"Bake the Cake" issue reversed

[Ender]

No, the point we're arguing is whether or not he had the right to refuse service. He did. He gave a reason. You or I may think it's dumb but, as Capt pointed out, others think the Christian Baker was wrong to refuse service.

What I or you would do in that situation is irrelevant.

'Zackly.

[Schifference]

'Zackly.

Can I refuse to serve a black person because they are black or a jew because they are jewish?

[Ender]

Can I refuse to serve a black person because they are black or a jew because they are jewish?

If that's your wish, you should be able to under real freedom- but I wouldn't advise it.

[dannno]

'Zackly.

Ya, and the customer has a right to call him on is bull$#@! and stand there. If he's wrong, then he can get slapped with some charges by the property owner. Turns out he was right.

This is why Trump won. Because people who don't like Trump stick up for stupid dip$#@! behavior instead of doing the smart thing and backing off. It's quite obvious that the property owner didn't intend for his property to be used this way, so the employee was actually the one who was mis-using the property not the customer.. and it is quite clear that the property owner intended to make sales to Trump supporters. So the Trump supporter did nothing wrong.

[Schifference]

If that's your wish, you should be able to under real freedom- but I wouldn't advise it.

Why would you not advise it?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

You seem to have a very complicated set of internal rules as to who must bake cakes and who need not bake cakes.

So do you. I am willing to bet that your Obama and Hilliary voting self sided with the customers who demanded their cake be baked. Am I right?

[Suzanimal]

Why would you not advise it?

Because it's against Federal Law. Personally, I think you should be able to, though.

[Schifference]

Because it's against Federal Law. Personally, I think you should be able to, though.

Is it against the law to not serve people of a certain political affiliation?

[Suzanimal]

Is it against the law to not serve people of a certain political affiliation?

Only in a few states.

[Schifference]

Only in a few states.

Is there an app or something that people can refer to that outlines who is protected and where?

[Suzanimal]

Is there an app or something that people can refer to that outlines who is protected and where?

Feel free to use your preferred search engine.

[Origanalist]

Is it against the law to not serve people of a certain political affiliation?

Why are you bouncing around from blacks and Jews to political affiliation?

[Schifference]

Is it a crime to call someone a Racist or use defamatory language against someone that is not accurate? Is that slander or something? Is the clerk guilty of any crimes?

[Schifference]

Why are you bouncing around from blacks and Jews to political affiliation?

Because in my perspective they are all the same no person is above the other.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

This entire thing is so stupid. The clerk would have never called the police. The clerk vacillated from the very start because he knew he was wrong. That's why he was so indecisive. Calling the cops would have intensified his dilemma. If a customer had called the pigs, then I'm guessing girly man clerk backs off. He did not want to lose his job, but his emotions got the better of him with no cops or media in the store.

And, if the customer really wanted his product, then he would have backed off his comments after the clerk agreed to call the boss, and also after the clerk agreed to sell the product. But, at that point, the customer became more interested in egging the guy on.

So, in the end, some dumbass loses an inconsequential job that he probably never has to put on his resume. The customer's video falls into internet oblivion after one week.

Big deal.

[William Tell]

Employee fired:

https://twitter.com/XhaleCity/status...58394952445952

So the owner exercised their property rights and got rid of the snowflake for trespassing.

[Origanalist]

Because in my perspective they are all the same no person is above the other.

Ok, didn't really come off that way though.

[Origanalist]

This entire thing is so stupid. The clerk would have never called the police. The clerk vacillated from the very start because he knew he was wrong. That's why he was so indecisive. Calling the cops would have intensified his dilemma. If a customer had called the pigs, then I'm guessing girly man clerk backs off. He did not want to lose his job, but his emotions got the better of him with no cops or media in the store.

And, if the customer really wanted his product, then he would have backed off his comments after the clerk agreed to call the boss, and also after the clerk agreed to sell the product. But, at that point, the customer became more interested in egging the guy on.

So, in the end, some dumbass loses an inconsequential job that he probably never has to put on his resume. The customer's video falls into internet oblivion after one week.

Big deal.

But muh vape juice.

[William Tell]

I am no legal expert but the only thing I saw in the video was a foul mouthed clerk that physically assaulted a person wanting to purchase a product. The clerk stereotyped the customer and accused him of being racist among other things.

I saw the same thing, likely a part time gig for him. Apparently some other people saw a paragon of Libertarianism defending property rights and the NAP.

[CaptUSA]

The point is that people reach their conclusions not on principle, but on whether or not they agree with the reason for the refusal to do business with someone.

If you agree that commerce should be voluntary, the reasoning of either party doesn’t matter.

This incident just lays bare the hypocrisyof those who are not guided by principle. And as you can see in this thread, the usual suspects reveal themselves.

[dannno]

This is really the best defense yet. At least it’s consistent. But the customers in both situations were clearly instigating the conflict when they were denied service. And continuing it to make a political point. Again, the aim of this thread was to highlight the hypocrisy of the responses. And it worked.

Uh ya sorta, except you and others keep lying about what is being defended.

The cake bake people were making a political point that gay people should be served no matter what.

The vape dude was making a political point that leftists are hypocrites and idiots who don't respect the private property of those they work for.

[Schifference]

The point is that people reach their conclusions not on principle, but on whether or not they agree with the reason for the refusal to do business with someone.

If you agree that commerce should be voluntary, the reasoning of either party doesn’t matter.

This incident just lays bare the hypocrisyof those who are not guided by principle. And as you can see in this thread, the usual suspects reveal themselves.

What have I revealed about myself in this thread?

[Dr.3D]

The OP is trying to find something that isn't there.

[William Tell]

The issue at hand here is not the incident in the tape, but the hypocritical response. That was stated in the OP. Obviously, the employee was out of line and acting like a ridiculous little baby.

But the fact of the matter is that no one should be forced into commerce with someone against their wishes. A simple lesson that can be seen when you agree with one party or the other but gets people all flustered when the tables are turned.

I believe the clerk had one job. To take people's money and hand them vape $#@!. Unless I'm greatly mistaken he was a representative to do commerce for someone else. He had one job, as they say.

[William Tell]

Attachment 6296

Property rights FTW!

[Dr.3D]

I believe the clerk had one job. To take people's money and hand them vape $#@!. Unless I'm greatly mistaken he was a representative to do commerce for someone else. He had one job, as they say.

Yep, and that clerk couldn't even say, serving the Trumper was against his religious beliefs.

[CaptUSA]

The baker, the vape shop, Starbucks, or Kim Davis. People refusing to do business with someone and the customer demanding service.

But people seem to line up with the customer or the business depending on their politics and the reasoning - not on the principle that anyone can refuse to serve anyone at any time for any reason.

[William Tell]

Yep, and that clerk couldn't even say, serving the Trumper was against his religious beliefs.

But it probably was. And the only people bothered to defend his communist State Worshipping ass are kind hearted libertarians on the internet that he probably wants sent to concentration camps.

[Schifference]

I believe the clerk had one job. To take people's money and hand them vape $#@!. Unless I'm greatly mistaken he was a representative to do commerce for someone else. He had one job, as they say.

Yes and if he had just done his job the customer would have come in and left with no issue and libtard could have gone back to doing whatever libtard wanted to do.

[acptulsa]

What have I revealed about myself in this thread?

That you suspect slander might be an actual crime (it isn't--yet).

The baker, the vape shop, Starbucks, or Kim Davis. People refusing to do business with someone and the customer demanding service.

Not in the Starbucks case. There non-customers refused to do business--then demanded use of the chairs and the restrooms.