The Goat Pen

heh

need to catch up on homeland

"remember the old adage - never discuss politics, sex or religion?"

I don't recall sex being part of the no discussion list...

Anymore I don't argue the merits or drawbacks re: obamacare and our patchwork system of healthcare in general, mainly because I co-own an insurance agency and have represented BCBS and the like for 30 years and it's boring. I was there at the rollouts of the HMOs and PPOs and later the HSAs and I know the analysis and all the numbers and the how the CPP started in the lower left corner of the graph and has been a mortar shot to the upper righthand corner of the graph for, oh, the last 40 years. The first policy I ever wrote was with Aetna. I predate Bertonili by about 25 years, and he's just the most recent of many overblown tools.

Luckily we mainly make our living selling property and casualty. I miss the trips, I won't lie - John Alden and Humana were party people and never let your glass sit empty.

Trump's Impeachment Talk Now Has Teeth - Tom Moran, NJ.com http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/201 ... moran.html

touches all the bases imo

bluetick wrote:Trump's Impeachment Talk Now Has Teeth - Tom Moran, NJ.com http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/201 ... moran.html

touches all the bases imo

if you think Trump is bad, Pence will be the Spanish inquisition

Okay so pretty much the main feeling I get is that no one cares about Nordstrom deal. No big deal that a business has stepped up and said, we are not going to work with those people or be associated with them anymore. Businesses and people will sort things out, you know, let the people and money speak to those business and what happens, happens.

Okay make sense. I get it. Free market and such. You choose where you spend your dollars.

Now, what was everyone's thought when those bakers / flowershops didn't want to see their services associated or used by a group of people??

HMMMM.......

eCat wrote:

bluetick wrote:Trump's Impeachment Talk Now Has Teeth - Tom Moran, NJ.com http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/201 ... moran.html

touches all the bases imo

if you think Trump is bad, Pence will be the Spanish inquisition

But no one with suspect him....................


<don't get up, I'll show myself out....>

'tick setting himself up for a big let down....again.

BigRedMan wrote:Okay so pretty much the main feeling I get is that no one cares about Nordstrom deal. No big deal that a business has stepped up and said, we are not going to work with those people or be associated with them anymore. Businesses and people will sort things out, you know, let the people and money speak to those business and what happens, happens.

Okay make sense. I get it. Free market and such. You choose where you spend your dollars.

Now, what was everyone's thought when those bakers / flowershops didn't want to see their services associated or used by a group of people??

HMMMM.......

You really think these are the same? If the bakers and florists decided that they were not selling wedding cakes or flowers at all, that would be similar to Nordstrom discontinuing this product line. Discriminating against a specific group of people is not the same as removing the trump line from inventory.

BigRedMan wrote:Okay so pretty much the main feeling I get is that no one cares about Nordstrom deal. No big deal that a business has stepped up and said, we are not going to work with those people or be associated with them anymore. Businesses and people will sort things out, you know, let the people and money speak to those business and what happens, happens.

Okay make sense. I get it. Free market and such. You choose where you spend your dollars.

Now, what was everyone's thought when those bakers / flowershops didn't want to see their services associated or used by a group of people??

HMMMM.......

I didn't have a problem with that either.

Unfortunately, a business choosing not to do business with another business (Nordstrom's and Ivanka) is not exactly the same thing as a business choosing not to business with a customer/consumer. That said, I didn't have a problem with it. Men with "same-sex-attraction" are not awarded civil rights protections to guarantee that they can demand a bakery bake them a "wedding" cake the way a black man can demand that a restaurant owned by the Grand Wizard of the KKK, serve him lunch.

Well they had no issue carrying her line of products until now.

And yes I spoke on the issue then, i have no issue with a baker who doesn't want to sell a wedding cake to a same sex couple. Let the free market and people speak. If enough people hear about it, they may not be in business long but it was the owner's choice to do that.

I mean,should christian book stores be forced to sell the satanic bible and the kuran? Should Men's Warehouse be forced to sell women's clothes?

BigRedMan wrote:Well they had no issue carrying her line of products until now.

And yes I spoke on the issue then, i have no issue with a baker who doesn't want to sell a wedding cake to a same sex couple. Let the free market and people speak. If enough people hear about it, they may not be in business long but it was the owner's choice to do that.

I mean,should christian book stores be forced to sell the satanic bible and the kuran? Should Men's Warehouse be forced to sell women's clothes?

No. They shouldn't be forced to do that.

This is the problem I have with the portion of the black community trying to make "Civil Rights" into anything and everything they want it to be, the problem I have with ANY minority group trying to piggy back on the concept of "Civil Rights" in order to give themselves more legislative authority to sue the minute they think they are victimized. They can't and they shouldn't. "Civil Rights" are a very specific thing: it is legislating morality at the expense of property rights. That is it. That is what it is, laws that empower the black consumer at the expense of the racist property owner (who previously, had ALL the laws, protecting him.) And it was intended SOLELY for black people because of our US history with slavery and Jim Crow, SOLELY because what we did to the black community in this country was so immoral. That is the ONLY REASON why I agree totally with "Civil Rights" legislation. There are no other reasons for "Civil Rights" legislation, none. To grant other minority groups victim status such that they ALSO have the power to sue a property owner for their refusal to do business, takes away from what makes "Civil Rights" legislation, and our US history with the black community, special.

BigRedMan wrote:Well they had no issue carrying her line of products until now.

And yes I spoke on the issue then, i have no issue with a baker who doesn't want to sell a wedding cake to a same sex couple. Let the free market and people speak. If enough people hear about it, they may not be in business long but it was the owner's choice to do that.

I mean,should christian book stores be forced to sell the satanic bible and the kuran? Should Men's Warehouse be forced to sell women's clothes?

Of course you have no issues with the bakers discriminating. You voted for Trump.

Nobody is forcing any retailer to carry any product. But, if they do, they can't discriminate. If the baker does not want to sell wedding cakes to gay people, they need to stop selling wedding cakes entirely.

BigRedMan wrote:Well they had no issue carrying her line of products until now.

And yes I spoke on the issue then, i have no issue with a baker who doesn't want to sell a wedding cake to a same sex couple. Let the free market and people speak. If enough people hear about it, they may not be in business long but it was the owner's choice to do that.

I mean,should christian book stores be forced to sell the satanic bible and the kuran? Should Men's Warehouse be forced to sell women's clothes?

Public businesses should sell their products to the public. Your analogy is silly. It's not like people are wandering into the business and demanding the bakery make them lasagna.

So, a christian bookstore would not have to stock the Quran or any other book that they don't normally keep. They would have to be willing to sell whatever they do keep in stock to anyone who has the cash, though.

Likewise, Men's Warehouse would not have to stock dresses, but if a woman wants one of their suits, and has the cash, then yes. They must be willing to sell to her.

sardis wrote:'tick setting himself up for a big let down....again.

heh sardis, you managed 8 years of BHO and came out the other side smiling - so I figured I could do 4 agent orange years standing on my head, no problemo.

If I get time served after only a few months, great, but I'm fine either way. And as has been pointed out, Oberfuhrer Pence is on deck.

Cletus wrote:

BigRedMan wrote:Well they had no issue carrying her line of products until now.

And yes I spoke on the issue then, i have no issue with a baker who doesn't want to sell a wedding cake to a same sex couple. Let the free market and people speak. If enough people hear about it, they may not be in business long but it was the owner's choice to do that.

I mean,should christian book stores be forced to sell the satanic bible and the kuran? Should Men's Warehouse be forced to sell women's clothes?

Of course you have no issues with the bakers discriminating. You voted for Trump.

Nobody is forcing any retailer to carry any product. But, if they do, they can't discriminate. If the baker does not want to sell wedding cakes to gay people, they need to stop selling wedding cakes entirely.

And Cletus beat me to it. With more brevity, as well.

Breaking

Andrew Puzder Withdraws as Trumps Labor Secretary Pick - AP

good Lord this is making me tired

bluetick wrote:Trump's Impeachment Talk Now Has Teeth - Tom Moran, NJ.com http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/201 ... moran.html

touches all the bases imo

trumps impeachment was on the menus starting Nov at 2am on the morning

ther problem with impeachments is there has to be a majority and unless you catch the big orange handing putin hundred dollar bills while urinating on him I don't think your gonna find enough votes in congress to impeach a sitting republican so your stuck with him until your heroes find enough votes in the flyover states to try to get control of the legislature

rat's theory of trump losing his brand and bleeding money then resigning is the best hope you have

crashcourse wrote:
rat's theory of trump losing his brand and bleeding money then resigning is the best hope you have

Agreed.

AlabamAlum wrote:

Cletus wrote:Of course you have no issues with the bakers discriminating. You voted for Trump.

Nobody is forcing any retailer to carry any product. But, if they do, they can't discriminate. If the baker does not want to sell wedding cakes to gay people, they need to stop selling wedding cakes entirely.

And Cletus beat me to it. With more brevity, as well.

Cletus is wrong and so are you. A retailer is free to carry any product they want for any reason. Or no reason. And they are free to NOT carry any product they want for any reason. Or no reason. They absolutely have the power to discriminate on what they sell. "Who" they sell to, is another matter. If I sell cars to the public, and you walk into my dealership, I can choose NOT to sell to you because you don't have a strong enough credit rating to secure my financing. I can't refuse to sell to you because you are black. That would be an infringement on "Civil Rights" legislation, and you could sue me and win in court. If I refuse to finance you a car because you don't have a strong enough credit rating, and you sue me in court under those circumstances, you lose. I have the right to "discriminate" against you solely based on your credit history (or lack there-of.) Go get all the cash and then get back to me. And maybe I'll still have that car to sell you.

If a black man (if any man) walks into my dealership without a shirt on, and demands that I sell them a car, I can refuse. I can' "discriminate" based solely on public health, go put on a shirt and maybe I can sell you a car. But as of right now, you need to leave, regardless of the color of your skin. You want to sue me, good luck. There are no "Civil Rights" consumer protections for the shirtless male.

Businesses are free to discriminate all the time when choosing to do business with customers. That is the key aspect of law regarding property rights. You own that property. You choose who you are willing to buy from and who to sell. Where they are NOT free to discriminate is based on the skin color of the consumer. That is an entirely special circumstance because of our history with black slavery and Jim Crow. That is the moral underpinnings for "Civil Rights" legislation, something we all must take seriously since it "Trumps" (literally) property rights.