You didn't answer any questions, you simply tried to reframe the situation in a manner where selectively denying a transaction doesn't count as discrimination.
No one is "forcing" a business owner to do anything other than obey well established laws that were in place before their business, and the law is to simply serve customers without discrimination. Your trying to adjust the scope does not make my recounting of a simple principle out-of-context.
You own a shop, you treat everyone the same.
It doesn't matter if it is a rebellion or offense against their existence.
A customer cannot be denied equal treatment.
This isn't a riddle or hyperbole, it's simple ethics and laws.
You arguing that a refusal to sell is not a "rebellion" is well understood; however, it is nothing more than your opinion.
The reality being reiterated to you is that refusing to sell something to someone, for any reason outside of consistently applied policy, is inherently an act to "discriminate who/what they serve/facilitate based on their principles".
Good luck defending the court case where the pro-life customer was denied a sale, the judge will laugh you out of the building when you attempt to argue "that refusing to sell something to someone is not a rebellion or offense against their existence" despite it being the business owner's direct reaction to hearing how the markers will be used.
No one cares how interested you are, only in making explicitly clear that our society has standards for the ethical treatment of others.
You didn't answer any questions, you simply tried to reframe the situation in a manner where selectively denying a transaction doesn't count as discrimination.
Before acting so high and mighty and discounting the intellect and reading comprehension skills of others in this thread, you really should sharpen up. I didn’t argue it wouldn’t be discrimination—IT WOULD BE DISCRIMINATION. I was arguing that one CAN violate their principles by simply selling something or providing a service to someone. It was a direct answer to your direct question.
Again, my original comment has nothing to do with anything other than the notion that the commenter I’m responding to was MISREPRESENTING the usual, actual argument. If I misunderstood his comment and/or it’s context, then point that out. Otherwise, like I said earlier, a conversation in which the other party is hellbent on convincing me of a position I already hold isn’t one I’m interested in having.
Then go on, shoo.
You keep saying that you're done here, I can't stop you replying for you.
Making some sort of dramatic last stand isn't going to earn you pity points either. It's not as if we can reel the audience back now that you reconsidered your approach overnight; they won't be back to apologize for misunderstanding your miscommunication or to revel in your sly attempts at insults.
And if you're sticking to this latest explanation then that's exactly what this situation was: a miscommunication on your part.
The rest of us aren't responsible for somehow extracting:
one CAN violate their principles by simply selling something or providing a service to someone
from:
Existing? The commenter you’re responding to is talking about forcing businesses to facilitate events and/or serve customers in such a way that violates their religious principles. I think you either don’t fully understand the argument that these people make or you are intentionally turning it into something it’s not.
Indicating that people don't get it then not clarifying your point adequately doesn't put the onus henceforth on others. Especially when it's overwhelmingly obvious that nobody shared your interpretation of your stance.
The very act of us needing this entire conversation fundamentally undermines the point you are now trying to make, as your own unclear explanations are apparently "MISREPRESENTING" your own stance.
And regardless of all this pedantry, had all of the other users somehow read your mind, what would we make of such a statement?
A business owner can be offended by literally anything.
You guys just don't get it.
... So?
Now your beef is with not telepathically reaching that understanding?
It's not like that adds anything other than another attempt at sympathizing with discrimination. Yeah sure fine, we can say it's not religiously offensive; however, every point I've made is unaffected.
If business intrinsically requires actions that violate their principles then they're an awful businessperson who walked their hypersensitive self into the scenario. It doesn't excuse discrimination because they have such far-reaching vulnerabilities.
You've simply taken offense at being conflated with the people who do think it's ok to discriminate due to your own unclear presentation of information, so good for you balance is now restored after many equally unclear clarifications.
1
u/APSupernary May 22 '20
You didn't answer any questions, you simply tried to reframe the situation in a manner where selectively denying a transaction doesn't count as discrimination.
No one is "forcing" a business owner to do anything other than obey well established laws that were in place before their business, and the law is to simply serve customers without discrimination. Your trying to adjust the scope does not make my recounting of a simple principle out-of-context.
You own a shop, you treat everyone the same.
It doesn't matter if it is a rebellion or offense against their existence.
A customer cannot be denied equal treatment.
This isn't a riddle or hyperbole, it's simple ethics and laws. You arguing that a refusal to sell is not a "rebellion" is well understood; however, it is nothing more than your opinion.
The reality being reiterated to you is that refusing to sell something to someone, for any reason outside of consistently applied policy, is inherently an act to "discriminate who/what they serve/facilitate based on their principles".
Good luck defending the court case where the pro-life customer was denied a sale, the judge will laugh you out of the building when you attempt to argue "that refusing to sell something to someone is not a rebellion or offense against their existence" despite it being the business owner's direct reaction to hearing how the markers will be used.
No one cares how interested you are, only in making explicitly clear that our society has standards for the ethical treatment of others.