View Full Version : Pizza Place Closes On Account Of Harrassment....
Okay--I'll be brief. This made the news--there is a Pizza place called "Memories Pizza" in Walkerton, Indiana. Okay, this Lady--kind of a young girl--that works there--she told some reporter that with this new Indiana law, that they probably wquld go ahead and fill orders for just anyone who came in, but that they would probably turn down a request to cater a gay wedding reception, on account of their Christian beliefs. This caused much pro vs con chatter in the comments section in online versions of this "news". Okay--then, another news flash: It says the Memories Pizza has temporarily ceased operations(closed), due to the high volume of negative calls to their business, including threats. Isn't that something? Really, what it is to me is a big nothing (0), designed to take our minds off of important things that we really should be concerned about. Pizza, should be the least of our worries, but as I've said time and again on this forum---Pizza is Very, Very, Very important, to some people. It's like: without Pizza, we run the risk of Malnutrition--even to the point of STARVING to death! See? Now, you can discuss this amongst yourselves.
Calling a business with threats is definitely out of line.
But I did think it was funny when a guy on the radio said, "How will they know who is gay and who isn't - are we going to have ID cards now? What if I just walked in and asked for catering and didn't specify what event it was for?"
Threats are not cool. And unnecessary. Bad reviews, negative facebook comments, whatever, are plenty to deal with this. And really, who serves pizza at their wedding?
It is so sad in Indiana that a few bigots are overshadowing the good people of the state, especially the top one.
the gay agenda steamrolls forward.
I think restaurants should prominently display signs in their windows to indicate which potential customers they approve, and which they disdain, and let the chips fall where they may. Kind of like the "Irish need not apply," or "whites only" of days gone by.
Gay agenda? Well I guess basic human rights can be considered an "agenda" by some.
Gay agenda? Well I guess basic human rights can be considered an "agenda" by some.
You know I've always been interested in the concept of "rights". As I currently understand them, I'd say that a previous era's Jim Crow laws, which criminalized the provision of services to certain minorities, were a definite violation of human rights. I'm not sure though that anyone has a right to a specific service from a specific person or business, especially if the forced provision of that service violated the providers conscience.
Well, not to be snarky or anything(noooooooo), but to achieve absolute parity, they should REQUIRE restaurants that serve "ethnic" food to offer alternatives, so as not to exhibit a bias on account of race or ethnic background.. For instance, a "Mexican Food" place should be required to also serve spaghetti and fried chicken, so as not to offend people of Italian and um, well anyone who--on account of their ethnicity, consumes a lot of fried chicken. Also, it raises the question of religious discrimination. A pizza parlor should be prepared to serve a Kosher Menu, in case they are obliged to cater at a Bar Mitzvah or something; and likewise, they need to have a vegetarian menu, in case it's a Seventh Day Adventist Wedding. They'll just have to be able to accommodate everyone, since you won't be allowed to turn them down. See?
Agreed that rights can be subjective and are completely dependent on the society one lives in. But I don't think wanting to be treated fairly and equally within your society is some vile agenda.
Well, if making pizza 'violates' their conscience, then perhaps they shouldn't be IN the pizza making business. KWIM?
And, last i checked, a pizza ins't a sacrament, so they really aren't being asked to 'celebrating' a wedding/funeral/whatever by baking a cheese pizza.
Agreed that rights can be subjective and are completely dependent on the society one lives in. But I don't think wanting to be treated fairly and equally within your society is some vile agenda.I also agree that wanting to be treated fairly and equally is a worthy agenda, I'd just add that wanting to live your life according to your conscience and beliefs is equally worthy. I find it amazing that there is a need for laws such as RFRA to prevent it's criminalization.
Well, not to be snarky or anything(noooooooo), but to achieve absolute parity, they should REQUIRE restaurants that serve "ethnic" food to offer alternatives, so as not to exhibit a bias on account of race or ethnic background.. For instance, a "Mexican Food" place should be required to also serve spaghetti and fried chicken, so as not to offend people of Italian and um, well anyone who--on account of their ethnicity, consumes a lot of fried chicken. Also, it raises the question of religious discrimination. A pizza parlor should be prepared to serve a Kosher Menu, in case they are obliged to cater at a Bar Mitzvah or something; and likewise, they need to have a vegetarian menu, in case it's a Seventh Day Adventist Wedding. They'll just have to be able to accommodate everyone, since you won't be allowed to turn them down. See?
Well, it doesn't really work that way, does it. But then maybe you wanted to trot out that straw man anyway to see if he can make it around the track.
No one is being forced to do anything THEY DON'T ALREADY DO. See, that's the difference. They make pizzas. That's their business. If they don't have vegetarian pizza then no one will 'force' them to make one. So, sorry that argument doesn't hold water.
I also agree that wanting to be treated fairly and equally is a worthy agenda, I'd just add that wanting to live your life according to your conscience and beliefs is equally worthy. I find it amazing that there is a need for laws such as RFRA to prevent it's criminalization.
Yeah, it's a real shame that people can't just do whatever they want whenever they want. Damn this civilized society!;)
It's interesting that this Indiana law "that doesn't discriminate" is in the process of having a bucket of items added that the law can't be used for. Including how this pizza place used this law.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/02/indiana-lgbt-protections_n_6992184.html
Yeah, it's a real shame that people can't just do whatever they want whenever they want. Damn this civilized society!;)
Hey Peg, not to quibble but I think you spelled fascist wrong. ;)
Well, if making pizza 'violates' their conscience, then perhaps they shouldn't be IN the pizza making business. KWIM?
And, last i checked, a pizza ins't a sacrament, so they really aren't being asked to 'celebrating' a wedding/funeral/whatever by baking a cheese pizza.
Pizza isn't a sacrament? :doh:
Pizza isn't a sacrament? :doh:Some places, and to Some People it sure IS. I know of a littlebitty insignificant town, waaaay up north, out in the middle O' nowhere........
I really wonder how often a gay couple would even ask a pizza place to cater their wedding...I mean really....just sayin'.
Hey Peg, not to quibble but I think you spelled fascist wrong. ;)
Why thank you Alan. Not being a right wing republican, I'm not used to spelling that word.;)
Pizza isn't a sacrament? :doh:
((shhh..) I just said that for the sake of argument.
The people who are so against gay marriage--would they prefer that people just continue to "live in sin?" Especially with children involved, this seems pretty punitive to me. You would think conservatives would champion any social construct that supported nuclear families and community involvement, instead of excluding people (and to be fair, many conservatives are supportive) .
ApatheticNoMore
4-2-15, 2:42pm
I really wonder how often a gay couple would even ask a pizza place to cater their wedding...I mean really....just sayin'.
it was that or a potluck, and a potluck seemed kinda cheap ...
The reality is most people will not be able to maintain some absolutely pure conscience and live in this world. Suppose the pizza places has hired some wage labor to make the pizza, they earn minimum wage or whatever, it's not really that relevant, and the pizza place wants to serve a gay wedding, how far do you think their employee will get if he crosses his arms and says he doesn't believe in the gay agenda, and so someone else can please make that pizza. He wouldn't even get unemployment compensation when they fired him!! ("for cause" of course - afterall he wouldn't make the pizza)
So much for freedom of conscience! Only for the rich and powerful in actuality, those with the wherewithal to exercise their consciences, if jobs are scarce the employee will make the pizza. Although even I could be kind of on the fence with "freedom of conscience" and small businesses and the like but as soon as something like "freedom of conscience" is applied to corporations, it's officially ridiculous.
The problem with freedom of conscience is most people don't have one. Ha, that's snark, but I sometimes wonder. Or else the constant everyday compromises of living would bother them more.
What conscience does even a business have that doesn't want to do some unethical process if all their competitors do and thus are able to underprice them? None unless they can get enough business from the ethical consumer niche to stay afloat. Being that stuff like this drives businesses should the term conscience really be applied to them at all?
iris lilies
4-2-15, 11:09pm
I really wonder how often a gay couple would even ask a pizza place to cater their wedding...I mean really....just sayin'.
As if gay men would have such a tacky wedding.
:)
gimmethesimplelife
4-2-15, 11:15pm
As if gay men would have such a tacky wedding.
:)Thank You, IL. We are just starting to plan our wedding and I can say that even though it's not going to be high budget, pizza will not be on the menu LOL. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
4-2-15, 11:16pm
I really wonder how often a gay couple would even ask a pizza place to cater their wedding...I mean really....just sayin'.Thank You, KayLR. LOL. Pizza will not be served at my wedding.....nope, not happening. Rob
Simplemind
4-3-15, 12:08am
There is a little business in our area that ran into problems with that. No matter which side you were/are on, the judgement was swift and harsh. They are no longer in business. Check out all the press on Sweet Cakes by Melissa. I was not sorry to see them go.
Thank You, IL. We are just starting to plan our wedding and I can say that even though it's not going to be high budget, pizza will not be on the menu LOL. Rob
Unless I missed the announcement let me be the first here to offer my congratulations. And also to comment that as much as I love pizza I'm glad you won't be serving it at the wedding!
Contrast to how my home village here handled a similar matter:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/09/26/the-flap-over-a-flag-on-orcas-island
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/09/05/rural-island-community-rallies-to-support-gay-bakery-owners
gimmethesimplelife
4-3-15, 2:10am
Unless I missed the announcement let me be the first here to offer my congratulations. And also to comment that as much as I love pizza I'm glad you won't be serving it at the wedding!Thank You jp1! I posted about this around two weeks ago.....I'm still very much surprised that this is happening in my life. Not stunned like I was awhile ago, now just surprised. More than likely there will be some Mexican cooking and also something Austrian for our guests - something classy but in a low key non-extravagant way. And no pizza!!!! LOL Rob
gimmethesimplelife
4-3-15, 2:17am
Contrast to how my home village here handled a similar matter:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/09/26/the-flap-over-a-flag-on-orcas-island
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/09/05/rural-island-community-rallies-to-support-gay-bakery-ownersThank You for posting these links, Bae. I read the first one and was very touched by it. I'm glad such a place exists and the story gives me hope. Rob
Thank You, KayLR. LOL. Pizza will not be served at my wedding.....nope, not happening. Rob
Unless...it's a wood fired, custom made, artisan pizza with organic/free range toppings baked on the spot and served with a craft brewery IPA. Just saying...;)
Contrast to how my home village here handled a similar matter:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/09/26/the-flap-over-a-flag-on-orcas-island
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/09/05/rural-island-community-rallies-to-support-gay-bakery-owners
Great story of community action, bae.
Unless...it's a wood fired, custom made, artisan pizza with organic/free range toppings baked on the spot and served with a craft brewery IPA. Just saying...;)
Ya, these locals cater a whole lot of weddings:
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/allyoucaneat/2014/07/18/orcas-islands-farmer-chef/
http://blog.farmrun.com/post/59628070841/hogstones-wood-oven
Great story of community action, bae.
A nice tidbit from this story. I own one of the larger buildings in the village, which houses the Post Office, and has a nice flagpole in front of it.
A good friend of mine lives a block away from that building. He's a Korean-War-vintage Marine, hard-core right winger, quite religious fellow. He every morning and every evening puts up/takes down the American flag at the Post Office because he likes doing that sort of thing correctly. Every week he picks a different flag from his vast collection to fly lower than the US flag on the pole. The evening before The Great Pride Flag Breakout, he calls me up and in his gruff voice announces: "I'm putting up one of those Pride flags tomorrow, just so you know - in case you get any calls send 'em to me, I'll sort 'em out..."
Wow:
http://www.gofundme.com/MemoriesPizza
Yah--they're supposedly in hiding--but this "go fund me" has gotten half-a-million in sympathy contributions. The new American Economy--make a small fortune by getting 15 minutes of notoriety! What a scam. Edited to add: they are up to $850,000 in donations, in under a week. I'm thinking of adopting their business model, which is similar to the Westboro/chik-fil-a strategy. I'm going to lease a building(6 months, max), and startup "Packy's Real People Ro-Chik & Authentic Pizza", and then on our menu and in our phone book display ad and on billboards & T-shirts for my restaurant, we'll have the slogan: "We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service To Anyone Who Chooses THAT Lifestyle". It won't take long to attract the notice of ambitious young news reporters who are trying hard to make a name for themselves as journalistic pot-stirrers of the highest order. Hopefully, even Am-Nasty Int'l will throw in their negative endorsement of our no-serve policy for Those People. Since we don't specify pre-zackly WHO or WHAT or WHY we choose to deny service to, multiple opres'ed minorities will see fit to start trouble and harass us and phone in death threats, instead of pizza orders. If all goes well, the very same pot-stirring journalists from the local "Daily Agitator" & a camera crew from "KUSS-TV", the local Faux affiliate, will report about our troubles, and include contact info, so that contributions can easily be made, in complete anonymity, if you wish. We accept mc and visa, etc. Hopefully, by the time my lease is up, and I have a sale to dispose of my kitchen equipment, I will be debt-free and Financially Independent and have enough assets to do whatever I want. See? The American Way. Thereafter, I can keep busy, filing suits against those who have defamed me or harassed me, if they have "deep pockets", see? I might even be able to make extra income & travel as a VIP speaker, at conferences and campuses and so forth, around the country. Well, I better get going on this. Hope that helps you some. Thank mee.
No bad deed goes unrewarded. >:(
The Storyteller
4-6-15, 1:42pm
You know I've always been interested in the concept of "rights". As I currently understand them, I'd say that a previous era's Jim Crow laws, which criminalized the provision of services to certain minorities, were a definite violation of human rights. I'm not sure though that anyone has a right to a specific service from a specific person or business, especially if the forced provision of that service violated the providers conscience.
Rights are what we decide they are. It's all made up and generally agreed upon, anyway. If we come to agreement that people have a right to eat in whatever food establishment they wish regardless of race (as we pretty much have), then they do, indeed, have that right. If we agree the same should apply to one's sexual orientation or gender identity (as is currently evolving), then that right also exists.
The right to bear arms (which I consider silly) is a good example. Our constitution says it exists, the Supreme Court has defined what that means, therefore, in this country at least, it exists. Regardless how some of us feel about it.
See? All made up.
Rights are what we decide they are.So, if we say that we have the right to free expression of conscience, can we also say that the very same free expression is a crime? It appears that's where we're heading.
The Storyteller
4-6-15, 2:16pm
Never mind. I wrote something, but it didn't make any sense. Even to me. :)
The Storyteller
4-6-15, 2:31pm
So, if we say that we have the right to free expression of conscience, can we also say that the very same free expression is a crime? It appears that's where we're heading.
I haven't been following this thing that closely. How was free expression of conscience criminalized in this case? Was someone arrested or fined for saying something?
[Hopefully, that makes more sense than what I wrote before.] ;)
I haven't been following this thing that closely. How was free expression of conscience criminalized in this case? Was someone arrested or fined for saying something?This particular case never actually happened, the closing of the pizza store was the result of a hypothetical. However, in a similar case, I believe in Colorado, a bakery was fined up to $150,000 for declining to cater a same sex wedding celebration.
In Washington State recently, the full power of the State descended upon some florist who refused to sell wedding flowers:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/19/us-usa-washington-gaymarriage-iduskbn0ln0b520150219
I wonder what the standard of proof will be for *why* someone refused to provide a service? Will we have to send in secret-shoppers to investigate charges of discrimination, as is done for Fair Housing?
I operate a business here that offers its site up for 3-4 weddings a year. Those weddings are the difference for us each year between profitability, and just-getting-by. We don't have the resources to handle more than the 3-4 weddings, so we are *very very picky* which weddings we will book. They have to be just the right size. They have to be wedding parties we judge are likely to use some of our other services and make us some $$$. They have to be weddings that won't require excessive hand-holding and staff time. They have to be wedding parties that don't seem likely to trash the sensitive site, or interfere with the other operations on-site. As a result, we end up turning down a fair number of interested people. Hopefully nobody will sue us for that, I've already made up a scoreing/scheduling worksheet so we can have a paper trail of why we said no.
The Storyteller
4-6-15, 3:35pm
This particular case never actually happened, the closing of the pizza store was the result of a hypothetical. However, in a similar case, I believe in Colorado, a bakery was fined up to $150,000 for declining to cater a same sex wedding celebration.
Ah. That isn't expression. That's an action. Speech (expression) is protected. Action is not unless it is defined as speech or is otherwise determined to be a "right". Refusing service is not speech.
Ah. That isn't expression. That's an action. Speech (expression) is protected. Action is not unless it is defined as speech or is otherwise determined to be a "right". Refusing service is not speech.Actually, it's a lack of action, but that aside if a person can't decline a service that goes against their conscience, have we lost the right to free expression?
iris lilies
4-6-15, 5:52pm
In Washington State recently, the full power of the State descended upon some florist who refused to sell wedding flowers:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/19/us-usa-washington-gaymarriage-iduskbn0ln0b520150219
I wonder what the standard of proof will be for *why* someone refused to provide a service? Will we have to send in secret-shoppers to investigate charges of discrimination, as is done for Fair Housing?
I operate a business here that offers its site up for 3-4 weddings a year. Those weddings are the difference for us each year between profitability, and just-getting-by. We don't have the resources to handle more than the 3-4 weddings, so we are *very very picky* which weddings we will book. They have to be just the right size. They have to be wedding parties we judge are likely to use some of our other services and make us some $$$. They have to be weddings that won't require excessive hand-holding and staff time. They have to be wedding parties that don't seem likely to trash the sensitive site, or interfere with the other operations on-site. As a result, we end up turning down a fair number of interested people. Hopefully nobody will sue us for that, I've already made up a scoreing/scheduling worksheet so we can have a paper trail of why we said no.
Our friends with a lovey B & B Inn started doing weddings but the male owner joked "we can't do gay weddings--we aren't that high end." He is kidding, of course.
All of the gay weddings that have been taking place among our friends this year have been nice, sensible, low key affairs. Men do not make good bridezillas.
You know, I been holding back on one thing, here. It has to do with MooVvveees, or one mooovveee in particular that is relevant to this. Even though moooovvvveeees are not "real", occasionally art does imitate life. Anyway, the moooovvveee that I have in mind not only is relevant to Contrarian Pizza Parlor Proprietors, but also to Civvvill Rights and Fergusson. You kids went on and on about Fergusson, basically saying nothing, for far longer than you should've. And now--you're wearing this topic out, despite my best efforts to um, help alleviate that situation. Anyway, before you post another word here, I want you kids to get ahold of the 1989 Spike Lee Moooovvveee called "Do The Right Thing", and view it several times. Besides the subject matter, it features a cast of actors who were retty early on in their careers--most of them are much better known veteran character actors. It will do you more good than continuing to discuss this on and on. Hope that helps you some. Thankk Mee.
The Storyteller
4-7-15, 11:52am
Actually, it's a lack of action, but that aside if a person can't decline a service that goes against their conscience, have we lost the right to free expression?
No, because once again, it is not expression. :)
Well to put it honestly, it's not really an action that goes against their conscience. Making pizzas is what they do. That is their line of business. If making pizzas was against their conscience then perhaps they should get out of the pizza making business.
Also, I don't believe other folks eating their pizza is against their conscience. Again, not the right business model if you are aghast at people eating your pizza.
So, to carry it several steps away from the service they actually provide, i.e. making and selling pizza for consumption, we find their actual objection is to what the party goers MIGHT do long after they have eaten the pizza and left the party. Whew! It's amazing anyone can ever stay in business doing or selling anything at all with those restrictions!
And yes, your 'expression of conscience' can be criminalized if your 'expression' is an action against the law. Example: I may feel very very strongly about the way some young person dresses, and I may make comments loudly so they, and everyone else can hear, but I can't walk up to them and slap them or force them to go change. Just as the Muslim business owner thinks, and says, all women should cover their heads, he cannot deny service to women who aren't wearing head scarves. That would be discrimination. See how that works.
Fortunately, in this country, we don't let everyone act as their 'conscience' would dictate. That's called living in a civilized society. And as The Storyteller pointed out, rights are what we say they are. You have the 'right' to beat your wife in many countries. A 'right', I might add, given you by that wonderful guide, the Bible. Here you do not. We don't follow the 'rights' given by the bible, including the right to discriminate.
Yes, But: Eating Pizza isn't just a Right; It is also a Privilege. Just ask Kelly Clarkson. I'm just sitting here, thinking that I might start collecting signatures for a national referendum to get Congress to change the American flag. Instead of Stars, they will be replaced by slices of Pepperoni; the stripes will be replaced by alternating layers of zesty Italian-herb sauce, and layers of ooooey-gooooey melted Mozzzzzerelllli cheeeeese! Citizens will take pride in the NEW Old Glory, and will happily line up to recite the Pledge Of Allegiance, morning, noon, and night. What do you think of THAT! Hope that helps you some. Thankk Mee.
ApatheticNoMore
4-7-15, 12:45pm
Whew! It's amazing anyone can ever stay in business doing or selling anything at all with those restrictions!
tell me about it, I'm all for conscience but at a certain point it becomes a comedy routine, a parody of conscience where you worry if the air you breath may have been breathed by ISIS or something! Oh the moral responsibility of that! The guilt! I'm all for conscience but when does it meet the real world?
And yes, your 'expression of conscience' can be criminalized if your 'expression' is an action against the law.
the punishment for true conscientious objection is usually the risk of imprisonment etc.. Not perhaps in the world as it should be, but in the world as it is (still is) and has always been. The reality of power.
I rarely go to restaurants or eat pizza, due to being a conscientious objector.
No, because once again, it is not expression. :)I guess that depends upon how you define expression. If conscientious objection during time of war is an expression of conscientious or religious principles, or if artistic expression or literary license which might offend others sensibilities are expressions of speech, I'm not sure how this differs.
Well to put it honestly, it's not really an action that goes against their conscience. Making pizzas is what they do. That is their line of business. If making pizzas was against their conscience then perhaps they should get out of the pizza making business.
.
I suppose if you wanted to narrow the focus to the act of selling a pizza, you'd be right, but I think that if someone truly felt that the provision of a service in support of an activity or event that violated their conscience were not allowed the liberty to not participate, society's loss far outweighs it's gains.
ApatheticNoMore
4-7-15, 2:16pm
guess that depends upon how you define expression. If conscientious objection during time of war is an expression of conscientious or religious principles
uh if there's a draft almost no one is allowed to flee a war just because they oppose it. Some went to prison for it, because it was illegal. Sheesh or no one would have fled to Canada during Vietnam. FWIW, no I don't support the draft (truthfully I could not be more opposed to it), I'm merely pointing out historical reality, not defending it, which is that conscientious objection is only allowed free of all punishment whatsoever, in certain power dynamics, and always thus.
I suppose if you wanted to narrow the focus to the act of selling a pizza, you'd be right, but I think that if someone truly felt that the provision of a service in support of an activity or event that violated their conscience were not allowed the liberty to not participate, society's loss far outweighs it's gains.
what about society's loss if basic standards of social responsibility are not commonly enforced. No I don't mean anything at all about gays. I mean if companies aren't held accountable for their externalities etc.? If regulations aren't enforced to prevent cost cutting that poisons the gulf of Mexico, for fracking poisoning the water supply. Then pretty soon moral people won't go into those businesses, that is their moral choice. But what is societies loss there for the subsequent rule of sociopathy?
And the connection? Uh it's not that I think all businesses owners are violating their conscience all day long, most may face no such issues. It's more that when violation of conscience in a business occurs it's more likely due to market pressures than anything else, maybe that's not ok.
uh if there's a draft almost no one is allowed to flee a war just because they oppose it. I think a better understanding of conscientious objection may be in order. It is not selective, as it doesn't apply to a specific war, but rather to the overall objection to taking up arms against another person. During the Vietnam era, many applied for and received conscientious objector status due to their overall belief set. Others were denied because they objected to a specific military action, most of those migrated to Canada.
True conscientious objection has been a recognized protection in the United States for hundreds of years, well, until now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/religion/fox-guest-says-the-bible-tells-him-to-discriminate-against-atheists-video/
And this is why we don't make laws based on 'conscience objection'. Anyone, anywhere can claim anything is 'against' their conscience. All the bigots and raciest are already rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of this religious freedom law.
" Gee, if they can discriminate and call it 'conscience objection', then what can I get away with? I never like blacks coming in my store anyway. And them Muslims can stay away too."
And no, unfortunately, 'the market' won't control these bigots. It won't shut them down, That is a bogus meme put forth by the very bigots who desperately want these laws.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2015/04/07/crowdfunding-raises-800000-for-memories-pizza-parlor-what-it-means-for-donors-future-campaigns/
it is beyond me why people keep voting for these folks. Over and over they vote for people who clearly hate americans and american society. We aren't a theocracy. If this is what they want, there are plenty of choices out there. And, a bonus, they can be extremely well armed in most of those societies.
Kind of the libertarian/right wing fantasy ins't it. Armed to the teeth, then let your 'conscience' be your guide.
What could POSSIBLY go wrong!:0!
I suppose if you wanted to narrow the focus to the act of selling a pizza, you'd be right, but I think that if someone truly felt that the provision of a service in support of an activity or event that violated their conscience were not allowed the liberty to not participate, society's loss far outweighs it's gains.
I have to agree. One major stumbling point for me in this debacle is that so many involved (on both sides) can see no option except to have the government legislate their morality. Social issues used to get solved...socially. Now that we have social media at our disposal the speed and scope of our previous experience can expand exponentially. This can and will be solved without any help from the government beyond the broader brushstrokes that are already in place. Anything beyond that amounts to the agenda of one side being thrust forcibly on the other. Civility through coercion probably won't work very well.
The major stumbling point for me in this debacle is that so many involved (on both sides) can see no option except to have the government legislate their morality. .... Anything beyond that amounts to the agenda of one side being thrust forcibly on the other. Civility through coercion probably won't work very well.
Let's be clear on this point.
One side, the pizza bigots, doesn't want to engage in a transaction with someone else. Doesn't want to use their own labor and capital voluntarily to produce something.
The other side wants to have the government come in and point guns at the heads of the pizza makers until they, against their will, roll up their sleeves and sweat in front of a pizza oven making something.
Because that's what it comes down to. If the pizza baker refuses to comply, and continues to refuse, and resists attempts to force him, at some point men in uniforms with guns will arrive on his property, and shoot him dead.
And no, unfortunately, 'the market' won't control these bigots. It won't shut them down, That is a bogus meme put forth by the very bigots who desperately want these laws.
This is one example where I think the market really could ultimately work things out. It will not eliminate the extreme wingtips, right or left, but it will very likely create a comfortable buffer for 99% of us that reside in the middle. Utopia simply doesn't exist and can't be created through force, but society can continue to evolve to give the most people the best opportunity with the least amount of interference from outside.
As a business owner I never felt that anyone simply had a right to my goods and services. I knew there were people in the world that I did not want to, and frankly would not have interacted with. If a group of Nazi skinheads would have come knocking I would have found a polite way to let them know they were in the wrong place. That is one kind of market pressure. A group like that would have a hard time finding vendors to work with and when they eventually did the odds are it would be in a place that very few people with the opposite sensibility would want to be. On the other side of market forces, we had a long list of gay clients who were acutely aware of the experience other gay clients had working with our company. It was probably never the final factor in getting ink on a contract, but it was certainly a reason we were invited to make a presentation. A lot of companies who were more limited in their customer scope came and went while we were in business. Just sayin...
Let's be clear on this point...
If the pizza baker refuses to comply, and continues to refuse, and resists attempts to force him, at some point men in uniforms with guns will arrive on his property, and shoot him dead.
Yes. In a nut shell that is exactly what will eventually end up happening. Anyone who doesn't think so isn't paying attention.
gimmethesimplelife
4-8-15, 2:20pm
This is one example where I think the market really could ultimately work things out. It will not eliminate the extreme wingtips, right or left, but it will very likely create a comfortable buffer for 99% of us that reside in the middle. Utopia simply doesn't exist and can't be created through force, but society can continue to evolve to give the most people the best opportunity with the least amount of interference from outside.
As a business owner I never felt that anyone simply had a right to my goods and services. I knew there were people in the world that I did not want to, and frankly would not have interacted with. If a group of Nazi skinheads would have come knocking I would have found a polite way to let them know they were in the wrong place. That is one kind of market pressure. A group like that would have a hard time finding vendors to work with and when they eventually did the odds are it would be in a place that very few people with the opposite sensibility would want to be. On the other side of market forces, we had a long list of gay clients who were acutely aware of the experience other gay clients had working with our company. It was probably never the final factor in getting ink on a contract, but it was certainly a reason we were invited to make a presentation. A lot of companies who were more limited in their customer scope came and went while we were in business. Just sayin...Greg, with all due respect, 99% of us don't reside in the middle, especially after 2008 and the meltdown and the ramped up erosion of what was left of America's middle class. There may be 99% wishing to belong to and wishing to identify with the middle class, but people all around America fall out of it every day due to job loss and if they are over 40, the lesser chance of matching prior salaries once again. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
4-8-15, 2:22pm
Our friends with a lovey B & B Inn started doing weddings but the male owner joked "we can't do gay weddings--we aren't that high end." He is kidding, of course.
All of the gay weddings that have been taking place among our friends this year have been nice, sensible, low key affairs. Men do not make good bridezillas.What a true to life post! My wedding will be exactly like this - nice, sensible, and definitely low key. Rob
Greg, with all due respect, 99% of us don't reside in the middle,
I think your math or observational skills need some assistance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class
ApatheticNoMore
4-8-15, 2:24pm
Greg, with all due respect, 99% of us don't reside in the middle, especially after 2008 and the meltdown and the ramped up erosion of what was left of America's middle class.
I think he meant in the middle politically. I don't think everyone was radicalized politically by job loss or something (and in which direction? unfortunately it can go either way ...)
gimmethesimplelife
4-8-15, 2:25pm
I think your math or observational skills need some assistance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_classThe high end of your post quotes 66% of households in the US being middle class. Let's give you the benefit of doubt and give the high end statistic. 99% minus 66% equals 34% not in the middle class. Surely you don't believe that all of the remaining 34% are upper middle class or above? Rob
gimmethesimplelife
4-8-15, 2:26pm
I think he meant in the middle politically. I don't think everyone was radicalized politically by job loss or something (and in which direction? unfortunately it can go either way ...)Fair enough.....if Greg meant in the middle way politically, my bad if I misinterpreted his meaning. Rob
You said 99% aren't in the middle.
ApatheticNoMore
4-8-15, 2:35pm
think a better understanding of conscientious objection may be in order. It is not selective, as it doesn't apply to a specific war, but rather to the overall objection to taking up arms against another person. During the Vietnam era, many applied for and received conscientious objector status due to their overall belief set. Others were denied because they objected to a specific military action, most of those migrated to Canada.
either are conscientious objection. Why isn't it an act of such to oppose a particular war or a type of war? Why couldn't one be morally opposed to such. Besides it seems a difficult thing to prove at 18 anyway (but, but I wrote a term paper vigorously declaring the pointlessness of war when I was 14!!!).
Maybe you should only be able to refuse pizzas if you are opposed to ALL weddings straight and gay. But yea laws aren't made to respect real conscientious objection by the powerless, as laws are made by those with some power (though the theocrats may be fighting a losing battle at this point, they still have some power some places). Those who really conscientious object to something often end up spending time in jail.
I do think the issue of businesses serving gays will probably resolve itself as it's the direction the culture is moving toward. People resist to prevent the culture from moving in a theocratic direction instead, because nothing is preordained, but I think odds are against it (but not that it can't happen).
Yes Rob, I was speaking politically, not socio-economically. "99%" is a buzz word left over from the Occupy! days and not necessarily meant to be statistically correct. The gist is that there will always be a few people on the extreme fringes, left and right, of any discussion and the rest of us will reside somewhere in the middle. It is the center majority that will resolve the problems.
It is my belief that there are more people who would support a same sex couple's right to marry than would support a bakery who refused to make them a cake. A business needs customers to survive. When the word of that bakery's position hits social media there will be a few new customers drawn to them and several who shy away. Eventually the few loyal customers who share the baker's view point won't be able to buy enough cakes to keep them in business and they will close. Other bakeries who have a broader spectrum of customers will have a much better chance of making it.
In the end the little peccadillos we all have necessarily become an elephant in the room. I think deep down most of us know that if we surround ourselves with people who are supportive of diverse groups they are more likely to be there for us if our curtain ever falls. In order for me to be accepted I need to accept you. The more people I can accept, the more that will accept me. That is real power and it rightfully scares the crap out of those groups at either end because its available to everyone except them. And even crazier, its free.
The more people I can accept, the more that will accept me. That is real power and it rightfully scares the crap out of those groups at either end because its available to everyone except them. And even crazier, its free.
Simple game theory.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/81/59/46/8159469770689475504c77cebfc505fd.jpg
Be carefully aware that the math allows for small populations of bad actors to remain stable and profit under some rulesets...
gimmethesimplelife
4-8-15, 7:45pm
Yes Rob, I was speaking politically, not socio-economically. "99%" is a buzz word left over from the Occupy! days and not necessarily meant to be statistically correct. The gist is that there will always be a few people on the extreme fringes, left and right, of any discussion and the rest of us will reside somewhere in the middle. It is the center majority that will resolve the problems.
It is my belief that there are more people who would support a same sex couple's right to marry than would support a bakery who refused to make them a cake. A business needs customers to survive. When the word of that bakery's position hits social media there will be a few new customers drawn to them and several who shy away. Eventually the few loyal customers who share the baker's view point won't be able to buy enough cakes to keep them in business and they will close. Other bakeries who have a broader spectrum of customers will have a much better chance of making it.
In the end the little peccadillos we all have necessarily become an elephant in the room. I think deep down most of us know that if we surround ourselves with people who are supportive of diverse groups they are more likely to be there for us if our curtain ever falls. In order for me to be accepted I need to accept you. The more people I can accept, the more that will accept me. That is real power and it rightfully scares the crap out of those groups at either end because its available to everyone except them. And even crazier, its free.I understand your meaning now and I couldn't agree more with your post, Greg. Rob
Be carefully aware that the math allows for small populations of bad actors to remain stable and profit under some rulesets...
I don't think there is any just system that provides a way around that. We just need to get over the notion that the way to treat a tumor on your toe is to amputate your leg.
Simple game theory.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/81/59/46/8159469770689475504c77cebfc505fd.jpg
Be carefully aware that the math allows for small populations of bad actors to remain stable and profit under some rulesets...I am completely engrossed in reading that book. I am using the information contained therein to help develop the business model for my couger wedding cake bakery.
I have to agree. One major stumbling point for me in this debacle is that so many involved (on both sides) can see no option except to have the government legislate their morality. Social issues used to get solved...socially. Now that we have social media at our disposal the speed and scope of our previous experience can expand exponentially. This can and will be solved without any help from the government beyond the broader brushstrokes that are already in place. Anything beyond that amounts to the agenda of one side being thrust forcibly on the other. Civility through coercion probably won't work very well.
Well, let's see. The broader brushstrokes already in place are non discrimination laws that EVERY US business has to follow. The ones trying to cram their 'agenda' down everyone's throats are the bigots, in Indiana, who want special laws created just for them. laws that let them skirt non discrimination laws the rest of us have to follow.
sorry Gregg, but you can dress it up (or down) put lipstick on it and dance it around the ballroom, but it is still discrimination. Pure and simple. I don't care how many bible verses you quote me or how big a flag you wrap it in, it's still discrimination.
People have historically used the bible, and the supposed 'erosion' of their freedoms (people actually coming into your yard and shooting you dead is a new, but certainly creative spin on this) to justify discrimination, and really just about every other anti-civil behavior. Ironically some may even declare the end of civility if we demand they act civilly.;)
Sometimes, laws are made not only to make people do what we as a society expect them to do, but also so we, as a society, can declare we won't stand for that. We don't think bigotry and discrimination is OK in this modern, progressive country and our laws should reflect that. Will some still discriminate, and get away with it? Of course they will. And no one will come into their yards and shoot them dead any more than someone will come into your yard and shoot you dead for fudging on your taxes. But let it be known we don't condone that. And how do we do that? We state it clearly in our laws.
If you say 'we don't need no stinking discrimination laws' then either you don't mind that people discriminate, or you aren't paying attention. But one things for sure. YOU aren't the one being discriminated against.
If you say 'we don't need no stinking discrimination laws' then either you don't mind that people discriminate, or you aren't paying attention.
Poor reasoning.
I do mind that people discriminate. I just don't think using force is the morally acceptable way to prevent discrimination.
But one things for sure. YOU aren't the one being discriminated against.
Also untrue.
ApatheticNoMore
4-10-15, 2:55pm
Alternatively one can evaluate relative degrees of power. Employees = often very little power (hence anti-discrimination laws in employment). Consumers = more power than in the employee role generally. Gay tolerance/acceptance in society - definitely increasing. Thus the pizza place will probably lose out long term for not serving gays. Corporations on the other hand do have a lot more power than any old mom and pop pizza place, but even they would probably lose out long term discriminating against gays, it's more that it's a slippery slope to be granting corporations rights, it tends to backfire badly.
Hey--you kids need to know that the pizza place has REOPENED, and the owners are $800,000 in the black. Of course, there will be some expenses. Probably, the legal-eagles at the Opportunists For Equality Foundation or whatever will file a lawsuit against them, which will cost a ton of money. Anyway, what I meant to say is---can we continue this conversation on the "Pizza Place Is Open, Again", thread?
I understand the pizza at Memories is not ooey gooey, but excessively chewy. And dry. Kind of like a large communion wafer. I think I'll pass.
I understand the pizza at Memories is not ooey gooey, but excessively chewy. And dry. Kind of like a large communion wafer. I think I'll pass.
ha!
I just don't think using force is the morally acceptable way to prevent discrimination.
There's that word "force" again. It reminded me of the southern judge Frank Johnson Jr. who was brave enough to "force" an end to discriminatory practices. He was not a popular man but he knew right from wrong.
Check out his accomplishments: http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/article/h-1253
Well, let's see. The broader brushstrokes already in place are non discrimination laws that EVERY US business has to follow. The ones trying to cram their 'agenda' down everyone's throats are the bigots, in Indiana, who want special laws created just for them. laws that let them skirt non discrimination laws the rest of us have to follow.
sorry Gregg, but you can dress it up (or down) put lipstick on it and dance it around the ballroom, but it is still discrimination. Pure and simple. I don't care how many bible verses you quote me or how big a flag you wrap it in, it's still discrimination.
People have historically used the bible, and the supposed 'erosion' of their freedoms (people actually coming into your yard and shooting you dead is a new, but certainly creative spin on this) to justify discrimination, and really just about every other anti-civil behavior. Ironically some may even declare the end of civility if we demand they act civilly.;)
Sometimes, laws are made not only to make people do what we as a society expect them to do, but also so we, as a society, can declare we won't stand for that. We don't think bigotry and discrimination is OK in this modern, progressive country and our laws should reflect that. Will some still discriminate, and get away with it? Of course they will. And no one will come into their yards and shoot them dead any more than someone will come into your yard and shoot you dead for fudging on your taxes. But let it be known we don't condone that. And how do we do that? We state it clearly in our laws.
Yes peggy, we already have anti-discrimination laws on the books. That was exactly my point. What say we try using them along with a little compassion and common sense rather than just cramming more laws to be ignored down the citizen's throat? If the current laws aren't working, why would anyone think more would? As Albert Einstein supposedly said, "we can't solve our problems using the same thinking that created them". Making Nanny G responsible for the oversight of our actions is a problem.
My other thought is that we have collectively reached a point of such extreme poverty of imagination that the ONLY solution to this and almost any other social problem is to pass the responsibility to the government. See above.
I don't know or care what the bible has to say on the matter. Its been over 40 years since I read it so I can't really speak to what it says about discrimination. Either way, its irrelevant in terms of crafting a proper government response. Last I checked the bible and the Constitution were separate documents.
But one things for sure. YOU aren't the one being discriminated against.
Are you certain of that? How do YOU know for sure?
Here is the way I see it: When any Group(doesn't matter who they are)that is DEMANDING in an uncompromising way, specific rights based on the sole principle of absolute equality, is finally given an Inch (via amendments to public policy) it seems that the eventual result is that they always TAKE a mile! A compromise is never enough--and what happens is that the movement encroaches, more and more, little by little, on the rights of those outside the group. To Those People, that's Progress.
I believe it may be why they were bound by the social and legal constraints they object to, in the first place. There certainly was context, way back then; it didn't happen in a vacuum. Hope that helps you some. Thank Mee.
For instance---I support bicyclists' right to the road, and also seeing to it that they are constructed to accommodate them---making storm grates that don't flip you, etc. But, what you also have is cyclists who go way over the top in their own definition of "rights". Last fall, for the Mercy Century, we had a group from Minnesota--a more "progressive" state, participate, and Those People were all over the road, riding 3 abreast, blocking traffic, making motorists here unhappy, with their inconsiderate and dangerous behavior. Because, HERE, they are generally used to road bikers keeping to the right, and riding single file in heavy traffic, not holding things up. That way, everyone gets the right-of-way, nobody gets hurt. But, the militant cyclists, and I'm sure you've encountered them at some point--want the whole road, and it's xxck you!!! if you don't like it. See? I'm just using that as an example, though I admit it is only partially analogous. So, don't nit pick. Thankk Mee.
Then, there is the local-yokel bicycle riding forum. The emphasis is supposed to be addressing concerns and developing some consensus of commuter and recreational cyclists within the city. But, what happens is---perversity. Got to challenge the established order. Two recurring stones in the shoe of the Group are: motorized "bicycles", and then there are those who inject propaganda about unrelated issues into the Gropu. They figure that cycling is very "progressive", and we are a somewhat oppressed minority group, so they just assume we all will be THRILLED to get an update on____________(fill in the blank with any liberal cause), but they are wrong, because some people object strenuously. It isn't all "liberal" causes, either. Someone was beating their drums about a Biker Rally---meaning Hardly-Doitsons and their poop-poop-put-puts, using a local tragedy(child abduction/murder) as a pretext to "get out there and show our support for the victims!!!" When really--it isn't helping the victims--it's just another mini-Sturgis, where they ride around all day and all night, making noise and wasting gas, and seeing if some blind old lady will turn in front of them, so they can be the victim. In any event, it doesn't belong in a bicycle forum for urban cyclists. See? I hope that helps you some. Later.
Discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal, isn't it?
I still marvel at the fact that we've criminalized certain forms of discrimination, while we all practice it in various forms. If we, as individuals, are free to boycott, to protest, to show preference to one over another, why do we lose that ability once we open shop?
I still marvel at the fact that we've criminalized certain forms of discrimination, while we all practice it in various forms. If we, as individuals, are free to boycott, to protest, to show preference to one over another, why do we lose that ability once we open shop?
Because apparently the word "right" isn't well-understood. And because people love to use force on others to get their way.
To me, this ought to be reasonably straightforward. The US has a distinction between Church and State.
"Church" is the realm of personal and small-group moral decisions. We all have the right to make decisions about what we believe is right personal conduct, and to discriminate in our private lives about what we will or will not do, agree with, or tolerate from other people.
"State" is the realm in which we as a whole society have decided on a set of laws to govern behavior in public so that we can function fairly as a huge group. For the very reason that laws of State apply to everyone, not just people who choose to join up, the laws of State are - or at least in my opinion should be - based on majority opinion, broad, and inclusive of all citizens, including people we don't like or whose personal morality we disagree with. Laws of State do constantly shift (not always in ways that please individuals) as they are reexamined and contested, that's the process by which we organize our country's functioning as a whole.
In my opinion, when you set out a shingle and take in money, you are operating under the auspices of State morality. Whether you will or won't do x y and z is not your personal right to decide under this particular umbrella. If you find that you simply cannot abide by the State law is it pertains to your conduct, then law says you get out from under the State umbrella or you change the law, not that you pretend it doesn't exist because you don't agree with it.
ETA: as an extension of this, I don't think organized religion should be allowed gaping loopholes of business conduct, either.
Well, okay--you guys want to argue. Fine. Here's the deal, though: Let's suppose for a minute I was the owner of "PaPa Packiagliarelli's Fine Authentic Sicialian-Style Pizzas". Right down the street was an enormous new building complex covering 6 square blocks,recently constructed by one of the Megalith Health Care Systems(formerly known as St Pamela's Mother of Mercy Hospital)and used to house their Cardiovascular-Neurology-Diabetes Acute care units, okay? Okay--suppose I get an order for 120 extra-large, Meat Lovers Supremes, piled HIGH with luscious melted Ooooeyy-Goooey Authentic Mozzzarrrrellli Cheeeese. All because the Doctors and nurses and MRI techs, etc there, took up a collection, to give their bedridden and wheelchair-bound stroke-disabled patients a special treat for lunch. They are all "TIRED of eating hospital food---spinach, peach slices, green beans, vegetable soup, and that stuff". They want REAL FOOD. See? Well, I would in good conscience have to turn down the order, in no uncertain terms, on the basis that it would be like selling whiskey to the Indians--which I wouldn't do, either. Well, guess what? These minorities would have an opportunistic shyster, masquerading as a not-for-profit, come back at me with a 4.7-billion dollar lawsuit, for willfully discriminating against the diasabled, the obese, the elderly, etc.,etc., whatever they could contrive. They would see to it that there was a media feeding frenzy---and I'd do a land office business selling PIZZA to news reporters and Tewe-Vee crews and Prottessors. I'd even comp' 'em with an extra ingredient(extra spit), and not even mention it. How do you kids like that? Hope that helps you some. Thankk Mee.
I think my diatribe up there covers it. Under the laws of State, you don't have the right to refuse business service to individual people because of your personal opinion on the subject of their health or weight. I suppose you could suddenly change your menu and only cater vegan pizzas with the logo "Cheese Kills" outlined in tofu, to everyone requiring catering service, and hope that stopped people from committing what you believe to be arterial suicide. You also have the right to serve each slice with the comment, "My, you're awfully fat, aren't you."
I think my diatribe up there covers it. Under the laws of State, you don't have the right to refuse business service to individual people because of your personal opinion on the subject of their health or weight.
I know surgeons who will refuse to perform certain non-health-endangering elective surgeries if their patient is a smoker, or has some other issue that will make their outcome less positive, because they don't want that person for a patient and don't want to have to deal with the ongoing efforts to deal with the situation.
I know surgeons who will refuse to perform certain non-health-endangering elective surgeries if their patient is a smoker, or has some other issue that will make their outcome less positive, because they don't want that person for a patient and don't want to have to deal with the ongoing efforts to deal with the situation. In this example, the entire business model of medicine is about the provider choosing personalized treatment most appropriate for the client, based on professional knowledge. It's understood that the Dr's business includes choosing appropriate treatment for me (much as I hate that idea >8)). Assuming the decision to treat or not to treat is based on the patient and not the Dr., this conduct is within the business outline of medicine as it's commonly practiced.
In Packy's example, our vendor is an expert in making pizza, there is no business understanding in this that it is his job to decide whether someone would benefit from eating it. If he opened a business which specialized in choosing the right pizza for the individual client - perhaps including no pizza at all for fat clients (or gay clients) - then he'd have that right.
Going back to the OP, I think the appropriate "threat" to Memories Pizza is to tell them that their business model of choosing who will get pizza and who won't is unacceptable - by eating somewhere else.
In Packy's example, our vendor is an expert in making pizza, there is no business understanding in this that it is his job to decide whether someone would benefit from eating it. If he opened a business which specialized in choosing the right pizza for the individual client - perhaps including no pizza at all - then he'd have that right (but most likely no clients, as that's not how we do Pizza.)
In the actual example, the vendor made no claim that pizza's would not be served to gay patrons, rather it was stated that they would probably decline to cater a same sex wedding. Would you consider this discrimination based upon the participants in the ceremony being gay or would you consider it an act of conscience to decline participation in an event (keeping in mind that there is no history of discriminatory behavior by the business towards gay patrons)?
In either case, by what authority should the state step in to force the business owner?
In the actual example, the vendor made no claim that pizza's would not be served to gay patrons, rather it was stated that they would probably decline to cater a same sex wedding. Would you consider this discrimination based upon the participants in the ceremony being gay or would you consider it an act of conscience to decline participation in an event (keeping in mind that there is no history of discriminatory behavior by the business towards gay patrons)?
In either case, by what authority should the state step in to force the business owner? I'm not sure whether it matters whether Memories was basing their business behavior on the sexuality of the clients or their chosen social expression: unless Memories Pizza is unique, the business model of making and selling pizza doesn't include picking and choosing its recipients. And as with other violations of a business agreement, this could be handled with a lawsuit or perhaps even with a class action suit if the discriminated parties chose to pursue it. I don't think anyone would benefit from Memories being forced at police gunpoint to cater a wedding, but a fine might be a useful incentive to keep businesses from going off the rails.
(My idea, when you open a business, you submit a complete business plan which includes your personal objectives and stipulations. Assuming your objectives are within the law, you get your business license, but you are also held to the objectives you stated in your proposal. So if you state that you wish to open a restaurant for the purpose of feeding married atheist dental hygienists with at least two children, assuming The State decides that's within the law, you can pick and choose all you want within that criteria.)
I'm not sure whether it matters whether Memories was basing their business behavior on the sexuality of the clients or their chosen social expression: the business outline of making and selling pizza doesn't include picking and choosing its recipients. And as with other violations of a business agreement, this could be handled with a lawsuit or perhaps even with a class action suit if the discriminated parties chose to pursue it.
Is it a violation of a business agreement to post signs such as 'No Shoes/Shirt, No Service' or 'No Colors' (motorcycle gang attire)? Would it be proper to file a class action lawsuit if potential customers were denied service in either of those situations?
I don't think anyone would benefit from Memories being forced at police gunpoint to cater a wedding, fine might be a useful incentive.
That's not how government force works though.
If they levy a fine and you refuse to pay, they will eventually come to collect. If you resist that, eventually out come the guns.
When you ask the government to make other people do your will, you are asking them to use force on your behalf.
I can't see the relevance of that, Bae. Our laws include thousands of legal violations payable with a fine, and precedent stretching back 300 years for what happens when a violator doesn't pay. including "the guns coming out" and taking people to jail. Why would this violation be any different?
Is it a violation of a business agreement to post signs such as 'No Shoes/Shirt, No Service' or 'No Colors' (motorcycle gang attire)? Would it be proper to file a class action lawsuit if potential customers were denied service in either of those situations? What I'm proposing is that a businesses' original proposal should include boilerplate language to the effect that they will post those signs. If the State agrees, great. If the State said, say, that no shoes no shirt was established protocol and acceptable, but no colors was not, the establishment could appeal, or seek a restraining order against a specific gang on the basis of actual problems with its members if necessary.
That's not how government force works though.
If they levy a fine and you refuse to pay, they will eventually come to collect. If you resist that, eventually out come the guns.
.
Except when you're Cliven Bundy. Then you just throw a party celebrating your victory over the oppressive government who was trying to simply make you pay what you owe. (talk about a welfare queen!)
Seems to me if guns were to come out on breaking a law and flaunting your grifter ways, Bundy and about 100 of his closest friends would be in jail, or dead. But since that hasn't happened, and Obama has failed to confiscate even a single gun in his pursuit of 'forcing' businesses to follow US laws, I think we're safe.
I can't see the relevance of that, Bae. Our laws include thousands of legal violations payable with a fine, and precedent stretching back 300 years for what happens when a violator doesn't pay. including "the guns coming out" and taking people to jail. Why would this violation be any different?
I'm just being clear on what level of force you are willing to use to compel a fellow citizen to carry out your wishes.
I didn't say it was any different at all...
What I'm proposing is that a businesses' original proposal should...
Your theory is that businesses must make some sort of proposal to some higher-level entity, and get permission before engaging in commerce?
Smells like freedom!
Yes peggy, we already have anti-discrimination laws on the books. That was exactly my point. What say we try using them along with a little compassion and common sense rather than just cramming more laws to be ignored down the citizen's throat? If the current laws aren't working, why would anyone think more would? As Albert Einstein supposedly said, "we can't solve our problems using the same thinking that created them". Making Nanny G responsible for the oversight of our actions is a problem.
My other thought is that we have collectively reached a point of such extreme poverty of imagination that the ONLY solution to this and almost any other social problem is to pass the responsibility to the government. See above.
I don't know or care what the bible has to say on the matter. Its been over 40 years since I read it so I can't really speak to what it says about discrimination. Either way, its irrelevant in terms of crafting a proper government response. Last I checked the bible and the Constitution were separate documents.
Are you certain of that? How do YOU know for sure?
Uh, Gregg, yeeesss, we have anti discrimination laws. On the books. Yes...uh which side are you arguing? I mean, it's the bigoted religious nuts who wanted the extra law. It's them who wanted the SPECIAL law excusing them from anti discrimination laws. Laws that are already on the books. And probably working pretty well. Thus the bigots wanting the NEW law.
I guess I'm confused by your 'argument'. Are you saying, we don't need any new laws (cause the old ones work) so let the bigots have their new law? You can't have it both ways.
You're saying let them make a law that lets bigots refuse to serve/cater/offer medical attention/whatever to bae's father and his husband, and I'm saying they must treat bae's father and his husband equally? is that the gist of it? You (and bae) want Woolworth to be able to refuse to let them sit at the lunch counter and I say you do business in the US you abide by the US standards.
You know, people were happy with blacks being 3/5ths of a person until others 'forced' them to see it differently.(yeah, sometimes even at the point of a gun) Sure, there are still bigots who see blacks as 3/5 ths of a person, but in the meantime blacks can sit/eat/play/work/shop/live/walk anywhere you can. They can even be President.:) And if you refuse them service based on who they are...ok, I guess you're good with that too. No? Really? Why not? How are gays different? Religion 'justified' discriminating against blacks too. And women. And shellfish...but I digress...
Your theory is that businesses must make some sort of proposal to some higher-level entity, and get permission before engaging in commerce?
Smells like freedom!
What freaking country do you live in! You know what bae, if you want some Libertarian every man for himself utopia then feel free to move to that wonderful country. Now which one is that again? Which example of this i-got-mine-to-hell-with-you 'freedom' country are you talking about? Really, remind us again where this works, or has EVER worked in the history of civilized nations.
Wait, I got some examples for you.
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/my-personal-libertarian-hell-how-i-enraged-movement-and-paid-price
http://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-libertarian-paradise-would-be-hell-on-earth-2013-12
Ooh, that last one kind of hurts...Hows that working for ya?
Smells like life in the US bae, which benefited you a great deal.
What freaking country do you live in! You know what bae, if you want some Libertarian every man for himself utopia then feel free to move to that wonderful country.
Interesting. I express a simple opinion on moral philosophy, advocating non-use of force, and get attacked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOOTKA0aGI0
Your theory is that businesses must make some sort of proposal to some higher-level entity, and get permission before engaging in commerce?
Smells like freedom!Lol. Nope. Smells like business. Certainly not my utopian ideal, but it's really just an extension of our existing process.
I tell you what---if my new Pizza place catered a KKK Rally, and our delivery trucks drove up as the news crews were covering the event---you can bet we'd receive some adverse coverage that might tend to alienate our day-to-day customer base. That is why, using the Perfesser Packy Business Model, we'd opt out of that request for service. And I'd don't think there'd be much objection to it..See?
Yes, I do see your point. Perhaps *legally* speaking you could decline due to the illegality of that particular group's discriminatory credo?
Trust me, I don't *want* more legislation, I just think the most realistic way of dealing with social drama is within the legal framework we've already got - which, as is always the case with majority rule, means not everyone is pleased all the time. To me, so much of this seems to come down to basic civility - and even common sense, why is that so uncommon? I could imagine a very civil exchange in which you said, "Mrs. Supremist, I don't agree with your views and I'm not comfortable with catering this event", and she replied, "Well Mr. Packy, then we don't like you either, and we'll take our business elsewhere."
I think my diatribe up there covers it. Under the laws of State, you don't have the right to refuse business service to individual people because of your personal opinion on the subject of their health or weight. I suppose you could suddenly change your menu and only cater vegan pizzas with the logo "Cheese Kills" outlined in tofu, to everyone requiring catering service, and hope that stopped people from committing what you believe to be arterial suicide. You also have the right to serve each slice with the comment, "My, you're awfully fat, aren't you."You have some managerial talent, son. We are always looking for managers at our ever-expanding network of pizza stores.
iris lilies
4-14-15, 10:06am
Interesting. I express a simple opinion on moral philosophy, advocating non-use of force, and get attacked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOOTKA0aGI0
The "watery tart" comment makes me snort each time.
Uh, Gregg, yeeesss, we have anti discrimination laws. On the books. Yes...uh which side are you arguing? I mean, it's the bigoted religious nuts who wanted the extra law. It's them who wanted the SPECIAL law excusing them from anti discrimination laws. Laws that are already on the books. And probably working pretty well. Thus the bigots wanting the NEW law.
I guess I'm confused by your 'argument'. Are you saying, we don't need any new laws (cause the old ones work) so let the bigots have their new law? You can't have it both ways.
You're saying let them make a law that lets bigots refuse to serve/cater/offer medical attention/whatever to bae's father and his husband, and I'm saying they must treat bae's father and his husband equally? is that the gist of it?
You're trying way too hard to read between my lines peggy. There's nothing there to read. There are a lot of teeth in the current laws that don't get used so, legislatively speaking, if we need to talk about laws it makes more sense to try a little enforcement of the laws we already have than it does to pass more. Putting a bigger band aid over one that is covering a serious wound only works for the people providing the band aids. The patient will still die. Besides, almost all the laws passed at this stage in our political development are only used by a tiny percentage of the populace for the advancement of their very specific agendas. That's how most of our hundreds of thousands (millions?) of laws work if you really take the time to think about it. And yet we are so blind to this that we nickname our elected officials "law makers". Euphemistic and curious at the same time, aye?
FAR more importantly than that dead horse discussion is the idea that maybe its time we do something in some way without involving the damn government. More isn't always better. Sometimes its just more. Sometimes its worse. Anything I do in an attempt to change things in your 'hood will probably be ineffectual, but I can have a big impact in mine. If the Bigot Bakery was down the street from me I can very easily...
1. Not patronize them
2. Not eat their goods if they happen to be served someplace I am
3. Tell the people serving their goods exactly why I won't eat them
4. Write letters to the local paper exposing their policy
5. Stand outside their business explaining their policy to potential customers
6. Get involved with whatever group represents the opposite value set and enlist their help with this list
7. Open or support a competing business
8. Openly and aggressively promote the opposite value set of my (or another) competing business
9. Call the ACLU on them
10. Look for any violation of any ordinance by Bigot Bakery that might cause them to be shut down or otherwise hinder their flow of commerce and turn them in to the 'proper authority'. (Here's the rub: there are SO MANY laws on the books now that no matter how hard you try its almost impossible to do business without violating a few of them. That's by design, btw.)
11. Contact all the local churches/preachers who's values are accepting of the groups that are discriminated against by Bigot Bakery to make sure they don't unknowingly patronize BB. Churches buy a lot of donuts. They can also work a message of acceptance into sermons as they see fit.
12. Show up at the local school board meeting to make sure they are aware of the BB policy of discrimination. Our school board is so afraid of being sued that they are building special transgendered bathrooms in all the grade schools. They are certainly going to take a very wide berth around a bakery that throws up red flags in favor of one using rainbow sprinkles. And school districts buy a lot of donuts.
And on and on... It is EASY and generally cheap or free to come up with giant laundry list of ways to combat discrimination that are extremely effective and require no bureaucracy to implement. The problem is that those actions require Americans to do more than whine. It requires Americans to get up off their ass and actually do what's right (what they consider right). But its so much easier to wail and stomp your feet in an online forum or in an email to a 'Law Maker' than it is to actually take action. Fire off that email and flip on the tube. The government will handle it from there. Its the American way.
Interesting, I was just reading an article on 'the culture of outrage', and how media like Twitter seem to be fueling people's sense of rage and violation ... in a sort of egotistical way for sure, but nonetheless sending strong messages to people stepping out of bounds. Sometimes messages so strong they'd be defined as bullying'.
You have some managerial talent, son. We are always looking for managers at our ever-expanding network of pizza stores.Why thank you! Would you like pepperoni with that? ... You're not gay or cholesterol challenged, are you?
iris lilies
4-14-15, 12:16pm
Interesting, I was just reading an article on 'the culture of outrage', and how media like Twitter seem to be fueling people's sense of rage and violation ... in a sort of egotistical way for sure, but nonetheless sending strong messages to people stepping out of bounds. Sometimes messages so strong they'd be defined as bullying'.
It's called "shaming." Public shaming is anathema to liberals, they prefer the heavy hand of gubmnt to legislate everything.
Personally I like Gregg's list of actions to take against Bigot Bakery.
ApatheticNoMore
4-14-15, 12:43pm
Shaming is of course a very heavy hand. Be careful what you wish for. Could make life a living nightmare. If everyone was shamed for everything. It's the steroetypical nightmare of living in a small town.
Of course I suppose you can see this on twitter:
might be positive: tends to shame a lot on assumptions that come from privilege and push empathy for those whose shoe's you will never walk in
definitely negative: there's whole gang ups on people shaming them over something. Pretty soon everything is about ganging up on the shaming target du jour. People who don't even remember what the original story was behind the shaming pile on. It's all about carrying favor, "being in with the in crowd". It resembles junior high bullying. it's not conductive to anything remotely resembling thought (and one slip up and your the shame target du jour), or even to taking a breather, counting to 10 ... seeing the actual social environment you are creating with your shame culture etc..
Interesting, I was just reading an article on 'the culture of outrage', and how media like Twitter seem to be fueling people's sense of rage and violation ... in a sort of egotistical way for sure, but nonetheless sending strong messages to people stepping out of bounds. Sometimes messages so strong they'd be defined as bullying'.
You see that everywhere. Want to control the timing of your kid's immunization? The whole, considerable weight of the Internet will come down on you. Choose to eat (or not eat) bread, or butter, or meat? Sugar? Shame on you, you faddist or health-care abuser or corpse eater. Not sure about humans' role in climate change? You're clearly a science-hating moron. (That science-hating trope seems to be a very handy and flexible weapon. I would ask in nutrition, for example: "Whose science?") I've been thinking about how we're all herded into government- or corporate-approved pens with the enthusiastic support of Internet bullies of various stripes. Hugely effective tactic, I must admit.
ETA: ApatheticNoMore--junior high and the in crowd. That's it exactly!
ApatheticNoMore
4-14-15, 1:02pm
If it's just boycotting a pizza place for discrimination it might work - time and place and objective limited, in other words carefully targeted boycotting. The problem is when one is asked to boycott for everything. Oh I'm boycotting that for gay rights, and that one for birth control rights, and that because they employ slave labor, and that because they have polluted the water in africa, and that because of employee abuses, and that because it supports the Koch brothers, and that because it supports Warren Buffett or Bill Gates ... uh shouldn't some, not all, of this (mostly the obvious stuff - slave labor, pollution, employee abuse) be handled by government if we had decent government? I'm not saying we have decent government mind you.
And at a certain point isn't all this boycotting a diminishment of one's power? Yes very targeted boycotting as part of a larger strategy works (Ceasar Chavez and the grape boycott). But maybe one would be better off studying the ballot and voting regularly (note I did not say voting lesser of evils if they are both terrible ) than trying to remember everything they were supposed to boycott? I take limitations of time and energy as A GIVEN. Anyone can only devote themselves to so much.
I like a lot of Gregg's ideas, and I'm all for some corrective shaming in matters of say, civil rights or the environment, but in the Internet age people hiding behind their keyboards have ratcheted the vituperation level to a deafening level.
The connectivity of younger generations and their desire for social justice are a combination my generation never had. Granted, the first few Arab Springs fueled by social media have had mixed results, but that doesn't take away from the potential. It really is only the beginning. Of course there are numerous instances of shaming gone awry, but I'd bet that for every one of those there are thousands of examples of legitimate news being disseminated or of people banding together to implement positive changes. I'm on pretty much all forms of social media to one extent or another and that's what I see. There's no justification for bullying, but we shouldn't be so quick to toss the baby with the bathwater.
... I'm on pretty much all forms of social media to one extent or another and that's what I see. There's no justification for bullying, but we shouldn't be so quick to toss the baby with the bathwater.
We couldn't if we tried. Too bad we couldn't produce a bully filter to go with our bully pulpit. I am concerned--very much concerned--about group think, though. Advances, inventions, and breakthroughs are rarely produced by sheep.
We couldn't if we tried. Too bad we couldn't produce a bully filter to go with our bully pulpit. I am concerned--very much concerned--about group think, though. Advances, inventions, and breakthroughs are rarely produced by sheep.
I don't know Jane, seems like we have a pretty good bully filter if we decide to use it. Its called a conscience. There isn't any way to stop all bullies before they start, they're just part of the human condition. So is prejudice, vanity, selfishness and a host of other messy evolutionary leftovers that we are trying to overcome. Although some do try harder than others...
There's some evidence that shaming/public outcry has caused the latest round of wage increases for those employed by Wal-Mart, etc. Some individual cities and states passed laws raising the minimum wage, but it was the pressure from those employed there, along with the taxpayers who subsidize their paltry wages with food stamps, Medicaid, etc. and thus subsidize their billionaire owners, that enough is enough and so an across-the-board increase was enacted.
That, and the now obvious fact that when your own employees can't afford to shop at their own stores, means you are hurting your own bottom line.
I saw a political cartoon today that illustrated that in Australia, McDonald's pays $16 an hour and charges $4.47 for a Big Mac. In the U.S., McDonald's pays $7 an hour, and a Big Mac goes for $4.62.
There was an online article about Mickey-Dees, and how the company has some issues. Well, they all do. But, the McDees-specific issues are what was the topic. Some commenters launched into extended critiques about how the Ooooey-goooey Cheeese wasn'y goooey and yummy enough; others, the pee-tardy types, griped about how "they can't pay those idiots a living wage-- it's not a real job!!!". But, they are just wrong. My critique is that they do need to revise their business model. After looking at some old photos of McDee's drive-ins from the early 60's, I realized that what they may need to do is 1)simplify, and stop the emphasis on Capital expenditures(freestanding masonry buildings, lined with stainless steel and ceramic tile, remodeled or replaced every 5 years, that remind me of medical clinics or Banks)that are waaay over the top for fast food. Plus, costly AD campaigns--Ronald makes my appetite go away. If you can afford to open a McD's franchise, you are already wealthy, and probably are jaded and lack that entrepreneurial zeal. I figure they just want yet another turnkey operation to run by the numbers from their office suite, somewhere else. Then, 2)pay all experienced employees a living wage, instead of continuously hiring mostly people at entry-level wages, and keeping them at minimum until they move on. Because, you end up having to hire more people, train more people, to compensate for turnover and absenteeism from part-time or young and less conscientious workers. Finally--3)they really do need to improve the quality of their food. Not just gussie it up, and describe it with faux foodie speak. Many people, like myself , already know that--that's why I avoid the place, unless I am out of town, and there are no easy options. Next: why I also avoid chipotle, the most overrated, overpriced, slowest fast food there is. Hope that helps you some.
I think McD's reputation is eventually going to sink them no matter what they do. Those golden arches are The icon for crappy food, and installing themselves in Walmarts nationwide did nothing to help that. I'd much rather take my chances at a new local place that promises quality like http://www.grazepremiumburgers.com, (which has a menu similar to McD's only really good!) than trust that Ronald has finally done something worthwhile. (Agree about him, btw. I get no sense of childhood nostalgia from any of the McD characters, they all give me the creeps. Although ... The Grimace ... who in their right mind came up with that? It's perfect. The Grimace and the Super-8. The suppurate? Did you actually say that out loud before naming this place?)
...I think McD's reputation is eventually going to sink them no matter what they do. Those golden arches are The icon for crappy food, ...
And they've been the icon for crappy food for about 60 years now. Why would things change now solely because they continue to sell crappy food just as they have done successfully for well over half a century?
And they've been the icon for crappy food for about 60 years now. Why would things change now solely because they continue to sell crappy food just as they have done successfully for well over half a century?
I was thinking the same thing. There probably aren't enough hamburger snobs out there to move the market all that much.
They may be like other companies, that are overbuilt and past their prime. The company probably can't reinvent itself, successfully. Maybe all they will be able to do is hold on to their niche market, as they slowly fade away, one store at a time. Remember Woolworths? It's happened to Pizza Hut & Hardees, here, and their food was--how should I describe it--better.. As far as McD's "product" goes, I am not judging it on a scale of "Excellent" or "Awful". There are varying degrees of mediocrity. They could improve very drastically, and still only rate 3 Stars. But, what they seem to prioritize is having "product" that is cheap(for them), uniform, readily stored, and requires a minimum of proficiency to make it edible. This keeps their costs down. That way, they can budget more to advertising. To make it palatable, they utilize the 3 main ingredients: Sugar, grease, and salt. Quite possiblly MSG, which is what gives you hamburger throat. Plus, heat it to as high a temperature as possible. This help makes it sanitary, and enhances flavor. Ever had any cold McD's "product"? Excepting their frozen dairy "product", of course. Anyway, not good, at all.
I was thinking the same thing. There probably aren't enough hamburger snobs out there to move the market all that much.
Yup. And as long as cheeseburgers are $.99 and salads are $4.99 I don't seen any paradigm shift on the horizon.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.