What scares the f*ck out of you?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

I don't know what sort of formal ethics the legal community has set for itself.

Ethics for the legal community? Bwahahahahahaha

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Is 1 ornament OK, but 2 ornaments of one kind or another are not ? What is the argument ?

Not that simple, maybe they object to the bride fucking a horse on the cake.
Where do you draw the line?

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Ethics for the legal community? Bwahahahahahaha

Not that simple, maybe they object to the bride fucking a horse on the cake.
Where do you draw the line?

"...they object... = ... business owner objects... ?

That's the point, exactly. You don't draw the line according to the customer.

If your religious beliefs keep you from treating your customers equally,
don't get a business license to do commerce with the public.

( Some people don't believe in paying taxes ... Ask the IRS how that's working for them. )

BYW, Larry Archie's bill board is quite correct.
It's up to our legal system to say whether you're guilty, or not.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

"...they object... = ... business owner objects... ?.

Of course the business owner objects, for Christ's sake, why the fuck would the customer object to their own request? You do realize it's the customer that makes the request for a cake, right?

That's the point, exactly. You don't draw the line according to the customer.

OK, so you draw the line according to the customer's request? Or you can't refuse any request? If they can refuse, and don't give a reason, how do you claim it was because of religion or because the customer belongs to a group?

BYW, Larry Archie's bill board is quite correct.
It's up to our legal system to say whether you're guilty, or not.

Bullshit, you're presumed innocent in the eyes of the law until convicted, but if you did it, you're still guilty as a motherfucker.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

<snip>

The situation seems closer to the owner saying "No" to these specific customers ...
because of what the owner believes these customers are going to do in the future ?
e.g, is the "religious freedom" issue that the customers are going to sin ?
or, who the customers appear to be in the eyes of the owner ?
How does that then differ from discrimination against any ethic group?

...It engages in commerce to serve the public.

Oregon law seems to agree...

Same-sex couple in Sweet Cakes controversy should receive $135,000, hearings officer says
George Rede - The Oregonian/OregonLive - 4/24/15

The lesbian couple turned away by a Gresham bakery that refused to make them a wedding cake
for religious reasons should receive $135,000 in damages for their emotional suffering,
a state hearings officer says.

Bureau prosecutors sought $75,000 for each woman -- $150,000 total -- during a hearing on damages in March.
...
The amounts recommended by law judge Alan McCullough, coming after four days of testimony, are not final.
State Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian has the final authority to raise, lower or leave the proposed damages as is.

In a statement Friday, BOLI* said: "The facts of this case clearly demonstrate that
the Kleins unlawfully discriminated against the Complainants.

Under Oregon law, businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation,
just as they cannot turn customers away because of race, sex, disability, age or religion.
Our agency is committed to fair and thorough enforcement of Oregon civil rights laws, including the Equality Act of 2007."

[BOLI - Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries]

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

So now it's back on shaky ground.
Is 1 ornament OK, but 2 ornaments of one kind or another are not ?
What is the argument ?

The argument is that, in the land of discrimination, the two lesbian ladies could say, "Fine, stick a traditional topper on since that's all you carry, we'll take it off and put our own on after we leave," and the shop owner would still refuse to make the cake because the shop owner's problem is with the people ordering the cake. You can't legislate the types of products and accessories the cake shop provides, just like you can't make the porn shop sell "gay" dildos, but you can make the porn shop sell a gay man a "straight" dildo just like he does for the straight people.

[Undertoad]

Please avoid threats statements involving personal violence in this forum. Thanks

[henry quirk]

HA!

Since when do you, toad, give a flip about such things?

*shrug*

As every one else here: I'll post what I like, as I like, when I like.

'nuff said.

[infinite monkey]

This thread is out of order! This whole court is out of order!

Can I facetiously threaten personal violence in another thread? Or rather, should I suggest someone personally violate themselves in a different thread? Should I start a "What personal violence would you like to facetiously tell someone to inflict upon themselves RFN?" thread or perhaps "What is making you facetiously suggest someone inflict personal violence to their personal private parts TODAY?" thread?

Hop off! (Is that allowed, if, when hopping off, you are likely to break something?)*

*disclaimer: This statement is used for example only. It does not expressly imply my desire that you or any of your subsidiaries in any way, shape, or form, actually hop.

(here is where you ignore, dismiss, or otherwise discount me...with impunity.)

[Undertoad]

*shrug*

As with any sort of weird ad hominem, it really doesn't advance your argument at all.

[Undertoad]

Which we could return to. I think what you've done here, in a wild tangent from the original point, is to confuse the purpose of a Corporation with the purpose of a business.

The purpose of a Corporation is is often written about and considered in business classes and economics and market philsophy. It's to serve the interests of the shareholders, which means to increase the value of their shares.

(Which is, roughly, the perceived value of investment in the corporation, in the marketplace of investments.)

(Note that a Corporation will often do that without making a profit; witness Amazon, whose value continues to increase year over year even while strategically not generating a profit.)

The purpose of a business is much different; it's to serve the interest of the owner or owners. They will have wildly varying reasons why they want to operate a business. For many of them, strategically losing money is a reason to do so, either for tax purposes, or accounting purposes, market reasons ("That site in Elmwood is losing money but it's a pain in the ass for our competition the next town over"), family reasons ("The pretzel shop goes to our daughter-in-law. We expect she will fuck it up"), or personal reasons ("I'm not making any money with my Christian cake store, but it's a personally fulfilling mission.")

That's what you wanted to say in the first place. If increasing the price of the stock making money is the only purpose of the business, denying a portion of the market is a terrible way to go about it. Identifying buyers and not alienating them is kind of critical. You'd only want to do that if some purpose of your business is not making money in certain ways. Which is perfectly fine.

[henry quirk]

"As with any sort of weird ad hominem, it really doesn't advance your argument at all."

As though the majority here give a flip about my 'argument'.

In any event: your concern over my advancing my 'argument' is touching.

#

"a wild tangent"

Which one? When, for example, tw moved the thread from 'let’s shit on Ted Cruz!' to 'I'm gonna rant about a (largely) irrelevant law!'?

That the "wild tangent" you're talkin' about it?

#

I'll say it again: the purpose of a business is to make a profit for the owner(s) of the business. Some -- like me -- are straightforward about it; others indulge in long-term strategies that cost them today in the hope of garnering that much more tomorrow.

Nuthin' you posted (as example) disputes me.

Also: only a crazy or stupid person sez 'I'm working this business or job to secure my kids (to feed them, shelter them, etc. ['I’m makin’ money for my family']) but making money takes a backseat to some ideal or abstract.

I'll concede that stupid or crazy people may start businesses to (as Lamp would say) 'serve the public' but such folks are the exception...certainly such folks are not the focus of my comments, my 'argument', in this thread.

Experiment time...

Who here owns his or her own business?

Why?

Who here has a job?

Why?

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

<snip>Experiment time...

Who here owns his or her own business? Me, dba Lamplighter Consultants

Why? ... as a (legal) vehicle for consulting for/with other businesses/entities.

Who here(had) a job? Me

Why? ... teaching and research

Now, Henry may try to turn that into $ and/or an exception
... Of course, $ is necessary in our society, but let me say $ is/was not the "Why"

[henry quirk]

If money is not the 'why' then why charge at all?

Consult for free...teach for free...research for free.

Or: consult, teach, research solely to break even (inflow balanced against outflow).

Did you, lamp, ever make a profit (a financial gain, the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something)?

If so: why? Did you keep it? Donate it? Return it?

[henry quirk]

Why did 'profit' become a dirty word?

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Which we could return to. I think what you've done here, in a wild tangent from the original point, is to confuse the purpose of a Corporation with the purpose of a business.

The purpose of a Corporation is is often written about and considered in business classes and economics and market philsophy. It's to serve the interests of the shareholders, which means to increase the value of their shares.

(Which is, roughly, the perceived value of investment in the corporation, in the marketplace of investments.)

(Note that a Corporation will often do that without making a profit; witness Amazon, whose value continues to increase year over year even while strategically not generating a profit.)

The purpose of a business is much different; it's to serve the interest of the owner or owners. They will have wildly varying reasons why they want to operate a business. For many of them, strategically losing money is a reason to do so, either for tax purposes, or accounting purposes, market reasons ("That site in Elmwood is losing money but it's a pain in the ass for our competition the next town over"), family reasons ("The pretzel shop goes to our daughter-in-law. We expect she will fuck it up"), or personal reasons ("I'm not making any money with my Christian cake store, but it's a personally fulfilling mission.")

That's what you wanted to say in the first place. If increasing the price of the stock making money is the only purpose of the business, denying a portion of the market is a terrible way to go about it. Identifying buyers and not alienating them is kind of critical. You'd only want to do that if some purpose of your business is not making money in certain ways. Which is perfectly fine.

I like this. It bears reflecting on.

Just an add on: I work for one of those non-profit corporations which some people rail against. We have a clear mission which people are willing to support by working at lower rates of pay for. It feels better than making more money in a less fulfilling gig. I may still be a lifestyle libertarian but it seems I'm pretty well converted to the social contract politically.