....lybob Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 I think you meant a private business. You know, the type owned by private citizens. The government is a public good, the bakery is not. I mean, Places of “public accommodation” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 (edited) Ah, universal. Well then. Universal refutation on PPP. You know, the location specified in your post, which I quoted in my post. you are adding **** How is it different? The government can only force someone to sell their goods if they aren't being insulted? If your stance is that someone is forced to sell their goods to the entire public, no exceptions, why does the insult take them out of that directive? What arbitrary distinction are you making? Does a business owner not own the goods or services he is providing? Edited July 6, 2015 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 Does a business owner not own the goods or services he is providing? suddenly i'm reminded of a thread about the ownership of a hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 How is it different? The government can only force someone to sell their goods if they aren't being insulted? Insulting your waitress or bartender, yelling war-criminal at Dick Cheney, heckling a comic etc etc and other forms of verbal abuse have always been cause for removal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 Insulting your waitress or bartender, yelling war-criminal at Dick Cheney, heckling a comic etc etc and other forms of verbal abuse have always been cause for removal unless you're Kanye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 (edited) Insulting your waitress or bartender, yelling war-criminal at Dick Cheney, heckling a comic etc etc and other forms of verbal abuse have always been cause for removal Now let's define abuse. And let's also talk about why it's "verbal" exclusively. And are we citing a law or tradition with "have always been?" Edited July 6, 2015 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 Very good. Now let's define abuse. And let's also talk about why it's "verbal" exclusively.How is that "good"? His explanation is essentially that a proprietor only owns his own stock, labor, and retains his rights to freedom of association if he feels insulted or offended, otherwise he should feel compelled by the state. It's one of the dumbest arguments I've ever read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 How is that "good"? His explanation is essentially that a proprietor only owns his own stock, labor, and retains his rights to freedom of association if he feels insulted or offended, otherwise he should feel compelled by the state. It's one of the dumbest arguments I've ever read. I was getting there. You have no appreciation for drawing it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 (edited) I mean, Places of public accommodationI think you meant privately owned places when private individuals can make mutually agreed upon exchanges. Edited July 6, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 Now let's define abuse. And let's also talk about why it's "verbal" exclusively. And are we citing a law or tradition with "have always been?" This is why we have judges Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 This is why we have judgesWe have judges for the purpose of determining whether or not verbal insults rise to the standard that the state must surrender it's compulsory position that business owners do not have the right of free association? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 This is why we have judges Does a business owner not own the goods or services he is providing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 I think you meant privately owned places when private individuals can make mutually agreed upon exchanges. I mean, Places of public accommodation- just like I wrote - that's the !@#$ing law, you don't like it then get it changed or come here and bellyache ad nauseam or move to a country more inline with your beliefs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 I mean, Places of public accommodation- just like I wrote - that's the !@#$ing law, you don't like it then get it changed or come here and bellyache ad nauseam or move to a country more inline with your beliefsI'm sorry, did I upset you when I refused to let you define the terms of the conversation by co-opting and muting the English language? I think we'll stick with the long standing definition of "ownership", "free exchange", and "compulsion". Extra points for making the "Don't like it? GTFO!" argument. That's always a big winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 Does a business owner not own the goods or services he is providing? Just a quick point, in your paradigm, the answer would be no. You refuse to say it. But that's "the !@#$ing law." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 Extra points for making the "Don't like it? GTFO!" argument. That's always a big winner. In the end, he's right. It's the law (at least in Oregon). It's unfortunate that the gay couple had to be so brutally disruptive to make their point. They could have found a way to make their point without destroying someone's livelihood and sending them to bankruptcy. But hey...no one ever confuses the left with compassion and tolerance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 I'm sorry, did I upset you when I refused to let you define the terms of the conversation by co-opting and muting the English language? I think we'll stick with the long standing definition of "ownership", "free exchange", and "compulsion". Extra points for making the "Don't like it? GTFO!" argument. That's always a big winner. Do you need a business license? sorry when you enter a business of public accommodation you give up certain rights, if you think your private ownership of something gives unlimited rights of what you can do with it then I suggest you paint your house from top to bottom with confederate flags, put an old junker on the lawn, build a barn let the lawn go wild, you own the property don't let them tell you what to do with your property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 Do you need a business license? sorry when you enter a business of public accommodation you give up certain rights, if you think your private ownership of something gives unlimited rights of what you can do with it then I suggest you paint your house from top to bottom with confederate flags, put an old junker on the lawn, build a barn let the lawn go wild, you own the property don't let them tell you what to do with your property. ... ALOL... So because the government has decided to insert itself into places it has no business being in, acting exactly as a cartel in order to extract "fees and taxes" on a private businesses, those businesses become public entities? The government isn't doing the business a service by requiring a license. The government is doing politicians a service by requiring a license. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 ... ALOL... So because the government has decided to insert itself into places it has no business being in, acting exactly as a cartel in order to extract "fees and taxes" on a private businesses, those businesses become public entities? The government isn't doing the business a service by requiring a license. The government is doing politicians a service by requiring a license. Do you think a required business license is unconstitutional? if so I suggest you open a business without said required license and then fight any legal action all the way to the supreme court - think of all the good you can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 Do you think a required business license is unconstitutional? if so I suggest you open a business without said required license and then fight any legal action all the way to the supreme court - think of all the good you can do. So now you're arguing that possession of a business license requires the business owner to abide by the Equal Protection clause? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts