Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Lord Scythican wrote:
If I was gay, I would like for this to be a thing. If it did and a business refused service then I would be able to take them off my list of places that I support like chick-fil-a and salvation army.

But if you were gay surely you'd have to still support something that had tambourines as an accessory?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

zerosignal wrote:


Oh, England has some great old traditions.

Like, y'know, slavery, and invading other people's countries and taking their tea.

(I love tea).

you forgot forcing people to buy your drugs. Classy moment in history that one.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Lord Scythican wrote:
If I was gay, I would like for this to be a thing. If it did and a business refused service then I would be able to take them off my list of places that I support like chick-fil-a and salvation army.

What grudge do you have against Chik-fil-A? They don't descriminate against anyone.

This probably. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy

That has nothing to do with Chik-fil-A. The family that owns Chik-fil-A are Christians, they gave money to their church, their church gave money to a foundation that supports limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.

Chik-fil-A will serve any gay person that patronizes one of their locations without hesitation or complaint. They don't descriminate with their hiring practices either. There is no bigotry in Chik-fil-A's operational practices or in the actions of their employees. Why would anyone feel animosity towards them based upon how ownership behaves in their private lives? Holding a grudge against Chik-fil-A because of how ownership behaves privately is just as descriminatory as people descriminating against gay marriage because of how gay people behave in their private lives. Hypocrisy. Pots should call kettles black, that's just counterproductive.

Indeed.

So discrimination is fine, if it's in private?...

zerosignal wrote:
So discrimination is fine, if it's in private?...

Thats the libertarian and common law argument. Absent a monopoly, someone should not be forced to work or serve someone they don't want to. No shirt, no shoes, swastika tat NO SERVICE YOU HITLERITE!

EDIT: why, if I am a proprietor should I be forced to serve the guy who just put into to make the ballot making it a capital crime to be gay in California? I abhor such nonsense and should be able to throw that *)^tard out on his ass.

EDIT: The above policy should not apply to corporations. If you want the protections of a distinct corporate body, you should not have the rights of living person.

I'm pretty sure many cities would happily court Gen Con it's a massive affair and such.

Funding political groups is fine.
I don't agree with it, but if they want to fund a lobby group I don't see how it's any different to any other special interest group.

If you censored them due to disagreeing with their stance, THAT i would have a problem with.

Holy crap i think i'm turning libertarian....just what have you done to me dakka?

Hollismason wrote:
I'm pretty sure many cities would happily court Gen Con it's a massive affair and such.

And rightly so. GenCon should be free to contract with whomever it wants. Other cities should be free to court it. Thats how free enterprise is supposed to work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bullockist wrote:
Funding political groups is fine.
I don't agree with it, but if they want to fund a lobby group I don't see how it's any different to any other special interest group.

If you censored them due to disagreeing with their stance, THAT i would have a problem with.

Holy crap i think i'm turning libertarian....just what have you done to me dakka?

You've just taken your first step into a larger universe.

Prestor Jon wrote:

That has nothing to do with Chik-fil-A. The family that owns Chik-fil-A are Christians, they gave money to their church, their church gave money to a foundation that supports limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.

Chik-fil-A will serve any gay person that patronizes one of their locations without hesitation or complaint. They don't descriminate with their hiring practices either. There is no bigotry in Chik-fil-A's operational practices or in the actions of their employees. Why would anyone feel animosity towards them based upon how ownership behaves in their private lives? Holding a grudge against Chik-fil-A because of how ownership behaves privately is just as descriminatory as people descriminating against gay marriage because of how gay people behave in their private lives. Hypocrisy. Pots should call kettles black, that's just counterproductive.

Oh I agree, I was just guessing that controversy was the reason Lord Scythican doesn't do business with them.

We have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Or at least that's how it should be.

If a business owner wants to be a dick and not accept people's money because they have a different opinion about something, shouldn't that be their right?

The business owner absolutely should be able to refuse service to anyone, just as we have the right to not give that fething moron any money.

To do such a thing is fiscally idiotic, but let them hang themselves if they want to, they have the right to do it.

 Frazzled wrote:

zerosignal wrote:
So discrimination is fine, if it's in private?...

Thats the libertarian and common law argument. Absent a monopoly, someone should not be forced to work or serve someone they don't want to. No shirt, no shoes, swastika tat NO SERVICE YOU HITLERITE!

EDIT: The above policy should not apply to corporations. If you want the protections of a distinct corporate body, you should not have the rights of living person.

Exactly. Contract rights are the keystone of a free society. You can enter into a contract with a person of your choosing or not enter into a contract with a person if you don't want to.

For a less controversial example, say I have tickets to a Duke vs UNC baseketball game but I can't go so I want to sell them to somebody else. Let's say I'm a Duke fan so I don't want to sell them to a UNC fan so I choose to descrinimate against UNC fans and only sell my tickets to another Duke fan. That's not illegal, it doesn't make anybody into a horrible monster, it's just a private transaction between two parties that willfully consented to the transaction.

The state cannot descriminate because it represents and works for everybody equally (at least in theory). Private individuals are free to hold the beliefs they want and conduct business with whomever they want.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alex C wrote:
We have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Or at least that's how it should be.

If a business owner wants to be a dick and not accept people's money because they have a different opinion about something, shouldn't that be their right?

The business owner absolutely should be able to refuse service to anyone, just as we have the right to not give that fething moron any money.

To do such a thing is fiscally idiotic, but let them hang themselves if they want to, they have the right to do it.

Petard hoisting for everyone!

 Frazzled wrote:


Thats asinine. Under that definition if you don't like serial kilers you're a bigot.

I don't think that anyone considers disliking serial killers to be irrational or unfair.

 Frazzled wrote:

Again, so should a Jew be forced to serve a Nazi? Should a Zydeco band be forced to play at a Klan rally?
Should a gay bakery be forced to serve breeders?

Should a business owner be allowed to refuse to serve someone because they are black, or asian, or latino?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alex C wrote:

The business owner absolutely should be able to refuse service to anyone, just as we have the right to not give that fething moron any money.

Should a business owner be allowed to refuse service to someone because they are black? Or Jewish?

 Alex C wrote:
We have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Or at least that's how it should be.

If a business owner wants to be a dick and not accept people's money because they have a different opinion about something, shouldn't that be their right?

The business owner absolutely should be able to refuse service to anyone, just as we have the right to not give that fething moron any money.

To do such a thing is fiscally idiotic, but let them hang themselves if they want to, they have the right to do it.

EXCELSIOR!
And if I don't like their policy I don't have to buy from them and am free to use my First Amendment rights to express that to everyone else, even to stage a boycott of their products until they change, or are driven out of business and replaced by persons of less neanderthalic views.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Should a business owner be allowed to refuse to serve someone because they are black, or asian, or latino?

Correct. If a business owner wants to cut himself off from good business he should be allowed to.

Those he won't do business with are free to find other person who will take their money; use their freedom of speech to express their opinions of him and his service, up to organizeing legal boycotts/marketing/etc; set up their own business and drive the out of business.

Corporate entities, monopolies, and governments should NOT have this ability however, as they are all facets of government power.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Lord Scythican wrote:
If I was gay, I would like for this to be a thing. If it did and a business refused service then I would be able to take them off my list of places that I support like chick-fil-a and salvation army.

What grudge do you have against Chik-fil-A? They don't descriminate against anyone.

This probably. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy

That has nothing to do with Chik-fil-A. The family that owns Chik-fil-A are Christians, they gave money to their church, their church gave money to a foundation that supports limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.

Chik-fil-A will serve any gay person that patronizes one of their locations without hesitation or complaint. They don't descriminate with their hiring practices either. There is no bigotry in Chik-fil-A's operational practices or in the actions of their employees. Why would anyone feel animosity towards them based upon how ownership behaves in their private lives? Holding a grudge against Chik-fil-A because of how ownership behaves privately is just as descriminatory as people descriminating against gay marriage because of how gay people behave in their private lives. Hypocrisy. Pots should call kettles black, that's just counterproductive.

I disagree entirely. By supporting Chik-fil-a you are putting money into the hands of the owners. In doing so you are providing them with a percentage of profits that they can then turn and use for their idiotic agendas.

Then there is this:

http://ideas.time.com/2012/08/01/chick-fil-a-mea-culpa-i-have-changed-my-mind/

My friends and I are tentatively visiting Gencon for the first time this year.

Reading this letter makes me all the happier to have supported them. I applaud them taking a stance that could potentially harm their bottom line (depending on how many people feel their stance is unreasonable) and even throw the entire convention into upheaval (should they choose to move to another city).

I'm sure this wasn't written and shared lightly.

Ok for those of you who think that this is a clear cut open and shut case that businesses do not have the right to refuse service to other ethnicities and sexual preferences and religious beliefs and so on since they are protected by the constitution, then answer this, do you think it is right for a bunch of people to walk into a mall all armed with pistols on their belt, and were talking civilians not police or military, but just everyday citizens, do you think that is right? got news for you, according to the constitution it should be since we are given the right "to keep and bear arms", yet that right has been taken away from us, do you think it is right for a bunch of people in a neighborhood who own their homes, keep nice houses and pay their bills, should have their homes yanked out from under them to tear down and build a strip mall ? evidently the supreme court thinks its ok.

so to think a law like the one being proposed in Indiana and elsewhere is going to be an open and shut case, is not good thinking, I feel this situation is going to shake up the country.

 Lord Scythican wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Lord Scythican wrote:
If I was gay, I would like for this to be a thing. If it did and a business refused service then I would be able to take them off my list of places that I support like chick-fil-a and salvation army.

What grudge do you have against Chik-fil-A? They don't descriminate against anyone.

This probably. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy

That has nothing to do with Chik-fil-A. The family that owns Chik-fil-A are Christians, they gave money to their church, their church gave money to a foundation that supports limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.

Chik-fil-A will serve any gay person that patronizes one of their locations without hesitation or complaint. They don't descriminate with their hiring practices either. There is no bigotry in Chik-fil-A's operational practices or in the actions of their employees. Why would anyone feel animosity towards them based upon how ownership behaves in their private lives? Holding a grudge against Chik-fil-A because of how ownership behaves privately is just as descriminatory as people descriminating against gay marriage because of how gay people behave in their private lives. Hypocrisy. Pots should call kettles black, that's just counterproductive.

I disagree entirely. By supporting Chik-fil-a you are putting money into the hands of the owners. In doing so you are providing them with a percentage of profits that they can then turn and use for their idiotic agendas.

Then there is this:

http://ideas.time.com/2012/08/01/chick-fil-a-mea-culpa-i-have-changed-my-mind/

Chik-fil-A as a restaurant does not descriminate against anybody. You want to harbor ill will against somebody based upon their personal beliefs and actions conducted in their personal lives solely because you're upset that those people themselves take issue with how other people conduct themsevles in their respective private lives. That still strikes my as hypocritical.

Obviously you're free to believe what you want and patronize business in accordance to your beliefs, but it strikes me that we're creating circular firing squads of intolerance directed at intolerant people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:
Ok for those of you who think that this is a clear cut open and shut case that businesses do not have the right to refuse service to other ethnicities and sexual preferences and religious beliefs and so on since they are protected by the constitution, then answer this, do you think it is right for a bunch of people to walk into a mall all armed with pistols on their belt, and were talking civilians not police or military, but just everyday citizens, do you think that is right? got news for you, according to the constitution it should be since we are given the right "to keep and bear arms", yet that right has been taken away from us, do you think it is right for a bunch of people in a neighborhood who own their homes, keep nice houses and pay their bills, should have their homes yanked out from under them to tear down and build a strip mall ? evidently the supreme court thinks its ok.

so to think a law like the one being proposed in Indiana and elsewhere is going to be an open and shut case, is not good thinking, I feel this situation is going to shake up the country.

What's wrong with US citizens being armed? They're not doing anything wrong in your scenario, they're just shopping at a mall. Don't fear your neighbors or inanimate objects, they're people just like you. Owning a firearm doesn't turn someone into some crazed bloodthirsty psychopath.

Prestor Jon wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:
Ok for those of you who think that this is a clear cut open and shut case that businesses do not have the right to refuse service to other ethnicities and sexual preferences and religious beliefs and so on since they are protected by the constitution, then answer this, do you think it is right for a bunch of people to walk into a mall all armed with pistols on their belt, and were talking civilians not police or military, but just everyday citizens, do you think that is right? got news for you, according to the constitution it should be since we are given the right "to keep and bear arms", yet that right has been taken away from us, do you think it is right for a bunch of people in a neighborhood who own their homes, keep nice houses and pay their bills, should have their homes yanked out from under them to tear down and build a strip mall ? evidently the supreme court thinks its ok.

so to think a law like the one being proposed in Indiana and elsewhere is going to be an open and shut case, is not good thinking, I feel this situation is going to shake up the country.

What's wrong with US citizens being armed? They're not doing anything wrong in your scenario, they're just shopping at a mall. Don't fear your neighbors or inanimate objects, they're people just like you. Owning a firearm doesn't turn someone into some crazed bloodthirsty psychopath.

nothing wrong, and no it doesn't, but it is against the law in many places to even carry a fire arm in the open, the most simple and basic laws given to us, and it is removed without forethought by some.

as it goes I can see where this law is good, since it will tell people who discriminates or whatever and I would rather know this then to not know this and go into the establishment and discover some nasty surprise in my food or whatever.

also remember the 1st. amendment gives people the right to be @$$holes, the first and foremost of our rights, and it is trampled all over the place by others claiming their right to this and that.

Asterios wrote:

as it goes I can see where this law is good, since it will tell people who discriminates or whatever and I would rather know this then to not know this and go into the establishment and discover some nasty surprise in my food or whatever.

also remember the 1st. amendment gives people the right to be @$$holes, the first and foremost of our rights, and it is trampled all over the place by others claiming their right to this and that.

As I said earlier, I think a law like this is only "good" insofar as there is mandatory signage that a business must use.

This way, if "you" are a business exercising that right to be a donkey cave, I can see that before I cross through that door and I can take my money elsewhere. I personally support equality in most cases (think things tend to get far too nebulous if we enter into the realm of Trans discussions), and I personally feel that if you refuse to serve blacks, asians, islanders, gays, uncomfortably hairy, etc. people then I refuse to give you money for goods that I desire.

Prestor Jon wrote:


Chik-fil-A as a restaurant does not discriminate against anybody. You want to harbor ill will against somebody based upon their personal beliefs and actions conducted in their personal lives solely because you're upset that those people themselves take issue with how other people conduct themselves in their respective private lives. That still strikes my as hypocritical.

Obviously you're free to believe what you want and patronize business in accordance to your beliefs, but it strikes me that we're creating circular firing squads of intolerance directed at intolerant people.

You are obviously missing something here so let me simplify it.

First let us say I create a miniature painting service that is ran solely by myself (the owner). I then use said business to generate capital and profit to spend on my personal agendas. Then I use that capital and profit that spread hateful messages towards a specific group of people. From what you are saying, that specific group of people should be OK with using my miniature painting service because I still have my business open for them.

"Please bring me your money so I can use it against you!"

 Lord Scythican wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


Chik-fil-A as a restaurant does not discriminate against anybody. You want to harbor ill will against somebody based upon their personal beliefs and actions conducted in their personal lives solely because you're upset that those people themselves take issue with how other people conduct themselves in their respective private lives. That still strikes my as hypocritical.

Obviously you're free to believe what you want and patronize business in accordance to your beliefs, but it strikes me that we're creating circular firing squads of intolerance directed at intolerant people.

You are obviously missing something here so let me simplify it.

First let us say I create a miniature painting service that is ran solely by myself (the owner). I then use said business to generate capital and profit to spend on my personal agendas. Then I use that capital and profit that spread hateful messages towards a specific group of people. From what you are saying, that specific group of people should be OK with using my miniature painting service because I still have my business open for them.

"Please bring me your money so I can use it against you!"

the problem is, say you do not give your money to groups to do that, but instead spend it on porn and filth? the thing of it is, how do we know where businesses money goes to once they get it, why are people even prying into other peoples private lives? who gives a rats behind what people are doing in their private lives? its called private, so leave it like that. also tell me are you going to boycott any and all businesses that give money to the Boy Scouts? if you do your gonna run out of places to go to.

Asterios wrote:

 Lord Scythican wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


Chik-fil-A as a restaurant does not discriminate against anybody. You want to harbor ill will against somebody based upon their personal beliefs and actions conducted in their personal lives solely because you're upset that those people themselves take issue with how other people conduct themselves in their respective private lives. That still strikes my as hypocritical.

Obviously you're free to believe what you want and patronize business in accordance to your beliefs, but it strikes me that we're creating circular firing squads of intolerance directed at intolerant people.

You are obviously missing something here so let me simplify it.

First let us say I create a miniature painting service that is ran solely by myself (the owner). I then use said business to generate capital and profit to spend on my personal agendas. Then I use that capital and profit that spread hateful messages towards a specific group of people. From what you are saying, that specific group of people should be OK with using my miniature painting service because I still have my business open for them.

"Please bring me your money so I can use it against you!"

the problem is, say you do not give your money to groups to do that, but instead spend it on porn and filth? the thing of it is, how do we know where businesses money goes to once they get it, why are people even prying into other peoples private lives? who gives a rats behind what people are doing in their private lives? its called private, so leave it like that. also tell me are you going to boycott any and all businesses that give money to the Boy Scouts? if you do your gonna run out of places to go to.

Porn and filth is personal. It is not an agenda that affects a large group of people. Before you say "but it affects the people who make it", yeah who cares? Those people want you to spend the money on them.

If you make money from me, you are free to spend it on yourself however you see fit. You want to watch porn all day with fine. You want to take the same money and spend it harming someone other than yourself, then it is not fine.

Regardless I now know I care not for your opinion. Another name to add to the blocked list of jerks on dakka.

PhantomViper wrote:


I'm not calling any poster a bigot, just saying that they are defending bigoted behaviour, which they are.

If you think that it's perfectly acceptable to discriminate against a group unless it's one you feel close to, then you'd have to wonder if calling others bigots that fast is a smart choice.

 Sigvatr wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:


I'm not calling any poster a bigot, just saying that they are defending bigoted behaviour, which they are.

If you think that it's perfectly acceptable to discriminate against a group unless it's one you feel close to, then you'd have to wonder if calling others bigots that fast is a smart choice.

Where have I said that it was acceptable to discriminate against anyone?

PhantomViper wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:


I'm not calling any poster a bigot, just saying that they are defending bigoted behaviour, which they are.

If you think that it's perfectly acceptable to discriminate against a group unless it's one you feel close to, then you'd have to wonder if calling others bigots that fast is a smart choice.

Where have I said that it was acceptable to discriminate against anyone?

Calling people bigots is discriminatory against bigots.

Bad Gencon. You really shouldn't be taking any stances on political issues that don't concern you.

I believe that businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. The only thing wrong with this law is that its too specific, it should be much broader. But as it is it only increases freedom, and that isn't a bad thing.

 Lord Scythican wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:


Chik-fil-A as a restaurant does not discriminate against anybody. You want to harbor ill will against somebody based upon their personal beliefs and actions conducted in their personal lives solely because you're upset that those people themselves take issue with how other people conduct themselves in their respective private lives. That still strikes my as hypocritical.

Obviously you're free to believe what you want and patronize business in accordance to your beliefs, but it strikes me that we're creating circular firing squads of intolerance directed at intolerant people.

You are obviously missing something here so let me simplify it.

First let us say I create a miniature painting service that is ran solely by myself (the owner). I then use said business to generate capital and profit to spend on my personal agendas. Then I use that capital and profit that spread hateful messages towards a specific group of people. From what you are saying, that specific group of people should be OK with using my miniature painting service because I still have my business open for them.

"Please bring me your money so I can use it against you!"

It's personal beliefs and private behavior. You don't want the Chik-fil-A owners to care about how gay people conduct themselves in their personal lives but you want to condemn the owners for their personal beliefs. Chik-fil-A isn't refusing to provide service to gay people, isn't refusing to hire gay people, isn't passing any laws that persecute gay people. They have personal religious beliefs, they spend money in accordance to those beliefs. You don't have to buy their chicken sandwichs, I don't either, but it's not as if society can't function and people can't coexist if don't all hold the exact same personal beliefs, tolerance goes both ways.

Didnt we have that cake discrimination thing before?

a business has the right to refuse service. dont give out a reason, no problems.

Its when people get vocal that dumb things start happening.

Edit: Also yes please come to cali. i dont think there really is a big miniatures convention anywhere around here :(

LA convention center is huge

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Come to cali gencon. We will welcome you with open arms, infact, come to Santa cruz.

Santa Cruz? If they come to Cali, they'll either go to San Diego or to the Anaheim Convention Center. They'd be crazy to go anywhere else.

PhantomViper wrote:


Where have I said that it was acceptable to discriminate against anyone?

Discriminating others for their religion is pretty discriminating.