The Nerve of some Anti-Socialists!

[Guest]

http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/31888456/tow-truck-owner-bernie-sanders

A towtruck driver learned that the driver of the vehicle he was sent to tow had a Bernie Sanders bumper sticker.  Having been "Berned" in the past by socialist individuals -- none of them ever paid his bills -- he proceeded to detach the vehicle and said,"Call the government to tow you" and then drove away leaving the driver stranded.

The mother of the driver got "Facebook revenge" by saying socialist money pays just as well as anyone else's.  Apparently, she didn't understand his past experience with socialists.

I tend to believe when we want the government to steal on our behalf and feel morally justified in doing so, it is easy for us to steal on our own and feel morally justified in doing so.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Guest

[Vort]

Those Trumpsters, winning friends and influencing people. He should simply have demanded payment up front.

[Just_A_Guy]

You know, I had always assumed that political belief was one of the classes on which you couldn't discriminate, and I was surprised to see Sumner saying that yes, you can discriminate on that basis.

This opens up a whole new world of opportunities for--say--wedding service providers who don't want to cover gay weddings.  Just give all prospective clients a questionnaire with the following question:

Do you support legislation requiring professionals such as myself, to provide our services for events with which the professional has a moral or religious disagreement?

If they check "yes", you refuse to serve them based on political differences.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

You know, I had always assumed that political belief was one of the classes on which you couldn't discriminate, and I was surprised to see Sumner saying that yes, you can discriminate on that basis.

This opens up a whole new world of opportunities for--say--wedding service providers who don't want to cover gay weddings.  Just give all prospective clients a questionnaire with the following question:

Do you support legislation requiring professionals such as myself, to provide our services for events with which the professional has a moral or religious disagreement?

If they check "yes", you refuse to serve them based on political differences.

Actually, that has already been suggested in a way.  Those in the wedding business in any way shape or form should state that they only work through certain ministries through which they have pre-designed contracts.  Those contracts are designed to do exactly what you are proposing.

[Just_A_Guy]

The result is similar; though I think (not sure) that the theory is slightly different. 

As I understand it, most of the troublesome state or municipal nondiscrimination legislation to date, has expressly stated that it applies to places of "public accommodation"--and if you're in commerce, you're a place of public accommodation.  What these Christian ministry networks technically do, is create an argument that the member businesses are not places of "public accommodation" involved in "commerce" and, therefore, nondiscrimination law doesn't apply to them.

The scenario I pose simply says "yeah, we admit that the law applies to us--but we're not breaking it."

Edited May 5, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[NightSG]

54 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The scenario I pose simply says "yeah, we admit that the law applies to us--but we're not breaking it."

Little easier for a portrait photographer than trying to claim he only works through certain ministries; plenty of non-LDS or mixed faith couples won't have picked a wedding venue or coordinator by the time they want to do an engagement set, or the aspiring groom wants a stealth photographer to get some shots of the proposal.

Edited May 5, 2016 by NightSG

[David13]

I like what he did.

From my reading of the story and a glance at a video of the "towee" it is clear she is a "professional victim" and "professionally disabled" and would probably accuse him of something, so she could then sue.

So I think he made a wise decision.

dc

 

[NightSG]

57 minutes ago, David13 said:

From my reading of the story and a glance at a video of the "towee" it is clear she is a "professional victim" and "professionally disabled" and would probably accuse him of something, so she could then sue.

Yup.  Neither fibromyalgia nor chronic fatigue syndrome (neither of which, conveniently, has any "always present" objectively verifiable symptoms that you could, say, confirm with lab work) is going to make it all that hard for her to Google up another towing service and call it.  She also wasn't stranded on a south Texas highway in August where another 30 minute wait could be a real danger, nor does she look like she's likely to starve in a few hours.

[bytebear]

Here's my take.  I do not believe in any of these so-called " public accommodation" laws.  Ultimately everything is an agreement between two parties.  If one or both parties don't agree, there is no contract, and no obligation to render service, or exchange money.  However, if you are the employee of a company, then your contract is not between the patron and yourself.  There is a three way contract going on.  The patron is contracting with the company.  The employee is also contracting with the company, and so if the company agrees, but the employee does not, then the employee needs to find another job as they broke their contract with the employer.  So, a McD's employee cannot refuse service unless it is also the policy of the company, but if the employee is also the owner, then they are under no obligation to do business with anyone.  And although this breaks every Federal law on discrimination, I still think it should apply.  The government has no right to mandate who does business with whom and why.  Besides, the government tends to enforce the law in ways that are uneven anyway, so they become the tyrant anyway, and make up rules to fit their current cultural and social values.  Rather, I want the market to decide.  Let a business do what they want. If this tow company refuses to service Sanders supporters, so be it.  They will either lose business or gain business based on that decision.  But at least they have the freedom to do so.

 

The only exception to this is when their lack of services cause a direct and immediate loss of life or property.  I.e an ER doctor or a fireman.

Edited May 5, 2016 by bytebear

[Blackmarch]

8 hours ago, bytebear said:

Here's my take.  I do not believe in any of these so-called " public accommodation" laws.  Ultimately everything is an agreement between two parties.  If one or both parties don't agree, there is no contract, and no obligation to render service, or exchange money.  However, if you are the employee of a company, then your contract is not between the patron and yourself.  There is a three way contract going on.  The patron is contracting with the company.  The employee is also contracting with the company, and so if the company agrees, but the employee does not, then the employee needs to find another job as they broke their contract with the employer.  So, a McD's employee cannot refuse service unless it is also the policy of the company, but if the employee is also the owner, then they are under no obligation to do business with anyone.  And although this breaks every Federal law on discrimination, I still think it should apply.  The government has no right to mandate who does business with whom and why.  Besides, the government tends to enforce the law in ways that are uneven anyway, so they become the tyrant anyway, and make up rules to fit their current cultural and social values.  Rather, I want the market to decide.  Let a business do what they want. If this tow company refuses to service Sanders supporters, so be it.  They will either lose business or gain business based on that decision.  But at least they have the freedom to do so.

 

The only exception to this is when their lack of services cause a direct and immediate loss of life or property.  I.e an ER doctor or a fireman.

the motivation for public accommodation came about more or less of consequence because enough parties back in the day could weasel a lot crap into the contract (or keep enough important stuff out of it) to hose the other party with little to none backlash, which resulted in all sorts of laws and unions.
but i do agree.

[Guest MormonGator]

I'm all for a business picking and choosing who they want to serve, but you know what Mr. Tow Truck driver? No one likes a jerk either. Next time to the gentlemanly thing and help. 

[Vort]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

I'm all for a business picking and choosing who they want to serve, but you know what Mr. Tow Truck driver? No one likes a jerk either. Next time to the gentlemanly thing and help. 

Or simply request payment up front. That way it isn't a matter of "I hate socialists", but a matter of "pay me for my services." This would never have made the news if the guy refused to give a tow because he wasn't paid up front.

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

Or simply request payment up front. That way it isn't a matter of "I hate socialists", but a matter of "pay me for my services." This would never have made the news if the guy refused to give a tow because he wasn't paid up front.

Yes, I agree. Old saying: You can't pick and choose your customers. Sure, you can refuse to serve whoever you want too-sometimes with good reason-but in the long run if the reputation gets out that you are surly, unpleasant, or just downright mean-you'll go out of business. 

Basic rule in business : If you can't be pleasant, fake it. If you can't fake it in 80% of the cases, you will fail. 

Edited May 6, 2016 by MormonGator

[mordorbund]

21 hours ago, bytebear said:

The government has no right to mandate who does business with whom and why.

Of course not. I wouldn't think to argue the commerce clause.

But... well.... what do you think about... a tax?

[bytebear]

"A fine is a tax for doing something wrong. A tax is a fine for doing something right."