Bake the Cake.... and Do My Return.... OR ELSE!

[BugI02]

That seems like a loaded question.

No point in carrying questions if there isn't one in the chamber

 

[Birds Away]

No point in carrying questions if there isn't one in the chamber

You're a thread crosser.

 

[printcraft]

Her business, her right to refuse. I believe in that concept.

Free market, let her and her customers decide etc etc.

YOU MUST!!
Sorry, sod off.

 

[JettaKnight]

I like cake.

Don't tell Adam Corola. I just listened to another Loveline episode where here went on one of his ten minute rants about the superiority of pie.

 

[HoughMade]

Don't tell Adam Corola. I just listened to another Loveline episode where here went on one of his ten minute rants about the superiority of pie.

I have requested pies for my last two birthdays...not that I would turn up my nose if cake was offered to me.

 

[Birds Away]

Don't tell Adam Corola. I just listened to another Loveline episode where here went on one of his ten minute rants about the superiority of pie.

I also like pie.

 

[BugI02]

You're a thread crosser.

Long as I don't cross the streams, eh?

 

[jamil]

But, would he if he had the tools?

I suppose if he lived long enough to “devolve” like the rest of the left did, into people who see that as the right path to “change the world” I suppose. But looking at a snapshot of the character at the time, no. That era was before postmodern deconstruction, so tearing society down wasn’t part of the program.

 

[Libertarian01]

IF those were universal truths in today's world you'd have a point.
But they aren't.

My point is that those methods of discrimination were destroyed because people challenged them. They weren't just miracled away.

Her business, her right to refuse. I believe in that concept.

Not necessarily true. Her business. She doesn't like dogs, so she doesn't allow dogs, no matter what! Except... a veteran with a service animal enters. She cannot refuse someone into her business that is protected by law. Every single business owner must comply with laws they don't agree with. If we don't like it we should change the law. A more accurate statement would be, "Her business, her right to do what she wants under the law."

Or. This isnÂ’t civil rights era discrimination, bigotry, hate induced exclusion, or whatever. Some Christians believe that marriage is a god-ordained bond between a man and a woman and believe that doing things that tend to acknowledge it as a marrige is condoning it. They see it as sinful. You might argue that itÂ’s a dubious religious interpretation. But thereÂ’s no evidence that itÂ’s bigotry. ItÂ’s not shunning the couple because theyÂ’re icky. ItÂ’s a matter of belief.

Perhaps the tax prepared is wrong in his or her interpretation. But looking down noses and pointing fingers is no better than not doing the taxes. That interpretation certainly isn’t going to improve in the direction you want simply by mobshaming the tax preparer. Which is the left’s “tolerant” reaction. If you want to change the outlook, reason from the source of the belief. The Bible.

MLK didnÂ’t mobshame people into compliance. He exposed the hateful intolerance of people because of immutable characteristics. The people claiming this event is an example of THAT kind of bigotry should compare the tax preparerÂ’s behavior to the behavior of real ass bigots from pre-60s.

IF she is a true and honest christian, I would agree. However, Jesus spoke several times about the reason for divorce. Does she do the taxes for anyone who is divorced? If so (and I'm 100% certain she does, just by statistics) then she is cherry picking what christian values to adhere to and what to apply without adherence to scripture. That is intolerance of someone different from her. Ergo, bigotry.

One of the bases for the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act applying to private businesses was the lack of alternatives for African-Americans in many places. Whether you believe that is an adequate basis or not, can we say that there is a lack of alternatives for tax preparers? Bakeries? Florists? It seems to me that the emphasis is not on making sure that needed services are available (they are), itÂ’s on forced compliance with the accepted viewpoint.

Damn. You are making me work. It is my reading of the Civil Rights Act Section 201(a) Title II Injunctive Relief Against Discrimination In Places of Public Accomodation "...All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services..."

Follow this with 42 US Code s 12181 7(F) "...office of an accountant..."

So, if she is now a member of a protected class then my understanding of the law is that the tax preparer is operating in a place of public accommodation and must comply with the law.

No matter what the basis was or were a the time it has possibly changed and enlarged, correct?

I see the Libertarian Party platform of enslaving others (forced to serve another against your will) if it is for certain protected classes, is still popular.

I am not for enslaving anyone, save to respect of the law. If you go into business you agree to follow certain laws, more or less depending upon the business. Don't like ethics rules? Great! Don't become a lawyer. Don't like cleaning? Great! Don't become a restaurateur. Want to be a racist? Great! Don't go into business where you could get slapped with a discrimination suit.

Don't like any of these? Great! Change the law.

I like cake.

I like cake too. Especially carrot cake. And I can make a really good spiced pumpkin cheesecake with a graham cracker pecan crust.

But... do cupcakes count? I like cupcakes too.

I have requested pies for my last two birthdays...not that I would turn up my nose if cake was offered to me.

Pies are good too. I love Dutch Apple pie. Also pecan pie.

Ooh, and pumpkin pie with whipped cream. It isn't the same without whipped cream.

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

Look, I am not advocating for any individual to do what they don't want to do. But as I've argued in the past I have little sympathy for someone who wants to go into business and expose themselves to the public while standing on the soapbox of rights. You go into business you accept that you're going to deal with people and ideas you don't like or agree with. If you don't want to do that, don't go into business.

I am not anti-business on this, just pro law. And yes, there are too many laws. 100% agree before this argument is brought up. So change the laws, or fight them by disobeying them. But if fighting them is the course of action taken don't be surprised if it doesn't go your way.

Restaurants are hammered by a lot of laws and/or ordinances. There are tens of thousands of legally operating restaurants out there under this heavy burden from labor laws, general laws, local health departments, etc etc etc. They operate fine, many being very profitable. Some where you can even get cake and pie and ice cream.

And finally, I go back to an position I used a long time ago: IF you are going to be so intolerant of someones lifestyle don't be so damned F*****G stupid as to rub their noses in it! Give another excuse, ANY excuse, but telling them they're sinful turds 'cause the bible says so isn't the smartest way to avoid a lawsuit.

Regards,

Doug

 

[jamil]

IF she is a true and honest christian, I would agree. However, Jesus spoke several times about the reason for divorce. Does she do the taxes for anyone who is divorced? If so (and I'm 100% certain she does, just by statistics) then she is cherry picking what christian values to adhere to and what to apply without adherence to scripture. That is intolerance of someone different from her. Ergo, bigotry.

So you can't imagine any area of belief where this can't be bigotry? I think that's not very tolerant of people's beliefs. Could you be holding them to your standards based on your worldview, which are standards not any more objective than hers?

So her position is that god doesn't condone gay marriages, and doing their taxes would be condoning same-sex marriages. And it's your contention that she's being hypocritical, therefore not sincere, therefore a bigot. I'm pretty sure you're wrong about her sincerity. You're basing it on a presumption of hypocrisy, and because hypocrisy means she knows better, she must be a bigot. There's the disconnect. I'll give you the benefit of doubt that she does divorced people's taxes. So that means you're probably right that she is at least being a little hypocritical by common definitions. But only a little. Doing the taxes of a divorced person doesn't enable or condone a divorce to the extent that filing jointly for a same sex married couple does. But let's say in for a penny, in for a pound. So let's say it's 100% hypocrisy.

People are very sincere despite hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is blinding, and it is blinding on purpose. Evolutionary biologists even say that hypocrisy is a feature, not a bug. It's how we're wired, and we all practice hypocrisy, and we don't usually know it. It served a purpose. We can override it; someone can point it out, and if we're intellectually honest enough to see it and want to correct it, we can override that instance of hypocrisy. Or, we can club people over the head with it, which is what we usually do, which, ironically, is hypocritical because we're all hypocrites. Yet everyone can still be quite sincere about straining a spec while swallowing a camel. Sincerely believing that you're condoning something god doesn't condone isn't necessarily bigotry. To get to the bottom of that you need to talk to her yourself. And if that opportunity isn't a available, maybe sit this shame session out.

Fine to talk about the law though. If her state classifies the gay couple as a protected class, it's an easier question than deciding to shame the "bigots". The tax lady has to do their taxes.

 

[BugI02]

Is there not some element of jeopardy to this case, also? I know the preparer cited religious beliefs, but the preparer signs off on those tax forms too and during an audit is hauled onto the carpet with the taxpayer. Is it possible she saw the whole gay marriage filing as likely to be audited and be a drain on her time she wished to avoid and just cited what she thought would be acceptable and legally protected reasoning (which would still be hypocrisy, but of a different kind)

 

[Libertarian01]

So you can't imagine any area of belief where this can't be bigotry? I think that's not very tolerant of people's beliefs. Could you be holding them to your standards based on your worldview, which are standards not any more objective than hers?

So her position is that god doesn't condone gay marriages, and doing their taxes would be condoning same-sex marriages. And it's your contention that she's being hypocritical, therefore not sincere, therefore a bigot. I'm pretty sure you're wrong about her sincerity. You're basing it on a presumption of hypocrisy, and because hypocrisy means she knows better, she must be a bigot. There's the disconnect. I'll give you the benefit of doubt that she does divorced people's taxes. So that means you're probably right that she is at least being a little hypocritical by common definitions. But only a little. Doing the taxes of a divorced person doesn't enable or condone a divorce to the extent that filing jointly for a same sex married couple does. But let's say in for a penny, in for a pound. So let's say it's 100% hypocrisy.

People are very sincere despite hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is blinding, and it is blinding on purpose. Evolutionary biologists even say that hypocrisy is a feature, not a bug. It's how we're wired, and we all practice hypocrisy, and we don't usually know it. It served a purpose. We can override it; someone can point it out, and if we're intellectually honest enough to see it and want to correct it, we can override that instance of hypocrisy. Or, we can club people over the head with it, which is what we usually do, which, ironically, is hypocritical because we're all hypocrites. Yet everyone can still be quite sincere about straining a spec while swallowing a camel. Sincerely believing that you're condoning something god doesn't condone isn't necessarily bigotry. To get to the bottom of that you need to talk to her yourself. And if that opportunity isn't a available, maybe sit this shame session out.

Fine to talk about the law though. If her state classifies the gay couple as a protected class, it's an easier question than deciding to shame the "bigots". The tax lady has to do their taxes.

One of my issues is that people use Jesus and Allah and God and Jehovah to justify all sorts of intolerance, bigotry, hate and simple rude behavior.

How long ago was it that many, many Americans honestly believed that interracial marriage was spoken against in the bible?

As to doing the taxes of a divorced person, of course it helps them in many different ways to stay within the law and maximize tax benefits from child support, child care, the custodial parent, etc.

Perhaps you are right and she doesn't understand that Jesus never said a word against homosexuality, not once to my understanding. Perhaps she wasn't aware that he spoke several times against divorce.

On one hand I really don't care one way or the other about this case. Yes, it is ridiculous that the plaintiff isn't willing to just walk away, but should they have to? Maybe...? Maybe not...?

My biggest single argument is that when you open a business you agree to be bound by the laws that govern a businesses. You leave the realm of an individual human being with rights and voluntarily agree to be subjected to additional laws and rules.

If someone doesn't pay, you don't have to work with them. If someone treats you like garbage you don't have to work with them. If someone does anything as an individual person that is inappropriate then you don't have to work with them. However, someone just being gay or black or Asian or having multicoloured hair or bad taste in clothing or Jewish or whatever then they are just a member of the public, so deal with them. When they cross the line as an individual snot, then cut them loose.

And if a business owner does want to discriminate just 'cause, then don't be so damn stupid as to tell them that to their face. That is just asking for trouble.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Mongo59]

Doug, the Bible does say that Miriam and Aaron rose up against their brother Moses because he took a Cu****e wife.

While some take this to mean he was supposed to be "setting himself apart" as the Lord had asked the Hebrews to do, others point out that Cush was Ethiopia...

The beauty of scripture is it might not change your heart all the way to "good" all at once but make small changes over time. The way one reads this today may not be the same way they read it even a year from now. Praise God.

 

[Mongo59]

Read: a woman from Cush.

 

[Mongo59]

It would appear I can't talk about the type of wood the ark was made from either, lol.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

It would appear I can't talk about the type of wood the ark was made from either, lol.

Gopher wood? Oh, you meant the ark of the covenant... now I see. lol

 

[HoughMade]

Apparently my understanding of libertarianism is woefully inadequate.

 

[Expat]

Apparently my understanding of libertarianism is woefully inadequate.

They seem to have a solid statist wing...

 

[mmpsteve]

One of my issues is that people use Jesus and Allah and God and Jehovah to justify all sorts of intolerance, bigotry, hate and simple rude behavior.

How long ago was it that many, many Americans honestly believed that interracial marriage was spoken against in the bible?

As to doing the taxes of a divorced person, of course it helps them in many different ways to stay within the law and maximize tax benefits from child support, child care, the custodial parent, etc.

Perhaps you are right and she doesn't understand that Jesus never said a word against homosexuality, not once to my understanding. Perhaps she wasn't aware that he spoke several times against divorce.

On one hand I really don't care one way or the other about this case. Yes, it is ridiculous that the plaintiff isn't willing to just walk away, but should they have to? Maybe...? Maybe not...?

My biggest single argument is that when you open a business you agree to be bound by the laws that govern a businesses. You leave the realm of an individual human being with rights and voluntarily agree to be subjected to additional laws and rules.

If someone doesn't pay, you don't have to work with them. If someone treats you like garbage you don't have to work with them. If someone does anything as an individual person that is inappropriate then you don't have to work with them. However, someone just being gay or black or Asian or having multicoloured hair or bad taste in clothing or Jewish or whatever then they are just a member of the public, so deal with them. When they cross the line as an individual snot, then cut them loose.

And if a business owner does want to discriminate just 'cause, then don't be so damn stupid as to tell them that to their face. That is just asking for trouble.

Regards,

Doug

Reminds me of the time a guy brought a zip drive into my shop, wanting us to print his nudie photos from the 'Nudes a poppin' contest. Seems the local Walgreens refused him service. No particular point, just a fond memory.

.

 

[jamil]

Doug. DOUG. C'mon man. What are we gonna do with you? I'm pretty sure "bad taste in clothes" is not a protected class. Half the things you listed aren't protected. Nor should they be. And "inappropriate" is subjective. Laws need to be objective. And really they should be for the purpose of protecting rights, and preventing harm. Not enforce the subjective social justice you want.

Using government to enforce your societal ideals, or stamp out bigotry, is a colossal misuse of government. Especially, when it's subjective, you or I could just be full of ****. So we should think about that before we go imposing subjective morality on the rest of society. It's generally safe to let society work some stuff out for themselves, like decide who to transact with. I can see putting some rules around that to protect from a community of business owners being able to effectively "cancel" individuals through exclusion. Government enforcement should be limited to protecting against actual harm. A person having their feels hurt because someone doesn't like their blue hair IS NOT HARM.

There are two sides to colliding rights. For the purposes of policy, I don't actually care if a business owner--or a customer--is the worst bigoted ******* around. It's crappy to deal with bigots. It's not illegal. That would be an absurd and subjective standard. We can't even agree that the tax preparer was actually being a bigot. As long as there are other viable choices, the least infringement is to let people on both sides of a transaction decide if they want to transact. That means both parties have veto power.

Seriously though. Taste in clothes? How far can you go with that? I mean think that through a bit. How is that not gonna get abused?