They are closing because of death threats (or possibly they are lying and its cause of lack of business before their comments). That's not the market speaking. It's a crime. That would be like if I burnt your restaurant to the ground and u said 'the market has spoken'.
Man, that's messed up. They acting like gangs just as bad as the ones discriminating. You see the yelp page? They make themselves look bad- they complain about being bullied, and then they bully others? that's two-faced.
let me see if i have this right. You and mark are making a moral equivalency between threatening to kill someone and their family with denying somebody pizza catering service?
I'm on your side, man. I said that gays complain about being bullied- and then they turn around and do it to others. You argue with people that agree with you? That's messed up- no wonder you piss people off.
They all suck, media's all about ratings. Say they care, and when they're off air, they tell the truth. Bill O' Riley is gay.
This is the correct answer, don't fall for the logical and historical fallacy of market forces hedging against discrimination. Persecuted groups could conceivably have less economic resources and there may a sufficient portion of the enfranchised class who will pay premiums, in higher prices or self-limiting their choices, for a discriminatory customer experience. It would have been more effective to force a test case against this business: that might be why they're claiming to be shut down for now.
Just point me to the section of the US Constitution about historic patterns of discrimination, and I will go ahead and concede this point. Otherwise, it has no bearing on what I am talking about. Yes they did. Under the commerce clause. That is exactly what I am talking about. I in fact mentioned it earlier. It is only by saying that the power to regulate interstate commerce means that the US Congress can mandate that Bob the diner owner has to serve Japanese people that show up at his diner, that they said the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is Constitutional. The commerce clause, by the way, was put in to prevent states from putting tariffs on goods coming in from other states. If anything that might affect interstate commerce could be regulated under the commerce clause, there would be no need for the rest of Article I section 8, unless you think the military, piracy, money, bankruptcy, roads, and post offices, for example, have no effect on interstate commerce. Equal protection only applies to state action. Letting Mr. Tamagachi into your diner or not is not state action. Nope, it doesn't do that at all. It only limits the power of government to regulate vis a vis free association. It would have nothing to do with mandating that cooks wash their hands after taking a dump, because that has nothing to do with free association. Now, the federal government shouldn't be doing that anyway, as they are not empowered to do so, but the state government would not be precluded from doing so on free association grounds. The ADA certainly skirts the edge of infringing on free association. I suppose the government could mandate handicap accessibility measures without implicating free association, because the business could comply with the physical rules and still deny access to whoever they wanted. Again, that runs into problems with the enumerated powers of Congress. Licensure should be a state law issue as well, unless you are practicing across state lines. Lawyers, for example are licensed by state bar associations, but to practice in Federal court have to be licensed by the Federal government. If it is that overwhelmingly popular, the solution is simple, just amend the Constitution. I happen to think that regardless of the popularity of any particular law, the country is better off if we run it according to the document that tells us how to run it, instead of saying that the power to regulate interstate commerce means the power to do anything and everything. There is no limitation in the first amendment that free association applies only to private clubs. I am pretty sure you also cannot open a "private club" and give free membership to anyone who shows up that is not a member of protected class X, because if you could, that would have been exactly what happened following Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States.
I don't disagree, but I don't think the point was to show support of the idea of having anti-discrimination laws. That should be self-evident because we've seen the market fail numerous times. But for the person who said the market should decide, it's worth pointing out that it did in this case - and it didn't do so in the way he was intending. It's shows that markets DON'T produce the desired outcome in the way that "let the market fix everything!!" people hope it would.
I think you're presuming that about the poster. I have no reason to think he expects/wants the market to decide that gays can't have pizza at their wedding (lol how tacky). And even if he does want the market to decide something, he's given no indication that he'd go running to the government to get a law passed to prevent this particular market outcome. But then again, maybe I don't know rudan that well.
The difference is a catering service has to schedule and then have a working relationship to the customer. They take customers differently than a diner with open seats at the bar where it would clearly be discrimination.
Is that the market or is it harassment? The market deciding would be if they didn't have any customers, not they couldn't open their doors because of harassment.
No one was stopping them from opening their doors. They were just being cowards who couldn't stand up to their convictions. Anyway it doesn't matter, They made out like bandits. Seems the jesus crowd has opened up their wallets for bigotry.
yea that makes sense mark. they must have had no customers for the 1 day after their comments and thus gone out of business (despite the fact that they have made 380k in donations yesterday). Completely reasonable. IT couldn't possibly be the death threats they received. You don't even understand what a market is. Also how is it cowardly to protect your family by shutting down your business?
So is that right, in your mind? What if a person finds being gay offensive? Should they still have to provide the service? That is semantics. If a business owner can refuse service because he finds something a customer wants offensive, then it should not matter if they find said thing offensive based on religious beliefs. In fact, if they choose to refuse service because they find it offensive because of their religious beliefs then they have extra protection from the constitution based on their religious beliefs. I haven't dodged any question but you do have a point as I avoid any business that has special promotions specifically for gay people.
