Pizza Place Closes On Account Of Harrassment....

[Packy]

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]

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.

[Packy]

I rarely go to restaurants or eat pizza, due to being a conscientious objector.

[Alan]

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]

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.

[Alan]

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.

[bae]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativ...ositive_rights

[peggy]

http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/religio...theists-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/kellyphi...ure-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!

[Gregg]

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.

[bae]

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.