Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Perd Hapley on October 02, 2010, 11:48:17 PM
-
The owners of an Indianapolis bakery are being threatened with eviction, because they chose not to make cookies for "National Coming Out Day."
http://www.indystar.com/article/20100930/BUSINESS04/309300001/City-Market-vendor-could-lose-lease-for-turning-away-gays
When Lawrence v Texas was decided, I scoffed at the predictions from conservatives, that it would lead to the legal sanction of homosexual "marriage." I was wrong. And even as homosexual "marriage" has won legal recognition in certain parts of the nation, I have still scoffed at the notion that churches will be required to perform or allow homosexual "weddings" in our sanctuaries. I can see now I was wrong about that, too.
Of course, churches have been able to escape such anti-discrimination tyranny in the past, but there are distressing signals that even that tradition is giving way. Besides, if homosexuality can go from an abomination to protected class in just a few short decades, then we can't expect anything else to last.
-
Is someone forcing this guy to do business on city property? Is someone preventing him from renting space from a private entity which doesn't care about or supports his views? I fail to see the cause for outrage. You dance with the government, they get to order the tune.
-
Is someone forcing the university to do business with someone who disagrees with their point of view? Is someone preventing them from getting their cookies from a private entity not renting space from the city, which doesn't care about or supports their views? I fail to see the cause for outrage.
You dance with the government, they get to order the tune.
So you're OK with the government enforcing a moral outlook that approves of homosexuality?
Also, you can let us know how you'd feel about the bakery declining an order for 6 dozen White Pride cookies, God Hates Fags cookies, etc. Keep in mind that this isn't about the Stocktons refusing to serve certain customers. They were asked to make cookies that promoted a certain viewpoint, and their local government is telling them they'd darn well better. That's disturbing, no matter how one gets down in the bedroom.
Not to mention that, as I read it, the customer in question was a public university. That's a public university expressing support for homosexuality. When a small business decided not to get involved in the situation, they were back-handed by local government. Nice.
-
Fistful, .gov is the worlds biggest camel. If you let .gov's nose in the tent, soon you have two humps and a tail inside with you. Private schools have been fighting the government camel for years. If you accept .gov money for anything, they will soon dictate the color of your underwear. That being said....
So you're OK with the government enforcing a moral outlook that approves of homosexuality?
No, but due to the liberal cancer that has been eating Fed/State/local governments and by judicial fiat, .gov is bound and determined force diversity on the rest of us. I don't know how to fight it, other than separating yourself from .gov as much as possible and voting out everyone other than those who's goal is to reduce government.
-
If you accept .gov money for anything, they will soon dictate the color of your underwear.
I thought they were paying rent to the government.
Yes, I see the point about the bakery having a .gov entanglement. And if they had hung up a "No Homos" sign in the window, that would almost explain why they're being tossed out. But they did nothing like that at all. It's one thing to refuse service to Democrats. It's another thing to decline an order for "Obama 2012" cookies.
-
Same concept, they may be paying rent, but you have to play by their rules. If you were a slum lord, you cannot discriminate against anyone, unless you are renting a room in your house. Only then you can pick and choose whom or what you want in your house.
-
I'm entirely okay withe the government enforcing a view supportive of homosexuality on state property - for example, painting a massive GAYS ARE AWESOME sign on every government facility. As long as people are free to be retrogrades on the issue on their private property, I fail to see the problem.
-
Same concept, they may be paying rent, but you have to play by their rules. If you were a slum lord, you cannot discriminate against anyone, unless you are renting a room in your house. Only then you can pick and choose whom or what you want in your house.
If they agreed to "play by the rules," fine. But do you really think the "rules" they agreed to included a pledge to support National Coming Out Day?
-
I'm entirely okay withe the government enforcing a view supportive of homosexuality on state property - for example, painting a massive GAYS ARE AWESOME sign on every government facility. As long as people are free to be retrogrades on the issue on their private property, I fail to see the problem.
This is not a surprise. Some of us understand the problem; some of us need further enlightenment.
-
This is not a surprise. Some of us understand the problem; some of us need further enlightenment.
Do you genuinely think I will accept your world-view if you just pretend everybody should be taking it for granted?
-
Do you genuinely think I will accept your world-view if you just pretend everybody should be taking it for granted?
No. Do you genuinely believe that every statement of opinion is argument by assertion? I accept that you are wrong on certain issues, and probably won't change your mind. I simply wish to state the truth for the record.
You have gone on record as supporting an authoritarian and intrusive policy. That is your right.
-
I'm entirely okay withe the government enforcing a view supportive of homosexuality on state property - for example, painting a massive GAYS ARE AWESOME sign on every government facility. As long as people are free to be retrogrades on the issue on their private property, I fail to see the problem.
I'm actually really surprised to see you say that. As one libertarian to another, do you really think it's appropriate for a government to enforce a view supportive of anything outside of its limited and enumerated powers? Personally, I think the government should do a whole lot less supporting, and we can start by getting rid of every federal holiday that isn't Veteran's Day or Independence Day.
Christian, Jewish, gay, whatever--endorse and celebrate your own views. The government can step the hell out of it.
-
I may be missing a few of the dfiner points here, but it seems that there is a misconception that the bakery is refusing to serve gays in the absolute sense of the word "refusing". That seems to be not factually correct.
The bakery says we will not take that commercial order for goods and services because we feel it would indicate in some way that we suppport the activity. The bakery did not say gays will not be served should they attempt to purchase displayed products.
Gays are not yet a legally protected class in regards to discrimination issues, as are the classess of race, gender (but not gender identification), national origin, handicapping condition, etc. That being the case, the City Fathers and their administrative minions can have their thongs all wadded up as much as they care to but I fail to see how, legally, they can use this as an excuse to terminate the month-to-month lease status. (Which, BTW, is not eviction and claiming it as such is just sensationalism.)
Could we discuss things from this point of view, as opposed to the "moral" position I see being bandied back and forth above?
stay safe.
-
I'm actually really surprised to see you say that. As one libertarian to another, do you really think it's appropriate for a government to enforce a view supportive of anything outside of its limited and enumerated powers?
No, but I believe it's appropriate for a government to enforce a view support of anything within its limited and enumerated powers.
-
No, but I believe it's appropriate for a government to enforce a view support of anything within its limited and enumerated powers.
Which in this situation are what, perzakly?
stay safe.
-
Which in this situation are what, perzakly?
stay safe.
Well.
In my libertarian universe, the governemnt shouldn't maintain shopping centers and fairs. But clearly the local citizens feel otherwise.
Assuming we have agreed that this is okay for them to do so, it's also okay for them to evict retrograde shop owners.
[if fistful can use scare-marks to talk about gay marriage, I can call anti-gay people retrograde]
-
Fistful, .gov is the worlds biggest camel. If you let .gov's nose in the tent, soon you have two humps and a tail inside with you. Private schools have been fighting the government camel for years. If you accept .gov money for anything, they will soon dictate the color of your underwear. That being said....
My problem with this is that the Feds and local/state govts seem to be inventing new excuses to dictate things every year. Govts have wormed their way into just about anything and everything we do. The areas where govt does NOT have a mandate or excuse to stick their noses in are getting fewer and smaller.
-
On a related tangent...
Does anyone else see a certain lack of foresight in forcing a business to make the cookies against their will? Will they tell the people eating the cookies the story behind them?
Maybe it's just me. I'm already a bit cautious about food prepared for me by strangers. Even more so if the stranger is pissed off about it.
DD
-
Make the cookies without sugar.
Idiot bureaucrats.
-
[if fistful can use scare-marks to talk about gay marriage, I can call anti-gay people retrograde]
You can call me retrograde if you like, but there is no reason to call people "anti-gay," just because they have a different point of view. If the Stocktons were doing something to hurt homosexual people, that might apply. As it happens, we only know that they don't join them in celebrating their particular vice.
-
If you believe homosexuality is a vice, isn't that the whole point of being anti-homosexual?
-
Er, no. Anti-homosexuality =/= anti-homosexual. I'm anti-Islam, but not anti-Muslim. Same thing.
-
Make the cookies without sugar.
Idiot bureaucrats.
We had a dimwit baker at a store I worked at. She mistook the salt bin for the sugar. Let's just say the sugar donuts could melt the snow off the sidewalk. She did this twice. This wasn't on purpose, she really was that much of a ditz.
There was a funny story how this lady comes in with her son and buys him a sugar donut. The boy takes a bite and won't eat the rest. The mom gets mad at the boy and says "you wanted it, now eat it." To which it boy replies that it tastes funny....
-
You can call me retrograde if you like, but there is no reason to call people "anti-gay," just because they have a different point of view. If the Stocktons were doing something to hurt homosexual people, that might apply. As it happens, we only know that they don't join them in celebrating their particular vice.
Unless homosexuals are somehow exempt from paying taxes in that town they are hurting them. They are located on property that is city owned, meaning tax dollars are involved, and some of those dollars come from those unwholesome homosexuals. This is really no different than a religious display - do what you want, but do it on your own property.
-
The intolerance of the "tolerant" on full display.
-
Unless homosexuals are somehow exempt from paying taxes in that town they are hurting them. They are located on property that is city owned, meaning tax dollars are involved, and some of those dollars come from those unwholesome homosexuals. This is really no different than a religious display - do what you want, but do it on your own property.
No, they are not hurting anyone. Declining to participate in National Coming Out Day hurts no one. This seems obvious. If the bakers put up a No Homosexuals Allowed sign, that might be actionable discrimination. When they get called on the carpet for not making rainbow cookies, the bakers become the victims of discrimination. They are being punished because they would not fall in line and parrot the establishment view. Again, obvious.
It's funny that the NCOD organizers could have simply lined up a different baker, but now the bakers must move their entire operation, or just go out of business. Yet the NCOD organizers are the victims? Explain that.
-
Look, it's not that anybody is saying the government decision is reasonable.
But again, once we've accepted that the government subsidizes businesses by running fairs/business centers, we've opened ourselves up to this.
-
Unless homosexuals are somehow exempt from paying taxes in that town they are hurting them. They are located on property that is city owned, meaning tax dollars are involved, and some of those dollars come from those unwholesome homosexuals. This is really no different than a religious display - do what you want, but do it on your own property.
they are renting from the city not squatting if they ran a book store and offered an anti gay book for sale it would be fine
-
The intolerance of the "tolerant" on full display.
Ayup.
-
Unless homosexuals are somehow exempt from paying taxes in that town they are hurting them. They are located on property that is city owned, meaning tax dollars are involved, and some of those dollars come from those unwholesome homosexuals. This is really no different than a religious display - do what you want, but do it on your own property.
So now a private enterprise is held hostage to the fact that their in a business district and homosexuals pay taxes?
Don't they own the enterprise? Or do they just "lease" it by paying taxes? Because, by that standard, I don't "own" my house because I still have to pay property taxes.
This is sort of like saying if I send a letter to the editor of a newspaper, they "have to" publish it, because I pay taxes. They don't "have to" publish it at all. That argument simply would not work. If I had a right to have it published, thenm so would every other writer .... and name one paper that has enough space to publish every letter it gets .....
-
The intolerance of the "tolerant" on full display.
Why should I be tolerant of people whose moral views I find abhorrent?
Am I calling for them to be shot, or fined for their beliefs? No, I just refuse to respect those views.
-
I'd like to see the clause inthe lease that tells the bakery that the landlord has control over their customer base and what they will and won't produce.
-
So now a private enterprise is held hostage to the fact that their in a business district and homosexuals pay taxes?
Don't they own the enterprise? Or do they just "lease" it by paying taxes? Because, by that standard, I don't "own" my house because I still have to pay property taxes.
They are on city property, not just in a business district. The city owns the building.
This is sort of like saying if I send a letter to the editor of a newspaper, they "have to" publish it, because I pay taxes. They don't "have to" publish it at all. That argument simply would not work. If I had a right to have it published, thenm so would every other writer .... and name one paper that has enough space to publish every letter it gets .....
If it was a state-owned paper that would be a valid argument.
No, they are not hurting anyone. Declining to participate in National Coming Out Day hurts no one. This seems obvious. If the bakers put up a No Homosexuals Allowed sign, that might be actionable discrimination. When they get called on the carpet for not making rainbow cookies, the bakers become the victims of discrimination. They are being punished because they would not fall in line and parrot the establishment view. Again, obvious.
The bakers are doing their business on public property, which is ostensibly owned by everyone who pays taxes. Taxpayers, as part owners, have use of this property. Denying them use of it is hurting them.
It's funny that the NCOD organizers could have simply lined up a different baker, but now the bakers must move their entire operation, or just go out of business. Yet the NCOD organizers are the victims? Explain that.
They did line up a different baker. Didn't you read the article? They also made their displeasure known, as is their right.
-
Why should I be tolerant of people whose moral views I find abhorrent?
Am I calling for them to be shot, or fined for their beliefs? No, I just refuse to respect those views.
And support using the force of government against them.
As well as support using the government to promote your views.
-
And support using the force of government against them.
As well as support using the government to promote your views.
How is it 'force' to evict people from state property?
Or rather: if they stayed on state property, then the money of homosexual taxpayers would have been used to support those who find said homosexuals morally abhorrent. That's equally bad as evicting them would be.
This is the inevitable result of using the government to support business: someone gets screwed.
-
And support using the force of government against them.
As well as support using the government to promote your views.
This isn't always wrong - for example, Government backed education programs were instrumental in combatting racism. The .gov does have a legitimate interest in protecting its constituents from discrimination and other unfair treatment.
When the state does business, it's entirely within its bounds to support its constituents by refusing to deal with those who discriminate against them.
-
Property rights are are increasingly becoming a convenient fiction in the USA.
How long before any organization that is incorporated or resides in a corporation will be made to tow the line, regardless of religious of philosophical differences with the state?
Your house is in a corporation (county/city), if you hold a mortgage it is owned by a corporation, some of you are running your whole households as part of your corporation I suspect.
-
This isn't always wrong - for example, Government backed education programs were instrumental in combatting racism. The .gov does have a legitimate interest in protecting its constituents from discrimination and other unfair treatment.
When the state does business, it's entirely within its bounds to support its constituents by refusing to deal with those who discriminate against them.
Sweet. So if an atheist bakery refused to put John 3:16 on a cupcake because they didn't want to be seen as supporting evangelism, you'd be alright with them being evicted?
After all, the government does have a legitimate interest in protecting its constituents from discrimination and other unfair treatment.
-
Sweet. So if an atheist bakery refused to put John 3:16 on a cupcake because they didn't want to be seen as supporting evangelism, you'd be alright with them being evicted?
After all, the government does have a legitimate interest in protecting its constituents from discrimination and other unfair treatment.
Don't be silly, the government has a vested interest in destroying the common (marginally) Christian culture here in the states.
The old, soon to be abandoned common Christian culture (protestant work ethic, historical Judea/Christian ethics etc.), is the only true competitor here in the states against the worshipers of secular state power.
Anything government can do to weaken the power base of our historic cultural identity is fair game.
-
Mak, there is and always has been a difference between the Government promoting religious messages, and promoting civic messages.
"Do not discriminate on the basis of religion" is a civic message; "John 3:16" is a religious message. It's fairly simple to tell one from the other.
The equivalent to this is a bakery refusing to put "justice for all" on a cookie, and then losing a city contract as a result.
-
Mak, there is and always has been a difference between the Government promoting religious messages, and promoting civic messages.
"Do not discriminate on the basis of religion" is a civic message; "John 3:16" is a religious message. It's fairly simple to tell one from the other.
The equivalent to this is a bakery refusing to put "justice for all" on a cookie, and then losing a city contract as a result.
Disagreement about what constitutes "justice" will not be tolerated.
-
Don't be silly, the government has a vested interest in destroying the common (marginally) Christian culture here in the states.
The old, soon to be abandoned common Christian culture (protestant work ethic, historical Judea/Christian ethics etc.), is the only true competitor here in the states against the worshipers of secular state power.
A secular political system was engineered into America from the start. Thanks in part to Thomas Jefferson.
There was a time when churches preached the divine virtues of slavery and segregation; the Government rightfully opposed that message, even though it was widely shared by many Christians. There's no reason to analyze Government action to end discrimination against gays any differently.
-
Property rights are are increasingly becoming a convenient fiction in the USA.
These people didn't own property.
If you rent, it's best not to tee off your landlord.
-
There was a time when churches preached the divine virtues of slavery and segregation; the Government rightfully opposed that message, even though it was widely shared by many Christians. There's no reason to analyze Government action to end discrimination against gays any differently.
non sequitor
Christianity in fact was one of the driving forces behind the end of slavery, see "underground railroad".
Secular Russia and China make the old Church of Rome at its worst look like pikers.
We are talking about a place of business who happens to rent from .gov being told who they have to sell to, whether they like it our not.
-
These people didn't own property.
If you rent, it's best not to tee off your landlord.
The landlord is acting on behalf of me, I don't like how they are representing me and will work to change that.
-
Mak, there is and always has been a difference between the Government promoting religious messages, and promoting civic messages.
"Do not discriminate on the basis of religion" is a civic message; "John 3:16" is a religious message. It's fairly simple to tell one from the other.
The equivalent to this is a bakery refusing to put "justice for all" on a cookie, and then losing a city contract as a result.
Oh, ok. So, "Those stinking Christians are wrong to think homosexuality is a sin" is a civic message while "I believe homosexuality is a sin" is a religious message.
Got it.
-
They are on city property, not just in a business district. The city owns the building.
But they don't own the business.....
If it was a state-owned paper that would be a valid argument.
The bakers are doing their business on public property, which is ostensibly owned by everyone who pays taxes. Taxpayers, as part owners, have use of this property. Denying them use of it is hurting them.
They did line up a different baker. Didn't you read the article? They also made their displeasure known, as is their right.
The whole thing stinks of statism no matter how you cut it.
-
???
Does leasing property work differently where some of you folks live?
Where I'm from, signing a lease on a piece of property makes you the property owner's tenant, not the property owner's bitch. Unless the you agree upfront in the lease, taking out a lease does not give the landlord any power over the day-to-day operation of your business.
I'd like to see the clause inthe lease that tells the bakery that the landlord has control over their customer base and what they will and won't produce.
This is the prime question that needs to be answered. Unless it's in the lease, the landlord (city government or not) needs to STFU and let the bakery go about its business.
So, does anyone have the part of the lease that says the city can run the bakery's business?
-
Where I'm from, signing a lease on a piece of property makes you the property owner's tenant, not the property owner's bitch.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Agreed.
The article did say they were on a month to month lease so they may be able to prevent renewal of the lease.
-
Listen, there is a distinction between business and the property it is in.
The business can always move -- and if the owners feel strongly about not making cookies for _______ then they SHOULD move.
Another issue is any specifications that are in the contract. Does it allow for them to ... "descriminate?"
And I will also point out that the story indicates they're too busy to do more "special orders." If they refuse ALL "special orders" this will likely pass muster legally -- atleast in my neck of the woods.
-
Listen, there is a distinction between business and the property it is in.
The business can always move -- and if the owners feel strongly about not making cookies for _______ then they SHOULD move.
Another issue is any specifications that are in the contract. Does it allow for them to ... "descriminate?"
Yeah. No. There's no reason the business should have to cede any of its day-to-day operational authority to their landlord. It doesn't matter who their landlord is, and it doesn't matter if you or I or some university twit or city buerea-tyrant approves of the way they operate their business.
The argument I'm hearing is that because the business bought its property rights from the city, it doesn't deserve to receiver all of those rights. I think this is insulting and grossly unfair. It doesn't matter who they're leasing from, it matters what's in the lease. So far I've seen nothing that indicates the lease prohibits them from declining anyone's business for any reason.
If anything, the fact that they lease from a government entity ought to put the business on more solid ground, not less. The business owners made a decision based on their religious convictions. A man's religious convictions must never put him at a disadvantage with the government.
And what gives any else the right to tell these people where they can and can't run their business? You aren't the one risking your livelihood on these sorts of decisions, they are. And their business certainly doesn't exist for the purpose of appeasing y'alls PC moral dictates. So why don't you all butt and mind your own business.
I'm rapidly losing patience with Americans who aren't willing to let their neighbors make their own decisions, run their own businesses, and generally live their lives the way they see fit. I'm especially bothered by the so-called freedom lovers and libertarians who will preach at me about respecting their freedom, and then turn around and deny other people freedom whenever they feel like it.
-
month to month lease? they are screwed
-
month to month lease? they are screwed
Well, yeah.
The bakers are doing their business on public property, which is ostensibly owned by everyone who pays taxes. Taxpayers, as part owners, have use of this property. Denying them use of it is hurting them.
And denying the bakers the use of the property is hurting them worse. The bakery owners are the actual victims of discrimination in this case. But as I said, that should be obvious.
There was a time when churches preached the divine virtues of slavery and segregation; the Government rightfully opposed that message, even though it was widely shared by many Christians. There's no reason to analyze Government action to end discrimination against gays any differently.
I have a very good reason to analyze it differently, but that's not really at issue here. What is relevant here is that no "gays" were discriminated against, in this case. The sexual orientation of the customer is irrelevant. Failure to take part in National Coming Out Day is not discrimination. Why must I keep reciting obvious facts?
-
Traditionally, professionals have had the right to refuse clients for personal reasons. Perhaps it is time to recognize that, as participants in an ostensibly classless society, individual Americans have the right to turn down an offer of work.
I think it's stupid to refuse to make rainbow cookies and I think it's stupid to make a big fuss over someone refusing to make rainbow cookies, but I think that to make it clear that a tenant is being evicted for having turned down a job escalates the stupid far beyond reasonable, everyday instances of stupidity.
Doesn't the City et al have anything better to do?
-
I have a question.
Had this been a private landlord, would anybody care why he cut off someone's month-by-month lease, or would it be his personal business?
-
I have a question.
Had this been a private landlord, would anybody care why he cut off someone's month-by-month lease, or would it be his personal business?
For the same reason?
I'd call it equally asinine.
-
For the same reason?
I'd call it equally asinine.
We're not discussing the wisdom of the decision, are we?
-
Had this been a private landlord, would anybody care why he cut off someone's month-by-month lease, or would it be his personal business?
Yes.
What makes this such a giant, flaming absurdity is the notion that anyone who doesn't play along with a left-wing holiday is practicing discrimination, compounded by the actual discrimination of a govt. entity enforcing a bizarre viewpoint (that gay is OK) on people that were just trying to mind their own business, literally, while no one seems to notice that fact that the cookies were being ordered by someone working for/with a public institution using tax dollars to promote something which most taxpayers find absurd and disgusting. And in the middle of a bad economy, to boot.
Silence is no longer an acceptable answer. Avoiding Gay OK Day is not an option. Participate or suffer the consequences.
-
Why should I be tolerant of people whose moral views I find abhorrent?
Am I calling for them to be shot, or fined for their beliefs? No, I just refuse to respect those views.
:facepalm: Tolerance doesn't mean you respect someone's views, it just means you won't shoot or fine them for it.
-
Tolerance doesn't mean you respect someone's views, it just means you won't shoot or fine them for it.
So I am not practicing discrimination by refusing to rent to anti-homosexuals? Just so we're clear.
-
So I am not practicing discrimination by refusing to rent to anti-homosexuals? Just so we're clear.
No. Who said you were?
Let me qualify that. I'm using the legal sense of both terms. Legally, ideally, there should be no problem with refusing to rent to anyone for any reason. It's discrimination, but as a private citizen you have that right. Discrimination laws should limit governments, not individuals.
-
What is relevant here is that no "gays" were discriminated against, in this case. The sexual orientation of the customer is irrelevant. Failure to take part in National Coming Out Day is not discrimination. Why must I keep reciting obvious facts?
I think I can help...vvv
-
No. Who said you were?
Let me qualify that. I'm using the legal sense of both terms. Legally, ideally, there should be no problem with refusing to rent to anyone for any reason. It's discrimination, but as a private citizen you have that right. Discrimination laws should limit governments, not individuals.
What I am saying is that we have acceptable ways in which we can practice our intolerance of each other.
-
What I am saying is that we have acceptable ways in which we can practice our intolerance of each other.
So just make the damn cookies and stfu
-
unless you are OK with the government damaging you economically for not towing the line.
-
unless you are OK with the government damaging you economically for not towing the line.
Don't like depending on the government? Stop sucking on the taxpayer's teat.
-
Don't like depending on the government? Stop sucking on the taxpayer's teat.
They weren't paying rent with a lease?
-
What I am saying is that we have acceptable ways in which we can practice our intolerance of each other.
Yes we do. What happened to these bakers is not one of those acceptable ways.
Don't like depending on the government? Stop sucking on the taxpayer's teat.
Funny, but the bakers seem like the only characters in this narrative that AREN'T subsisting on tax money. Those who ordered the cookies work for a public university. The people kicking them out of their store are city government. I could be missing something, but the bakers are working in the private sector, and paying both rent AND taxes to the govt. So I'm not clear on how they're sucking the govt. teat. Then again, I'm no expert on these arrangements.
-
As far as I understand, what we have here is some kind of arrangement where the local government built a complex and rented locations to stores to 'encourage local business' or some such sillyness.
Governments shouldn't be either encouraging or discouraging local business.
-
As far as I understand, what we have here is some kind of arrangement where the local government built a complex and rented locations to stores to 'encourage local business' or some such sillyness.
Governments shouldn't be either encouraging or discouraging local business.
How is that relevant?
The issue here is the government discriminating against the shop owner for not towing it's political agenda.
-
How is that relevant?
The issue here is the government discriminating against the shop owner for not towing it's political agenda.
Yes, and?
This is not different from Eisenhower refusing to provide contracts to companies that practiced racial discrimination. There no laws against private discrimination at the time, so all that private discrimination was was a political agenda.
It's not a right to rent land from the government at good conditions.
-
It's not a right to rent land from the government at good conditions.
Government doesn't get to pick and choose who it rents to on the basis of their religious convictions.
-
Government doesn't get to pick and choose who it rents to on the basis of their religious convictions.
I wonder if everyone on this thread who now champions free speech was of the same opinion when it came to zoning laws that apply to the ground zero mosque? Wait a second -
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=25678.msg499419#msg499419 (http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=25678.msg499419#msg499419)
You mean, like, with zoning laws where they will make churches pay hundreds of thousands of dollars just for a plan before allowing them to expand?
That's already the case. The government is already telling people what they can do with their land. How is this any different?
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=25678.msg499553#msg499553 (http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=25678.msg499553#msg499553)
As relates to the mosque, the issue should have ended at the zoning board (i.e. zoning for the mosque should have been denied), but when it came time for the mayor to make that phone call, he sided in favor of the mosque instead of in favor of his city. Sadly, Bloomy doesn't have the same fortitude of his predecessor.
I guess some people's level of support for Government neutrality depends on the religion at issue? Because these would seem to be statements that in principle jive exactly with what Micro is saying, and perhaps go further.
Edit: Actually, these statements do not accord with Micro's position here - his is more about the Government as a market participant, which is something fundamentally different to legislating the Government's views.
My question is: How can mak and headless think it's okay for the Government to pass zoning laws that prohibit a group from doing something there on the basis that those religious beliefs are offensive to Americans, yet fail to support the more measured Government action of simply refusing to do business on the basis of religious beliefs in a market transaction?
-
So, in NYC a mosque development is singled out for special support from the city, support that non-Muslims would never have received.
And in Indy, a Christian bakery business is singled out for special grief from the city because of their religious convictions, grief that never would have befallen a non-Christian business.
In both instances I point out that I don't think religion shouldn't be a factor in a city's decision process. This makes me a hypocrite in shootinstudent's eyes. Go figure.
My question is: How can mak and headless think it's okay for the Government to pass zoning laws that prohibit a group from doing something there on the basis that those religious beliefs are offensive to Americans, yet fail to support the more measured Government action of simply refusing to do business on the basis of religious beliefs in a market transaction?
I don't. Either you've completely misunderstood my position in the NYC mosque thread, or you're deliberately misrepresenting that position now. I suspect the latter.
EDIT: I don't want to speak for mak, but it's pretty clear you're "misunderstanding" him, too.
-
I agree. I believe mak was arguing for equal treatment of all religions by the zoning board and the govt in general. He wasn't trying to argue in favor or against the idea of zoning.
-
If this isn't similar to the NYC Mosque issue how about the Colorado Art Museum exhibit?
the Colorado art museum is taxpayer-funded, and that's where I take issue with this exhibition of "art". If this **expletive deleted** "artist" wants to have his "art" in private galleries, let him do so.
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=26357.0
I actually agree with that. Its a taxpayer funded museum that is displaying art that offensive to some of its constituents, who shouldn't be forced to fund art of that nature. But this is why I hate gov meddling in private enterprise, it complicates everything ten fold. Why is it any different that a business in the Indianapolis City Market which I assume was built with tax payer dollars is coming under fire for refusing to make a set of cookies based on his "morals".
Just Cookies engaged in discrimination last week when he cited moral objections to homosexuality as his reason for declining a customer's request to provide rainbow-iced cookies for a "National Coming Out Day"
The owner specifically cites homosexuality as the reason he won't take the order, he only says they don't take special orders after the fact, when his judgment is coming under fire. If the owner had said in the first place, "I'm sorry but we don't take special orders" none of this would be an issue. This isn't about not supporting coming out day, its about refusing a customer based on their sexuality while leasing a space from the city gov.
I suspect in the lease the owner of the company signed with the City Market there's a clause about discrimination; saying your not going to take a customers order based on his sexuality is blatant discrimination. Just because some of you believe that homosexuals are an "abomination" based on your religious beliefs doesn't make it less discriminatory than thinking blacks are a "abomination" just because.
-
This isn't about not supporting coming out day, its about refusing a customer based on their sexuality while leasing a space from the city gov.
That is the opposite of the truth, at least according to the information I've seen. I don't see anything in the article about Heather Browning being a homosexual. She ordered the cupcakes because she is a professional leftist, as far as I can tell, not because she is a homosexual. Her order was declined because the Stocktons disagreed with her views. If you have information to the contrary, could you please share it with the rest of us?
http://www.indystar.com/article/20100930/BUSINESS04/309300001/City-Market-vendor-could-lose-lease-for-turning-away-gays
Lily Stockton said Wednesday that anyone may buy cookies from the trays on the bakery's shelves.
"I don't ask people about their sexual orientation," she said. "Everyone is welcome to come buy our cookies."
-
never mind...
-
I came across this quote that sums up the situation better than I could:
As business owners, it's completely within the Stocktons' right not to be forced by a customer to make a product that violates their moral and/or religious convictions. If the customers don't like it, they can take their dollars elsewhere. Just because David and Lily own a store doesn't mean they're slaves to the agenda of anyone who visits.
-
And the fact that they rent public property means that the property owner is not free to discriminate against them. As owners of a private sector business, they should be allowed to discriminate.
Generally speaking, in a free country the people have more freedom to act than the government.
-
Okay, headless, it looks to me like your position is this:
It's okay for the Government to conclude that a mosque is inappropriate near ground zero, based on the beliefs of the landowners. That should support a zoning restriction, which is in other words a law that tells people what to do with their own property.
At the same time, the Government has no right to conclude that a business which discriminates against gays is inappropriate for a government-owned property, because of the first amendment.
Why are you okay with the Government deciding on the basis of people's beliefs when it comes to mosques on private property, but opposed to the Government making any judgment at all when it comes to doing business on public property?
I cannot see any way to reconcile these positions without reference to the content of the beliefs.
-
And the fact that they rent public property means that the property owner is not free to discriminate against them. As owners of a private sector business, they should be allowed to discriminate.
Generally speaking, in a free country the people have more freedom to act than the government.
Okay, so because the Government cannot discriminate, it must do business with and support people who discriminate using that very support? That makes no sense. Why should public resources support private discrimination against that very same public?
-
Okay, so because the Government cannot discriminate, it must do business with and support people who discriminate using that very support? everyone equally, leasing to every business, regardless of their social, religious or political views. That makes no sense.
Now it makes sense.
Why should public resources support private discrimination against that very same public?
Because private enterprises have a right to discriminate. (But again, the bakers didn't discriminate against homosexuals, only against a certain viewpoint.) If the city wishes to lease retail space to businesses, it ought to be willing to accept the legitimate choices that business owners make. Since the city is in the business of leasing, not of making cookies, the city can only discriminate in leasing, not in the production of baked goods. And discrimination in leasing is what the city has chosen to do, by declaring a certain opinion unacceptable, then threatening to evict the citizens who held that view.
-
Okay, so because the Government cannot discriminate, it must do business with and support people who discriminate using that very support? That makes no sense. Why should public resources support private discrimination against that very same public?
does the irony of you attempting to gig him for doing , in essence , the same thing you do only from the opposite side?
-
Government is dealing with everyone equally if it, for example, contracts for services only with people who will behave as the Government does - this is a fairly important rule, as otherwise the Government could farm out discrimination against any group it wants, even where voters have supported laws to restrain the Government from that behaviour.
So no, it does not make sense for the Government to do business with people whose discrimination would be illegal if the Government were to do it. The Government has no right to give public resources to endeavours that, if Government undertook them, would result in discrimination against its own citizens that would be illegal if the Government were to do it.
Private enterprises do not have a right to operate; they only have a negative right not to be prohibited from operating. You are implying an affirmative right to access public resources, which does not exist. And they certainly have no right to compel the Government to support behaviour that the Government itself is prohibited from undertaking.
-
does the irony of you attempting to gig him for doing , in essence , the same thing you do only from the opposite side?
It isn't the same thing. The same thing, would be, for example, supporting a policy that the Government won't rent to Christians. This is the Government not allowing people who use its resources to do something that the Government can't do, namely, discriminate. You must discriminate on your own property with your own resources if you wish, and that's fine by me.
-
Government is dealing with everyone equally if it, for example, contracts for services only with people who will behave as the Government does - this is a fairly important rule, as otherwise the Government could farm out discrimination against any group it wants, even where voters have supported laws to restrain the Government from that behaviour.
That would be a good rebuttal, if we were talking about something like the U.S. Postal Service, which provides a service to the govt (running the mail system it used to run directly). Obviously, we would not wish for the postal service to refuse to carry invitations to National Coming Out Day.
But the bakery is not under contract to do anything for, or on behalf of, the govt. It doesn't represent the govt., or provide essential services that the govt. would otherwise perform. It leases space from the city. Again, if the city wants to lease space to businesses, it should respect ordinary business processes, like turning down work with which the management is uncomfortable, ethically.
Private enterprises do not have a right to operate; they only have a negative right not to be prohibited from operating. You are implying an affirmative right to access public resources, which does not exist.
No, I'm not. They're on a month-to-month, so I presume (not being a real estate expert) that the city could quietly boot them on that basis. But that is apparently not what the city chose to do. They decided to openly harass a couple of harmless bakers for their failure to celebrate Gay Day, and make plain that their possible eviction will be on that basis.
-
Okay, headless, it looks to me like your position is this:
It's okay for the Government to conclude that a mosque is inappropriate near ground zero, based on the beliefs of the landowners. That should support a zoning restriction, which is in other words a law that tells people what to do with their own property.
At the same time, the Government has no right to conclude that a business which discriminates against gays is inappropriate for a government-owned property, because of the first amendment.
Why are you okay with the Government deciding on the basis of people's beliefs when it comes to mosques on private property, but opposed to the Government making any judgment at all when it comes to doing business on public property?
I cannot see any way to reconcile these positions without reference to the content of the beliefs.
sorry i clicked the wrong button this is the post with the ironic hypocrisy
-
Okay, headless, it looks to me like your position is this:
It's okay for the Government to conclude that a mosque is inappropriate near ground zero, based on the beliefs of the landowners.
My objection to the GZM is not based on religion or on content of beliefs.
If a religous venue from any other faith, or any non-religious developemt, was just as wrong and innapropriate for its proposed location as the GZM, then I'd support the city using their existing zoning and city planning tools to block or correct it.
I recollect being pretty clear about this in the GZM thread, that this sort of zoning and planning crap bites everyone regardless of their religious affiliation or non-affiliation. I was also pretty clear that it should apply to everyone equally, and nobody should get special treatment on account of their chosen religion or non-religion.
...but opposed to the Government making any judgment at all when it comes to doing business on public property?
Once the city leases the space to the tenants, the space is no longer public. It belongs to the tenants according to the lease.
-
My objection to the GZM is not based on religion or on content of beliefs.
If a religous venue from any other faith, or any non-religious developemt, was just as wrong and innapropriate for its proposed location as the GZM, then I'd support the city using their existing zoning and city planning tools to block or correct it.
Okay, how and on what basis other than the religion of the builders did we decide this was "wrong and inappropriate"? Because here you are saying that the Government should not make decisions based on religious beliefs. So what about the "GZM" makes it "wrong and inappropriate", if not the religion involved?
Once the city leases the space to the tenants, the space is no longer public. It belongs to the tenants according to the lease.
Landlords do retain rights over property, but in any case, your argument can't possibly have to do with lease terms - if it did, the Government could simply lease on conditions that businesses follow anti-discrimination laws and not do anything Government is prohibited from doing. But you specifically identified such demands as illegitimate when made by Government.
Do tenants not have to rent on the landlord's terms when the .gov is the landlord? And if the Government can't behave as a landlord, then the sanctity of landlord-tenant relations can't be the reason behind your claim here.
-
TAgain, if the city wants to lease space to businesses, it should respect ordinary business processes, like turning down work with which the management is uncomfortable, ethically.
Why can't the city have its own ordinary business practice of refusing to lease property to businesses that discriminate against gays? That would seem to be the most obvious way of getting the city to respect its own anti-discrimination laws, ie, by having an ordinary practice of only doing business with people who agree not to do things that would be illegal if done by government.
-
Okay, how and on what basis other than the religion of the builders did we decide this was "wrong and inappropriate"? Because here you are saying that the Government should not make decisions based on religious beliefs. So what about the "GZM" makes it "wrong and inappropriate", if not the religion involved?
It has nothing to do with the Islamic faith, and everything to do with the association with the tragedy that took place there.
Let's say that instead of murdering 3,000 people in the name of Islam, fanatics had instead murdered 3,000 people in the name of Ronald McDonald. It would be inappropriate to put up a ginormous McDonalds restaurant right there. Again, it wouldn't be their religion (Ronald has no religion, afaik), it would be the association with the great tragedy.
Landlords do retain rights over property, but in any case, your argument can't possibly have to do with lease terms - if it did, the Government could simply lease on conditions that businesses follow anti-discrimination laws and not do anything Government is prohibited from doing. But you specifically identified such demands as illegitimate when made by Government.
First off, the question isn't whether landlords in general can put such a requirement in the lease, the question is whether the specific landlord in this case did put that requirement in. If the Just Cookies lease specifically says Just Cookies must give up certain aspects of its day-to-day operations, such as their ability to choose what products to make, as a condition of leasing the space, then I'd be more ok with it.
Some folks in this thread have asserted that the city did put such a restriction in. I don't believe it. I worked in commercial real estate for about a decade, and I've seen plenty of leases. I can't remember ever seeing anything like that. If anyone thinks think that these terms are in their lease, and that the city/ICM is acting within its bounds of its contract in trying to control what kinds of cookies the Stocktons sell, then prove it and I'll drop the matter.
You're right, though. If the government is the entity doing the leasing, then the entire community should have equal access to the project. The gov should not specifically require that members of any faith act against their religious convictions as a condition of receiving the same city services, advantages, and access as everyone else.
This whole mess is the result of government exceeding its authority by trying to legislate against religious convictions, and trying to legislate its own moral dictates in their place. Any law of this sort is bound to cause problems.
-
.....Private enterprises do not have a right to operate; they only have a negative right not to be prohibited from operating. ......
??? :facepalm: Please explain how a "negative right NOT to be prohibited from operating" is any different from "a right to operate."
+1 = -(-1) or, in otherwords "A" equals "not(not A)."
-
I found another quote that sums up my position better than I could. From the Indiana State Constitution:
Section 3. No law shall, in any case whatever, control the free exercise and enjoyment of religious opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.
I trust the state chapter of the ACLU will be along shortly to defend the Stocktons against any potential abuses of their constitutional rights.
-
I found another quote that sums up my position better than I could. From the Indiana State Constitution:
Section 3. No law shall, in any case whatever, control the free exercise and enjoyment of religious opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.
I trust the state chapter of the ACLU will be along shortly to defend the Stocktons against any potential abuses of their constitutional rights.
Yep, right after they finish with the RKBA case.
-
Why can't the city have its own ordinary business practice of refusing to lease property to businesses that discriminate against gays?
Why can't the city just refuse to discriminate against people who disagree with the professional left-wingers at the local U? And for the umpteenth time, the Stocktons did not discriminate against "gays." They did not refuse service to homosexuals. Please check your facts.
As long as the city is equally willing to lease space to Jim's Gay Bakery and Ray's Straight Bakery, the city is not discriminating. If someone wants a Rainbow Pride Gay Bakery on the city's retail property, I don't see what's stopping them. If my city leased space to Democratic campaign offices, I would have no right to complain, so long as it was equally ready to lease space to Republican campaign offices. You would not find me complaining to the city, that the Dem. campaign office won't print Republican flyers for me to hand out. This is what Ms. Browning's actions amount to.
That would seem to be the most obvious way of getting the city to respect its own anti-discrimination laws, ie, by having an ordinary practice of only doing business with people who agree not to do things that would be illegal if done by government.
Why should a private business be limited to things the govt. is allowed to do?
But back to affirmative/negative rights for a minute - where did we discover an affirmative right to gay cookies? ???
-
they pulled it out of con Frank's ......... :laugh:
-
After reviewing the facts of the case, I find myself in agreement with fistful. On a homosexuality-related incident no less.
-
woot
-
Some relevant portions of the law were posted by an apparently illiterate blogger. He seems to have missed the fact that the laws he's quoting say nothing about "discrimination" based on differing viewpoints. (Other than religion, which doesn't seem to apply here.)
http://advanceindiana.blogspot.com/2010/09/just-cookies-cant-discriminate-against.html
I've noticed that none of the stories about this issue indicate whether the "gay customer" "turned away" by the bakery was actually a "gay customer," as so many news outlets seem to be reporting. According to the following article, oddly titled "City responds to complaints about bakery not serving gay customer," Heather Browning (presumably a female) has a boyfriend. Hmm. I guess she might swing both ways, but how interesting that the person supposedly turned away for her sexual orientation appears to be a heterosexual.
http://www.fox59.com/news/wxin-bakery-wont-make-cupcakes-update-092310,0,2247943.story
City responds to complaints about bakery not serving gay customer
"It's blown up bigger than I thought, I didn't expect that many people to get involved," said Shan Parker, the customer's boyfriend.
Also, it may be that even the university staff understands that the bakery owners were well within their rights.
http://www.fox59.com/news/wxin-bakery-wont-make-rainbow-cupcakes-092310,0,6300849.story
IUPUI's spokesperson said the school has no formal complaint against the bakery and added embracing diversity means allowing the business owners the right to their opinion and the right to choose how to serve its customers, as long as those customers are not discriminated against.
-
The authors of the Human Rights Ordinance conclude that the bakers were not in violation. Well, duh.
http://www.indystar.com/article/20101009/OPINION01/10090326/Defending-bakery-s-right-to-refuse-to-support-event