Politics And Current Events

Postby **ExPatriatePen** » Thu May 28, 2015 1:27 pm

Judaism isn't a sin (to a Christian), and our "friends" at Chcik-fil-a would take a pass on the Sunday gig. (Even though they don't classify working on Sunday as a sin, it just isn't consistent with their religious beliefs).
That's a poor choice of words on my part, because it's not so much about sin as it is doing things contrary to your religious belief. Why is X acceptable and Y verboten?

Ask the believer why tolerance for those who believe other religions is OK and "sinful" practices are not. I'm not religious so I don't have the answer to that. I do know that if you ask a Muslim, most would have as big a problem with the former as the latter.

We are talking about the rights of individuals, the owners of that business, and what their rights are.
The sole purpose of a corporate entity is to provide a barrier between the individuals who operate the business and the conduct of that business. If the individuals behind a corporate entity wish to blur or erase that line in the case of their personal religious practice, why should they enjoy the protections of the corporate veil in cases of civil liability?

Good question. But my personal opinion is that what's wrong is the "protections from personal liability" side of that equation.

Postby **tifosi77** » Thu May 28, 2015 1:30 pm

Why?

If the corporate veil can be selectively permeable by the shareholders, what actual purpose does it serve?

Postby **Troy Loney** » Thu May 28, 2015 1:31 pm

EPP,

Are you specifically in favor of this religious freedom bill? Or are you just in general against any discrimination laws?

Postby **ExPatriatePen** » Thu May 28, 2015 1:33 pm

And yet I'll bet 90% of their customers have no idea.
I think the larger point is that while 90% of their customers have no idea, probably close to 100% of the customers who have contributed to their increased sales over the last year are not only fully aware of their policies, but they have made the conscious decision to support CFA expressly because of them.

Opinion, and one I do not share. I'd like to see research on this.

Anecdotally, I know that there's a CFA that just opened in Chicopee Mass in the last 12 months. I was living there at the time. It's the first one I that area. I have friends who were telling me what a great place it was and how it was always packed. One Sunday they decided to make a CFA run. I laughed and asked them what their plan "B" was? They didn't know about CFA being closed on Sunday's and they certainly didn't know about the anti- SSM efforts.

I seriously doubt 100% of new customers are because of the policies.
You give people much more credit for being informed than they deserve.

Postby **ExPatriatePen** » Thu May 28, 2015 1:36 pm

EPP,

Are you specifically in favor of this religious freedom bill? Or are you just in general against any discrimination laws?

Which Religious Freedom Bill? They're all so different and they're all so flawed in different ways.

I'm also mixed on the anti-discrimination laws. There certainly was a time and a place for them during the 1960's civil rights movement, and there may be a need for them again in the future (although I sure hope not), but not here and not now. There are other, better ways, of dealing with this issue. Especially with the advances in media and communications.

Postby **redwill** » Thu May 28, 2015 1:38 pm

What if the celebration is... insert any sin. Who is defining the exceptions? What makes this sin business-tolerable, but this sin a non-starter?
The business owner, it's his/her business not the "states".

Back to Troy's point about society ...

Does this business operate completely independently?

Does it provide its own police protection?
Does it provide its own firefighting service?
Does it maintain the roads and bridges leading to its parking lot?
Does it maintain its own legal courts?
Does it maintain a standing army to repel invasions from ISIL?

If it does not partake in any of the institutions (dare I say "benefits"?) of society, then I would agree it does not have to conform to society's regulations concerning justice.

Postby **ExPatriatePen** » Thu May 28, 2015 1:39 pm

What if the celebration is... insert any sin. Who is defining the exceptions? What makes this sin business-tolerable, but this sin a non-starter?
The business owner, it's his/her business not the "states".
Back to Troy's point about society ...

Does this business operate completely independently?

Does it provide its own police protection?
Does it provide its own firefighting service?
Does it maintain the roads and bridges leading to its parking lot?
Does it maintain its own legal courts?
Does it maintain a standing army to repel invasions from ISIL?

If it does not partake in any of the institutions (dare I say "benefits"?) of society, then I would agree it does not have to conform to society's regulations concerning justice.

...Does it pay for those services through taxes?

Should you then be able to dictate the stores hours? Or product mix? Or force it to carry pork if it's kosher? (After all, it may be a Hasidic Jewish owned business but it does have secular customers)

Postby **Troy Loney** » Thu May 28, 2015 1:43 pm

No, just that you can't discriminate against someone based on sexual orientation.

Postby **tifosi77** » Thu May 28, 2015 1:46 pm

I seriously doubt 100% of new customers are because of the policies.

You're presuming that the increase in business is all new customers. I think it's likely that the bulk of the increase represents a sub-set of existing customers who perhaps upped their CFA intake from one time a month to one time a week or somesuch. Regardless, the reason behind it remains; a desire to support a business expressing a discriminatory policy.

Postby **ExPatriatePen** » Thu May 28, 2015 1:46 pm

No, just that you can't discriminate against someone based on sexual orientation.

Today, yesterday that wasn't the case, and tomorrow maybe you'll have laws to force these other questions I asked.

It's about personal freedoms. You want personal freedoms for SSM ( as do I ) but you want to take away personal freedoms for another group. It's inconsistent and it's a slippery slope to have elected officials pick and chose, for you, which ones are appropriately legislated.

See also: Santorum Administration 2020

Postby **tifosi77** » Thu May 28, 2015 1:47 pm

Btw, this discussion has made me all nostalgic in a "we're-getting-the-band-back-together" kind of way.

Postby **columbia** » Thu May 28, 2015 1:48 pm

I'm not religious, so it's hard to wrap my head around the exact perceived problem: what would be the discernible harm done to any business, which would be not allowed to discriminate?

Postby **ExPatriatePen** » Thu May 28, 2015 1:48 pm

Btw, this discussion has made me all nostalgic in a "we're-getting-the-band-back-together" kind of way.

Postby **ExPatriatePen** » Thu May 28, 2015 1:49 pm

I'm not religious, so it's hard to wrap my head around the exact perceived problem: what would be the discernible harm done to any business, which would be not allowed to discriminate?

Not to the business per se, but to the individual rights of the owners.

Postby **redwill** » Thu May 28, 2015 1:50 pm

...Does it pay for those services through taxes?

Of course it pays taxes to maintain these things. Or I assume it does. It may depend on how good its tax attorney is.

But that's not the point. It exists within this society. It must play by this society's rules. It pays money for the services without which it could not exist.

If you and they want to go all Atlas Shrugged and abandon this train-wreck, you are welcome.

Postby **shmenguin** » Thu May 28, 2015 1:51 pm

So libertarians must be opposed to any public service like roads, schools, police, etc right? They're funded by the tyrany of mandatory taxation. Certainly they don't stand for that. They all would build or barter for their own infrastructure if given the opportunity I'm sure.

Postby **MWB** » Thu May 28, 2015 1:51 pm

No, just that you can't discriminate against someone based on sexual orientation.
Today, yesterday that wasn't the case, and tomorrow maybe you'll have laws to force these other questions I asked.

It's about personal freedoms. You want personal freedoms for SSM ( as do I ) but you want to take away personal freedoms for another group. It's inconsistent and it's a slippery slope to have elected officials pick and chose, for you, which ones are appropriately legislated.

See also: Santorum Administration 2020

The world evolves, changes should be made.
Is a business, even a small business, a person that deserves personal freedoms? Or by opening a public business does the owner agree to forego some of those freedoms to exist in society?

Postby **redwill** » Thu May 28, 2015 1:52 pm

Should you then be able to dictate the stores hours? Or product mix? Or force it to carry pork if it's kosher? (After all, it may be a Hasidic Jewish owned business but it does have secular customers)

As for this, well, that's kinda the point of the discussion.

I dunno.

Postby **Troy Loney** » Thu May 28, 2015 1:52 pm

No, just that you can't discriminate against someone based on sexual orientation.
Today, yesterday that wasn't the case, and tomorrow maybe you'll have laws to force these other questions I asked.

It's about personal freedoms. You want personal freedoms for SSM ( as do I ) but you want to take away personal freedoms for another group. It's inconsistent and it's a slippery slope to have elected officials pick and chose, for you, which ones are appropriately legislated.

See also: Santorum Administration 2020

So we're getting into the idealistic vs realistic. Discrimination laws were enacted in response to widespread human behavior of recent history. There are obviously plenty of reasonable laws that restrict human freedom, I see anti discrimination laws as a part of that group.

Postby **tifosi77** » Thu May 28, 2015 1:52 pm

Should you then be able to dictate the stores hours? Or product mix? Or force it to carry pork if it's kosher? (After all, it may be a Hasidic Jewish owned business but it does have secular customers)

This is where I have a hard time with these hypotheticals. This is not at all the point or purpose of the discussion of how businesses should be required to operate, and I would not be supportive of any measures that deigned to compel this.

If you are in the business of selling Halal or Kosher products, you should not be compelled to sell non-Halal or non-Kosher products; but you should not be allowed to refuse service to someone who is not a Muslim or Jew who wishes to buy your goods. The Indiana pizza parlor should not be compelled to suddenly begin making dreidels. But if a gay Jew came in and wanted a pizza, they should make him the bloody pizza. (Which goes back to the earlier discussion; the pizza shop in question was specifically talking about catering a same-sex wedding, but would they be permitted to turn away a gay person who just sauntered in for a slice?)

If you are operating a business in the public, then you have to serve all the public.

Postby **tifosi77** » Thu May 28, 2015 1:54 pm

It's about personal freedoms. You want personal freedoms for SSM ( as do I ) but you want to take away personal freedoms for another group. It's inconsistent and it's a slippery slope to have elected officials pick and chose, for you, which ones are appropriately legislated.

The problem here, and it's a logical absurdity that I simply cannot square, is the conflation with personal beliefs and the actions and practices of an extra-human entity.

Postby **Troy Loney** » Thu May 28, 2015 1:55 pm

...Does it pay for those services through taxes?
Of course it pays taxes to maintain these things. Or I assume it does. It may depend on how good its tax attorney is.

But that's not the point. It exists within this society. It must play by this society's rules. It pays money for the services without which it could not exist.

If you and they want to go all Atlas Shrugged and abandon this train-wreck, you are welcome.

Lol, I'm sure Dan Cathy stays up at night waiting for Ragnar Danneskjöld to knock on his door. Once we lose our chicken sandwiches, we're all done for.

Postby **ExPatriatePen** » Thu May 28, 2015 2:00 pm

You guys have overwhelmed me in my ability to address all of the excellent points you're making.

@Shmenguin :
I make Guinness's skin crawl because I'm not an absolute or pure libertarian. So I can't address the public roads and infrastructure questions as a libertarian. When it comes to those issues I take more of a hybrid stand. (Sorry Guinny)

@Redwill : Seriously? Atlas Shrugged? "Train wreck"? Anytime you want to cut with the dismissive personal sarcasm and put downs and discuss the issues like the rest of us, I'll be more than willing to respond to you, but puh-leze. All you're doing is attempting to derail a good conversation and we already have folks here, on both sides, that are good at that.

@MWB : That's an EXTREMELY valid question. I'm going to think about that. The quick answer is that to give up any personal freedoms is to start the ball rolling and end up down the slippery slope. But I admit that sounds like more like an NRA type response than I'm comfortable with.

Postby **ExPatriatePen** » Thu May 28, 2015 2:05 pm

It's about personal freedoms. You want personal freedoms for SSM ( as do I ) but you want to take away personal freedoms for another group. It's inconsistent and it's a slippery slope to have elected officials pick and chose, for you, which ones are appropriately legislated.
The problem here, and it's a logical absurdity that I simply cannot square, is the conflation with personal beliefs and the actions and practices of an extra-human entity.

So Bens Kosher Deli should be forced to serve pork and cheeseburgers because they exist in secular neighborhoods?

Postby **redwill** » Thu May 28, 2015 2:05 pm

@Redwill : Seriously? Atlas Shrugged? "Train wreck"? Anytime you want to cut with the dismissive personal sarcasm and put downs and discuss the issues like the rest of us, I'll be more than willing to respond to you, but puh-leze. All you're doing is attempting to derail a good conversation and we already have folks here, on both sides, that are good at that.

Well, OK I guess.