What do trump people think of his affair(s)?

[IntactMale]

Choices are often heavily influenced by life circumstances. People are often heavily coerced into doing it or they inherit it. You’re trying to suggest that, out of 300 million people, no one is forced or claimed inheritance? Hahaha

That is a very flawed argument. Yes, your choices can be influenced and its your job to cope with that. You don't get to get around the law just because things are hard for you. I don't really feel like working everyday, I don't get to start robbing banks because its easier without paying the consequences.

If you inherit a business you can't run, then sell it. It's simple.

 

[IntactMale]

That's circling back to the underlying point of this whole conversation. I'm contesting the rightfulness of this relatively recent legal development, and suggesting that it doesn't sync up with a coherent philosophy of innate rights.

It's not recent. But if that's your point then write to your congressman and see if they will change the law. Business have to adhere to law as it is until it is changed.

 

[Tight_N_Juicy]

I just don't understand how any business owner could make the mistake of refusing to profit more than they would if they didn't have some bias against a specific group.

That's basically like saying, I don't like making money as much as I dislike this group of people. That's just a good way to stay broke. I don't get it. Money is money. Doesn't matter who it comes from.

 

[Wilson_90]

It's not recent. But if that's your point then write to your congressman and see if they will change the law. Business have to adhere to law as it is until it is changed.

Well, according to the law, what they did by refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding was legal.

 

[IntactMale]

Well you completely debunked your own point. Well done

Did you read it? They have the right to refuse service unless it is discriminating against a protected class. It's not a debate, it's the law. If you don't like it then you can try to become a citizen and vote to change the law.

 

[Wilson_90]

I just don't understand how any business owner could make the mistake of refusing to profit more than they would if they didn't have some bias against a specific group.

That's basically like saying, I don't like making money as much as I dislike this group of people. That's just a good way to stay broke. I don't get it. Money is money. Doesn't matter who it comes from.

Then why are liberals only going after Christian bakeries and not muslim ones?

 

[IntactMale]

Well, according to the law, what they did by refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding was legal.

Discriminating against a protected class. That's an important part.

 

[Wilson_90]

Did you read it? They have the right to refuse service unless it is discriminating against a protected class. It's not a debate, it's the law. If you don't like it then you can try to become a citizen and vote to change the law.

Did you read it? “Protected classes include: race or colour”.

Ummmmmm

 

[Wilson_90]

Discriminating against a protected class. That's an important part.

You only cited race as a protected class.

 

[Tight_N_Juicy]

I would like to make a note, there is a specific member who I will not be responding to by request of the mods.

I simply had a thought to share following the rest of the thread. I'm not trying to step on the guidelines I've been given.

 

[IntactMale]

Did you read it? “Protected classes include: race or colour”.

Ummmmmm

Reading comprehension. It says that it includes those. It does not say that it is limited to those. Those are examples of protected classes, there are others in the list. You must know this is a bad argument.

 

[malakos]

It's not recent. But if that's your point then write to your congressman and see if they will change the law. Business have to adhere to law as it is until it is changed.

Anti-discrimination laws are relatively recent, with respect to the scope of the history of the nation, the liberal tradition, the philosophy of innate rights, and so forth.

With respect to State force, yes, businesses are compelled to serve protected classes even when it is against their will. However, true rights are a matter of what is proper to humans and what is naturally due them in a society with any basic sense of justice. Humans have a right to determine the use of their legitimately owned property. A private business is essentially the property of its owner. The owner therefore has a right to discriminate, whether the State recognizes this or not.

 

[Wilson_90]

There is also a specific member that was given guidelines not to respond after taking part in continual abuse in another forum. They are now trying to grandstand and take the moral high ground.

Please ignore.

 

[IntactMale]

You only cited race as a protected class.

Here it is again:

Under federal anti-discrimination laws, businesses can refuse service to any person for any reason, unless the business is discriminating against a protected class. At the national level, protected classes include: Race or color. National origin or citizenship status.

That thing at the end is a list of examples. It includes but is not limited to race or color, national origin, or citizenship status.

 

[IntactMale]

Anti-discrimination laws are relatively recent, with respect to the scope of the history of the nation, the liberal tradition, the philosophy of innate rights, and so forth.

With respect to State force, yes, businesses are compelled to serve protected classes even when it is against their will. However, true rights are a matter of what is proper to humans and what is naturally due them in a society with any basic sense of justice. Humans have a right to determine the use of their legitimately owned property. A private business is essentially the property of its owner. The owner therefore has a right to discriminate, whether the State recognizes this or not.

The recency isn't relevant in any case. If you don't like then try to get the law changed. Until then businesses have to abide by the law.

 

[Wilson_90]

Reading comprehension. It says that it includes those. It does not say that it is limited to those. Those are examples of protected classes, there are others in the list. You must know this is a bad argument.

Well it’s funny, seeing as liberals love to discriminate against white straight men, yet complain when the same is done to a gay person

 

[malakos]

If I had known this conversation was going to end in "well themz the law" I wouldn't have bothered in the first place. What a waste.

 

[IntactMale]

Well it’s funny, seeing as liberals love to discriminate against white straight men, yet complain when the same is done to a gay person

That's your opinion. You think I'm liberal even though I've told you I'm not. I don't particularly care for being discriminated against, but I also don't experience it too often. Either way, it has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

[IntactMale]

If I had known this conversation was going to end in "well themz the law" I wouldn't have bothered in the first place. What a waste.

Were you expecting me to change the law for you? I don't have that power. The fact is that the law is the law. If you think its wrong try to change it, I think you'll find significant opposition.

 

[Wilson_90]

That's your opinion. You think I'm liberal even though I've told you I'm not. I don't particularly care for being discriminated against, but I also don't experience it too often. Either way, it has nothing to do with this discussion.

I didn’t say you were liberal. I pointed out how one form of discrimination is acceptable in their eyes, while the other isn’t.