(April 25, 2014 at 10:06 pm)Heywood Wrote: It isn't a contract at all if you force the terms on one party. Contracts are something agreed upon by all parties involved. "Social Contract" is just a euphemism used by the left in place of governmental edict. It is a word designed to give legitimacy to their imposition of a particular world view. The south, prior to the Civil war, could have claimed a social contract justified slavery....but we all know imposed "Social Contracts" are an affront to individual liberty.

You're not forcing terms onto one party. The very nature of interacting with other people is what enters you into the social contract.

If I see you walking down the street, why am I not allowed to punch you in the face? It is because there is an implied contract between human, and the law is merely the enforcement of that contract.

Your slavery comment is just...stupid.

(April 25, 2014 at 10:06 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(April 25, 2014 at 9:37 pm)Faith No More Wrote: People do have the right not to be discriminated against for such things as race, gender, and religion as long as they are not pertinate to the task or service at hand. I mean, one should be allowed to not hire a black man as an actor if you are looking for someone to play the part of Ronald Reagan in a movie. Sexual orientation is one of these attributes for which people have a right not to be discriminated.

When you do something such as run a business or become a doctor, you are leaving the realm where individual freedoms reign and into a social contract of sorts, because offering goods and services is a social construct, not an individual one. If you wish to refrain from providing goods and services to certain people, that is your right, but only if you refrain from providing goods and services to all people.

You don't want to sell cakes to gay people? Then don't sell cakes.

It isn't a contract at all if you force the terms on one party. Contracts are something agreed upon by all parties involved. "Social Contract" is just a euphemism used by the left in place of governmental edict. It is a word designed to give legitimacy to their imposition of a particular world view. The south, prior to the Civil war, could have claimed a social contract justified slavery....but we all know imposed "Social Contracts" are an affront to individual liberty.

If you want to sell cakes to gay people....open up your own bakery. The government might stop you....but people like me will not.

The government ensures your freedom to be who you are by protecting you from discrimination on that basis. With this comes the expectation that you will not discriminate against others for being who they are. If we adopted your principles, everybody would live in fear that being themself might cost them a job, a doctor, an insurance provider, etc. We wouldn't be here talking to you on this forum. Perhaps you wouldn't even be on here condoning discrimination.

(April 25, 2014 at 10:06 pm)Heywood Wrote: If an employee doesn't like the conditions of employment they can quit. If the employee wants to decide who should be served and who shouldn't....let them open their own store. The government might stop you from opening your own store but people like me will not.

And if an employer doesn't like to do business by the rules, they can go do some other kind of job. There's a double standard at work in your position, and you can't justify it. You don't have a constitutional guarantee to operate a business. Try to open one which sells black tar heroin and you'll see what I mean.

(April 25, 2014 at 10:37 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:

(April 25, 2014 at 10:06 pm)Heywood Wrote: If an employee doesn't like the conditions of employment they can quit. If the employee wants to decide who should be served and who shouldn't....let them open their own store. The government might stop you from opening your own store but people like me will not.

And if an employer doesn't like to do business by the rules, they can go do some other kind of job. There's a double standard at work in your position, and you can't justify it. You don't have a constitutional guarantee to operate a business. Try to open one which sells black tar heroin and you'll see what I mean.

Negative Ryantology.

I am advocating that the employer and employee come to an agreement about the terms of employment. You are advocating a third party(the government) meddle into their affairs.

The difference between you an me is you want to set up rules for people. I want people to set up their own rules.

(April 25, 2014 at 6:04 pm)Heywood Wrote: If you told or otherwise demonstrated to Walmart a desire to not serve gay couples, I would expect Walmart to terminate your employment. Employment comes with the understanding that you will have to work under certain conditions. If you are unwilling to accept those conditions then find another job or start your own business.

Running a business in America comes with the understanding that you will have to operate under certain conditions. If a business is unwilling to accept those conditions then they can find another country or close up shop.

Works both ways. Anti-discriminatory laws have their place, and they are there for a reason.

(April 25, 2014 at 10:46 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(April 25, 2014 at 10:37 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: And if an employer doesn't like to do business by the rules, they can go do some other kind of job. There's a double standard at work in your position, and you can't justify it. You don't have a constitutional guarantee to operate a business. Try to open one which sells black tar heroin and you'll see what I mean.

Negative Ryantology.

I am advocating that the employer and employee come to an agreement about the terms of employment. You are advocating a third party(the government) meddle into their affairs.

The difference between you an me is you want to set up rules for people. I want people to set up their own rules.

What you're saying is that certain people should have the right to discriminate without consequences and certain people should not have that same right.

(April 25, 2014 at 10:46 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(April 25, 2014 at 10:37 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: And if an employer doesn't like to do business by the rules, they can go do some other kind of job. There's a double standard at work in your position, and you can't justify it. You don't have a constitutional guarantee to operate a business. Try to open one which sells black tar heroin and you'll see what I mean.

Negative Ryantology.

I am advocating that the employer and employee come to an agreement about the terms of employment. You are advocating a third party(the government) meddle into their affairs.

The difference between you an me is you want to set up rules for people. I want people to set up their own rules.

Which they have historically failed at doing, hence the need for government involvement.

Not unlike the Christian need for a sky daddy: sometimes big people can't act like big people, and need a leviathan to help them put their big boy pants on and act like big people, instead of throwing tantrums about their classmates having cooties.

(April 25, 2014 at 1:19 pm)Heywood Wrote: Why should the CEO of Chick Fil a be required to recognize gay marriages? If you prevent him from doing that, then you are infringing on his liberties.

I'm going to institute a new policy with my 15 employees. Everyone who works for me will now be required to renounce Jesus and blaspheme against The Holy Spirit. Anyone who refuses will be fired. Is this something you would support?

Not serious, of course. You Christians can rest assured when "no religion" becomes the majority in this country, we will never do to you what you have done to us for the last 2000 years.

(April 25, 2014 at 10:54 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(April 25, 2014 at 1:19 pm)Heywood Wrote: Why should the CEO of Chick Fil a be required to recognize gay marriages? If you prevent him from doing that, then you are infringing on his liberties.

I'm going to institute a new policy with my 15 employees. Everyone who works for me will now be required to renounce Jesus and blaspheme against The Holy Spirit. Anyone who refuses will be fired. Is this something you would support?

Not serious, of course. You Christians can rest assured when "no religion" becomes the majority in this country, we will never do to you what you have done to us for the last 2000 years.

It's a sure bet they'll still claim persecution though.

(April 25, 2014 at 10:47 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(April 25, 2014 at 6:04 pm)Heywood Wrote: If you told or otherwise demonstrated to Walmart a desire to not serve gay couples, I would expect Walmart to terminate your employment. Employment comes with the understanding that you will have to work under certain conditions. If you are unwilling to accept those conditions then find another job or start your own business.

Running a business in America comes with the understanding that you will have to operate under certain conditions. If a business is unwilling to accept those conditions then they can find another country or close up shop.

And you guys whine when companies ship jobs overseas.

The fact is these "certain conditions" are set by people who are not the employer or the employee. These "certain conditions" are a limit on the employer and the employee's freedom.

---

(April 25, 2014 at 10:54 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(April 25, 2014 at 1:19 pm)Heywood Wrote: Why should the CEO of Chick Fil a be required to recognize gay marriages? If you prevent him from doing that, then you are infringing on his liberties.

I'm going to institute a new policy with my 15 employees. Everyone who works for me will now be required to renounce Jesus and blaspheme against The Holy Spirit. Anyone who refuses will be fired. Is this something you would support?

Go for it.

In a free market those employees will find other jobs. You will have put yourself at a competitive disadvantage. You might even go out of business.