Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 10:40:44 GMT -6
"doing business as a public commercial enterprise"
Commercial enterprises are not public sector entities. Besides even public sector entities are allowed to expel and ban people from their premises. For instance if a gay male spent his days hanging out in the men's room of a public library, the library would have every right to expel him and bar him from future entry.
|
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Jul 12, 2017 10:50:09 GMT -6
I have given several reasons how business interaction is different from social interaction. You haven't said a word about that. When a business opens up to the public they give up some rights(not all rights) to complete and absolute "free association." It is reasonable cost of doing business as a public commercial enterprise, they gain a great deal by the bargain and they obtain legal protections as a business as part of the social contract. If we agree that in general terms the state has an interest in regulating business to protect the public, then the question about this specific case of protecting the LGBT community as part of that public would be a question partially answered by cost benefit analysis, part in terms of how much protection does the religious issues involved deserve in a public setting as opposed to how much protection the LGBT public deserves. In this specific case the legislature by writing an overly broad law, choosing the most extreme version of RFRA, and in how they handled it, have balanced the rights of religious practice and the LGBT community at a point considered backwards as judged by the backlash. Tell me why the legislature had any urgent reason to limit those communities who had passed civil rights protections. In this argument you are champion of big government telling the local communities what they can do. We should be arguing about where to draw the line. You have offered no opinion on that. It's not clear to me where you think it should be drawn(you have answered no questions on the matter). EDIT: If you'd like to answer the question I'm still interested. Again we're back to a business open to public. What does this mean? Who are the public? What other types of business are there? And why does this factor of opening up to the public come with giving up free association rights? I just can't understand where the distinction lies. Can you give examples to explain your position? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 11:16:09 GMT -6
Yeah the only examples of "public commercial enterprises" I can come up with are state owned liquor stores and municipal golf courses. To be honest I have no idea what he is talking about and I doubt he does either.
|
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Jul 12, 2017 11:46:48 GMT -6
Yeah the only examples of "public commercial enterprises" I can come up with are state owned liquor stores and municipal golf courses. To be honest I have no idea what he is talking about and I doubt he does either. I'm not sure where it fits in his explanation, but the idea of a holding company came to mind. Like if the real estate holding company owned the land and building and rented to an operating company, but the same person owned both. I don't know if the real estate holding company would have waived its free association rights under his theory by being a business, even though it's not really "open to the public" in any meaningful sense. So this makes me wonder if the ultimate factor for 00 isn't so much being a business, as it is dealing with the public. If that's the case then I think my questions really should be to identify the public, and whether a business that required applications or invitations to exchange goods/services for money gets to keep its rights. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 11:57:40 GMT -6
I really don't see what difference it makes anyway, whether a Kroger (transacting with most), a Costco (transacting with members) or a professional firm (transacting with accepted clientele) they are all similarly incorporated business enterprises and should be afforded the same rights.
|
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Jul 12, 2017 12:03:00 GMT -6
I really don't see what difference it makes anyway, whether a Kroger (transacting with most), a Costco (transacting with members) or a professional firm (transacting with accepted clientele) they are all similarly incorporated business enterprises and should be afforded the same rights. I'm guessing more likely they each surrendered the same rights, but I'll wait for 00 to explain it to me if I can ever get him focused long enough. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 12, 2017 12:19:05 GMT -6
Yeah the only examples of "public commercial enterprises" I can come up with are state owned liquor stores and municipal golf courses. To be honest I have no idea what he is talking about and I doubt he does either. C'mon, not even a good example. A private liquor store is open to the public over 21 and Crestview or Player's Club are public golf courses and advertise as such. Even some Country Club courses are open a day a week to the public, or do public business in their facility, for example wedding receptions. If you want to call stores and restaurants "privately owned" that is one thing, and certainly that might have some impact on government regulation that would apply, but, to call most business "private" in terms of their business model is ridiculous. Their doors are open to the public. Your private home where you are a social host surely is different. Most businesses advertise to the public inviting commercial interaction. Find a business not on the web, without public signage, without any such invitation to deal, maybe that is a "private" business model. And sure, sometimes businesses limit their invitation to deal by product or service type. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 12:28:15 GMT -6
"to call most business "private" in terms of their business model is ridiculous."
WTF.................They are most defiantly private sector enterprises, how they amass clientele is completely irrelevant. You can't possibly be this dense.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 12, 2017 12:38:03 GMT -6
When a business opens up to the public they give up some rights(not all rights) to complete and absolute "free association." It is reasonable cost of doing business as a public commercial enterprise. Again we're back to a business open to public. What does this mean? Who are the public? What other types of business are there? And why does this factor of opening up to the public come with giving up free association rights? I just can't understand where the distinction lies. Can you give examples to explain your position? Private or public, a business is regulated in some ways. Being open to the public and soliciting the public creates some obligations. That means you don't have the right for example to choose not to associate with members of the public of a certain race, or gender, or age, or with disability, or for other reasons. You want to do business, you need to give up that absolute right to associate only with those not in those classifications. Where to draw the line is a fair question. I say the RFRA pushes it too far. Where do you think the line should be drawn? Being a commercial enterprise doesn't mean you have no right to exclude customers. Generally you can. But in this case, Bloomington and other municipalities said you had no right to do so with regard to otherwise lawfully behaving members of the LGBT public. Federal law says the same thing about race, religion, age, gender, disability and so on. Do you oppose those laws as well? On similar grounds? And how does the RFRA distinguish those cases where state law might burden a religious "practice," say regarding child abuse, or any other matter? If someone says his religious belief requires something and the law forbids it, and is burden to his religion, look back at the language of the law. Religion appears to be a defense. The RFRA creates a "defense" which is over broad as it was written in Indiana and did not balance the rights of the parties. Maybe Bloomington went to far? If that community wants an inclusive society, and voted to create protections, I can support their right to do so. You are the one dodging the main question in the thread and that is whether this makes Indiana look backward. The backlash and reaction to the law, including the legislative changes say it does. |
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Jul 12, 2017 12:51:23 GMT -6
Again we're back to a business open to public. What does this mean? Who are the public? What other types of business are there? And why does this factor of opening up to the public come with giving up free association rights? I just can't understand where the distinction lies. Can you give examples to explain your position? Private or public, a business is regulated in some ways. Being open to the public and soliciting the public creates some obligations. That means you don't have the right for example to choose not to associate with members of the public of a certain race, or gender, or age, or with disability, or for other reasons. You want to do business, you need to give up that absolute right to associate only with those not in those classifications. Where to draw the line is a fair question. I say the RFRA pushes it too far. Where do you think the line should be drawn? Being a commercial enterprise doesn't mean you have no right to exclude customers. Generally you can. But in this case, Bloomington and other municipalities said you had no right to do so with regard to otherwise lawfully behaving members of the LGBT public. Federal law says the same thing about race, religion, age, gender, disability and so on. Do you oppose those laws as well? On similar grounds? And how does the RFRA distinguish those cases where state law might burden a religious "practice," say regarding child abuse, or any other matter? If someone says his religious belief requires something and the law forbids it, and is burden to his religion, look back at the language of the law. Religion appears to be a defense. The RFRA creates a "defense" which is over broad as it was written in Indiana and did not balance the rights of the parties. Maybe Bloomington went to far? If that community wants an inclusive society, and voted to create protections, I can support their right to do so. You are the one dodging the main question in the thread and that is whether this makes Indiana look backward. The backlash and reaction to the law, including the legislative changes say it does. Ok, now I think we're getting somewhere. Still a lot of incoherent rambling, and not exactly an on point answer, but we're moving in the right direction. Why does being open to "the public" and soliciting the public mean you forfeit your right to association? And it sounds to me like being a business doesn't really impact your reasoning at all. So if a guy purchased a restaurant and made food to give away freely to people who came in and ordered meals, he too would forfeit his right to free association because he'd opened his doors. Right? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 12:54:38 GMT -6
Again we're back to a business open to public. What does this mean? Who are the public? What other types of business are there? And why does this factor of opening up to the public come with giving up free association rights? I just can't understand where the distinction lies. Can you give examples to explain your position? Private or public, a business is regulated in some ways. Being open to the public and soliciting the public creates some obligations. That means you don't have the right for example to choose not to associate with members of the public of a certain race, or gender, or age, or with disability, or for other reasons. You want to do business, you need to give up that absolute right to associate only with those not in those classifications. Where to draw the line is a fair question. I say the RFRA pushes it too far. Where do you think the line should be drawn? Being a commercial enterprise doesn't mean you have no right to exclude customers. Generally you can. But in this case, Bloomington and other municipalities said you had no right to do so with regard to otherwise lawfully behaving members of the LGBT public. Federal law says the same thing about race, religion, age, gender, disability and so on. Do you oppose those laws as well? On similar grounds? And how does the RFRA distinguish those cases where state law might burden a religious "practice," say regarding child abuse, or any other matter? If someone says his religious belief requires something and the law forbids it, and is burden to his religion, look back at the language of the law. Religion appears to be a defense. The RFRA creates a "defense" which is over broad as it was written in Indiana and did not balance the rights of the parties. Maybe Bloomington went to far? If that community wants an inclusive society, and voted to create protections, I can support their right to do so. You are the one dodging the main question in the thread and that is whether this makes Indiana look backward. The backlash and reaction to the law, including the legislative changes say it does. Believe it or not some people do have an actual religious objection to gay marriage. It's far more than just a convenient "defense" to them. It's just wonderful you know the true intentions of millions of people who happen to disagree with you. |
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Jul 12, 2017 13:00:25 GMT -6
Yeah the only examples of "public commercial enterprises" I can come up with are state owned liquor stores and municipal golf courses. To be honest I have no idea what he is talking about and I doubt he does either. C'mon, not even a good example. A private liquor store is open to the public over 21 and Crestview or Player's Club are public golf courses and advertise as such. Even some Country Club courses are open a day a week to the public, or do public business in their facility, for example wedding receptions. If you want to call stores and restaurants "privately owned" that is one thing, and certainly that might have some impact on government regulation that would apply, but, to call most business "private" in terms of their business model is ridiculous. Their doors are open to the public. Your private home where you are a social host surely is different. Most businesses advertise to the public inviting commercial interaction. Find a business not on the web, without public signage, without any such invitation to deal, maybe that is a "private" business model. And sure, sometimes businesses limit their invitation to deal by product or service type. What do you mean when you use "private" and "public" in terms of a business model? |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 12, 2017 13:02:56 GMT -6
"to call most business "private" in terms of their business model is ridiculous." WTF.................They are most defiantly private sector enterprises, how they amass clientele is completely irrelevant. You can't possibly be this dense. Private sector refers to ownership, not business practices. There is no way to call doing business a "private" activity other than that. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 12, 2017 13:07:21 GMT -6
I really don't see what difference it makes anyway, whether a Kroger (transacting with most), a Costco (transacting with members) or a professional firm (transacting with accepted clientele) they are all similarly incorporated business enterprises and should be afforded the same rights. Costco is another poor example. They are not a "private club" with very much or any exemptions from law or regulation that Kroger is. They certainly would be in the same situation in most ways. For example, they cannot exclude "members" on grounds of race, religion, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 12, 2017 13:11:25 GMT -6
I really don't see what difference it makes anyway, whether a Kroger (transacting with most), a Costco (transacting with members) or a professional firm (transacting with accepted clientele) they are all similarly incorporated business enterprises and should be afforded the same rights. I'm guessing more likely they each surrendered the same rights, but I'll wait for 00 to explain it to me if I can ever get him focused long enough. Very good. You are starting to get it. Costco and Kroger are only very slightly different in terms of legal burdens. Their membership model does allow them to build in some boilerplate in the membership contract which in some cases protects them, other ways protects the customer. A Kroger customer would not be necessarily similarly bound other than where the law required the same protections. |
|
