No Firearms Signs

[MarkC]

You say it protects one side, then list how it protects both sides. Not sure what else to say there.

Dick's isn't an issue. If you don't sell assault widgets to anyone, then you aren't discriminating...you just don't carry that product. I'm not advocating McD's makes you a taco if you order one. I'm advocating anyone with a dollar (and tax) can buy an item off the dollar menu, regardless of politics, race, religion, occupation, etc.

As far as why can't businesses choose like individuals can, businesses aren't people and do not have the same rights (despite creep in that direction). Businesses can't claim freedom of association when merging a forming a monopoly, for example. Why can't banks band together and decide to not lend to firearms companies or process credit card transactions for gun stores?



Somebody probably shut down their restaurant rather than let everyone sit at the same lunch counter. When you assign a moral component to a commercial transaction based on who the customer is, that's a risk you run.

^^^^ This. Right. Here.

 

[HoughMade]

...Somebody probably shut down their restaurant rather than let everyone sit at the same lunch counter. When you assign a moral component to a commercial transaction based on who the customer is, that's a risk you run.

You understand that no one is refusing to sell to gay people, right? They are refusing to make WEDDING cakes. You see no difference?

This is where the "I want a Nazi cake" absurdist comparison has validity. It's not the person, it's the message. Why should anyone have to give up their right to not be associated with a message because someone else wants to send a message, whatever it may be?

 

[jamil]

You say it protects one side, then list how it protects both sides. Not sure what else to say there.

C'mon man. That's not what I did and I'll give you the benefit of doubt that you missed it. I'm not interested in salt here. We're just discussing ideas, right?

It protects businesses in one case but not the other. I made that clear enough. So please at least credit me for saying what I actually said.

Dick's isn't an issue. If you don't sell assault widgets to anyone, then you aren't discriminating...you just don't carry that product. I'm not advocating McD's makes you a taco if you order one. I'm advocating anyone with a dollar (and tax) can buy an item off the dollar menu, regardless of politics, race, religion, occupation, etc.

This seems like a misrepresentation of what I'm saying. Dicks hired lobbyists to lobby in favor of gun control. If that's what they want to spend their money on, it's their right to do. But that does create a sort of defacto oppression, as I would call it. They're not doing it because they're under pressure from anti-gun people. They're doing it because they are activists themselves.

The fact that they aren't discriminating by groups in what they're selling is irrelevant as there's no link between a company being activists and a company deciding to discriminate. The banks may be doing it because they're afraid of being boycotted, or they may do it because they're activists. You're just assuming it's fear of boycotts. I'm saying they have a right to be activists, and I'd prefer to find a way that doesn't require the government to make a law.

As far as why can't businesses choose like individuals can, businesses aren't people and do not have the same rights (despite creep in that direction). Businesses can't claim freedom of association when merging a forming a monopoly, for example. Why can't banks band together and decide to not lend to firearms companies or process credit card transactions for gun stores?

Now that's a fair argument. You can argue against extending an individual right to a collective, such as a publicly traded company. It's at least arguable. It's harder to make that argument against extending an individual right to an individual private company owner. His right to conscience shouldn't end just because he flipped the sign on his privately owned bakery door from closed to open.

 

[jamil]

You understand that no one is refusing to sell to gay people, right? They are refusing to make WEDDING cakes. You see no difference?

This is where the "I want a Nazi cake" absurdist comparison has validity. It's not the person, it's the message. Why should anyone have to give up their right to not be associated with a message because someone else wants to send a message, whatever it may be?

His point is still relevant though. If you're in a Nazi neighborhood--it could happen--maybe they run you out of business. Realistically, that's not going to happen with Nazis. But Overton's window has shifted enough that it happened with gays.

I've been advocating for finding a more civil solution than boycotting, and a less authoritarian solution than forcing conscience. I still don't know what that solution is, but if we're only going to argue for boycotting or authoritarian solutions, the one in between won't ever get fleshed out.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

You understand that no one is refusing to sell to gay people, right? They are refusing to make WEDDING cakes. You see no difference?

This is where the "I want a Nazi cake" absurdist comparison has validity. It's not the person, it's the message. Why should anyone have to give up their right to not be associated with a message because someone else wants to send a message, whatever it may be?

I know in your particular example, that's the case. I don't agree that's always the case, but I'll go along with it for now.

No, I don't see a difference. Is there something special about the cake destined for a gay wedding? Or is it the exact same cake? If I order a 3 tier wedding cake what's different about the prep, ingredients, baking, etc for one destined for a gay wedding vs a straight wedding? The cake is a widget.

Custom work is not the same. I make wedding cakes. Anyone who wants one gets one. I don't make swastikas. Nobody gets one.

It's the difference between anybody with a $1 can buy a McD's burger vs McD's has to make tacos if I order one.

And, again, individuals have freedom of association. Businesses do not. You may not be able to exercise every right you have as an individual in a business capacity.

 

[jbombelli]

Most anti-gun signs actually say "no Beretta 92s".

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Most anti-gun signs actually say "no Beretta 92s".

Probably guys that got issued junk magazines while in a sandy environment and now hate Berettas.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

This seems like a misrepresentation of what I'm saying. Dicks hired lobbyists to lobby in favor of gun control. If that's what they want to spend their money on, it's their right to do. But that does create a sort of defacto oppression, as I would call it. They're not doing it because they're under pressure from anti-gun people. They're doing it because they are activists themselves.

The fact that they aren't discriminating by groups in what they're selling is irrelevant as there's no link between a company being activists and a company deciding to discriminate. The banks may be doing it because they're afraid of being boycotted, or they may do it because they're activists. You're just assuming it's fear of boycotts. I'm saying they have a right to be activists, and I'd prefer to find a way that doesn't require the government to make a law..

I'm actually not assuming either, I'm just asking "what if" and showing how, historically, businesses can be forced to be collaborators even if they weren't really on board. There's also been some rumblings of gov't pressure in certain states.


Example.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo is pushing for new gun control measures and wants banks and insurers to sever ties with gun makers and their advocates.Cuomo, a Democrat seeking a third term as governor, says he wants “every individual, company and organization that does business across the state” to make gun safety “a top priority.”

To that end, the state Department of Financial Services Commissioner Maria Vullo, a Cuomo appointee, on April 19 urged the banks and insurance companies regulated by her agency to sever any ties they may have with the National Rifle Association and similar groups.

source: Cuomo ramps up pressure on banks, insurers in new duel with gun rights advocates | News | lockportjournal.com


As far as what a company does with it's profits, that's up to them. As many times as we've had this conversation, I'm sure you're aware my primary motivator is equal access to the economy for everyone. Nobody should have an artificially limited market where their money isn't as good as the like amount of money in the hands of another. As long as we accept that supply and demand set price, reduced supply or higher price are the only possible outcomes of a limited market if demand is steady. Firearms companies need the same financial services any other company in their position needs. Demand is unchanged.

 

[jamil]

I know in your particular example, that's the case. I don't agree that's always the case, but I'll go along with it for now.

No, I don't see a difference. Is there something special about the cake destined for a gay wedding? Or is it the exact same cake? If I order a 3 tier wedding cake what's different about the prep, ingredients, baking, etc for one destined for a gay wedding vs a straight wedding? The cake is a widget.

Custom work is not the same. I make wedding cakes. Anyone who wants one gets one. I don't make swastikas. Nobody gets one.

It's the difference between anybody with a $1 can buy a McD's burger vs McD's has to make tacos if I order one.

And, again, individuals have freedom of association. Businesses do not. You may not be able to exercise every right you have as an individual in a business capacity.

IIRC, the baker didn’t make cakes with two dudes on them. Didn’t matter.

 

[KLB]

I'm actually not assuming either, I'm just asking "what if" and showing how, historically, businesses can be forced to be collaborators even if they weren't really on board. There's also been some rumblings of gov't pressure in certain states.


Example.

source: Cuomo ramps up pressure on banks, insurers in new duel with gun rights advocates | News | lockportjournal.com


As far as what a company does with it's profits, that's up to them. As many times as we've had this conversation, I'm sure you're aware my primary motivator is equal access to the economy for everyone. Nobody should have an artificially limited market where their money isn't as good as the like amount of money in the hands of another. As long as we accept that supply and demand set price, reduced supply or higher price are the only possible outcomes of a limited market if demand is steady. Firearms companies need the same financial services any other company in their position needs. Demand is unchanged.

What happens when there is a service involved? Not just making the cake, but going to the wedding, delivering and setting up the cake? Or say it is a photographer. Should a photographer be compelled to work at an event they don't agree with?

 

[Leadeye]

Long and short of this argument is power and money. Big banks got it and a lot of big banks together is a lot of power and money. That talks in dc among other places where laws are made, so until somebody puts up the cash and has the stones to take that much power to court over gun business discrimination it's a moot point.

Money talks, the bigger it is the louder it talks.

Always follow the money

 

[jamil]

What happens when there is a service involved? Not just making the cake, but going to the wedding, delivering and setting up the cake? Or say it is a photographer. Should a photographer be compelled to work at an event they don't agree with?

It’s a right minded goal to find a good principle to base decisions on. Equal access to the economy is a simple and consistent ideal. But it is an ideal. In most cases that doesn’t infringe on conscience. But there are times when it does. It comes down to what you think has higher priority. Freedom to exercise one’s conscience or equal access to the economy. Most cases there there’s no conflict between the two. Most of the conflicts can give priority without hindering access to the economy. But as I said, when it becomes what I called defacto oppression, access to the economy rules.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

IIRC, the baker didn’t make cakes with two dudes on them. Didn’t matter.

I knew someone would spring that as I typed my last response. Cake toppers aren't cake.
Do you sell cakes? Yes. Sell me a cake.
Do you sell figurines? Yes. Sell me figurines.
They come in sets of two, one male and one female. Sell me two sets, I'll pick the two I need.
Do you sell swastikas? No. Ok, I can't buy a swastika here.

What happens when there is a service involved? Not just making the cake, but going to the wedding, delivering and setting up the cake? Or say it is a photographer. Should a photographer be compelled to work at an event they don't agree with?

Well, most services can be quantified. Mechanics, urgent care centers, dry cleaners, that sort of thing I don't see where it's a difference if it's a physical widget or a service. Fixing a car is fixing a car, no matter who it belongs to, etc.

Artists, though, that's certainly a harder line to draw. I'm not sure how you'd quantify what a photographer/painter/musician/etc. "widget" is. They are really selling themselves in the sense you're paying for their artistic/technical skill and each thing they do is unique.

 

[jamil]

I knew someone would spring that as I typed my last response. Cake toppers aren't cake.
Do you sell cakes? Yes. Sell me a cake.
Do you sell figurines? Yes. Sell me figurines.
They come in sets of two, one male and one female. Sell me two sets, I'll pick the two I need.
Do you sell swastikas? No. Ok, I can't buy a swastika here.

that’s an oversimplification of what happened though. The baker said he’d be happy to sell them a cake. Didn’t matter. It wasn’t good enough to say he didn’t make wedding cakes with dudes for anyone.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

that’s an oversimplification of what happened though. The baker said he’d be happy to sell them a cake. Didn’t matter. It wasn’t good enough to say he didn’t make wedding cakes with dudes for anyone.

Did he sell figurines?

 

[jamil]

Did he sell figurines?

Hell, I don’t know. Why does that matter? Maybe they’re packaged in bride/groom pairs and they’d have to buy two sets and find a lesbian coulple to give the other set to.

They wanted a custom cake with 2 grooms. He didn’t want to make a custom cake with two grooms. I assume he’s not discriminating in who he sells to. I doubt he makes cakes with two dudes for anyone. He lost in court for not making the cake they wanted. But maybe his lawyer sucked, and he’d have won if his lawyer would have argued that the baker didn’t make gay wedding cakes for straight people either.

 

[Dead Duck]

Firearm Signs = Fruit Cakes











Oh ya, it's INGO.... carry on.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Hell, I don’t know. Why does that matter? Maybe they’re packaged in bride/groom pairs and they’d have to buy two sets and find a lesbian coulple to give the other set to.

They wanted a custom cake with 2 grooms. He didn’t want to make a custom cake with two grooms. I assume he’s not discriminating in who he sells to. I doubt he makes cakes with two dudes for anyone. He lost in court for not making the cake they wanted. But maybe his lawyer sucked, and he’d have won if his lawyer would have argued that the baker didn’t make gay wedding cakes for straight people either.

I doubt it. This is what happens when certain groups of people are endowed with rights that subjugate yours...you will get your mind right, by force of law.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Hell, I don’t know. Why does that matter? Maybe they’re packaged in bride/groom pairs and they’d have to buy two sets and find a lesbian coulple to give the other set to.

I knew someone would spring that as I typed my last response. Cake toppers aren't cake.
Do you sell cakes? Yes. Sell me a cake.
Do you sell figurines? Yes. Sell me figurines.
They come in sets of two, one male and one female. Sell me two sets, I'll pick the two I need.
Do you sell swastikas? No. Ok, I can't buy a swastika here.

So now I'm curious. Do these rights of association also apply to employees, or just the owner? Can an employee demand that their labor not go to certain consumers? Hough brought up a store owner may have to shut down to comply with morals, and that's not fair. So should employees be shielded from having to make that choice as well, face unemployment or compromise their morals?

 

[jamil]

Whose business is it?