A discussion about Religion, Gay Weddings and Pizza.

That won't stop a private practitioner from saying no, or a doctor from quitting. Again, most of these hospitals aren't really private entities, they're heavily reliant on Govt. and the people's tax dollars to continue running. Not only that there's different ethical standards for both groups, which was my main point.



1 place denying service doesn't magically take away your right to buy pizza anywhere else. There being only pizza place in a town doesn't make it a public service open to all. Make a big fuss about it until everyone decides to try something different or ask the owner to change his business model or lose his patrons.

I don't agree with the owner of Chick Fil A's views but he did stick to his guns in a professional and polite way. He and his company never denied gay people service or employment. I don't care how immoral you think he is for following his illogical religious beliefs, he's not imposing his will through force, he hasn't cornered the market of fast food, and he's not being discrete about what he's doing with his money. Why and how do you suggest we limit his freedom expression?

In order to keep the market free you don't further strip people of their rights. When a government in pursuit of good intentions tries to force change the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests groups, the cost come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Govt. should be a referee, not an active player.

I was just pointing this case on specific, I agree that a pizzeria does not have any added responsibility at differences of lawyers, doctors and related. Then again, they are is still forced by law to offer its service to anyone who can afford it if they are gonna use a model of public transaction and this even true in the U.S. Well, exception would be if same-sex marriage is illegal, but then in Indiana it is allowed, so yeah.

BTW, private practitioner is forced to say yes in certain circumstances. Of course some will stay say no, but then I can demand them and get rid of their title, a thing quite common over there. Baring retirement, if a doctor stops working without retirement and their service is solicited, like on an emergency, they are still forced to help. Even outside emergencies, doctors are still forbidden of leaving needed people who are requesting their help (though they can do as much as possible to avoid such contact in the first place or give that patient to a colleague). During unisons protests, for the same reason, doctors are still forced to don't leave alone their current patients and anyone new who is in a hurry, so this works both ways.



Oh, liberal extremist (economics)? No matters, even the U.S is a pragmatic society, liking it or not. Pragmatic societies makes a balance between government and laws being referees AND active players, depending of what may be the most effective method for each individual case. In this case, and agreed surprising by all the world, if you make business with public transactions, then you have to offer that service to everyone who can afford it (bar illegal activity), because:

- Improved flow of money that can't be walled.
- A stable work-frame for business to sell AND buy.
- A stable work-frame for everyone (including pizzeria owners) to buy AND sell.
- Nobody will pass a bad time because discrimination, everyone wins as even discriminators are protected from discrimination, too.
- If you don't like it, do business with private transactions only, period.

I'm only seeing benefits except for those who are against our modern constitutions and/or hate them more than their love for other things.

If I can walk in off the street and place an order without needing a invitation or reservation, if I can do so at my leisure at any given time of the day (provided business hours are open). It is a public service.

Affirmative action and the UN Charter of Human Rights specify that all business must be inclusive for employment. This specific case isn't necessarily about employment, but if they won't even sell a pizza based on their belief, why would they hire an employee. That is the concern here.

This was the very same thing that we as free first nation countries fought against for generations in the 20th century and even fight for today.

If we can't create basic human equality in all aspects of life here at home, what right to do we have to fight against people like ISIS, or against the Nazi's as we did, or against communism, or against anyone for that matter.

As I've said before, there is no exception to the rule. You are either for inclusion or against it.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

America is a country that was designed to be inclusive to everyone regardless of who they were. It's time that people remember that.


I just want to point out something as well. That pizzeria that discriminated against gay people has generated over $800,000 in crowdfunding to continue with their discrimination. There's something deeply disturbing when stuff like this happens.

The good old "Everybody loves free speech until you use free speech"

At least here it was just pizza, and not a doctor rejecting a kid because the parents were lesbians.

This is a bug test because Jacob is a horrible coder who deserves to be flogged.

@theotherjacob


Still a privately owned business. They can turn down anyone from THEIR establishment. When you're saying it's a PUBLIC service you're suggesting it's being funded by the people, for the people.



They honestly shouldn't have to be an inclusive business. I also can't give 2 shits about what UN thinks is proper. They've let rapist, abusers and scumbag run loose in impoverished countries.



I've already gone over this. You're the one pushing his morality on others. The pizza people aren't, they're in no way obligated to conduct business. You're comparing that act, although petty, to murdering, beheading, enslaving, genocidal maniacs in ISIS. Do you realize how fucking stupid that is?



America was also meant to be a country that values individuality and freedom of expression. No taxation without representation. No forced servitude to a tyranny.



And? It's not disturbing at all, it's basically a reactionary crowdfunding movement to oppose people like you. People have no problem making the govt. an active player in private lives, business and believes.

@Nyara❤

Yep, like love for a govt. that doesn't step outside it's bounds? Love for freedom of expression? Maybe just a moral stance that you shouldn't be forced into servitude? Again, an establishment open to the public can still turn away potential customers for whatever they want, and they shouldn't be restricted from this practice.
Closing off the "money flow" to some segments of the population is literally impossible in an open market. The only one capable of that is the govt. itself by creating monopolies or forcing segregation.
A stable "work-frame"? Do you mean frame-work?
Don't think forcing someone into a transaction is stable. Other business may cover discrepancies. Your frame-work doesn't work because it forces people to go to only a few business, limits entry, and forces some business to take others into account, one's they normally wouldn't or shouldn't do business with. Just like in my example with the bank. Forcing them to make loans and not discriminate would literally kill the bank or force them to stop loaning anything but small amounts.

Yeah, but I personally don't want to do business for with them. YOU CANNOT FORCE PEOPLE TO BUY THINGS FROM THEM FOR THE SAKE OF EQUALITY. Even if the discriminator wasn't allowed to say no to everyone who comes in with money, more than likely people will still know and try and ignore/punish him/her/them. Giving people the complete option to buy but not to sell is not a stable frame-work.

Dude, a bank does private transactions, registers, invites and stuff people in individual cases. Banks services are not available to any passerby just to start with. Public transactions are when you are allowing anyone enter your transaction space and allowing anyone commerce with you without asking anything at all (like a restaurant, that is not using invite/list systems, of course). For example the Catholic Church does not offer public transactions but rather private transactions, being their service only available after negotiations, thus, and yeah, they can discriminate unless a specific law is done (and that has a lot of space to discuss about, though it is anti-constitutional to don't have such law, but whatever, that can be discussed).

On the case of the pizzeria, yeah, they can offer pizza in public transactions, they are forced to serve pizza to anyone who can pay them, but if they do the wedding service with private transactions, they can select their clients.

Public = Everyone can trade with you. No exceptions allowed (bar illegal activity or not paying).
Private = Nobody can trade with you. You have an exception list you can fill with individual persons and companies.

And dude, discriminators are protected of being discriminated when they BUY things. They also need to go to the market to buy their food and stuff, am right? They also need electricity, am right? They also buy chairs and other products, am right? No atheist nor pro-homo with hate can deny sell their stuff to the pizzeria owners if they are offering public transactions. You can be the biggest racist nazi faggot ever, but I have to serve you tea if you pay me if I'm holding a non-reservations-invites-list restaurant (and I have space in the restaurant and the tea, of course).

Also, it is not my frame-work, it is the frame-work agreed by the whole world, including business(wo)man, using international laws that even the U.S agreed.

This is not 1901 anymore.

Yes, when they buy things, but no one is obligated to buy their things, which goes against the whole stability argument. You're basically saying choice should only apply to one group, not both. I don't think I'm preaching extremist liberal economics, I did say there should be some form of standard when it comes to service, definitely health and safety wise, more or less to protect buyers and sellers from scams.

Public utilities (like banks) are a completely different monster since they more or less have a monopoly and are tied with the local and probably state govt. Denying that service is much harder to justify when you're the only one who can physically be around, and when you're receiving tons of tax dollars to keep running.
Privately owned business can still still turn away customers, and they don't really need a reason. I called it "your" framework because it's the one your brought up, so sorry? It's not stable, it's not a win-win when enforced on privately owned entities.

I'd wager most laws regarding this involve hiring practices. Not involuntary trades of goods or services.

OT: Reading more articles.
In reality I see lawmakers in Indiana caving into public pressure soon. A lot of revenue is leaving the state because of SB101. Crowdsourcing some money isn't going to do much when million dollar events are constantly leaving your state in protest. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing business putting their political/religious beliefs out there, it makes it easier for consumers to decide who they should and shouldn't back up.



It's not and I don't want to go back. The markets have expanded and can accommodate almost everyone and anyone within reason. Consumers are being protected more than ever. If people want more social progress, then do it through social non forceful means. The way to avoid going back to 1901 isn't only through forcing 1984. I don't care how convenient and efficient you think that might be.

Stability are clear rules that everyone can take for granted. In this case, you can take for granted that you are allowed to buy from someone who is offering transactions for everyone (not exceptions). The same applies the inverse, you can take for granted you are not allowed to buy from someone who is offering private transactions, where you can only know if you can buy after direct negotiations with that person or company.

Change those basic rules and the system begins to become abstract and inconsistent. By not forbidding exceptions on public transactions, you have what is happening on Venezuela or Iran, where both, people and business(wo)man, for poor law enforcement fault, can't know if they will get arbitrary discriminated where they are buying and doing their lives. You can have the best bakery in the country, but if your nearest shop stops selling you the raw ingredients because you are atheist and the next shop with decent prices is like 60 minutes travel, AND YOU DON'T KNOW if that shop in the future will do you the same if owners changes, bleh, it is really hard to make stable business like that.

Then you can say that the bakery can have a private provider and that is a common thing, but in all the world and for the same reasons of stability and consistency, private transactions doers can select as they wish their trade partners.

Now, don't get this wrong, there are laws and exceptions everywhere to this. For example for private holders getting benefits from the state, private transactions have some added rules to follow (though not always), making it more mixed or specific (like for health-care system). The system is also somewhat flexible, for example a same establishment can work with both systems for different services. Let's use this pizzeria:

The pizzeria can open their doors to everyone from Monday to Friday their pizza sells. They are forbidden from doing exceptions in the everyone word on this. But then, the pizzeria can decide to open their doors ONLY by invitation and reservation list on Saturdays, where they do private transactions at not allowing nobody except those they allow so (individual persons and companies). Then the same pizzeria can open a wedding service for Friday, where they offer private transactions at requesting previous negotiations to accept or decline. Then the same pizzeria can sell alcohol and forbid its sell to minors because that would be illegal. Then the same pizzeria can sell cupcakes, only allowed to those with certain coupon, a coupon they can grant any way they wish (like coupons for people wearing green on St. Patrick's).

There are some laws in between and anti discrimination laws that prevent possible abuses or sometimes can be a bit exaggerated in exigencies, but on average the model works stable most the time.

I've had this discussion on Youtube, but I guess it wouldn't hurt to copy pasta what I previously said:

No one should be force to do anything they're not cool with. You have the right to refuse anyone you choose as a service person. Most people don't because they want business and excluding a part of the people who will use you isn't smart business wise. No one should force you to make a cake for a gay wedding nor make pies for you thing.( why in the fuck would you want a pizza guy cater your wedding what the fuck son.)

Nor should anyone care. Wouldn't you not make a cake for a KKK rally if you don't agree with them? How about DJ a NAMBLA con? Hey i am a liberal... why would i photograph a Ted Cruz Event? Your choice, your money, your business.


Im also a Bi-sexual Moderate independent.

Finalboss said it right. You should just think of your money and don't give a fuck, but you still have the right not to. You run your business and exclude people then you suffer but still you have that right.

I see your point, but I can't help but to sympathize with the gay community because it wasn't too long ago that African Americans were segregated and not allowed to enter into many Caucasian businesses. Groups like KKK and NAMBLA are "supposed" to be discriminated against because they are sending the wrong message. Groups like race, gender, sexual orientation should not be discriminated against and most certainly should not be encouraged to be discriminated against, because they have done nothing worth being discriminated against. Its fine to discriminate in your own home because that's personal, but not in a professional setting such as a business. That's my two cents anyways.

i think gays should be able to do anything they want as we can, marriage, pizza etc. and the pizzeria are douches but there are in there right to decline business....it is there money they lose in doing so. im straight and not into dudes but im not going to bash some gays just cause they are different

I believe the more confusing thing is that people are all for the separation of church and state, but yet they want to force people to provide a good/service for a religious ceremony (weddings) under "anti-discrimination" laws. An overwhelming majority of these businesses, I think all of them, are saying that they are not going to cater, take pictures, or make flower arrangements for the wedding, not that they would never serve them if they walked in and asked for a birthday cake, a family picture, or a bouquet of flowers.

It's easier to argue that they are never serving gays instead of pointing out that they are not serving gays in certain cases, like weddings. It's a lot harder to get people to be for forcing people to participate in religious events than it is to claim that they, the businesses, are violating "anti-discrimination" laws by not participating in a gay wedding.

Also there are many other cases out there that would make you even angrier than this one.

Discussion is in depth, and moved away from the point.

This is the gays' problem. No one needs to serve others if they don't want. Exempt for discrimination and business, the issue alone should be concluded without escalation. It's resolved as it happened, the indian family has moved away. Naturally, this happens across America over arguments and social values.