake with a cross on it, until I refuse to do it. Then what? Are you still going to agree that I have the right to refuse to make a cake that I personally disagree with?

And be honest when you answer that question. Don't just say "yes" to maintain the integrity of your original argument.

You absolutely have the right to refuse to make a cake that you personally disagree with, the same as you have the right to refuse to serve people who come in to your shop and are being belligerent, swearing, etc. Even though you don't find it offensive, I might.

If I run a deli, should I be required to serve kosher food? If I run a kosher deli, should I be required to serve non-kosher food? Nope. That doesn't mean you are refusing service to anyone. You just aren't providing a specific service.

Now, there is a problem if I'm willing to make a cake in the shape of a penis for a woman's bachelorette party but am not willing to make the same cake for a gay couple, etc.

So, as the Christian cake maker, I am required to serve the Muslims but I am not required to design a product specific to their religion.

I think the subject of artists came up when we were talking about this before. Should an artist, who sells paintings to the public, be required to paint any picture that is requested of him? IMO, no.

hustonj
04-08-2015, 04:54 PM
While I see the idealistic intent of your point of view...the Civil Rights Act is more of a practical answer to the problem of large portions of our community being shut out of economic opportunity and equal protection.

Give me a break on the violence and slavery, stuff...having to allow a black kid at your lunch counter is a long way off from slavery, forced to make lunch for someone you don't like, maybe...but again, you choose to bring your business to the public square...no one forced you to open a business at all. But once you do, there are regulations to abide by.

Since you define my rights as limited not by your rights, but by a law which was intended to protect both of our rights, I will not give you any ground until you start giving ground on an imperfect law being used to define rights. You keep demanding that the property rights and association rights the SCOTUS tells us are protected by the Constitution are overridden by the law. ThHat's not how the system is supposed to work.

REGARDLESS of me choosing to sell products that I make, no one on the planet other than me has a right to those products. This is a basic aspect of property rights. This law that you are so proud of violates my rights by forcing me to put your desire for my product above my own property rights. I lose the right to choose NOT to sell the product at this time.

Now, choosing not to sell the product because of discrimination is really bad business, and a poor choice, but it is inherently MY RIGHT to choose who I do business with. It is an aspect of the Freedom of Association.

This law that you are telling me defines my rights strips me of that right. It is a poorly implemented law that destroys rights instead of protecting them. It is a very popular law, because it appeals to the little child in all of us who wants things to be fair. Fairness is an illusion. Laws based on imposing fairness are inherently flawed, but very popular.

Popular has nothing to do with being moral, appropriate, or even reasonable.

TJMAC77SP
04-08-2015, 05:26 PM
The big problem with your scenario is that it's based on the assumption that those arguining in favor of not forcing cake shop owners to make cakes with gay designs on it (rainbows, etc) actually want those laws to applied equally across the board. You're not that naive, SJ.



So, what is it that these people want? Please tell us what is in their minds? I am assuming your assertion is that 'they' are only interesting in protecting the rights of anti-gay Christians. If that isn't your assertion, please enlighten us. If it is, tell me exactly how that will stand even the slightest legal test.

This is why I asked my question earlier. There is a very valid argument for the laws and against the laws (more accurately, the very real potential of the results of such laws). I am curious how either side is going to assume that the legal rights of ALL are going to be protected.

Bos Mutus
04-08-2015, 05:41 PM
Since you define my rights as limited not by your rights, but by a law which was intended to protect both of our rights, I will not give you any ground until you start giving ground on an imperfect law being used to define rights. You keep demanding that the property rights and association rights the SCOTUS tells us are protected by the Constitution are overridden by the law. ThHat's not how the system is supposed to work.

REGARDLESS of me choosing to sell products that I make, no one on the planet other than me has a right to those products. This is a basic aspect of property rights. This law that you are so proud of violates my rights by forcing me to put your desire for my product above my own property rights. I lose the right to choose NOT to sell the product at this time.

Now, choosing not to sell the product because of discrimination is really bad business, and a poor choice, but it is inherently MY RIGHT to choose who I do business with. It is an aspect of the Freedom of Association.

I think this is the basis of our disagreement here, I don't really disagree with the idealism of your argument. I do disagree that in practice, it would result in a better place. Let's say, I have less faith in the invisible hand than you do...and that the imposition of your property rights, while distasteful, is necessary to ensure the equal protection rights, the property rights, and the liberty rights of others.

I believe that if left to their own devices...there would be businesses and entire communities that would discriminate...that would isolate "those outside of our desired demographic"...and within that community their businesses would indeed perform better for doing so. I think our history proves this to be true. I think you would find communities where there would be downright hostility against people and/or business who made undesirables welcome in any way. We've seen this before.

I would like to believe we have outgrown the need for civil rights legislation and it is ancient history...but I don't think that's true.


This law that you are telling me defines my rights strips me of that right. It is a poorly implemented law that destroys rights instead of protecting them. It is a very popular law, because it appeals to the little child in all of us who wants things to be fair. Fairness is an illusion. Laws based on imposing fairness are inherently flawed, but very popular.

Popular has nothing to do with being moral, appropriate, or even reasonable.

Indeed.

Rusty Jones
04-08-2015, 05:42 PM
So, what is it that these people want? Please tell us what is in their minds? I am assuming your assertion is that 'they' are only interesting in protecting the rights of anti-gay Christians. If that isn't your assertion, please enlighten us. If it is, tell me exactly how that will stand even the slightest legal test.

This is why I asked my question earlier. There is a very valid argument for the laws and against the laws (more accurately, the very real potential of the results of such laws). I am curious how either side is going to assume that the legal rights of ALL are going to be protected.

Oh, please - spare me your assumed strength in numbers. You've had the ability to stand on your own - and in for others - the whole time I've known you on MTF. And NOW you're speaking in the first person plural?

That aside...

I'm not saying that it's specifically for anti-gay Christians, but people who want to discriminate against others... it's all about them and their rights, until they themselves - or others they support - end up on the receiving end of that discrimination.

I DARE someone to open a cake shop in Virginia Beach, where Pat Robertson wields considerable amount of power, and refuse to make a cake for a Jewish kid's bar mitzvah. Extra points if the person who does it is Muslim. Let's see if the same people who donated all that money to the pizza shop in Indiana and rallied in support of it will do the same for this cake shop. I'd bet my whole savings account and my next two months of pay that it wouldn't happen; and I've got a wife and children to feed, house, and clothe. Can you say the same for the opposite?

USN - Retired
04-08-2015, 05:52 PM
Hypothetical scenario:

A person (a business owner) has a catering business. The business is very successful, and the owner of the business has a large number of employees. Another person (a potential customer) wants the business owner to cater a dinner. The business owner does not want to cater the dinner, i.e. the business owner does not want to provide the customer with service because (a) the business owner has firm and solid evidence that the vast majority of the people who will attend the dinner are members or supporters of the KKK, and (b) the business owner and all his employees are black.

Should that business owner have the right to refuse service to people who are associated with the KKK? Should that business owner have the right to refuse service even if the dinner is not an official KKK function, i.e., it is just a dinner?

Just askin'.

Rusty Jones
04-08-2015, 05:58 PM
Hypothetical scenario:

A person (a business owner) has a catering business. The business is very successful, and the owner of the business has a large number of employees. Another person (a potential customer) wants the business owner to cater a dinner. The business owner does not want to cater the dinner, i.e. the business owner does not want to provide the customer with service because (a) the business owner has firm and solid evidence that the vast majority of the people who will attend the dinner are members or supporters of the KKK, and (b) the business owner and all his employees are black.

Should that business owner have the right to refuse service to people who are associated with the KKK? Should that business owner have the right to refuse service even if the dinner is not an official KKK function, i.e., it is just a dinner?

Just askin'.

Here's the thing: it's really difficult for me to take a stand on either side, so I really don't.

Look at the dilemma that I presented in my first post on this thread. There are two floodgates here, and you can't close them both.

TJMAC77SP
04-08-2015, 06:12 PM
Oh, please - spare me your assumed strength in numbers. You've had the ability to stand on your own - and in for others - the whole time I've known you on MTF. And NOW you're speaking in the first person plural?

That aside...

I'm not saying that it's specifically for anti-gay Christians, but people who want to discriminate against others... it's all about them and their rights, until they themselves - or others they support - end up on the receiving end of that discrimination.

I DARE someone to open a cake shop in Virginia Beach, where Pat Robertson wields considerable amount of power, and refuse to make a cake for a Jewish kid's bar mitzvah. Extra points if the person who does it is Muslim. Let's see if the same people who donated all that money to the pizza shop in Indiana and rallied in support of it will do the same for this cake shop. I'd bet my whole savings account and my next two months of pay that it wouldn't happen; and I've got a wife and children to feed, house, and clothe. Can you say the same for the opposite?

Ok, if it makes you happy..............please tell me. Is that better? What exactly was the relevance of my person tense have to do with anything?

You aren't saying "that it's specifically for anti-gay Christians" but that is exactly what you seem to be saying (which is what I suspected).

I am not sure of the point you are making with your 'dare'. Not a completely surprising situation to find myself in but what is your point.......that the people who supported the pizza shop would not support that cake shop? Ok, so what is the point? Are the owners of your hypothetical cake shop anti-Semitic as well as anti-gay Christians or just anti-Semitic (oh, and anti-Muslim)?

Wait, you said it's about people who want to discriminate against others (in general). Maybe I am having a light bulb moment here. Is that what the people at Memories Pizza are? People who don't like anyone who doesn't look like them? Worship like them? Carry on intimate relations in the same manner they do?

Putting aside your usual silliness for now. Assuming that every law (like the ones being discussed) is either repealed or dropped.

Now the Colonial Ave Cake Emporium has to make to cater a same-sex wedding. Since they are anti-gay Christians this is against their religious beliefs so to force them to cater the event seems on the surface to violate their religious beliefs. How do we reconcile this with protecting one's rights?

TJMAC77SP
04-08-2015, 06:19 PM
Here's the thing: it's really difficult for me to take a stand on either side, so I really don't.

Look at the dilemma that I presented in my first post on this thread. There are two floodgates here, and you can't close them both.

I could have sworn you took a position with regard to the people supporting this law and others like it. Did I misread your post in response to SJ?

Were you really saying you can understand the position of the employee of Memories Pizza as well as those to railed against that opinion?

sandsjames
04-08-2015, 06:19 PM
I think what's overlooked (or probably ignored) is that in a society where we are supposed to have liberty and be a "free market" the government is too involved. In a true free market society I would be able to brew moonshine in my bathtub and sell it from my front yard without having to get any licenses, permits, or other approval from a government agency. If my business model was a good one then it would succeed. If it was a poor one it would not succeed.

So no matter whether you think the cake shop owner should be allowed to do certain things or not, the fact is that, as mentioned prior, it's supposed to be up to that business owner to control the property rights of that business.

Even with the possible pitfalls mentioned by MM (or BM as he's now known) the system would work itself out. Those businesses that didn't move forward would fail. This isn't 50 or 100 years ago. Things are not isolated as they were then. Would everything be perfect? Of course not. Would it be worse than it is now? No chance.

Rusty Jones
04-08-2015, 06:33 PM
Ok, if it makes you happy..............please tell me. Is that better? What exactly was the relevance of my person tense have to do with anything?

It looks as if you're speaking for everyone else.


You aren't saying "that it's specifically for anti-gay Christians" but that is exactly what you seem to be saying (which is what I suspected).

I am not sure of the point you are making with your 'dare'. Not a completely surprising situation to find myself in but what is your point.......that the people who supported the pizza shop would not support that cake shop? Ok, so what is the point? Are the owners of your hypothetical cake shop anti-Semitic as well as anti-gay Christians or just anti-Semitic (oh, and anti-Muslim)?

Yes, that's the point. Memories Pizza (and establishments like it) and Jews... two things that the religious right are in love with. And the bigger point? I've already stated. I'll state it again:
... people who want to discriminate against others... it's all about them and their rights, until they themselves - or others they support - end up on the receiving end of that discrimination.


Wait, you said it's about people who want to discriminate against others (in general). Maybe I am having a light bulb moment here. Is that what the people at Memories Pizza are? People who don't like anyone who doesn't look like them? Worship like them? Carry on intimate relations in the same manner they do?

What are you trying to deny here?


Putting aside your usual silliness for now. Assuming that every law (like the ones being discussed) is either repealed or dropped.

Now the Colonial Ave Cake Emporium has to make to cater a same-sex wedding. Since they are anti-gay Christians this is against their religious beliefs so to force them to cater the event seems on the surface to violate their religious beliefs. How do we reconcile this with protecting one's rights?

That's question, isn't it? I don't have the answers. Maybe someone here does? But I don't see it yet.


I could have sworn you took a position with regard to the people supporting this law and others like it. Did I misread your post in response to SJ?

Were you really saying you can understand the position of the employee of Memories Pizza as well as those to railed against that opinion?

Here's what I said earlier:


This is something that will be subject to controversy for years on either side. Whatever you legislate, you're setting a bad precedent.

So a bakery forced to make a cake for a gay couple. Well, now they can be forced to make a cake with a with a penetration design on it, that the customer happens to be picking up right around the same time as a kid and his parents picking up a birthday cake.

On the flipside, by allowing people to refuse to make a cake based on their own personal beliefs; where will it stop? I can almost guarantee that the same people arguing that they should be allowed to do so would immediately change their tune, if Muslim immigrants from a Middle Eastern country who owned a cake shop refused to make a cake a for a Jewish kid's bar mitzvah.

No matter which side wins, everybody loses.

No, I don't want anyone to be allowed to refuse to make a cake for a Jewish kid's bar mitzvah. But, at the same time, I don't want them to be forced to draw a penetration image on the cake, when there are children in that cake shop.

We've got a dilemma here.

You didn't misread my post to SJ. I was merely addressing his side of the situation.

TJMAC77SP
04-08-2015, 06:34 PM
I think what's overlooked (or probably ignored) is that in a society where we are supposed to have liberty and be a "free market" the government is too involved. In a true free market society I would be able to brew moonshine in my bathtub and sell it from my front yard without having to get any licenses, permits, or other approval from a government agency. If my business model was a good one then it would succeed. If it was a poor one it would not succeed.

So no matter whether you think the cake shop owner should be allowed to do certain things or not, the fact is that, as mentioned prior, it's supposed to be up to that business owner to control the property rights of that business.

Even with the possible pitfalls mentioned by MM (or BM as he's now known) the system would work itself out. Those businesses that didn't move forward would fail. This isn't 50 or 100 years ago. Things are not isolated as they were then. Would everything be perfect? Of course not. Would it be worse than it is now? No chance.

Years ago while stationed in NC a friend of my then-wife went to a local Christian book store to order rosary beads for her upcoming conversion to Catholicism (not sure if there is an official term for that). This is usually done on Holy Saturday during the Easter Vigil. The store owner said she didn't carry rosary beads but had some catalogs she could order some from. As they started to look through the catalogs the owner asked several question about why the customer wanted the rosary. When she told her the questions got a lot more pointed. Finally she ordered the rosary she wanted and left. A day (or maybe two) later the owner called and said that after speaking and praying with her pastor she could not in good consciences order the rosary beads but instead asked the customer to meet with her and her pastor before she made the mistake of converting to Catholicism. Anti-Catholic sentiment is still present in several parts of the country. Anyway, the point of this story is a question. Was the owner right (in a legal sense) for refusing to order the rosary? Would a Religious Freedom Restoration Act protect that action and should it.

BTW: Of note in this discussion is the fact that this law which has raised so much ire is not even close to being unique and has existed in several states for up to 20 years. Why now is it causing such a backlash?

Rainmaker
04-08-2015, 06:36 PM
I think this is the basis of our disagreement here, I don't really disagree with the idealism of your argument. I do disagree that in practice, it would result in a better place. Let's say, I have less faith in the invisible hand than you do...and that the imposition of your property rights, while distasteful, is necessary to ensure the equal protection rights, the property rights, and the liberty rights of others.

I believe that if left to their own devices...there would be businesses and entire communities that would discriminate...that would isolate "those outside of our desired demographic"...and within that community their businesses would indeed perform better for doing so. I think our history proves this to be true. I think you would find communities where there would be downright hostility against people and/or business who made undesirables welcome in any way. We've seen this before.

I would like to believe we have outgrown the need for civil rights legislation and it is ancient history...but I don't think that's true.



Indeed.

"We've seen this before....."I would like to believe we have outgrown the need for civil rights legislation and it is ancient history...but I don't think that's true."

What a load of crybaby Horse shit.

And this is the fundamental difference between the Altruistic, Holier-than-though , Self Destructive,Liberal, do-gooder and the rest of us summed up in one GAY-ASS statement. No one Should be responsible for anything their ancestors did or did not do. They are fucking all dead. People should succeed or fail based on their own merit. Not on some Forced Big Daddy Government Mandated Handouts.

Rainmaker often wonders when so-called good "Progressive" people will tire of having their generosity abused by a bunch of dead-beat freeloaders. Seriously, What will it take? If these people continue to succeed in getting their way, When you're an old man, You're going to be kept on life support while your dignity and everything you've earned throughout your life, through hard work is sucked away to feed various PARASITES of ALL races, colors, creeds, persuasions, and nationalities in the name of global "fairness" instead of going to your kids

The Voice of Reason my ass!

TJMAC77SP
04-08-2015, 06:41 PM
It looks as if you're speaking for everyone else.



Yes, that's the point. Memories Pizza (and establishments like it) and Jews... two things that the religious right are in love with. And the bigger point? I've already stated. I'll state it again:



What are you trying to deny here?



That's question, isn't it? I don't have the answers. Maybe someone here does? But I don't see it yet.



Here's what I said earlier:



No, I don't want anyone to be allowed to refuse to make a cake for a Jewish kid's bar mitzvah. But, at the same time, I don't want them to be forced to draw a penetration image on the cake, when there are children in that cake shop.

We've got a dilemma here.

You didn't misread my post to SJ. I was merely addressing his side of the situation.

Far be from me to speak for anyone but myself. I also don't try to spell out what people (individual or as a group) are thinking.

Your addressing of SJ's point seemed to abandon your neutral position.

I am not getting your comment...."Memories Pizza (and establishments like it) and Jews... two things that the religious right are in love with"

I assume you aren't referring to pizza places in general and if it is the attention being paid to that shop I would say that raising almost $900K through crowd-funding is certainly newsworthy. An argument could be made as to how long it's newsworthy but the same goes for almost every news story nowadays. The religious right and Jews.........interesting point I suppose but there is a paradox there. Don't confuse the support of Israel for support of all things Jewish. The fact is that most prophecies rely on the 'chosen people' being in power in the Holy Land before the rapture can occur so it's really just a matter of math with some. Please note that I am not painting all Christians with that brush.

Rusty Jones
04-08-2015, 06:43 PM
Even with the possible pitfalls mentioned by MM (or BM as he's now known) the system would work itself out. Those businesses that didn't move forward would fail. This isn't 50 or 100 years ago. Things are not isolated as they were then. Would everything be perfect? Of course not. Would it be worse than it is now? No chance.

That's a load of crap. Look what happened to the pizza shop - last I checked, they got almost a million dollars that people raised in their support.

Let's look at something else here: you and I each own a diner (let's assume you and I are both white, for ease of discussion), in a town that's 65% white (not Hispanic) and 15% black (not Hispanic) - which closely remembles the US population as a whole. Let's say that discrimination based on race becomes legal, and you decide to hang up a "whites only" sign. So now, I get all the black customers that you used to have.

Is it really that simple? Am I doing better than you now, because of this? Let's be honest - ALL of the black people are now coming to my diner, because that's the one they're allowed to go to. You can deny this all you want, but you know it's true - a good number of my white customers aren't going to be happy about the large black clientele that they're surrounded by, and many whites new to the town are probably going to be put off by all the blacks that they see coming into and going out of my diner. If it helps, there's even some internalized racism... where even some black people might be put off my all of the blacks in my diner, and simply eat at home since they don't want to come into my diner and yours isn't an option for them.

No, it doesn't "work itself out."

Bos Mutus
04-08-2015, 06:53 PM
I think what's overlooked (or probably ignored) is that in a society where we are supposed to have liberty and be a "free market" the government is too involved. In a true free market society I would be able to brew moonshine in my bathtub and sell it from my front yard without having to get any licenses, permits, or other approval from a government agency. If my business model was a good one then it would succeed. If it was a poor one it would not succeed.

So no matter whether you think the cake shop owner should be allowed to do certain things or not, the fact is that, as mentioned prior, it's supposed to be up to that business owner to control the property rights of that business.

Even with the possible pitfalls mentioned by MM (or BM as he's now known) the system would work itself out. Those businesses that didn't move forward would fail. This isn't 50 or 100 years ago. Things are not isolated as they were then. Would everything be perfect? Of course not. Would it be worse than it is now? No chance.

I disagree with this completely. Not the first part, but the highlighted part.

Would things be better...
If the grocery store didn't have their vegetable scales certified, you would maybe have to bring your own scale to ensure you're getting a fair deal?
If the gas station pumps, you couldn't quite be sure if the station adjusted them a little low this week or not?
If you had to be extra careful in each and every contract, business dealing you made because businesses could do whatever they wanted to?
If you had no legal recourse for getting ripped off, lied to or defrauded?
If there were no safety standards on food or medicine?
If there were no standards for construction?
If there were no standards of business practice or legally enforceable obligation to deal in "good faith"?
If wages were driven ever lower?
If monopolies ruled the day?
If in the process of your "business model not succeeding", you injure hundreds of people and are free to simply shut it down and reopen the next day under a new name?
If everything were Caveat Emptor all time?

Not a chance...this is not a good world! Things would not "work out over time", they would become unbearable dysfunctional over time.

I think the problem with you and huston is that you've clearly read a book or two on the ideals of economic free market utopia, but you fail interject the real world pragmatism.

Sort of like our previous discussion....

"Companies wouldn't need to teach CYA classes, if we just stop (frivilous) lawsuits"
"We wouldn't need business regulations if business people just did the right thing"

Although, I think tort reform is maybe more realistic, this one sounds more like:

"Why build more prisons, when the root cause is obviously people committing crimes...put a stop to that and you don't need prisions"

Seems so obvious...but...

sandsjames
04-08-2015, 06:55 PM
That's a load of crap. Look what happened to the pizza shop - last I checked, they got almost a million dollars that people raised in their support.

Let's look at something else here: you and I each own a diner (let's assume you and I are both white, for ease of discussion), in a town that's 65% white (not Hispanic) and 15% black (not Hispanic) - which closely remembles the US population as a whole. Let's say that discrimination based on race becomes legal, and you decide to hang up a "whites only" sign. So now, I get all the black customers that you used to have.

Is it really that simple? Am I doing better than you now, because of this? Let's be honest - ALL of the black people are now coming to my diner, because that's the one they're allowed to go to. You can deny this all you want, but you know it's true - a good number of my white customers aren't going to be happy about the large black clientele that they're surrounded by, and many whites new to the town are probably going to be put off by all the blacks that they see coming into and going out of my diner. If it helps, there's even some internalized racism... where even some black people might be put off my all of the blacks in my diner, and simply eat at home since they don't want to come into my diner and yours isn't an option for them.

No, it doesn't "work itself out."

If your product is better then people are going to want it. We can hypothesize as much as we want about what would happen but, on a large scale, we have no idea. This is not the 1950's.

Bos Mutus
04-08-2015, 06:58 PM
"We've seen this before....."I would like to believe we have outgrown the need for civil rights legislation and it is ancient history...but I don't think that's true."

What a load of crybaby Horse shit.

And this is the fundamental difference between the Altruistic, Holier-than-though , Self Destructive,Liberal, do-gooder and the rest of us summed up in one GAY-ASS statement.

Ah..the personal attack...last defense for a man with no argument.


No one Should be responsible for anything their ancestors did or did not do. They are fucking all dead. People should succeed or fail based on their own merit. Not on some Forced Big Daddy Government Mandated Handouts.

No one is talking about being responsible for anything their ancestors did or did not do. (Although, if you knew your 10 commandments, you would know that God very much supports holding children and grand-children accountable for the acts of their ancestors..but, I'm not one to push everyone to live by the Bible)

I'm talking about human nature...power, corruption, evil...none of which would go away with the "good business model" as history has shown...unless people today are so much better-natured than ever before, but I think we know this isn't true.


Rainmaker often wonders when so-called good "Progressive" people will tire of having their generosity abused by a bunch of dead-beat freeloaders.

What are you talking about? I'm talking about a business having to serve others in the public square for fair compensation.


Seriously, What will it take? If these people continue to succeed in getting their way, When you're an old man, You're going to be kept on life support while your dignity and everything you've earned throughout your life is sucked away to feed various PARASITES of ALL races, colors, creeds, persuasions, and nationalities in the name of global "fairness".

The Voice of Reason my ass!

Nonsense.

sandsjames
04-08-2015, 06:58 PM
I disagree with this completely. Not the first part, but the highlighted part.

Would things be better...
If the grocery store didn't have their vegetable scales certified, you would maybe have to bring your own scale to ensure you're getting a fair deal?
If the gas station pumps, you couldn't quite be sure if the station adjusted them a little low this week or not?
If you had to be extra careful in each and every contract, business dealing you made because businesses could do whatever they wanted to?
If you had no legal recourse for getting ripped off, lied to or defrauded?
If there were no safety standards on food or medicine?
If there were no standards for construction?
If there were no standards of business practice or legally enforceable obligation to deal in "good faith"?
If wages were driven ever lower?
If monopolies ruled the day?
If in the process of your "business model not succeeding", you injure hundreds of people and are free to simply shut it down and reopen the next day under a new name?
If everything were Caveat Emptor all time?

Not a chance...this is not a good world! Things would not "work out over time", they would become unbearable dysfunctional over time.

I think the problem with you and huston is that you've clearly read a book or two on the ideals of economic free market utopia, but you fail interject the real world pragmatism.

Sort of like our previous discussion....

"Companies wouldn't need to teach CYA classes, if we just stop (frivilous) lawsuits"
"We wouldn't need business regulations if business people just did the right thing"

Although, I think tort reform is maybe more realistic, this one sounds more like:

"Why build more prisons, when the root cause is obviously people committing crimes...put a stop to that and you don't need prisions"

Seems so obvious...but...

I will make one comment on this and that is simply that if you believe I have ever read a single book about any of this then you know even less about me than I assumed. The one thing in politics/on the news I never pay attention to is economics. I'm not claiming that my opinions on this topic are fact. What I'm saying is that I believe that government regulation never ends well, in any society throughout history. I'm also saying that the better product will usually win out.

Bos Mutus
04-08-2015, 07:11 PM
I will make one comment on this and that is simply that if you believe I have ever read a single book about any of this then you know even less about me than I assumed.

Okay, I retract that part :-)


The one thing in politics/on the news I never pay attention to is economics. I'm not claiming that my opinions on this topic are fact. What I'm saying is that I believe that government regulation never ends well, in any society throughout history. I'm also saying that the better product will usually win out.


What I'm saying is that I believe that government regulation never ends well, in any society throughout history. I'm also saying that the better product will usually win out.

I'm saying you're wrong about that. This "government is always bad" ideal is simply not true. This whole movement amount coservatives. so-called libertarians or whoever you all are that "everything the govt. touches it messes up"...is simple BS.

Many many government regulations have solved real world problems. Perfect, maybe not...made things better, oh yes, many cases.

Were the economy, left on it's own, we would all be working for huge monopolies for low pay in poor conditions. You would not have choice. You think you can make a better product than Wal-Mart, you probably could...until they match yours and can afford to sell it at a loss long enough to force you out of business.

Don't want the govt. to step in a establish work conditions, minimum wage...move to third world and get all the free market you want.

Oh, poor me, force of law is violence against businesses? Go work in an unregulated industry like the drug trade, sex trafficking..

Don't want govt. standards on medicine? Fine, next time you need a prescription, just name it, I'll sell it to your half the price of the regulated market. You don't want the FDA to tell you whether a product has merit or not, right?

The "better product will always win out" is idealism that ignores the forces or power, corruption, and greed. I think you all are incredibly naive on the goodness and pure motivations of businessmen.

garhkal
04-08-2015, 07:24 PM
This is something that will be subject to controversy for years on either side. Whatever you legislate, you're setting a bad precedent.

So a bakery forced to make a cake for a gay couple. Well, now they can be forced to make a cake with a with a penetration design on it, that the customer happens to be picking up right around the same time as a kid and his parents picking up a birthday cake.

On the flipside, by allowing people to refuse to make a cake based on their own personal beliefs; where will it stop? I can almost guarantee that the same people arguing that they should be allowed to do so would immediately change their tune, if Muslim immigrants from a Middle Eastern country who owned a cake shop refused to make a cake a for a Jewish kid's bar mitzvah.

No matter which side wins, everybody loses.

Well Collorado already said in a recent decision that a gay bakery is ok to refuse to bake cakes that are 'anti-gay marriage' saying that bible verses saying gay marriage is wrong, were defamatory and derogatory, and THAT was ok to refuse to make the cake cause of it. So they are allowing bakers to refuse cakes that they feel are 'derogatory'. BUT it is imo a double standard when its done that way, but when a Christian baker doesn't want to make a wedding cake celebrating gay marriage its considered wrong.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/04/04/co-baker-who-refused-to-make-homophobic-bible-cakes-cleared-of-discrimination-video/

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/denvers-azucar-bakery-wins-right-to-refuse-to-make-anti-gay-cake

As has been said, though, a business should be required to serve everyone. However, they should not be required (especially as it relates to the current topic) to create things that they disagree with.

Bob and Joe come in to order a wedding cake. "Here you go, that'll be $45." Perfectly fine.

Bob and Joe come in wanting a wedding cake with a design the baker finds offensive. "I'm sorry, we don't do that here." Perfectly fine

Bob and Joe come in and order a wedding cake. "I'm sorry, we don't serve gays here." Not OK.

Ezra and Ezekiel come in and order a cake. "Here you go, that'll be $45." Perfectly fine.

Ezra and Ezekiel come in and order a cake with a design the baker finds offensive. "I'm sorry, we don't do that here." Perfectly fine.

Ezra and Ezekiel come in and order a wedding cake. "Sorry, we don't serve religious people here." Not ok.

I guess it just seems pretty simple to me. Maybe I'm missing something.

But why is it OK in some cases to 'discriminate' cause they disagree with it, and NOT ok in others? How is that "Serving everyone"?


"We Have The Right To Refuse Service To Anyone'.

I have seen this sign posted in different places. Legal or illegal?

Back in the day, it was legal.. These days i am not sure if it would still be considered legal.


Bar Sign....
Men: No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service
Women: No Shoes, No Shirt, Free Drinks!

While i had to laugh at that, i do find it discriminatory that it would be ok to have that, when if it benefited men over women it would be considered sexist.


Was the owner right (in a legal sense) for refusing to order the rosary? Would a Religious Freedom Restoration Act protect that action and should it.

I would have to say no she was not right there. She took the order, then backed out.
The RFRA though might have protected her, had she refused ahead of time.

Rainmaker
04-08-2015, 07:42 PM
Ah..the personal attack...last defense for a man with no argument.



No one is talking about being responsible for anything their ancestors did or did not do. (Although, if you knew your 10 commandments, you would know that God very much supports holding children and grand-children accountable for the acts of their ancestors..but, I'm not one to push everyone to live by the Bible)

I'm talking about human nature...power, corruption, evil...none of which would go away with the "good business model" as history has shown...unless people today are so much better-natured than ever before, but I think we know this isn't true.



What are you talking about? I'm talking about a business having to serve others in the public square for fair compensation.



Nonsense.

Ahh...Just what I expected out of you.... A cheap slur against the Alpha and the Omega. No doubt inspired by your 2 "soulmates" Lucifer and Beelzebub!

And "business having to serve others in the public square for fair compensation"- Champaign Socialism at its finest.

Now, Go back to sweeden and toast your Egalitarianism as your women get raped by ISIS, so we Rednecks can go about the business of saving Merica from you Lunatics.... You Maybe can change your name but you can't change your spots weatherman!

Bos Mutus
04-08-2015, 08:16 PM
Ah...nonsensical ramblings about evil luciferians, socialists, communists etc. Something we've all come to expect out of you.

For a post or two, you've almost made an attempt at meaningful dialog...but I see you've run out of points so run to hide under your character. Get outta here with that nonsense

Ain't nobody got time for dat.


Ahh...Just what I expected out of you.... A cheap slur against the Alpha and the Omega. No doubt inspired by your 2 "soulmates" Lucifer and Beelzebub!

Cheap slur?

"...I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.." Exodus 20:4

Or do you mean "RM is not in favor of that particular scripture" gnome saying


And "business having to serve others in the public square for fair compensation"- Champaign Socialism at its finest.

Now, Go back to sweeden and toast your Egalitarianism as your women get raped by ISIS, so we Rednecks can go about the business of saving Merica from you Lunatics.... You Maybe can change your name but you can't change your spots weatherman!

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows" ~ Bob Dylan

'Merica--love it or leave it.

Rainmaker
04-08-2015, 08:25 PM
Okay, I retract that part :-)





I'm saying you're wrong about that. This "government is always bad" ideal is simply not true. This whole movement amount coservatives. so-called libertarians or whoever you all are that "everything the govt. touches it messes up"...is simple BS.

Many many government regulations have solved real world problems. Perfect, maybe not...made things better, oh yes, many cases.

Were the economy, left on it's own, we would all be working for huge monopolies for low pay in poor conditions. You would not have choice. You think you can make a better product than Wal-Mart, you probably could...until they match yours and can afford to sell it at a loss long enough to force you out of business.

Don't want the govt. to step in a establish work conditions, minimum wage...move to third world and get all the free market you want.

Oh, poor me, force of law is violence against businesses? Go work in an unregulated industry like the drug trade, sex trafficking..

Don't want govt. standards on medicine? Fine, next time you need a prescription, just name it, I'll sell it to your half the price of the regulated market. You don't want the FDA to tell you whether a product has merit or not, right?

The "better product will always win out" is idealism that ignores the forces or power, corruption, and greed. I think you all are incredibly naive on the goodness and pure motivations of businessmen.

This is so damn naive I don't even know where to begin. Government Regulation doesn't prevent Monopolization of Capital. it enables it. Because, only large business can afford to comply with it. Once, it crushes the competition they lobby to de-regulate. I know you're probably looking at your experience with .gov contracts giving handouts to small companies or whatever (Rainmaker spent a few years as an APM until the futility caused the voices in his head to tell him to quit) But, that's to prevent a collapse of the industrial base and just crumbs in the grand scheme of things.

Government intervention in the marketplace. IS the problem. These Greedy Psychos have destroyed the economy.

The politicians are owned by them. They've appointed corrupt judges. Rainmaker laughs when you talk about writing your CONgress critter. You still think that shit matters? Hell look at the election we just had. It was overwhelmingly about Amnesty. What's the First thing McConnell does is say we're not shutting the government down. We'll just let the "Wise Latina" of the courts that Obama appointed decide what to do about amnesty. People still think there are 2 parties. There's no opposition party left. The quicker the GOP goes away the quicker we can go about fixing this mess.

Public debt is the source of virtually all private wealth which, is why they won't audit the Fed or name its private shareholders (wonder who), so that the people can see who plundered the treasury. It's a fucking economic system based on Usury, Which is NOT a Christian Value.

Rainmaker
04-08-2015, 08:52 PM
Ah...nonsensical ramblings about evil luciferians, socialists, communists etc. Something we've all come to expect out of you.

For a post or two, you've almost made an attempt at meaningful dialog...but I see you've run out of points so run to hide under your character. Get outta here with that nonsense

Ain't nobody got time for dat.



Cheap slur?

"...I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.." Exodus 20:4

Or do you mean "RM is not in favor of that particular scripture" gnome saying



"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows" ~ Bob Dylan

'Merica--love it or leave it.

Rainmaker know all about the Exodus Allegory. But, Once, again you go with the bible quotes taken out of context....Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? Anyhow, Rainmaker's concern is with the New Covenant cause, the old is obsolete. Can't be puttin new wine in old skins....

But, I guess since, Obama and My People Holder are your God, you must think Affirmative action laws are just retribution for Thomas Jefferson's banging Sally Hemings way back in 1783? Talk about holding a grudge!

Please feel free to move to Sudan where they're more "fair". I hear Boka Haram likes progressive white boys. while, you at it (mocking God) maybe you should brush back up on what that old book has to say yourself. It's never too late..... Until it is.... Gnomsayin?

http://www.openbible.info/topics/usury

Bos Mutus
04-08-2015, 09:13 PM
This is so damn stupid I don't even know where to begin. Government Regulation doesn't prevent Monopolization of Capital. it enables it. Because, only large business can afford to comply with it. Once, it crushes the competition they lobby to de-regulate. I know you're probably looking at your experience with .gov contracts giving handouts to small companies or whatever (Rainmaker spent a few years as an APM until the futility caused the voices in his head to tell him to quit) But, that's to prevent a collapse of the industrial base and just crumbs in the grand scheme of things.

Government intervention in the marketplace. IS the problem. These Greedy Psychos have destroyed the economy.

The politicians are owned by them. They've appointed corrupt judges. Rainmaker laughs when you talk about writing your CONgress critter. You still think that shit matters? Hell look at the election we just had. It was overwhelmingly about Amnesty. What's the First thing McConnell does is say we're not shutting the government down. We'll just let the "Wise Latina" of the courts that Obama appointed decide what to do about amnesty. People still think there are 2 parties. There's no opposition party left. The quicker the GOP goes away the quicker we can go about fixing this mess.

Public debt is the source of virtually all private wealth which, is why they won't audit the Fed or name its private shareholders (wonder who), so that the people can see who plundered the treasury. It's a fucking economic system based on Usury, Which is NOT a Christian Value.

You have no idea what you're talking about...but maybe if you throw in a few more incendiary words some of those people around here who don't read books might jump on your bandwagon. Maybe a couple of "Zionists" "Rockefellers" or "Rothchilds" and we can get everyone into a tizzy about how the government witholding FDA approval on a new drug is tantamount to violently taking your gold bullion.

You haven't fooled me...ya bunch of loonies.

I mean, I know you're just playing a character on here...you do slip out of it every once in awhile, though...you did for a couple of posts earllier on, but I see your back to this nonsense, so I'm not gonna play along

Bos Mutus
04-08-2015, 09:18 PM
Rainmaker know all about the Exodus Allegory. But, Once, again you go with the bible quotes taken out of context....

Oh, please put it in context for us


Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? Anyhow, Rainmaker's concern is with the New Covenant cause, the old is obsolete. Can't be puttin new wine in old skins....

Of course...that Old World of God don't make no sense, so we're gonna move on.


But, I guess since, Obama and My People Holder are your God,

I don't believe in God and never voted for either of those two.


you must think Affirmative action laws are just retribution for Thomas Jefferson's banging Sally Hemings way back in 1783? Talk about holding a grudge!

So, now your going to raise a flag as you fight your own straw man enemy?


Please feel free to move to Sudan where they're more "fair". I hear Boka Haram likes progressive white boys. while, you at it (mocking God) maybe you should brush back up on what that old book has to say yourself. It's never too late..... Until it is.... Gnomsayin?

http://www.openbible.info/topics/usury

I wonder how many of these Chrisian businesses follow these scriptures? LOL

Rainmaker
04-08-2015, 09:27 PM
You have no idea what you're talking about...but maybe if you throw in a few more incendiary words some of those people around here who don't read books might jump on your bandwagon. Maybe a couple of "Zionists" "Rockefellers" or "Rothchilds" and we can get everyone into a tizzy about how the government witholding FDA approval on a new drug is tantamount to violently taking your gold bullion.

You haven't fooled me...ya bunch of loonies.

Really?? curious to know Which words did you find incendiary and why?? Maybe the government should make it illegal to mention those words just to be "fair" since they offended you....and actually Rainmaker lost all his Gold coins (along with his fish antibiotics) in a recent boating accident.

Bos Mutus
04-08-2015, 09:45 PM
a recent boating accident.

...hope you and those you care about came out okay.

but, then I just realized that this might be some kind of a parody on buying overseas drugs or something...still in character, perhaps.

Either way...hope everyone is okay.

Rainmaker
04-08-2015, 09:50 PM
that Old World of God don't make no sense, so we're gonna move on.



I don't believe in God and never voted for either of those two.



You either serve God or you serve Mammon. It's impossible to serve neither. but, the choice is yours. simple as that Boss Measure-man.

Rainmaker
04-08-2015, 09:55 PM
...hope you and those you care about came out okay.

but, then I just realized that this might be some kind of a parody on buying overseas drugs or something...still in character, perhaps.

Either way...hope everyone is okay.

Yes, we're good..... But, it's ok, and Thank you for your concern. funny thing about that accident.... Rainmaker was just out trolling for fish and it all went to hell.....suddenly a man came along that could walk on water and carried Rainmaker to safety...

TJMAC77SP
04-08-2015, 10:04 PM
That's a load of crap. Look what happened to the pizza shop - last I checked, they got almost a million dollars that people raised in their support.

Let's look at something else here: you and I each own a diner (let's assume you and I are both white, for ease of discussion), in a town that's 65% white (not Hispanic) and 15% black (not Hispanic) - which closely remembles the US population as a whole. Let's say that discrimination based on race becomes legal, and you decide to hang up a "whites only" sign. So now, I get all the black customers that you used to have.

Is it really that simple? Am I doing better than you now, because of this? Let's be honest - ALL of the black people are now coming to my diner, because that's the one they're allowed to go to. You can deny this all you want, but you know it's true - a good number of my white customers aren't going to be happy about the large black clientele that they're surrounded by, and many whites new to the town are probably going to be put off by all the blacks that they see coming into and going out of my diner. If it helps, there's even some internalized racism... where even some black people might be put off my all of the blacks in my diner, and simply eat at home since they don't want to come into my diner and yours isn't an option for them.

No, it doesn't "work itself out."


No real issue with your position that allowing discrimination would work itself out. If that was indeed SJ's point and I am not entirely sure it was.

Just a clarification because I have seen this time and time again.

This is where the apple to apple comparison to the civil rights movement fails here.

There is a legitimate doctrine issue with regard to homosexuality (and therefore extended to same-sex marriages). This btw is held by more than just the fearful Christians. Agree or don't agree it is still a belief.

I know of no such doctrine (with possibly exception of the World Church of the Creator but let's keep this limited to mainstream and accepted religions) with regard to serving blacks (or other minorities)

Bos Mutus
04-08-2015, 10:23 PM
funny thing about that accident.... Rainmaker was just out trolling for fish...

Okay, now that did make me laugh...like a metaphor within a parody by a satirical character.

Bos Mutus
04-08-2015, 10:45 PM
You either serve God or you serve Mammon. It's impossible to serve neither. but, the choice is yours. simple as that Boss Measure-man.

You are twisting your scripture again.

It's impossible to serve both, not neither, Biblically speaking.

Once could serve an altogether different master...lust, for instance

sandsjames
04-09-2015, 01:16 AM
Okay, I retract that part :-)





I'm saying you're wrong about that. This "government is always bad" ideal is simply not true. This whole movement amount coservatives. so-called libertarians or whoever you all are that "everything the govt. touches it messes up"...is simple BS.

Many many government regulations have solved real world problems. Perfect, maybe not...made things better, oh yes, many cases.

Were the economy, left on it's own, we would all be working for huge monopolies for low pay in poor conditions. You would not have choice. You think you can make a better product than Wal-Mart, you probably could...until they match yours and can afford to sell it at a loss long enough to force you out of business.

Don't want the govt. to step in a establish work conditions, minimum wage...move to third world and get all the free market you want.

Oh, poor me, force of law is violence against businesses? Go work in an unregulated industry like the drug trade, sex trafficking..

Don't want govt. standards on medicine? Fine, next time you need a prescription, just name it, I'll sell it to your half the price of the regulated market. You don't want the FDA to tell you whether a product has merit or not, right?

The "better product will always win out" is idealism that ignores the forces or power, corruption, and greed. I think you all are incredibly naive on the goodness and pure motivations of businessmen.

It's amazing that societies existed before the FDA and Walmart existed, really. I'm not sure how they got by.

Bos Mutus
04-09-2015, 02:03 AM
It's amazing that societies existed before the FDA and Walmart existed, really. I'm not sure how they got by.

Oh it was the good ol days alright...life expectancy of 45 years, perscriptions, schmeriptions...you want it, take! diptheria vaccines with tetanus, radioactive drinks, snake oil, small pox, tuberculosis, sulfalinamide elixir tragedies...if not for the FDA, why the US could have had thalidomide, too, those rotten bureaucrats...it's way to burdensome on the small business drug manufacturer to have to prove the efficacy of their products...bunch of commies

So much you kids take for granted nowadays

sandsjames
04-09-2015, 05:06 AM
Oh it was the good ol days alright...life expectancy of 45 years, perscriptions, schmeriptions...you want it, take! diptheria vaccines with tetanus, radioactive drinks, snake oil, small pox, tuberculosis, sulfalinamide elixir tragedies...if not for the FDA, why the US could have had thalidomide, too, those rotten bureaucrats...it's way to burdensome on the small business drug manufacturer to have to prove the efficacy of their products...bunch of commies

So much you kids take for granted nowadays

And, lucky for us, all of those same things you mentioned are in the hands of the people we are supposed to trust so, whenever they choose to use them, we won't see it coming. I'd rather take my chances with the diseases of nature.

Bos Mutus
04-09-2015, 05:53 AM
I'd rather take my chances with the diseases of nature.

Best wishes to you.

sandsjames
04-09-2015, 11:33 AM
Best wishes to you.


The idea that there would be no vaccines, cures, etc, and the idea that people can't create a safe product without government regulation is a dangerous belief. There are plenty of innovative ideas out there. Those ideas would be there whether someone was watching over them or not. Many of our current vaccinations were designed/created by people working in a personal lab without anyone telling them what they could and couldn't do with their tests. To assume that we would revert to a black plague society without constant government intervention is naïve.

sandsjames
04-09-2015, 01:28 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/08/media/directv-rob-lowe-ad-comcast/index.html

Here's your regulation at it's best.

Rainmaker
04-09-2015, 02:42 PM
Okay, now that did make me laugh...like a metaphor within a parody by a satirical character.

Finally! You're a tough crowd Bos!

UncaRastus
04-09-2015, 03:28 PM
SJ,

I find the Rob Lowe commercials hilarious!

Another one that I find humorous is Flo, first facing the Mongols, then Queen Elizabeth, and finally a couple at Salem, Massachusetts, trying to sell Progressive Insurance and their Insurance Comparison Gun. Or maybe it's a Bundling Gun...

The Brady Bunch Snickers commercials starring the original cast, along with Danny Trejo morphing into Marcia also makes me laugh.

Almost none of the commercials use a laugh track, as far as I can recall, for TV commercialdom.

And no, I don't use Direct TV, nor do I use Progressive Insurance. Snickers? Nope.

I just enjoy those commercials.

Bos Mutus
04-09-2015, 04:04 PM
The idea that there would be no vaccines, cures, etc, and the idea that people can't create a safe product without government regulation is a dangerous belief.

I guess if there were someone that believed this, you could argue this with them.

There are plenty of innovative ideas out there. Those ideas would be there whether someone was watching over them or not. Many of our current vaccinations were designed/created by people working in a personal lab without anyone telling them what they could and couldn't do with their tests. To assume that we would revert to a black plague society without constant government intervention is naïve.[/QUOTE]

No one ever said there would never be a good product without the govt.

All I'm saying is that these govt. agencies perform a good function...they help the consumer sort through what is a good proven product and what isn't.

Here's the difference, I am NOT saying that only the govt. can do good things. I've never said that and it's never been my position. Your position, however, is that the govt. can NEVER do good things....you've argued yourself into such a corner that you've actually come out and say you'd rather take your chances with disease than trust the FDA. No one, of course, believes you really believe that...but this whole "govt sucks" mantra plays out so well online

The whole schtick is BS and getting old...no, that doesn't mean the govt. is the answer to all our problems. Not everyone who thinks the FDA performs a valuable service is a socialist, okay?

Bos Mutus
04-09-2015, 04:07 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/08/media/directv-rob-lowe-ad-comcast/index.html

Here's your regulation at it's best.

The Better Business Bureau is not a govt. agency and is not affiliated with any govt. agency....they have no regulatory authority...what regulation are you talking about?

OMG, has the name Bureau in it...must be govt., therefore it must be bad!

Ooops

sandsjames
04-09-2015, 04:24 PM
The Better Business Bureau is not a govt. agency and is not affiliated with any govt. agency....they have no regulatory authority...what regulation are you talking about?

OMG, has the name Bureau in it...must be govt., therefore it must be bad!

Ooops

Right...it's not regulation...that the one company in the U.S. that has a huge say in the success of businesses...has "suggested" they pull the add.

That's like saying the guy pointing a gun at me saying "hop like a bunny rabbit" isn't regulating my decisions.

We are in a country of censorship and oversight. The BBB making this "suggestion" leads to lawsuits if Directv doesn't "voluntarily" take the commercials off. Regulations on businesses for "false advertisement" are legislated by the government. Whether directly or not, Directv pulling the ads is a direct result of government regulations.

Don't worry, though. Your lawmakers will let you know how you should feel, and respond, so similar situations in the future.

Bos Mutus
04-09-2015, 04:35 PM
Right...it's not regulation...that the one company in the U.S. that has a huge say in the success of businesses...has "suggested" they pull the add.

Okay, so your example of "how's this for regulation" turned out not to be regulation...but a private, non-profit company operating in the free-market.

The ONLY reason the BBB has a "say in the success of businesses" is because the consumer (the market) listens to them...this is the free market at work!


That's like saying the guy pointing a gun at me saying "hop like a bunny rabbit" isn't regulating my decisions.

No...it's more like you saying that guy is a prime example of the govt regulating your decisions when it clearly isn't. It's like you saying a guy wiht a gun pointed at you is a reason why police shouldn't have guns...it's the exact opposite of a good point.


We are in a country of censorship and oversight. The BBB making this "suggestion" leads to lawsuits if Directv doesn't "voluntarily" take the commercials off.

This is really poor example of what you're trying to say, just admit it. If the market were completely free of govt. interference...the BBB would still exist...in fact, it would probably be stronger and more influential.

If anything...this would have made a really great example of how the free market could regulate itself...but, you are too blind to see that. You SHOULD have posted this link and said, "See, the govt. is not required to regulate the market"...and I might have said "good point"


Regulations on businesses for "false advertisement" are legislated by the government. Whether directly or not, Directv pulling the ads is a direct result of government regulations.

Yeah, man...companies should be free to defraud their customers with outright false claims...but no, this particular case has nothing to do with govt. regulation...Directv is free to ignore the BBB recommendation. There is a chance though that they would pay for it in their reputation on the free market...this is how things work out in free market, man...this is a great example of how you WANT things to work, but are so wrapped up in the trees, you can't see the forest.


Don't worry, though. Your lawmakers will let you know how you should feel, and respond, so similar situations in the future.

LOL...that's hilarious. You are so twisted up in your logic...but hey a little bumper sticker slogan will save the day.

There are many examples of govt. over-reach that we could identify...this just isn't one of them.

But, oh, yeah...i think the govt. has some good function, I must be a communist, socialist who thinks Obama is my god, and I have no opinions until the govt. tells me....give me a break with that nonsense already.

So, you think the BBB is bullying Directv unfairly...he's what you do...IGNORE them. Better yet, call up directv right now and order service if you don't have it already, tell them it's because you love the Rob Lowe ads...free market at work, baby. Or, start your own "Best Business Bureau" and publish a contrary opinion recommending Comcast worry about their own service and leave Directv alone.

sandsjames
04-09-2015, 05:00 PM
Yeah, man...companies should be free to defraud their customers with outright false claims...People should be smart enough not to believe everything they see in an advertisement.




But, oh, yeah...i think the govt. has some good function, I must be a communist, socialist who thinks Obama is my god, and I have no opinions until the govt. tells me....give me a break with that nonsense already. The government does have some good function. National defense. And don't think that I think this has anything to do with Obama. This has been going on much longer than the last 8 years.

[QUOTE0So, you think the BBB is bullying Directv unfairly...he's what you do...IGNORE them. Better yet, call up directv right now and order service if you don't have it already, tell them it's because you love the Rob Lowe ads...free market at work, baby. Or, start your own "Best Business Bureau" and publish a contrary opinion recommending Comcast worry about their own service and leave Directv alone.[/QUOTE]I've got Directv, I love the commercials, and I will keep them. As far as your suggestion, I don't have the time, money, motivation, or education to do so. What I may do, though, is call in to the BBB and make a complaint about the BBB. Will it do anything? About as much as writing my congressman.

Bos Mutus
04-09-2015, 05:11 PM
People should be smart enough not to believe everything they see in an advertisement.

I'm not smart enough to know the difference between a little white pill that has an effective drug in it...and a little white pill that is claimed to have an effective drug in it.

I have not the time, inclination or ability to personally perform a long-term double-blind study on the efficacy of the two pills before I make a purchase.


The government does have some good function. National defense. And don't think that I think this has anything to do with Obama. This has been going on much longer than the last 8 years.

I've got Directv, I love the commercials, and I will keep them. As far as your suggestion, I don't have the time, money, motivation, or education to do so. What I may do, though, is call in to the BBB and make a complaint about the BBB. Will it do anything? About as much as writing my congressman.

I have Directv, too, but am actually planning on switching to cable in June (end of my directv contract)...overall, I'm pretty happy with Directv, but the cable company is the only one who gives really fast internet here. Verizon only has DSL to 3 MBPS, and usually less than that. So, that has to go...cable has 50 MBPS I'm switching internet providers, the TV entertainment will go also simply because I prefer to get one bill.

I've also wanted to quit Directv to express my displeasure for cancelling NASCAR Hotpass a couple years ago...so far, every time I've tried to do that they've given me NFL Ticket for free, so I re-upped. This time I'm not looking back though. Just for fun, I might tell them it's because I don't appreciate their deceptive advertising...LOL...my vote cancels yours.

I'm curious about your dispeasure with the BBB, however. Do you think a private non-profit that helps self-regulate the market shouldn't exist? You think they don't perform a valuable service? Or you just disagree with this decision and think the Directv ads should be allowed to make some less than truthful claims that they can't back up and not suffer any consequence from being "called out" on it?

This is really confusing to me...after having been showed how the BBB is a great example of how you want the free market to work, you still want to voice a complaint against them.

sandsjames
04-09-2015, 05:34 PM
I have Directv, too, but am actually planning on switching to cable in June (end of my directv contract)...overall, I'm pretty happy with Directv, but the cable company is the only one who gives really fast internet here. Verizon only has DSL to 3 MBPS, and usually less than that. So, that has to go...cable has 50 MBPS I'm switching internet providers, the TV entertainment will go also simply because I prefer to get one bill.

I've also wanted to quit Directv to express my displeasure for cancelling NASCAR Hotpass a couple years ago...so far, every time I've tried to do that they've given me NFL Ticket for free, so I re-upped. This time I'm not looking back though. Just for fun, I might tell them it's because I don't appreciate their deceptive advertising...LOL...my vote cancels yours. The only reason I have it is because of Sunday Ticket. I live in Texas and am not a Cowboys fan so if I don't want to get stuck watching them every week I don't have much other choice. Trust me, having a satellite company in a place with regular thunderstorms is no fun.


I'm curious about your dispeasure with the BBB, however. Do you think a private non-profit that helps self-regulate the market shouldn't exist? You think they don't perform a valuable service? Or you just disagree with this decision and think the Directv ads should be allowed to make some less than truthful claims that they can't back up and not suffer any consequence from being "called out" on it?The absolutely have the right to do so. And they do serve a valuable service. I've used them several times. I just get annoyed with stupid shit like making a complaint against a commercial that I think is pretty damn funny and that I can't see anyone actually relying on to determine whether they go with cable or satellite.

Plenty of companies make deceiving claims. My wife gets sucked in by the "97%" fat free or the "fewer calories" stuff. I always point out to here how false those claims are. Doesn't stop us from buying the products. We still like them, but I don't think they should be called out for anything. I think people should be able to determine some things for themselves.

As far as the medicine goes, even without regulation, we would learn, over time, which ones worked and which ones didn't. If I buy some pills to cure a headache and they don't cure my headache then I don't by them anymore. Everyone else will do the same and those pills won't be being sold anymore.

There are plenty of "supplements" that people buy, and use, and swear by that haven't been tested or approved by the FDA. Do they work? Hell, I don't know, but if people want to buy them and it keeps the company in business then I've got no problem with it.

Also, as far as pills, I'm going to trust my doctor. Is that a smart move? Who knows. But I'd like to think that my doctor is a smarter person than I and that he knows what's going to work for me.

I don't like being limited on what type of drug I can have, how often I can take it, and how often it can be refilled. That all has to do with what a government agency has determined is best, not for my safety and comfort, but for avoiding lawsuits.

My biggest problem with government regulation is that it plays to the lowest common denominator. It creates a dumbed down society. It takes away the need for people to make attempts to educate themselves about stuff. "If it's not on the label, how can I know?" is not a valid complaint, IMO.

If my kid touches the stove and burns his hand, he knows not to touch the stove again. But the government would have me put protective covers on that stove just in case.

Is there regulation needed? Yes, there is. But not on the scale we have it today. Not as a way to ensure people don't have to think for themselves. Not as a way to determine what goes on within the walls of my house.

Bos Mutus
04-09-2015, 05:51 PM
Also, as far as pills, I'm going to trust my doctor. Is that a smart move? Who knows. But I'd like to think that my doctor is a smarter person than I and that he knows what's going to work for me.

I bet if you ask your doctor, he would tell he often relies on the FDA, govt. studies and other govt. regulations.


I don't like being limited on what type of drug I can have, how often I can take it, and how often it can be refilled. That all has to do with what a government agency has determined is best, not for my safety and comfort, but for avoiding lawsuits.

Prescriptions have everything to do with your safety.


My biggest problem with government regulation is that it plays to the lowest common denominator. It creates a dumbed down society. It takes away the need for people to make attempts to educate themselves about stuff. "If it's not on the label, how can I know?" is not a valid complaint, IMO.

I don't agree with this. It does take some of the "guess work" out of some things...I think we are far more informed and educated consumers than there were 150 years ago...not that the govt. is the only one that can do this. So, too does, say branding. Maybe you purchase a Sony TV because you know their reputation, etc. Most of us do not have the wherewithall to test and evaluate televisions, so we rely on the brand name to help us give a sense of the quality we are buying. Of course, if the market were free to copy that brand and sell a poor version of it...it removes the value of that "educate ourselves" somewhat...unless you want to completely and thoroughly research everything you buy...but ain't nobody got time for dat.

The govt. doesn't "approve" televisions though...because it's not that critical of a thing like Food and Drugs...there is not going to be a massive outbreak of plague because people get deceived on a TV purchase. Now, they might stop them from outright defrauding people..just like you would expect some legal recourse if your neighbor just "borrowed" your garden hose.


If my kid touches the stove and burns his hand, he knows not to touch the stove again. But the government would have me put protective covers on that stove just in case.

I'm not aware of a govt. reuirement to cover the stove....that said, if the problem gets big enough, it makes sense for their to be safety regulations, IMO.


Is there regulation needed? Yes, there is. But not on the scale we have it today. Not as a way to ensure people don't have to think for themselves. Not as a way to determine what goes on within the walls of my house.

I think we agree on that...as I mentioned, we can site a lot of examples of govt over-reaching...but a lot of what they do is a good, necessary service that improves our lives.

sandsjames
04-09-2015, 06:05 PM
I bet if you ask your doctor, he would tell he often relies on the FDA, govt. studies and other govt. regulations. Right, but he shouldn't have to. If he's going to do that then just get rid of the doctor (as seems to be happening) and have the prescription given to me by someone with a checklist.


Prescriptions have everything to do with your safety. No, it has to do with CYA.




I don't agree with this. It does take some of the "guess work" out of some things...not that the govt. is the only one that can do this. So, too does, say branding. Maybe you purchase a Sony TV because you know their reputation, etc. Most of us do not have the wherewithall to test and evaluate televisions, so we rely on the brand name to help us give a sense of the quality we are buying. Of course, if the market were free to copy that brand and sell a poor version of it...it removes the value of that "educate ourselves" somewhat...unless you want to completely and thoroughly research everything you buy...but ain't nobody got time for dat.I get where you're going with this but the TV is a bad example. It takes 30 seconds in the store to see which TV has the best picture. But this leads to my bigger point. Your statement that "but ain't nobody got time for dat" is the issue. People should have time for it, especially the stuff that is important. But we've been made to believe that there is no need for us to make an educated decision because someone will do it for us.


I'm not aware of a govt. reuirement to cover the stove....that said, if the problem gets big enough, it makes sense for their to be safety regulations, IMO. My mom ran a home daycare for over 30 years. Until the last 5 years she was never licensed. She didn't have to safety proof the house, block off all the electrical outlets, lock the cupboards, block off the stove, etc. Then she made the mistake of getting her license. Nothing changed as far as the families my mom watched kids for. Never any complaints. Never any abnormal injuries (normal kid stuff). But all the sudden the home was deemed "not safe". So even though it was perfectly fine for 25 years it was all the sudden not anymore? So she gave up the job altogether. Regulation for the sake of CYA was far more hassle than it was worth.




I think we agree on that...as I mentioned, we can sight a lot of examples of govt over-reaching...but a lot of what they do is a good, necessary service that improves our lives.Right, but the problem is that way too many people become comfortable and reliant on that regulation and don't even notice when it does start to over-reach. First, they make you reliant on them so you don't have the need to educate yourself. Then, once you are too stupid to know the difference, they regulate whatever they want and nobody notices. We're not there yet but it's not far off.

Bos Mutus
04-09-2015, 06:27 PM
Right, but he shouldn't have to. If he's going to do that then just get rid of the doctor (as seems to be happening) and have the prescription given to me by someone with a checklist.

Sigh. Now your oversimplifying being an MD? Oh, it's easy...you got this disease, take that.

It's not that easy, sir. Every patient is unique, every case is unique...I'm sure you "think" that since you went to the doc with xx disease and got yy pill and it helped, that you're now qualified to give everyone with xx the same treatment...but you're not.


No, it has to do with CYA.

Why would the govt have to Cover it's ass? If they did not regulate food...and you and a thousand other people got sick from a bad batch of eggs...what cause would you have to sue the govt?


I get where you're going with this but the TV is a bad example. It takes 30 seconds in the store to see which TV has the best picture.

if that were the only concern you had in buying a TV maybe...for me, I like to think it's going to last a reasonable amount of time...stay at a relatively high quality...if something does happen, the company will honor their warranty...I feel confident in all those things when I buy a Sony. I feel a lot less confident in that if an Emerson had the best picture quality in the store.

Then you can go to things like cars...can you tell from looking at a new car what it's rollover rating is? How well the airbags work? If the tires are gonna fall off at 70 mph, how many miles it really has on it?


But this leads to my bigger point. Your statement that "but ain't nobody got time for dat" is the issue. People should have time for it, especially the stuff that is important. But we've been made to believe that there is no need for us to make an educated decision because someone will do it for us.

What I'm saying is that "caveat emptor" is kind of cute...I'm telling you that YOU are unable to make as educated an opinion on many many things your purchase in your life..that you have unknowingly been relying on govt regulation for an simply taking it for granted.


My mom ran a home daycare for over 30 years. Until the last 5 years she was never licensed. She didn't have to safety proof the house, block off all the electrical outlets, lock the cupboards, block off the stove, etc. Then she made the mistake of getting her license. Nothing changed as far as the families my mom watched kids for. Never any complaints. Never any abnormal injuries (normal kid stuff). But all the sudden the home was deemed "not safe". So even though it was perfectly fine for 25 years it was all the sudden not anymore? So she gave up the job altogether. Regulation for the sake of CYA was far more hassle than it was worth.

You don't think locking cupboards with children in the house is a necessary idea? I know as a non-parent, you tend to believe that all you have to do is be strict and watch your kids and nothing bad can ever happen...but, seriously?

I'm sure there are statistics out there that show locking your cupboards that have chemicals in them is a good idea. What you're telling me is that your Mom's customers were not educated enough to insist she did that.


Right, but the problem is that way too many people become comfortable and reliant on that regulation and don't even notice when it does start to over-reach. First, they make you reliant on them so you don't have the need to educate yourself. Then, once you are too stupid to know the difference, they regulate whatever they want and nobody notices. We're not there yet but it's not far off.

See...I see the fact that we can be comfortable for a large portion of our purchases because we know there is legal recourse out there as a good thing.

Would I be smarter if I personally had to study cough medicine? maybe...but I'm glad I don't and I think it's good that I don't.

When the govt. over-reaches, we'll let them know about it...I don't think we're really in this "dumbed down" society you claim...I think we're as smart as we've ever been and are getting smarter.

sandsjames
04-09-2015, 06:49 PM
You don't think locking cupboards with children in the house is a necessary idea? I know as a non-parent, you tend to believe that all you have to do is be strict and watch your kids and nothing bad can ever happen...but, seriously? No need to lock the cupboards if the kids know to stay out. 25 years, no issues.


I'm sure there are statistics out there that show locking your cupboards that have chemicals in them is a good idea. What you're telling me is that your Mom's customers were not educated enough to insist she did that. Right, statistics on what's best for "everyone", not for the individual. Why would they insist she did that? It was never an issue. The parents knew they were taken care of. The kids weren't out of my mom's sight long enough to get into cupboards. The one size fits all is exactly what an over regulating government is about. And, by your own comments, you've already become so numb to the extent of it that you're ok with it. Imagine how easily they can control the uneducated.




See...I see the fact that we can be comfortable for a large portion of our purchases because we know there is legal recourse out there as a good thing. Ebay is a huge business. People sell all sorts of stuff. Yard sales are no different. And, not surprisingly, people survive. People have bake sales. People have craft fairs. People are able to decide what stuff they want to buy and what stuff they don't.


Would I be smarter if I personally had to study cough medicine? maybe...but I'm glad I don't and I think it's good that I don't.

When the govt. over-reaches, we'll let them know about it...I don't think we're really in this "dumbed down" society you claim...I think we're as smart as we've ever been and are getting smarter.I'm not saying get rid of the FDA, or similar agencies. They just shouldn't be regulatory. They could very easily provide the same service by providing information. They can easily let you know which pills are safe and which ones are not. They can let you know what foods have been tested and what foods haven't, then let you make the decision. It would be just as successful as the agency you mentioned being so successful. The BBB. Not regulatory. Get information to the people. Aid them in making an educated decision.

So let a company put a container of pills on the store shelf with whatever they want in it. But be an advisory agency, not a legislating agency. People are pretty smart, regardless of what the lawmakers want you to believe.

Bos Mutus
04-09-2015, 07:03 PM
No need to lock the cupboards if the kids know to stay out. 25 years, no issues.

Right, statistics on what's best for "everyone", not for the individual. Why would they insist she did that? It was never an issue. The parents knew they were taken care of. The kids weren't out of my mom's sight long enough to get into cupboards. The one size fits all is exactly what an over regulating government is about. And, by your own comments, you've already become so numb to the extent of it that you're ok with it. Imagine how easily they can control the uneducated.

So, let's not look statisitically at things that may pose unacceptable risk...let's wait until a kid in EACH day care has a major accident. Brilliant.

Gee, we never had a nuclear accident, so are all these rules really necessary?

Here's the thing: "Lack of historical catastrophe" is not that great of a quality assurance plan. Also known as, learning from the mistakes of others.


Ebay is a huge business. People sell all sorts of stuff. Yard sales are no different. And, not surprisingly, people survive. People have bake sales. People have craft fairs. People are able to decide what stuff they want to buy and what stuff they don't.

...so, the govt. doesn't over-reach where it's not needed?


I'm not saying get rid of the FDA, or similar agencies. They just shouldn't be regulatory. They could very easily provide the same service by providing information. They can easily let you know which pills are safe and which ones are not. They can let you know what foods have been tested and what foods haven't, then let you make the decision. It would be just as successful as the agency you mentioned being so successful. The BBB. Not regulatory. Get information to the people. Aid them in making an educated decision.

Well, see, they DO this ALL the time...there are a lot of products that have "Claims not FDA-approved"...and they are still free to sell their wares. Again, not overreaching where not necessary.

Why do you keep bringing up examples that argue against your point?

This example of where govt. regulation is not necessary and has not been instituted does not disprove your statement that "They shouldn't be regulatory"...but, as you stated in a previous post, there are times that they should.

I'm not the one saying they should regulate everything...so showing examples of where govt. regulation is not necessary does not in any way disprove my point. You are saying they should never regulate...but hen previously admitted they sometimes should...so, you have no point...and if you did , this example wouldn't prove it.


So let a company put a container of pills on the store shelf with whatever they want in it. But be an advisory agency, not a legislating agency. People are pretty smart, regardless of what the lawmakers want you to believe.

...they do that. But, when the pill is outright dangerous...then they should step in, I think. I don't think this makes me dumb...you are just too paranoid of the govt...but think you are so self-sufficient and educated that you have nothing to fear from corporations. Amazing.

Now, if you think you are educated enough to choose from 20 "FDA not approved" drugs for curing your ailments, I'm sure you can find plenty out there...

And really...the bottom line of our exchange here...is that you come from a world view that the govt. is always nefarious, always seeking to control more and more for nefarious purposes...always moving towards more evil...and will one day be the puppet master of us all if we don't oppose them at every point....and I don't believe that.

sandsjames
04-09-2015, 07:37 PM
So, let's not look statisitically at things that may pose unacceptable risk...let's wait until a kid in EACH day care has a major accident. Brilliant. "May" pose...very key word you used. Laws aren't supposed to be about what "may" happen, otherwise the list is absolutely endless. And it doesn't have to be a kid in each daycare.

You just spoke about doing research, or trusting that a TV is the right buy for you. Would you not make the same effort for your child? Look at the daycare and determine if you feel it's safe enough for your child? Shouldn't that be your choice as a parent? If any of the parents my mom watched kids for over the years thought for a second that their child was in any unnecessary danger than they could have easily chosen another daycare.




...so, the govt. doesn't over-reach where it's not needed? So if I say they overreach then it has to be related to absolutely everything or it's not a valid point?




Well, see, they DO this ALL the time...there are a lot of products that have "Claims not FDA-approved"...and they are still free to sell their wares. Again, not overreaching where not necessary.

Why do you keep bringing up examples that argue against your point? And why do you keep bringing up an all-or-nothing scenario?


I'm not the one saying they should regulate everything...so showing examples of where govt. regulation is not necessary does not in any way prove my point. You are saying they should never regulate...but hen previously admitted they sometimes should...so, you have no point...and if you did , this example wouldn't prove it. I'm not saying they should never regulate. I'm saying they already over regulate.




...they do that. But, when the pill is outright dangerous...then they should step in, I think. I don't think this makes me dumb...you are just too paranoid of the govt...but think you are so self-sufficient and educated that you have nothing to fear from corporations. Amazing. Corporations are no better, and I'm not paranoid of the govt. I've worked in a government job for more than 20 years. They've been good to me. That doesn't mean that I can't believe they have their hands in too many pots and are turning the average person into dependent idiots because they think they know what's best for everyone.

Comparisons are always made to Communism and Socialism. That begins when individuals start getting treated as just another piece of the big puzzle. I don't want to get stuck in that society. I want everyone to be their own puzzle where they aren't dependent on anyone else (and please don't use the Obama argument that we all rely on others, nobody succeeds on there own, because that is obvious) in order to make day to day decisions.


Now, if you think you are educated enough to choose from 20 "FDA not approved" drugs for curing your ailments, I'm sure you can find plenty out there... I'd still choose from the FDA approved, most likely. But that shouldn't be the only option, just as the TV shows shouldn't have to be FCC approved. Have you seen the adds for the (Ford, I believe) vehicle that senses the speed limits based on GPS and will not exceed them? Is that what we want? Statistics show that speeders are involved in more accidents. Does that make it ok?


And really...the bottom line of our exchange here...is that you come from a world view that the govt. is always nefarious, always seeking to control more and more for nefarious purposes...always moving towards more evil...and will one day be the puppet master of us all if we don't oppose them at every point....and I don't believe that.Nope. Not my world view at all. It's not always that way. However, it is sometimes and if it doesn't get called out for it then it will end up as you describe. A little more will be accepted each day. Look at phone taps, drones, etc. When's the last time you heard an uproar about that? Do you think it stopped? Did the NSA quit doing it? It's up to us to keep it from getting there.

Bos Mutus
04-09-2015, 08:02 PM
"May" pose...very key word you used. Laws aren't supposed to be about what "may" happen, otherwise the list is absolutely endless.

Well, I don't have the data or expertise on cupboards...so, I really don't know the risk. I know you think since your mom never had an issue with it, it's not a problem...I just don't think that's good enough research.


And it doesn't have to be a kid in each daycare.

I'm willing to bet that plenty of daycare kids have been injured from each of those things you mentioned...but since it hasn't happened in your Mom's house, it wasn't a problem, right?


You just spoke about doing research, or trusting that a TV is the right buy for you. Would you not make the same effort for your child? Look at the daycare and determine if you feel it's safe enough for your child? Shouldn't that be your choice as a parent? If any of the parents my mom watched kids for over the years thought for a second that their child was in any unnecessary danger than they could have easily chosen another daycare.

Of course. I'm also smart enough to know that I don't know everything.


So if I say they overreach then it has to be related to absolutely everything or it's not a valid point?

Well, no...but when you say "govt. overreaches" and you "support your point" by showing an example where they don't...it doesn't validate your point. Or at least your support doesn't not follow your point. The govt doesn't have to overreach on everything to prove that they sometimes overreach...but if you're tyring to make that point you shouldn't site examples of the govt NOT overreaching.

If you're going to show how "govt. overreaches"..show where they do, not where they don't. It's simple logic.

If say "Too many cars are blue"...and then post a picture and example of red cars...my example does not support my assertion.


And why do you keep bringing up an all-or-nothing scenario?

Huh? I'm not, you brought up the scenario. You stated the FDA "could give advice, but should not be regulatory"

I showed how they do some often give advice, but are sometimes regulatory...and tried to explain why that is a good thing.


I'm not saying they should never regulate. I'm saying they already over regulate.

Maybe not now, but you did in the previous post"


They just shouldn't be regulatory


Corporations are no better, and I'm not paranoid of the govt. I've worked in a government job for more than 20 years. They've been good to me. That doesn't mean that I can't believe they have their hands in too many pots and are turning the average person into dependent idiots because they think they know what's best for everyone.

Comparisons are always made to Communism and Socialism. That begins when individuals start getting treated as just another piece of the big puzzle. I don't want to get stuck in that society.

I don't think we're at any threat of going there anytime soon.


I want everyone to be their own puzzle

You've certainly accomplished that today :-)


where they aren't dependent on anyone else (and please don't use the Obama argument that we all rely on others, nobody succeeds on there own, because that is obvious) in order to make day to day decisions.

...I don't think that much of your day to day decision making has been lost or is a in threat of being lost.


I'd still choose from the FDA approved, most likely. But that shouldn't be the only option, just as the TV shows shouldn't have to be FCC approved. Have you seen the adds for the (Ford, I believe) vehicle that senses the speed limits based on GPS and will not exceed them? Is that what we want? Statistics show that speeders are involved in more accidents. Does that make it ok?

Once again, you site an example of a private company instituting safety measures that the public may or may not want (I don't know) as an example of govt. overreach

But, in general, does a rapid increase of crashes at speeds over 65 mph justify the govt. in setting and enforcing speed limits? yes, I think so.



Nope. Not my world view at all. It's not always that way. However, it is sometimes and if it doesn't get called out for it then it will end up as you describe. A little more will be accepted each day. Look at phone taps, drones, etc. When's the last time you heard an uproar about that? Do you think it stopped? Did the NSA quit doing it? It's up to us to keep it from getting there.

No, I hate that part of the govt.

In the end...we both agree that the govt has a role in regulating commerce. We both agree that the govt. sometimes overreaches on that role.

I'm sure we can find examples where we both agree the govt. rightly regulates and examples where we both agree the govt. wrongly regulates. We might differ on the points in between on what is "right" and what is "wrong" govt. regulation...makes neither one of us socialists who need lawmakers to tell us what to think...or anarchists...although in this thread, you have made far more absolute statments than I have, you have appeared to back off of them...so I think we've come to a more agreeable place

sandsjames
04-09-2015, 08:29 PM
Well, I don't have the data or expertise on cupboards...so, I really don't know the risk. I know you think since your mom never had an issue with it, it's not a problem...I just don't think that's good enough research. What research is needed? I don't get it. Kids bang their heads on table. Let's pad everything. Kids stub their toes on doorways. Let's make them wear steel toe boots. The problem is that there is nothing that will be considered "too far" once the little things become acceptable.




I'm willing to bet that plenty of daycare kids have been injured from each of those things you mentioned...but since it hasn't happened in your Mom's house, it wasn't a problem, right? I'm willing to be they have, too. I'm also willing to bet that many adults have committed suicide by drinking bleach. That doesn't mean I think that bleach should be removed from homes.




Well, no...but when you say "govt. overreaches" and you "support your point" by showing an example where they don't...it doesn't validate your point. Or at least your support doesn't not follow your point. The govt doesn't have to overreach on everything to prove that they sometimes overreach...but if you're tyring to make that point you shouldn't site examples of the govt NOT overreaching.
If you're going to show how "govt. overreaches"..show where they do, not where they don't. It's simple logic. Apparently it's not simple. I've given examples that you immediately discount. So, I give examples of similar situations and you are too stubborn to admit that, though not technically the same, have the same basis. You'd rather focus on wording than actual meaning. So, when I try to explain what I was actually trying to say, you say I'm contradicting myself.


If say "Too many cars are blue"...and then post a picture and example of red cars...my example does not support my assertion. Right, but if I say "Too many cars are blue" then I show pictures of blue cars, then I show pictures of blue T-shirts, the fact that there are T-shirts a similar color to the cars doesn't change the fact that there are still too many blue cars.




Huh? I'm not, you brought up the scenario. You stated the FDA "could give advice, but should not be regulatory" Exactly


I showed how they do some often give advice, but are sometimes regulatory...and tried to explain why that is a good thing. You have explained it, I just disagree with it.








I don't think we're at any threat of going there anytime soon. We're not at any threat of having the coastal states under 10 feet of water anytime soon, either. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can to keep it from happening (this example is for argument purposes only. I'm not really worried about the oceans rising).



...I don't think that much of your day to day decision making has been lost or is a in threat of being lost.Really? I get to my car and I have to scrape the window because I'm not allowed to let it idle, for emissions reasons, long enough to warm it up and melt the ice.

Is it that big of a deal, by itself? No. But things add up.






Once again, you site an example of a private company instituting safety measures that the public may or may not want (I don't know) as an example of govt. overreach No, it's an example of people getting used to being controlled, no matter who's doing it.


But, in general, does a rapid increase of crashes at speeds over 65 mph justify the govt. in setting and enforcing speed limits? yes, I think so. Setting and enforcing speed limits is fine. Placing (yes, I know, Ford is a private company, but it's only a matter of time until they are required in all new vehicles) a tracking device inside a vehicle to monitor my driving is intrusive.





No, I hate that part of the govt.Why is that where you draw the line? How does them doing that effect your day to day life?

Rainmaker
04-09-2015, 08:48 PM
[QUOTE=sandsjames;353092]What research is needed? I don't get it. Kids bang their heads on table. Let's pad everything. Kids stub their toes on doorways. Let's make them wear steel toe boots. The problem is that there is nothing that will be considered "too far" once the little things become acceptable.

QUOTE]

SJ, The situation you're describing is what happens to a society when it gets over feminized. You see, Normal Women value safety over freedom, whereas Normal Men value freedom over safety.

This whole Nanny state, Pansy assed, PC Liberal "fairness" shit show is going to be the death of us. Historically, Once a society goes full homo then the collapse is not far off.

It's not women's fault mind you. It's the men that traded their birthright in exchange for No strings attached Pussy. In less than 2 generations we've gone from a proud culture that celebrated our Self-reliant rugged individualism, into a into a bunch of whining assholes glorifying our dysfunctional freaks while celebrating their "noble" struggle and calling it "progress".

Bos Mutus
04-09-2015, 09:15 PM
What research is needed? I don't get it. Kids bang their heads on table. Let's pad everything. Kids stub their toes on doorways. Let's make them wear steel toe boots. The problem is that there is nothing that will be considered "too far" once the little things become acceptable.

It's really just a matter of where we draw the line...pad every table? Okay, let's say that's too far....is there a govt. regulation that requires you to pad every table? No? So, bad example. Are kids required to wear steel toe boots? No. So, there are things that we consider "too far"...once again, your point is unsupported.

So, let's discuss "Is locking cupboards to prevent poisoning too far" Here's one where maybe we can have honest disagreement on. When I had kids, as soon as they started to crawl we "child proofed" our house...which included things like locking cupboards. I don't care how well you think you watch your children, they get into stuff.

A couple facts from the internet:
- The Poison Control Center fields 24 million call per year for accidental poisoning.
- 800,000 Children are taken to an emergency room for accidental poisoning
- 70% of those are ages 1 to 2.

I also looked up that approx. 4 million children are born each year...which would ballpark to around 8 million kids age 1 and 2....not exact figures, just getting close.

A little math tells me that this means about 10% of children age 1 to 2 will be taken to an emergency room for accdental poisoning this year. I gotta admit, that is a lot higher than I thought it would be.

Now, since we know from your anectdotal story that not all day care providers lock their cupboards...and not all parents think or care to ask/inspect that.

Is knowing that 10% of our 1 to 2 year olds will be accidentally poisoned this year enough reason to take govt. action? maybe, maybe not.

There is a lot here we don't know...have regulations on cupboard locking so far significantly improved this number? Or are the poisoning not even related to cupboard poisonig, but from somewhere else?

Anyway...now we have to make up statistics...if studies showed that govt. regulation could reduce that 10% to 5% would you favor it? If it could reduce it to 1%

I guess I know what I think you'll answer: The govt. simply has no business keeping children safe?


I'm willing to be they have, too. I'm also willing to bet that many adults have committed suicide by drinking bleach. That doesn't mean I think that bleach should be removed from homes.

Me neither. I also don't believe that the govt. insisting a licensed daycare lock away chemicals will lead to them removing bleach from the homse of adults...so why argue the absurd unless this is your real fear?


Apparently it's not simple. I've given examples that you immediately discount.

...because they are bad examples.


So, I give examples of similar situations and you are too stubborn to admit that, though not technically the same, have the same basis.

No, I don't think that because a seller earns high customer marks on ebay...this proves that we don't need the FDA to insist on standards in food and drugs manufacturing.


You'd rather focus on wording than actual meaning. So, when I try to explain what I was actually trying to say, you say I'm contradicting myself.

Right, but if I say "Too many cars are blue" then I show pictures of blue cars, then I show pictures of blue T-shirts, the fact that there are T-shirts a similar color to the cars doesn't change the fact that there are still too many blue cars.

Finally you make a good example...a good example of your flawed logic. You're right, the blue T-shirts doesn't change any facts about the car. If it is a fact that there are too many blue cars at all. At this point, you have made an assertion...which normally, one would follow with support that proves the assertion true, or more likely true. You instead, provide support that does not prove your assertion, and in a few examples, proves your assertion likely false.

That there are blue t-shirts does nothing to support your assertion. It doesn't disprove it in this case, but it just has no reason in your argument.






-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll just leave this here and see if you can figure out what is confusing about it:

[QUOTE=sandsjames;353054]Is there regulation needed? Yes, there is.


I'm not saying get rid of the FDA, or similar agencies. They just shouldn't be regulatory.

[
But be an advisory agency, not a legislating agency.


I'm not saying they should never regulate. I'm saying they already over regulate.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have explained it, I just disagree with it.

..except for when you agree with it.



Really? I get to my car and I have to scrape the window because I'm not allowed to let it idle, for emissions reasons, long enough to warm it up and melt the ice.

Is this against the law somewhere? Sorry, I'm in CA, we don't scrape windows...but as "green" as this state tries to be I've never heard of not being allowed to let our cars idle.

In Germany, people who frown at you for doing it...but never heard it was actually a govt. regulation anywhere.


Is it that big of a deal, by itself? No. But things add up.

I would have to see where it's a thing at all before judging whether it's big or small.


No, it's an example of people getting used to being controlled, no matter who's doing it.

Okay...so your point is if the govt. isn't controlling you someone else will...like the whole God and Mammon thing...gotta serve somebody.


Setting and enforcing speed limits is fine. Placing (yes, I know, Ford is a private company, but it's only a matter of time until they are required in all new vehicles) a tracking device inside a vehicle to monitor my driving is intrusive.

I suppose it could be required at some point...I don't know much about them at the moment. If Ford or any other company sold a device that prevent young people from texting and driving, I'd sure buy it. I've told my 20-somethings not to, and I believe they don't...but sure would like to know for sure.

Not sure how'd I'd feel on the govt. mandating them...initially I'm not opposed...the practice is so incredibly dangerous.


Why is that where you draw the line? How does them doing that effect your day to day life?

Good question...invasion of privacy, I think.

Bos Mutus
04-09-2015, 09:40 PM
Right, but if I say "Too many cars are blue" then I show pictures of blue cars, then I show pictures of blue T-shirts, the fact that there are T-shirts a similar color to the cars doesn't change the fact that there are still too many blue cars.

Discussing this with you is like:


There are not enough blue cars. See, it's Ben Affleck:

http://forums.militarytimes.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=88&stc=1

Oh no, you discounted my example....why did you do that?

sandsjames
04-09-2015, 09:46 PM
It's really just a matter of where we draw the line...pad every table? Okay, let's say that's too far....is there a govt. regulation that requires you to pad every table? No? So, bad example. Are kids required to wear steel toe boots? No. So, there are things that we consider "too far"...once again, your point is unsupported. My point is what keeps it from getting to that point? Making kids wear a helmet when riding a bike was too far 30 years ago.


So, let's discuss "Is locking cupboards to prevent poisoning too far" Here's one where maybe we can have honest disagreement on. When I had kids, as soon as they started to crawl we "child proofed" our house...which included things like locking cupboards. I don't care how well you think you watch your children, they get into stuff. Yes, they do get into stuff, and they learn. They get hurt, and they learn. They get their hearts broken, and they learn. They mouth of to the wrong guy in school, and they learn.


A couple facts from the internet:
- The Poison Control Center fields 24 million call per year for accidental poisoning.
- 800,000 Children are taken to an emergency room for accidental poisoning
- 70% of those are ages 1 to 2. Now, do we have stats on how many of those calls are valid, how many of those emergency room visits are valid? Do we know how the poisoning happened? Was it in a house where the cupboards weren't locked? And, even if the answer to all of those are "YES" that doesn't mean that it should be a law that everyone protect everyone else from it.


I also looked up that approx. 4 million children are born each year...which would ballpark to around 8 million kids age 1 and 2....not exact figures, just getting close.

A little math tells me that this means about 10% of children age 1 to 2 will be taken to an emergency room for accdental poisoning this year. I gotta admit, that is a lot higher than I thought it would be.

Now, since we know from your anectdotal story that not all day care providers lock their cupboards...and not all parents think or care to ask/inspect that.

Is knowing that 10% of our 1 to 2 year olds will be accidentally poisoned this year enough reason to take govt. action? maybe, maybe not.

There is a lot here we don't know...have regulations on cupboard locking so far significantly improved this number? Or are the poisoning not even related to cupboard poisonig, but from somewhere else?

Anyway...now we have to make up statistics...if studies showed that govt. regulation could reduce that 10% to 5% would you favor it? If it could reduce it to 1% What we do know is that it takes away 100% of the choice we have in that situation. For me, it may be stupid, but it's a convenience thing around my own house. Cupboards not locked is easier. Should I have to give up my conveniences in my own house because someone says that it's safer?


I guess I know what I think you'll answer: The govt. simply has no business keeping children safe? Right. The parents have business keeping children safe. Then, if they can't do it, the parents no longer have those children.




Me neither. I also don't believe that the govt. insisting a licensed daycare lock away chemicals will lead to them removing bleach from the homse of adults...so why argue the absurd unless this is your real fear? The issue wasn't that the licensed daycare had to lock away chemicals. The issue was that the license was required at all. Because that license became required, the other restrictions followed. I have no problem with someone who wants the benefits of the license following the regulations to maintain that license. My problem is more with the forcing of a license. Why can the government tell a willing babysitter and willing parents that they must be certified to do something they've been doing for years? And why do they force the licensing? Specifically so they can institute the restrictions.




I suppose it could be required at some point...I don't know much about them at the moment. If Ford or any other company sold a device that prevent young people from texting and driving, I'd sure buy it. I've told my 20-somethings not to, and I believe they don't...but sure would like to know for sure. That doesn't surprise me that you'd be ok with it. Take away the responsibility from a 20-something year old. That just blows my mind. Teach them that if it's not blocked or controlled by someone else then it must be ok.


Not sure how'd I'd feel on the govt. mandating them...initially I'm not opposed...the practice is so incredibly dangerous. I can't comprehend how you wouldn't be opposed. It really blows my mind. Forget all the other conversations we've had. How could you possibly begin to think you could be ok with this?




Good question...invasion of privacy, I think.And the other things aren't invasion of privacy? Somehow preventing people from texting and driving (and why is it only young people, is it ok for old people?) can only be done by invasion of privacy. Controlling the speed of my car can only be done through invasion of privacy. If somebody is watching me and determining how I go about my day, when I make phone calls, texts, how fast I drive (not by speed limits, but by limiting the speed of my vehicle based on sensors of where I am) how is that not invasion of privacy?

And, how does invasion of privacy effect your day to day life, currently? The impact on daily routine seems to be your criteria for what's ok and what's not. So how does a drone or an NSA phone tap on a citizen living across the country from you effect your daily routine?

Bos Mutus
04-09-2015, 09:59 PM
That doesn't surprise me that you'd be ok with it. Take away the responsibility from a 20-something year old. That just blows my mind. Teach them that if it's not blocked or controlled by someone else then it must be ok.

I can't comprehend how you wouldn't be opposed. It really blows my mind. Forget all the other conversations we've had. How could you possibly begin to think you could be ok with this?

Okay...we'll forget the rest...replies were getting too long anyway.

I look at texting just like I do Drunk Driving and I believe it is probably more dangerous (haven't done the research myself).

Why do I think it would be okay to regulate this? Because it puts other people...a lot of other people...in danger.

When I'm out riding my bike...I don't want that kid to "hit some cyclist, learn your lesson"....this lesson has already been learned by society, we don't need thousands of more people to die to all learn in on our own.

Even as we mentioned a few days ago...for me personally, I might believe I can safely drive on 3 beers. I don't think I put anyone in any more danger on 3 beers (over a reasonable period time, not chugged) than I do driving without beers...and I certainly believe I could drive at least as well to pass a driving test on 3 beers. I do not drive on 3 beers...because of other consequences. I am not mad about this govt imposition on my life...I get it. Driving drunk like texting and driving is something we should regulate for the safety of our society. Sorry if I'm not rugged enough to trust everyone to drive around drunk and texting....and figure they'll learn their lesson sometime.

sandsjames
04-09-2015, 10:25 PM
Okay...we'll forget the rest...replies were getting too long anyway.

I look at texting just like I do Drunk Driving and I believe it is probably more dangerous (haven't done the research myself).

Why do I think it would be okay to regulate this? Because it puts other people...a lot of other people...in danger.

When I'm out riding my bike...I don't want that kid to "hit some cyclist, learn your lesson"....this lesson has already been learned by society, we don't need thousands of more people to die to all learn in on our own. Again, you keep mentioning kids. Adults are ok to do it? And it is regulated. There are laws against texting and driving. Unless you are condoning something similar to a breathalyzer in the vehicle.


Even as we mentioned a few days ago...for me personally, I might believe I can safely drive on 3 beers. I don't think I put anyone in any more danger on 3 beers (over a reasonable period time, not chugged) than I do driving without beers...and I certainly believe I could drive at least as well to pass a driving test on 3 beers. I do not drive on 3 beers...because of other consequences. I am not mad about this govt imposition on my life...I get it. Driving drunk like texting and driving is something we should regulate for the safety of our society. Sorry if I'm not rugged enough to trust everyone to drive around drunk and texting....and figure they'll learn their lesson sometime.Your point is irrelevant. Your discussion was about kids/early 20s. So the comparison with you, definitely out of your 20s, having a few beers doesn't relate to this conversation. It's like if you said there were too many blue cars, then showed me pictures of red cars.

Or, I could infer your meaning that shows I actually understand the intent of your statement, but that doesn't happen on internet forums. It's all about the wording.

Either way, drunk driving is illegal. Texting and driving is illegal. You punish those who break the law. You don't impose restrictions on those who are doing nothing wrong.

Bos Mutus
04-09-2015, 10:55 PM
Again, you keep mentioning kids. Adults are ok to do it? And it is regulated. There are laws against texting and driving. Unless you are condoning something similar to a breathalyzer in the vehicle.

I mention kids only because, in my mind, the texting thing is a big problem with kid. I could be wrong about that, but that is the picture in my mind.

No, it's not okay for older folks to text drive...but, it is less of a problem in this population, in my understanding, which again could be factually wrong.

I don't want anyone to text and drive...I don't really think there is a device that can prevent it, that part was just a big "what if"...because, of course, passengers should be able to text and ride, how would the phone know if its user is driving or riding? I dunno. Maybe the phone could sense it is moving at certain speed and have an extra button one has to press and hold while texting that maybe someone could only do while a passenger...I dunno. If they did make that and studies show it reduced texting and driving by 85%,...would I buy them for my kids? Probably. ...would it be okay for the govt. to regulate cell phone manufacturers to require this feature on all phones? Is this an unreasonable imposition by the govt...maybe, would really have to see the data on the magnitude of the problem. It could be permissible in some imagined situation.

Breathalyzer?...Should there be a breathalyzer in every car? Or for cars own by 25 and under? No, I don't think so. I think it really comes down to the scale of the problem in both cases...are there enough drunk drivers out there to warrant breathalyzing every vehicle...vehicles by 25 year olds? Not that I'm aware of. I am, however, of the opinion that most under 25 year olds text and drive. I could be wrong about that...why I said I'm initially not opposed. That's a clue that I don't really have data on it to make an informed decision, but my initial tendency is that it might be okay...just like would it ever be okay to make cars that won't start unless the seat belt is on? That might be okay in some scenario. Currently, it seems cars that make a loud annoying beep are okay with most folks...been that way since what? 1972 or something, and is required by the government, of course..and so far hasn't resulted in government agents peeking in your windows at night.

I get that you don't ever think it would be okay.


Your point is irrelevant. Your discussion was about kids/early 20s. So the comparison with you, definitely out of your 20s, having a few beers doesn't relate to this conversation. It's like if you said there were too many blue cars, then showed me pictures of red cars.

Or, I could infer your meaning that shows I actually understand the intent of your statement, but that doesn't happen on internet forums. It's all about the wording.

LOL..yeah, that's the same thing.


Either way, drunk driving is illegal. Texting and driving is illegal. You punish those who break the law. You don't impose restrictions on those who are doing nothing wrong.

I'm not entirely in agreement with you here.

NOTE: This does not mean I think the government should control everything I do. It does not mean I think the government should peak into your house and tell you which shoe to put on first. It only means that some regulations, in the interest of public safety, are not out of question, in my opinion.

sandsjames
04-10-2015, 02:04 AM
.

NOTE: This does not mean I think the government should control everything I do. It does not mean I think the government should peak into your house and tell you which shoe to put on first. It only means that some regulations, in the interest of public safety, are not out of question, in my opinion.Not surprising, really. I always forget that many people on the forums are/were SNCO/Officers, who were trained to punish everyone for the mistakes of individuals. One person gets a DUI, everyone shows up in Blues. One person commits suicide, everyone gets briefed until they want to kill themselves. So as our conversations continue, I will try to remember that.

Bos Mutus
04-10-2015, 06:08 AM
Not surprising, really. I always forget that many people on the forums are/were SNCO/Officers, who were trained to punish everyone for the mistakes of individuals. One person gets a DUI, everyone shows up in Blues. One person commits suicide, everyone gets briefed until they want to kill themselves. So as our conversations continue, I will try to remember that.

"Blah, blah, blah, I have nothing left of substance to discuss, so I'll make some personal dig, blah, blah, blah"

sandsjames
04-10-2015, 11:46 AM
"Blah, blah, blah, I have nothing left of substance to discuss, so I'll make some personal dig, blah, blah, blah"

Is there anything left to add, really? I think we're pretty much well past the point of anything productive from either side. It's just going to continue to be me stating my opinion and you posting examples of me contradicting myself, instead of discussing the actual point you know I'm trying to make. So, yeah, blah, blah, blah.

sandsjames
04-10-2015, 01:09 PM
Just to make this clear and avoid words like "never" and "always" that I use when emotional about a subject, as people tend to do, I will state this clearly so those words don't get thrown back in my face.

Government regulation, if not monitored and called out by the public will grow. People will get used to the "little things" that "don't matter". That makes it easier for more unnecessary things to creep in without anyone noticing.

I'm pretty sure you understood that was my point from the beginning. You're a pretty smart guy. It's a shame you had to focus on the phrasing instead of the intent.

UncaRastus
04-10-2015, 06:19 PM
I believe that slingshots, BB guns, and pellet guns should not be sold to anyone under the age of 21 because as 'all' moms say, "You can put your eye out with them!"

Also, all knives, sticks that have fallen off of trees, screw drivers, and any other thing that can pose a risk to eyes should be mandated to be locked up.

Better yet, lock those children into their rooms, with the parent having to go into their rooms to home school them. Also, they must use a camp toilet to do their business, placed in a corner in their rooms.. A bowl of water, a bar of soap, and a wash cloth and a towel should be placed in each of the children's rooms.

Again, until they are 21.

Bars in the window and sliding barred doors must be placed onto the children's rooms.

One hour of supervised play time must be allowed, outside, in a walled off area, because kids must have their play time.

A home visiting Dr. must be available for the children.

Children that conform to such a protective scheme may allowed out to perform community service, such as mowing the lawn, cleaning out the roof gutters, etc., but only under close supervision by one of the parents.

Upon reaching the age of 21 years, the adults are to be released, unless they have attempted to break out, throw body fluids at either of the parents or the home visiting Dr., or if they have made a crude weapon out of a bedpost, utilizing whatever tool they have stolen while performing outside community service.

Try to make sure that any outside implement of overgrown bush destruction is rendered dull before issuing it out.

If such happens, they are to be given two weeks to get a job, and a month to move out on their own.

If the child remains compliant, they have 1 month to enlist in one of the services.

Or we could let kids be kids. Since the beginning of the human race, children have always found ways to injure or kill themselves. And in this day and age, I do believe that many of them do survive the ages from 0 to 21 years.

Bos Mutus
04-10-2015, 06:30 PM
Is there anything left to add, really? I think we're pretty much well past the point of anything productive from either side. It's just going to continue to be me stating my opinion and you posting examples of me contradicting myself, instead of discussing the actual point you know I'm trying to make. So, yeah, blah, blah, blah.

Right, nothing more to say...so throw in a snide personal comment.


Just to make this clear and avoid words like "never" and "always" that I use when emotional about a subject, as people tend to do, I will state this clearly so those words don't get thrown back in my face.

Government regulation, if not monitored and called out by the public will grow. People will get used to the "little things" that "don't matter". That makes it easier for more unnecessary things to creep in without anyone noticing.

I'm pretty sure you understood that was my point from the beginning. You're a pretty smart guy. It's a shame you had to focus on the phrasing instead of the intent.

Phrasing..yeah, that was it.

Like I mentioned many posts ago.

I think we both agree that some regulation is necessary and good.

I think we both agree that some regulation is unnecessary and bad.

We don't always agree on which ones are good and which ones are bad...but doesn't change the principle that agreeing with some regulation doesn't make someone a mindless idiot who wants the govt. to tell them what to think.

sandsjames
04-10-2015, 06:38 PM
We don't always agree on which ones are good and which ones are bad...but doesn't change the principle that agreeing with some regulation doesn't make someone a mindless idiot who wants the govt. to tell them what to think.

Of course they don't want the government telling them what to think. They just don't know it's happening because they are so conditioned to the other stuff.

I remember reading the book "1984" when I was in the 6th or 7th grade and the discussions we had about how outrageous the idea of having cameras monitoring everything we do was. Now, every street corner has a camera for "security" reasons. People don't want to be monitored. They just don't realize that it's happening and/or don't associate it with an invasion of privacy.

garhkal
04-10-2015, 10:18 PM
Getting this back on the subject at hand.. Should this cake maker be allowed to refuse to make a cake for someone cause she finds the 'writing' on the cake offensive, then so too should a baker who feels 'supporting gay marriage' be allowed..
All IMO>