What scares the f*ck out of you?

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by glatt

The question is simply, do you think it's just fine for a law firm to turn down a distasteful potential client simply because they don't want to be seen as a law firm that works with distasteful clients? Nothing to do with ethics or the law or conflicts or any of that crap. Simply "we aren't that kind of law firm" even though it's the field they specialize in. They want to turn the potential client down because they find the client repugnant. It's a personal belief kind of thing. But backed up over the very real concern that Apple may go with another firm if these guys get into bed with pornographers, because Apple doesn't do business with porn people. But don't get hung up on Apple. Pretend the lucrative client is ChickFilA.

To me it comes down to a question of "type of business" vs. "type of customer."

In my ideal world, you can say "we don't do that type of business," as long as you are consistent in that. You can't say "we don't want business from you personally" if you have performed that exact business with a different customer.

Or in the case of wedding cakes, you can say, "I don't put two brides or two grooms on top of my cakes," but you can't say "I won't bake you a cake identical to other cakes I have baked for other customers."

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

To me it comes down to a question of "type of business" vs. "type of customer."
<snip>
Or in the case of wedding cakes, you can say, "I don't put two brides or two grooms on top of my cakes,"
but you can't say "I won't bake you a cake identical to other cakes I have baked for other customers."

Clod, I do agree with your arguments , but then came your last example...

Had you said "We are a cake business. We don't do pies" = OK

But for wedding cake businesses, traditionally, their customers
want and have had a say in how their cakes are decorated.

So now it's back on shaky ground.
Is 1 ornament OK, but 2 ornaments of one kind or another are not ?
What is the argument ?

The situation seems closer to the owner saying "No" to these specific customers ...
because of what the owner believes these customers are going to do in the future ?
e.g, is the "religious freedom" issue that the customers are going to sin ?
or, who the customers appear to be in the eyes of the owner ?
How does that then differ from discrimination against any ethic group?

It seems (to me) the "wedding cake", "photographer", etc. situations are
only contrivances to divert attention away from "what" the business does....
It engages in commerce to serve the public.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

So now it's back on shaky ground.
Is 1 ornament OK, but 2 ornaments of one kind or another are not ?
What is the argument ?

The argument is that, in the land of discrimination, the two lesbian ladies could say, "Fine, stick a traditional topper on since that's all you carry, we'll take it off and put our own on after we leave," and the shop owner would still refuse to make the cake because the shop owner's problem is with the people ordering the cake. You can't legislate the types of products and accessories the cake shop provides, just like you can't make the porn shop sell "gay" dildos, but you can make the porn shop sell a gay man a "straight" dildo just like he does for the straight people.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

I don't know what sort of formal ethics the legal community has set for itself.

Ethics for the legal community? Bwahahahahahaha

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Is 1 ornament OK, but 2 ornaments of one kind or another are not ? What is the argument ?

Not that simple, maybe they object to the bride fucking a horse on the cake.
Where do you draw the line?

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Ethics for the legal community? Bwahahahahahaha

Not that simple, maybe they object to the bride fucking a horse on the cake.
Where do you draw the line?

"...they object... = ... business owner objects... ?

That's the point, exactly. You don't draw the line according to the customer.

If your religious beliefs keep you from treating your customers equally,
don't get a business license to do commerce with the public.

( Some people don't believe in paying taxes ... Ask the IRS how that's working for them. )

BYW, Larry Archie's bill board is quite correct.
It's up to our legal system to say whether you're guilty, or not.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

"...they object... = ... business owner objects... ?.

Of course the business owner objects, for Christ's sake, why the fuck would the customer object to their own request? You do realize it's the customer that makes the request for a cake, right?

That's the point, exactly. You don't draw the line according to the customer.

OK, so you draw the line according to the customer's request? Or you can't refuse any request? If they can refuse, and don't give a reason, how do you claim it was because of religion or because the customer belongs to a group?

BYW, Larry Archie's bill board is quite correct.
It's up to our legal system to say whether you're guilty, or not.

Bullshit, you're presumed innocent in the eyes of the law until convicted, but if you did it, you're still guilty as a motherfucker.

[Lamplighter]

BYW, Larry Archie's bill board is quite correct.
It's up to our legal system to say whether you're guilty, or not.

Bullshit, you're presumed innocent in the eyes of the law until convicted, ...

Look closer... we're saying the same thing.

[xoxoxoBruce]

No we are not. No matter how many Shapiros, Cochrans, Baileys, Dershowitzs, Kardashians, or Archies you can afford, if you did it you're fucking guilty.

[Lamplighter]

OK, you win. Peace.

[henry quirk]

No sir, it (business) does not.

You confuse means with ends.

The only purpose of a business (what 'it' does) is to make a profit for the owners of the business.

How does 'it' do this?

By selling products and/or services to folks who want those products or services (or who have been convinced [by way of marketing] they want those products or services).

Business is not about selflessness or altruism or 'service'...it -- again -- is about making money for the owners of the business.

Now, I understand why this ('a business engages in commerce to serve the public') is attractive to some folks (I'm entitled, I'm owed, I deserve, etc.) but it's a false notion, a pernicious lie, and you'd do well to disabuse yourself of it.

[tw]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

The only purpose of a business (what 'it' does) is to make a profit for the owners of the business.
.

Your basic premise is completely wrong. The purpose of communism is to enrich the Central Party. The purpose of the mafia is to enrich the godfather. The purpose in GM is to protect bonuses of top management. In every case, that is corruption.

The purpose of the electric company is to move electricity. The purpose of the water company is to move water. The purpose of banks is to move money. In every case, profit are only a reward - not the purpose.

When a company exists to enrich itself, then it is no different from the mafia. The mafia will break your legs if necessary to make a profit. Mafia does not care about destruction to the economy, peoples lives, and their long term survival. When profits become the purpose, then corrupt exists.

A company can either work for better products or for profits. Those that are patriotic Americans advance mankind by innovating - making better products. Those who have done so much harm (ie GM, AT&T, HP under Fironia, IBM under Akers, AIG, Ford under Henry Ford and Nasser, etc) were only interested in profits. GM is the perfect example. They even covered up the murder of Cobalt drivers for 14 years to only protect profits. Jeep explode for the same reason Pintos also burned their occupant alive. Because profits (not the product) was imporant.

The purpose of a law firm is to represent individuals. Lawyer are taught to defend people who they do not even agree with. The Civil Liberties Union defended Nazis (in Wisconsin?) because that is the purpose of that law firm. They need not agree with Nazis. But that is their job. That is what they said they will do. Defending clients you might hate is called professionalism.

Meanwhile, your religion is only between you and your god. It does not belong anywhere that it might be imposed on others. Once anyone does anything to others in the name of their religion, then their religion is Satanism. Religion is only a relationship between you and your god. It must never affect anyone else. America was founded (populated) by people who believed exactly that. By people who were fleeing from scumbags who would impose their religion on others.

Does not matter what your religion says. Patriotic American believe all people (no matter what their color, religion, sex, dimensions, etc) are equal. Only scumbag people like Hitler, Crusaders, ISIS, and Likud made judgments based in religion. Same people can also be brainwashed in the lie about what a company's purpose is.

[henry quirk]

"profit are only a reward - not the purpose."

The end is profit; the means is the selling of product or service.

The means serve the end.

#

"A company can either work for better products or for profits."

The only reason for a company to improve a product or service is to increase profit.

#

"The purpose of a law firm is to represent individuals"

No. Its purpose is to make money for the lawyers...these 'fine' men and women (lawyers) make money though the practice of 'law' (navigating systems of rules).

#

*"Only scumbag people like Hitler, Crusaders, ISIS, and Likud made judgments based in religion. Same people can also be brainwashed in the lie about what a company's purpose is."

HA!

If you believe any business exists for any reason other than profit, then you’re naive...and a nitwit.

Also: (for this*) I believe, tw, you can go fuck yourself...hard...deep...with a broom handle (no lube).

[Undertoad]

Please avoid threats statements involving personal violence in this forum. Thanks

[infinite monkey]

This thread is out of order! This whole court is out of order!

Can I facetiously threaten personal violence in another thread? Or rather, should I suggest someone personally violate themselves in a different thread? Should I start a "What personal violence would you like to facetiously tell someone to inflict upon themselves RFN?" thread or perhaps "What is making you facetiously suggest someone inflict personal violence to their personal private parts TODAY?" thread?

Hop off! (Is that allowed, if, when hopping off, you are likely to break something?)*

*disclaimer: This statement is used for example only. It does not expressly imply my desire that you or any of your subsidiaries in any way, shape, or form, actually hop.

(here is where you ignore, dismiss, or otherwise discount me...with impunity.)

[henry quirk]

HA!

Since when do you, toad, give a flip about such things?

*shrug*

As every one else here: I'll post what I like, as I like, when I like.

'nuff said.