Restaurant refuses service to Huckabee Sanders

[MennoSota]

That's the key question. Personally I think we should able to refuse service to anyone based on whatever criteria we choose. My only stipulations would be that decisions be made at company level rather than individual level (or, at a push, branch level), and that they be clearly posted on external doors.

For the sake of an example, if Wal-Mart decided they didn't want to serve fat people I believe they should be free to do so but should be required to clearly post their restrictions, so that a fat person wouldn't go into the store, gather up their shopping, only to be refused service at the checkout because they were fat. It would need to be at branch level or higher so you didn't end up in a situation where you gathered up your shopping only to find that checkout 1 wouldn't serve you because you were black, checkout 2 wouldn't serve you because you were buying alcohol and they were opposed to alcohol, checkout 3 wouldn't serve you because you were buying beef and they were Hindu, checkout 4 wouldn't serve you because you were buying pork and they were Muslim and checkout 5 wouldn't serve you because you were fat.

Maybe it would make sense for private companies, sole traders etc to be allowed to decline customers but publicly traded companies be required to serve anyone. Either way I think that if you're doing business as a self-employed trader you should be allowed to take a commission or decline it based on whatever criteria you choose. Personally I don't see making and decorating a cake to represent moral approval of an event but clearly the baker who refused the gay couple has a different view.

Sadly, your suggestion will lead to the same segregation that has haunted the United States from its inception. Humans are, by nature, corrupt and thus they will isolate the weak while exploiting their own gains. It will be like Dr Seuss' famous book about the Sneeches.

 

[davedajobauk]

Now this covers it nicely

dave

 

[davedajobauk]

Now then, about this RIGHT TO CHOOSE ACCORDING-TO ONE's CONSCIENCE


https://twitter.com/ABC/status/954030853067366400


:shakes head:


dave

 

[tango]

Sadly, your suggestion will lead to the same segregation that has haunted the United States from its inception. Humans are, by nature, corrupt and thus they will isolate the weak while exploiting their own gains. It will be like Dr Seuss' famous book about the Sneeches.

The question still arises though - if one, why not the other?

If someone like a baker is allowed to refuse a customer because they have an objection to gay marriage, what if they have an objection to inter-racial marriage, or to disabled people marrying, or indeed anything else? If we are going to legally force a person with extreme racist views to violate their own opinions and use their creative skills to serve a black couple, why not legally force a person with religious views to violate their own opinions and use their creative skills to serve a gay couple?

With the examples on offer at the moment it seems both sides are happy for one to work but not the other. Where would you draw the line? Would you allow the baker to refuse to do all or some of what the gay couple wanted? Would you allow the restaurant owner to decline to serve someone whose political views she found objectionable?

 

[davedajobauk]

The question still arises though - if one, why not the other?

If someone like a baker is allowed to refuse a customer because they have an objection to gay marriage, what if they have an objection to inter-racial marriage, or to disabled people marrying, or indeed anything else? If we are going to legally force a person with extreme racist views to violate their own opinions and use their creative skills to serve a black couple, why not legally force a person with religious views to violate their own opinions and use their creative skills to serve a gay couple?

With the examples on offer at the moment it seems both sides are happy for one to work but not the other. Where would you draw the line? Would you allow the baker to refuse to do all or some of what the gay couple wanted? Would you allow the restaurant owner to decline to serve someone whose political views she found objectionable?

IF this and IF THAT stay on subject

The baker had religious objection, same sex marriage is forbidden [biblically]
The Restaurant owner objected on grounds of Huckleberry's previous PUBLIC BEHAVIOUR

The OTHER SCENARIOS you have added
are superfluous and misleading [ FLANNEL / irrelevant]
Inter-racial marriages are not forbidden biblically... so long as marriage is between a man and a woman

"Would you allow the restaurant owner to decline to serve someone whose political views she found objectionable?"

Yes, in her case
Huckleberry, was 'as unwelcome' as it might be
IF
Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler and Mengele had been sat at the table

To aid and assist [associate-with] morally-corrupt / evil-people is, biblically forbidden


dave


Man, is altering God's Law, to allow unholy acts
and I am not a 'party' to it occuring


'The Serenity Prayer'

God, give us grace to accept with serenity
the things that cannot be changed,
Courage to change the things
which should be changed,
and the Wisdom to distinguish
the one from the other.

Living one day at a time,
Enjoying one moment at a time,
Accepting hardship as a pathway to peace,
Taking, as Jesus did,
This sinful world as it is,
Not as I would have it,
Trusting that You will make all things right,
If I surrender to Your will,
So that I may be reasonably happy in this life,
And supremely happy with You forever in the next.

Amen.

by Reinhold Niebuhr

 

[MennoSota]

The question still arises though - if one, why not the other?

If someone like a baker is allowed to refuse a customer because they have an objection to gay marriage, what if they have an objection to inter-racial marriage, or to disabled people marrying, or indeed anything else? If we are going to legally force a person with extreme racist views to violate their own opinions and use their creative skills to serve a black couple, why not legally force a person with religious views to violate their own opinions and use their creative skills to serve a gay couple?

With the examples on offer at the moment it seems both sides are happy for one to work but not the other. Where would you draw the line? Would you allow the baker to refuse to do all or some of what the gay couple wanted? Would you allow the restaurant owner to decline to serve someone whose political views she found objectionable?

The Supreme Court answered this by stating that better written ordinances will require a baker to serve everyone equally.
If the baker made it universal that he will not add words to his cake, he could sell to anyone. The baker needs to decide what he will not do for all his customers and then live with that decision.
Tango, are you advocating as a libertarian who wants little to no government involvement in your life. If so, may I suggest you observe Somalia and how that is working out.

 

[Albion]

Tango, are you advocating as a libertarian who wants little to no government involvement in your life. If so, may I suggest you observe Somalia and how that is working out.

Surely we can contemplate something in between Somalia and North Korea when discussing the size of governments.

 

[MennoSota]

Surely we can contemplate something in between Somalia and North Korea when discussing the size of governments.

I'm discussing no government. The outcome of pure libertarian thought is anarchy. Wherever we find anarchy, we find chaos. God has given government to men in order to help curb their tendency to be like Cain.

 

[Albion]

I'm discussing no government. The outcome of pure libertarian thought is anarchy.

Actually, that's not true of libertarianism.

 

[MennoSota]

Actually, that's not true of libertarianism.

Libertarians will never admit where there end point leads. It's purely a theory until they look at a place with little to no government and see how bad it is.

 

[Albion]

Libertarians will never admit where there end point leads..

So, your claim was merely a personal slant on the subject, including a projection about what you think a libertarian government must turn into (Somalia).

No one is wrong when speculating on what he thinks will happen in the future. But we also need to be fair to the libertarians (whom you brought into the discussion for no good reason) and not describe them as anarchists. Or, for that matter, as people who don't know what they believe about the proper role of government, etc.

 

[MennoSota]

So, your claim was merely a personal slant on the subject.

That's OK, but we also need to be fair to the libertarians and not describe them as anarchists.

I didn't call them anarchists. I said their theory ends in an anarchy. Libertarian views are not functional in society. They are entirely theoretical. The theory leads to anarchy.

 

[Albion]

I didn't call them anarchists. I said their theory ends in an anarchy.

Well, it doesn't. And it has nothing to do with Somalia.

Libertarian views are not functional in society.

It worked pretty well for most of American history.

 

[MennoSota]

Well, it doesn't. And it has nothing to do with Somalia.



It worked pretty well for most of American history.

That's false. Before we had a country we were under British rule. After British rule we were under the articles of confederation. Under those articles the nation was in economic chaos and about ready to implode. This is the reason why people got together to create a more stable government with a stronger central government. Once the union was formed there was an immediate cause to enforce and tax. This resulted in the Whiskey rebellion, which the federal government was obliged to crush. Libertarians were rebutted and the federal government grew.

 

[Albion]

Before we had a country we were under British rule. After British rule we were under the articles of confederation. Under those articles the nation was in economic chaos and about ready to implode. This is the reason why people got together to create a more stable government.... .

Well, it took you awhile, but you finally got to the era I referred to...and it looks like you approved of it.

But the main point here is that you do not understand Libertarianism and certainly aren't about to allow yourself to learn. What a surprise. LOL

 

[tango]

IF this and IF THAT stay on subject

The baker had religious objection, same sex marriage is forbidden [biblically]
The Restaurant owner objected on grounds of Huckleberry's previous PUBLIC BEHAVIOUR

The OTHER SCENARIOS you have added
are superfluous and misleading [ FLANNEL / irrelevant]
Inter-racial marriages are not forbidden biblically... so long as marriage is between a man and a woman

Not flannel at all, some people believe, for whatever reason, that inter-racial marriages shouldn't happen. Whether you or I think their views have any merit, if you want to say that this viewpoint can be legally protected and that one cannot you need to be able to provide an objective definition of where the line is. Hence my question about other possibilities.

Yes, in her case
Huckleberry, was 'as unwelcome' as it might be
IF
Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler and Mengele had been sat at the table

I'm assuming you aren't trying to say that his lady (Huckabee, not Huckleberry) is morally equivalent to Hitler. Even so your thoughts "in her case" are still telling. Who gets to decide what is morally objectionable and what is not, if not the person holding the moral views that they say are being violated? This isn't a matter of whether you agree with someone's political stance or not but about coming up with an objective definition of what the law should be.

If moral offense represents grounds for refusal of service, what of a Muslim who refused to serve someone who ate pork? What of a Hindu who refused to serve a beef farmer? What of a Satanist who refused to serve those who worshiped the Jesus he so despises?

'The Serenity Prayer'

God, give us grace to accept with serenity
the things that cannot be changed,
Courage to change the things
which should be changed,
and the Wisdom to distinguish
the one from the other.

Living one day at a time,
Enjoying one moment at a time,
Accepting hardship as a pathway to peace,
Taking, as Jesus did,
This sinful world as it is,
Not as I would have it,
Trusting that You will make all things right,
If I surrender to Your will,
So that I may be reasonably happy in this life,
And supremely happy with You forever in the next.

Amen.

by Reinhold Niebuhr

I'm not sure what that has to do with the topic at hand but, whatever....

 

[tango]

The Supreme Court answered this by stating that better written ordinances will require a baker to serve everyone equally.
If the baker made it universal that he will not add words to his cake, he could sell to anyone. The baker needs to decide what he will not do for all his customers and then live with that decision.
Tango, are you advocating as a libertarian who wants little to no government involvement in your life. If so, may I suggest you observe Somalia and how that is working out.

I prefer the approach where small business owners decide for themselves which orders they will and will not take. Personally I don't see the issue with making and decorating a cake for a gay couple getting married - I don't imagine people providing wedding services interrogate the happy couple to make sure they weren't previously married, that they didn't sleep together before marriage etc. But that's just me.

I believe that if the government can get out of the way without creating chaos then it should get out of the way. Somalia is a red herring, there's a difference between small government and no government.

 

[Albion]

Somalia is a red herring, there's a difference between small government and no government.

Thank you. It will fall on deaf ears, but I am still glad you said it.

 

[MennoSota]

Well, it took you awhile, but you finally got to the era I referred to...and it looks like you approved of it.

But the main point here is that you do not understand Libertarianism and certainly aren't about to allow yourself to learn. What a surprise. LOL

Libertarians don't even know what it is. Mostly it's just lower middle class white men who are afraid they are going to lose what little they have so they cry out about too many taxes and too much government interference in their imagined kingdoms.
Again, it's an untenable theory that will always end in anarchy if given a chance to be tried. Can you spell Albania?

 

[tango]

I'm discussing no government. The outcome of pure libertarian thought is anarchy. Wherever we find anarchy, we find chaos. God has given government to men in order to help curb their tendency to be like Cain.

Government can go some way in protecting the fabric of society, making laws that prohibit direct aggression against another being an obvious example. When the body of law becomes so large no individual can possibly be expected to understand it all, government is growing too large and needs to scale back. For instance, is there a good reason why it should be illegal to hold a contest in which participants attempt to capture a greased pig?

When God's law is as simple as "love God, love each other" I'm not sure where the idea that God's will was for us to have a government that prohibits the drying of clothes on a clothes line actually comes from.