Well Rog, I see in additional to personal attacks, you've taken up mindreading, with equally abysmal results.Roger does make good points at times, but these 2 factors constantly appear in his postings.. he doesn't see it, and there's no point in going on and on about legal and social issues on a Hooker Board.. his mind is made up and so is yours.
Originally Posted by Wheretonow
- Chung Tran
- 07-05-2015, 11:40 AM
- Roger.Smith
- 07-05-2015, 12:12 PM
Well Rog, I see in additional to personal attacks, you've taken up mindreading, with equally abysmal results.Dude, you are truly ridiculous.
If your description of the wedding cake the gay couple asked for is correct, how (short of you mindreading abilities) did the baker even know they were gay? In a truly free society, it wouldn't matter why the baker didn't want to provide a cake - because they were left-handed, or red-headed or for any other ridiculous reason.
Quoting Richard Epstein:
"Freedom of contract, in particular, has been in a prolonged period of retrenchment, as we can see in areas as diverse as product liability and employment law. In the former, the welter of regulations and the climate of opinion they foster have led to a massive expansion of litigation with no overall decline in accident rates. In the area of employment, the old common-law rule of “contract at will”—you can be fired without cause just as you can quit without liability—has been put out to pasture by both anti-discrimination laws and the creeping doctrine of “just cause” in judicial rulings. The result has been a mushrooming body of law that has proved to be an awful drag on the economy; in the meantime, the workplace has become not a better but a more forbidding and less satisfying place for workers and managers alike."
As I've stated before, the principle of "diversity" loses it's meaning when it only means including those of whom we approve. But it appears that this concept is a little (maybe a lot) too pragmatic for your dogmatic brain to comprehend.
And again, interperet and wild accusations about other posters does little to further your cause. You might try doubling up on your anxiety medication.
Originally Posted by Wheretonow
.You don't have to be a mindreader to know what a wedding cake looks like. A wedding cake isn't Bigfoot, I've seen them in real-life with my own eyes, on TV, and they have this thing called the internet you may have heard of. You actually think a gay wedding cake is shaped like a dick. That's beyond stupid and ignorant.
. What did I tell you about copying and pasting things you don't understand? What you posted is about product liability and righ-to-work laws, which has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. It even says so in the first sentence. The fact that isn't obviously to you highlights your lack of understanding of the issue and lack of reading comprehension.
You take what I say about as an attack, it's not. What I say about you is based off observation. You don't understand what you read, and you don't have the ability to accurately relate a concept to an relevant scenario. If you were my family, I'd seriously be looking at nursing homes to place you in.
- Chung Tran
- 07-05-2015, 12:21 PM
- Wheretonow
- 07-05-2015, 12:39 PM
Dude, you are truly ridiculous.Rog - your current medication is just not doing it for you - you might want to try a treatment facility. People as angry as you are normally suffering withdrawal or are genetically flawed (in which case medication may not help).
.You don't have to be a mindreader to know what a wedding cake looks like. A wedding cake isn't Bigfoot, I've seen them in real-life with my own eyes, on TV, and they have this thing called the internet you may have heard of. You actually think a gay wedding cake is shaped like a dick. That's beyond stupid and ignorant.
. What did I tell you about copying and pasting things you don't understand? What you posted is about product liability and righ-to-work laws, which has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. It even says so in the first sentence. The fact that isn't obviously to you highlights your lack of understanding of the issue and lack of reading comprehension.
You take what I say about as an attack, it's not. What I say about you is based off observation. You don't understand what you read, and you don't have the ability to accurately relate a concept to an relevant scenario. If you were my family, I'd seriously be looking at nursing homes to place you in. Originally Posted by Roger.Smith
And even most morons have the ability to extrapolate similar findings to the subject being discussed. But I keep forgetting that you're incapable of independent thought. Group counseling could help if they can tolerate you.
- Roger.Smith
- 07-05-2015, 02:23 PM
Rog - your current medication is just not doing it for you - you might want to try a treatment facility. People as angry as you are normally suffering withdrawal or are genetically flawed (in which case medication may not help).Dude, you cut and paste you arguments without understanding what they mean AND you just took what I said to you about not being able to process information, and said it to me like you came up with. You can't even resist plagiarizing the post you're replying to. I bet you don't even see the irony in that.
And even most morons have the ability to extrapolate similar findings to the subject being discussed. But I keep forgetting that you're incapable of independent thought. Group counseling could help if they can tolerate you. Originally Posted by Wheretonow
- Wheretonow
- 07-05-2015, 03:37 PM
Dude, you cut and paste you arguments without understanding what they mean AND you just took what I said to you about not being able to process information, and said it to me like you came up with. You can't even resist plagiarizing the post you're replying to. I bet you don't even see the irony in that. Originally Posted by Roger.SmithResponding to your convoluted, irrational caterwauling has been mildly entertaining, but I'm off to watch an "Orange is the New Black" marathon. Dem bitches be real!
Rog - I'm truly sorry that I was unable to convince you to seek assistance for your delusional behavior - please get the help you so desperately need. The ECCIE community will be grateful, and a much less irritating place to peruse.
- Roger.Smith
- 07-05-2015, 04:15 PM
Responding to your convoluted, irrational caterwauling has been mildly entertaining, but I'm off to watch an "Orange is the New Black" marathon. Dem bitches be real!Be careful that show has gay women with a Transgender woman thrown in as well. Take care not to choke on your frosted dick gay wedding cake while watching.
Rog - I'm truly sorry that I was unable to convince you to seek assistance for your delusional behavior - please get the help you so desperately need. The ECCIE community will be grateful, and a much less irritating place to peruse. Originally Posted by Wheretonow
- Lust4xxxLife
- 07-06-2015, 01:15 AM
Roger.Smith wins. Wheretonow loses. Entertaining exchange, but bigotry never wins. L4L.
- Wheretonow
- 07-06-2015, 05:44 AM
PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964: WHY FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION COUNTS AS A HUMAN RIGHT
Richard A. Epstein
Normatively, the correct rule is that freedom of association is a generalizable value that holds in all competitive markets; the effort to apply the antidiscrimination laws in that domain is a giant form of overreach, no matter whether the lines of difference are race, religion, or sexual orientation. This position applies a fortiori to those persons who reject a request for services on bona fide religious grounds, but it is not limited to them. This position also applies to all sorts of services, not some subclass like photography that may just be given preferred First Amendment status on freedom of speech grounds. There is virtually zero risk of systematic exclusion when competitive substitutes are available, so that using the broad freedom of association principle produces few error costs. If most organizations regard these distinctions as abhorrent, it is all the more important to allow those who differ to go their separate ways. Customers have lots of options to choose from, while the practitioners of certain beliefs have few choices of their own if forced to engage in practices that they find offensive to their religious beliefs in order to stay in business.
Nor is it possible to sugarcoat the New Mexico court’s ruling by claiming that Elane Photography brought the law down upon itself when it opened its business to the public. The argument, which has a long history in civil rights litigation, claims that the phrase “offers its services to the public” carries with it the clear implication that Elane Photography accepted the duty not to discriminate the moment it opened its doors for business. Put otherwise, no one who is in favor of this law thinks that it could be avoided if below “open for business” was the sentence “we reserve the right to choose our own customers.” (Ironically, the New Mexico Supreme Court said that Elane Photography could post a notice that it will respect the law that it doesn’t agree with.). Note that this sentence could not be posted by a common carrier that indeed has just that duty to serve on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms. That difference in the two settings is recognized by the common law distinction between offers and invita- tions to treat, such that it is not credible to say that Elane Photography has somehow voluntarily offered its services to any or all members of the public.
That outcome represents, moreover, the standard position in competitive markets that each person—whether merchant or customer—is the master of his offer; the firm has the unqualified right to turn down any business proposition, just as the potential customer can choose for whatever reason the firms that it wants to deal with. Surely Willock has no duty to accept Elane Photography’s offer to work on any project whatsoever if she takes offense at its policy not to photograph gay marriages—no questions asked. That right is shared by all other members of the public. No one claims that someone who puts out a request for services has committed herself to hire a contractor without regard to his religious or sexual preferences. It is therefore odd to posit some “humiliation and dignitary harm as a trump on the side of a disappointed customer, without recognizing that the mandated services now impose humiliation and dignitary harm on business proprietors who are also human beings: why else is Elane Photography fighting this case? These issues are hot. They can spur widespread boycotts and other actions against the firm—think of Chick-fil-A. The decision to override private associational preferences based on the allegation of soft harm thus founders. Those harms are created on the one side in the attempt to limit them on the other.
The correct analysis therefore requires looking at both sides of the relationship before making some judgment on both social efficacy and dignitary harms. That point is also correct on more general grounds. The first point is that it is likely that Willock and Collinsworth could not pay enough money to Elane Photography to overcome its objection. Nor could Elane Photography pay enough to Willock and Collinsworth to make them change their minds. This dispute is not over money, but fundamental values. But what lesson can be learned from the observation that it is difficult for two parties to bargain themselves out of impasses? In this situation, the correct default rule is that the two sides go their separate ways.
That choice of default rule becomes more salient as the number of potential parties increases. Thus if Elane Photography is under a duty to serve all comers, it cannot not afford to buy off the long queue of gay and lesbian couples that come to its door asking for financial payment. But if Elane Photography has the right to exclude for any reason, then selective admission of chosen persons becomes the norm on which free association can rest. So giving owners the right to exclude others reduces the bargaining complications that would otherwise ensue, which in turn eases the path to competitive markets as others jump in and offer to serve the customers that Elane Photography will not. The point here applies across the board. It is not an answer to say that by this logic Elane Photography could refuse to serve black customers, which is within its rights, just as it is for any firm to refuse to serve white customers, or to refuse to serve any firm that does not engage in a systematic policy of nondiscrimination. Once again, the principle of freedom of association applies across the board once the issues of monopolization and the abuse of state power are put to one side. In all cases, competitive firms will fill the supposed gap.
The overall system works far better with strong property rights and of course the strong protection of individual autonomy in all personal dealings. It is for that reason that in ordinary property arrangements elsewhere, it is the duty of the outsider to win consent, not the duty of the owner to buy off all outsiders that she does not wish to admit. So the standard rule is that the cattle owner has to keep the cattle out of the farmer’s land, and not the other way around. Armed with the right to exclude, the landowner can decide which, if any, outsider to let in to graze on his land. Those who do not like the situation can go elsewhere. Elane Photography does not have any dominant market position in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Huguenin should be allowed to run her business in peace.
Richard A. Epstein
Normatively, the correct rule is that freedom of association is a generalizable value that holds in all competitive markets; the effort to apply the antidiscrimination laws in that domain is a giant form of overreach, no matter whether the lines of difference are race, religion, or sexual orientation. This position applies a fortiori to those persons who reject a request for services on bona fide religious grounds, but it is not limited to them. This position also applies to all sorts of services, not some subclass like photography that may just be given preferred First Amendment status on freedom of speech grounds. There is virtually zero risk of systematic exclusion when competitive substitutes are available, so that using the broad freedom of association principle produces few error costs. If most organizations regard these distinctions as abhorrent, it is all the more important to allow those who differ to go their separate ways. Customers have lots of options to choose from, while the practitioners of certain beliefs have few choices of their own if forced to engage in practices that they find offensive to their religious beliefs in order to stay in business.
Nor is it possible to sugarcoat the New Mexico court’s ruling by claiming that Elane Photography brought the law down upon itself when it opened its business to the public. The argument, which has a long history in civil rights litigation, claims that the phrase “offers its services to the public” carries with it the clear implication that Elane Photography accepted the duty not to discriminate the moment it opened its doors for business. Put otherwise, no one who is in favor of this law thinks that it could be avoided if below “open for business” was the sentence “we reserve the right to choose our own customers.” (Ironically, the New Mexico Supreme Court said that Elane Photography could post a notice that it will respect the law that it doesn’t agree with.). Note that this sentence could not be posted by a common carrier that indeed has just that duty to serve on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms. That difference in the two settings is recognized by the common law distinction between offers and invita- tions to treat, such that it is not credible to say that Elane Photography has somehow voluntarily offered its services to any or all members of the public.
That outcome represents, moreover, the standard position in competitive markets that each person—whether merchant or customer—is the master of his offer; the firm has the unqualified right to turn down any business proposition, just as the potential customer can choose for whatever reason the firms that it wants to deal with. Surely Willock has no duty to accept Elane Photography’s offer to work on any project whatsoever if she takes offense at its policy not to photograph gay marriages—no questions asked. That right is shared by all other members of the public. No one claims that someone who puts out a request for services has committed herself to hire a contractor without regard to his religious or sexual preferences. It is therefore odd to posit some “humiliation and dignitary harm as a trump on the side of a disappointed customer, without recognizing that the mandated services now impose humiliation and dignitary harm on business proprietors who are also human beings: why else is Elane Photography fighting this case? These issues are hot. They can spur widespread boycotts and other actions against the firm—think of Chick-fil-A. The decision to override private associational preferences based on the allegation of soft harm thus founders. Those harms are created on the one side in the attempt to limit them on the other.
The correct analysis therefore requires looking at both sides of the relationship before making some judgment on both social efficacy and dignitary harms. That point is also correct on more general grounds. The first point is that it is likely that Willock and Collinsworth could not pay enough money to Elane Photography to overcome its objection. Nor could Elane Photography pay enough to Willock and Collinsworth to make them change their minds. This dispute is not over money, but fundamental values. But what lesson can be learned from the observation that it is difficult for two parties to bargain themselves out of impasses? In this situation, the correct default rule is that the two sides go their separate ways.
That choice of default rule becomes more salient as the number of potential parties increases. Thus if Elane Photography is under a duty to serve all comers, it cannot not afford to buy off the long queue of gay and lesbian couples that come to its door asking for financial payment. But if Elane Photography has the right to exclude for any reason, then selective admission of chosen persons becomes the norm on which free association can rest. So giving owners the right to exclude others reduces the bargaining complications that would otherwise ensue, which in turn eases the path to competitive markets as others jump in and offer to serve the customers that Elane Photography will not. The point here applies across the board. It is not an answer to say that by this logic Elane Photography could refuse to serve black customers, which is within its rights, just as it is for any firm to refuse to serve white customers, or to refuse to serve any firm that does not engage in a systematic policy of nondiscrimination. Once again, the principle of freedom of association applies across the board once the issues of monopolization and the abuse of state power are put to one side. In all cases, competitive firms will fill the supposed gap.
The overall system works far better with strong property rights and of course the strong protection of individual autonomy in all personal dealings. It is for that reason that in ordinary property arrangements elsewhere, it is the duty of the outsider to win consent, not the duty of the owner to buy off all outsiders that she does not wish to admit. So the standard rule is that the cattle owner has to keep the cattle out of the farmer’s land, and not the other way around. Armed with the right to exclude, the landowner can decide which, if any, outsider to let in to graze on his land. Those who do not like the situation can go elsewhere. Elane Photography does not have any dominant market position in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Huguenin should be allowed to run her business in peace.
- Wheretonow
- 07-06-2015, 07:04 AM
Roger.Smith wins. Wheretonow loses. Entertaining exchange, but bigotry never wins. L4L. Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLifeBigot: : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
Since I'm the person with the more inclusive views and opinions here, I'm not the bigot. But, being the tolerant person that I am, you're welcome to interpret data in any convoluted way you choose, even if it's contrary to all of the facts presented.
Have a nice day.
- Chung Tran
- 07-06-2015, 09:23 AM
Roger.Smith wins. Wheretonow loses. Entertaining exchange, but bigotry never wins. L4L. Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLifeI agree.. kill the Bigots! so happy to have a President and Supreme Court that regulates my life, tells me who to associate with, punishes me when I'm bad.. even happier to see government control extends to State Labor Commissioners, giving them the ability to fine family businesses.. not just that, but authority to require the fined family members not talk about the fine publically, and put up personal assets to pay the fine.
God bless America!
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sw...rticle/2567584
- Prolongus
- 07-06-2015, 09:34 AM
Those of you who are in dire need of a blowjob (and you know who you are)...
GIT 'ER DONE...
I find that blowjobs pretty much solve all arguing...
GIT 'ER DONE...
I find that blowjobs pretty much solve all arguing...
- Wheretonow
- 07-06-2015, 10:32 AM
I agree.. kill the Bigots! so happy to have a President and Supreme Court that regulates my life, tells me who to associate with, punishes me when I'm bad.. even happier to see government control extends to State Labor Commissioners, giving them the ability to fine family businesses.. not just that, but authority to require the fined family members not talk about the fine publically, and put up personal assets to pay the fine.CT - Your sarcasm and the article you cite do a great job of pointing out how far down the wrong path we have come.
God bless America!
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sw...rticle/2567584 Originally Posted by Chung Tran
Trampling on the rights of one group to convey alleged rights to another group shoud not be the American way.
- str8.2.bbbj
- 07-07-2015, 02:32 AM
Does anyone besides me just not give a shit? People could drink draino for all I care. As long as they aren't hurting anyone, who gives a shit?
- andymarksman
- 07-08-2015, 05:55 AM