Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I prefer to pour the milk into the bowl before the cereal
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Eventually, a super intelligent life form will come to this planet and most likely destroy us all. At least I hope, I think, I'm a confused lad.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asiimov)
    I'm not though. I still don't see how you're getting that, when all I'm saying is such a law exists and they are bound by it.
    this is like saying "well we're in iraq now, so we must keep going" as an ethical argument - do you understand that I'm arguing from ethics and not legality? I don't care what the law is, I'm not saying that what the law is = ethical. why aren't you understanding this? get over this very weird mindset

    The morality of it is entirely subjective and neither of us is likely to change their mind, least of all me. Why should they be forced to give equal treatment? Well to me, because it's the right thing to do. But obviously this is subjective. However the law currently says that they have to right now, regardless of our differing opinions.
    "it's the right thing to do"? well what is legal and what is good aren't the same and shouldn't be the same. again, lying isn't illegal, yet it's wrong. making big profits from the work of workers is "wrong", but it's not illegal. turning up late to a meeting or a date is bad, but should it be illegal? no. cheating on your wife is wrong but should it be illegal? no. so your point falls flat.

    and again you bring up the law - why?! I don't think you know how to argue for a point - it's like if you had an essay saying "were the nazis wrong?" in an ethics class and you said "well, it was the law in germany at the time..."

    There's a difference between catering to the interests of a group and refusing to provide a service you provide to everyone else, to a select group.
    no there isn't. how did you come to that conclusion? :| disclose your reasoning

    Not that I agree with an-all black barber or a female gym. I'm glad there are cases being won against such things (female gyms) which use existing anti-discrimination law.
    but it's not your business if another indiovidual is serving certain groups but not your own - that doesn't rob you of a liberty. it might make you angry but you are suffering no loss. it is not the objective responsibility of a company to serve everybody. it is only the responsibility of a company to uphold the terms of the contracts that they establish. it is irrelevant what the consensual terms of those contracts are. if they happen to only want to contract with certain people then that's what the logic is behind "privity of contract" - privacy. private matters are not public matters. fairness is not something you should impose contractually - people should be able to make whatever deals that they and their contracting partners desire.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    this is like saying "well we're in iraq now, so we must keep going" as an ethical argument - do you understand that I'm arguing from ethics and not legality? I don't care what the law is, I'm not saying that what the law is = ethical. why aren't you understanding this? get over this very weird mindset



    "it's the right thing to do"? well what is legal and what is good aren't the same and shouldn't be the same. again, lying isn't illegal, yet it's wrong. making big profits from the work of workers is "wrong", but it's not illegal. turning up late to a meeting or a date is bad, but should it be illegal? no. cheating on your wife is wrong but should it be illegal? no. so your point falls flat.

    and again you bring up the law - why?! I don't think you know how to argue for a point - it's like if you had an essay saying "were the nazis wrong?" in an ethics class and you said "well, it was the law in germany at the time..."



    no there isn't. how did you come to that conclusion? :| disclose your reasoning



    but it's not your business if another indiovidual is serving certain groups but not your own - that doesn't rob you of a liberty. it might make you angry but you are suffering no loss. it is not the objective responsibility of a company to serve everybody. it is only the responsibility of a company to uphold the terms of the contracts that they establish. it is irrelevant what the consensual terms of those contracts are. if they happen to only want to contract with certain people then that's what the logic is behind "privity of contract" - privacy. private matters are not public matters. fairness is not something you should impose contractually - people should be able to make whatever deals that they and their contracting partners desire.
    It's not an ethical argument, it is a legal one. I didn't claim it was about the ethics. We keep misinterpreting each other on this.

    When I said it was the right thing to do, I also clearly explained how that is a subjective decision. Lying isn't always wrong to me, making profit off of your workers isn't wrong to me. In regards to legality though, there are currently no laws against plain lying or adultery in the US, but if they were proposed or did exist I would disagree with them because to me they are immoral. To lie to someone to me is not a significantly immoral act. And back in the legal sense, they would also be poor laws because they don't deprive people of their given rights.

    Rights are legal constructs so this is entirely an argument about legality not morality. In which case being refused service based on certain factors is depriving you of rights, because you are granted the right to fair and equal treatment by the law. It actually is the responsibility of the business to cater to you if you ask for a service that they already provide. So if you make cakes, then you have to make a cake for a gay wedding. If someone asks you to make a swastika cake or something with hate speech on it, you actually don't have to if you have a history of refusing to provide cakes with offensive language or imagery, and so they wouldn't have a case for discrimination.

    I'm going to give up now because the only way this argument can progress is a debate on the morality of giving people rights, and when some rights supersede others. That's an easy debate legally, but morally it's as I've said, subjective. And I'm no philosopher or ethicist.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Women's job should be homemakers and men as breadwinners
    Unfortunately due to the high costs of everything it's not possible these days
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I hate tomatoes and olives
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shazy2014)
    Women's job should be homemakers and men as breadwinners
    Unfortunately due to the high costs of everything it's not possible these days
    I hope you're joking
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rainbowtwist)
    I hope you're joking
    No not at all why?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asiimov)
    It's not an ethical argument, it is a legal one. I didn't claim it was about the ethics. We keep misinterpreting each other on this.
    then...why are you arguing from the law...? I know what the law is though :/

    When I said it was the right thing to do, I also clearly explained how that is a subjective decision.
    then why should the law be involved? something like harm is objective in its determination, whereas subjective things like offence aren't - the law shouldn't legislate over things that are so disagreeable or not determinable

    Lying isn't always wrong to me, making profit off of your workers isn't wrong to me. In regards to legality though, there are currently no laws against plain lying or adultery in the US, but if they were proposed or did exist I would disagree with them because to me they are immoral. To lie to someone to me is not a significantly immoral act. And back in the legal sense, they would also be poor laws because they don't deprive people of their given rights.
    it sounds like you're arguing only from relative degrees - if it's "a little bit wrong" (in the case of lying) it's still wrong in principle - but should it be "a little bit illegal" by proportion? no. liberty isn't about proportion. it's about principles - the principle of responsibility or non-aggression > subjective offence

    Rights are legal constructs so this is entirely an argument about legality not morality. In which case being refused service based on certain factors is depriving you of rights, because you are granted the right to fair and equal treatment by the law.
    you shouldn't be. it violates indiv. liberty

    It actually is the responsibility of the business to cater to you if you ask for a service that they already provide.
    no, they are giving you an invitation to treat, not a contract offer by existing and advertising their services. that doesnt establish a responsibility in each any every different case

    So if you make cakes, then you have to make a cake for a gay wedding. If someone asks you to make a swastika cake or something with hate speech on it, you actually don't have to if you have a history of refusing to provide cakes with offensive language or imagery, and so they wouldn't have a case for discrimination.
    sorry but if you care about liberty, you don't "have" to do anything as a private individual to another private individual. you are your own boss and you work for yourself and your own interests, not somebody else's over your own. businesses aren't charities or public services. or this is what I argue, from liberty.

    I'm going to give up now because the only way this argument can progress is a debate on the morality of giving people rights, and when some rights supersede others. That's an easy debate legally, but morally it's as I've said, subjective. And I'm no philosopher or ethicist.
    it only seems that you argue from consequentialism on this matter whereas I do - the right to equal treatment isn't a liberty-based right, it is a right of consequences.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shazy2014)
    No not at all why?
    Why should women have to stay at home all day - why not men? Are men superior somehow??
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rainbowtwist)
    Why should women have to stay at home all day - why not men? Are men superior somehow??
    No they don't have to stay home all day, there's lots of things they can do, like go to see other women for coffee, go shopping, take the kids out etc
    But I just think that women have a womb for a reason, like that's why they should look after kids.
    I'm not against women who work, I mean I'm gonna have to work to, but only thing is I'd rather not and would rather be in charge of the home and make nice cooked dinners for a man when he gets home!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I kind of want Donald Trump to win the Presidential Election just so I can see if he'd really build a wall across the border to Mexico.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CTLevers)
    I kind of want Donald Trump to win the Presidential Election just so I can see if he'd really build a wall across the border to Mexico.
    I'd laugh if that happened.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shazy2014)
    No they don't have to stay home all day, there's lots of things they can do, like go to see other women for coffee, go shopping, take the kids out etc
    But I just think that women have a womb for a reason, like that's why they should look after kids.
    I'm not against women who work, I mean I'm gonna have to work to, but only thing is I'd rather not and would rather be in charge of the home and make nice cooked dinners for a man when he gets home!
    Lol a woman's job is not to wait patiently for her husband in order to please him, it would be surely an advantage for the man if she did, but if she doesn't want to, she doesn't have to. I'd say this is a rather messed up opinion you have, its 2016 bro, nonetheless, its an opinion


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mackemforever)
    That breeding licenses should be a thing in this country. It should be illegal to have children unless you are certified as being suitable as a parent.
    Agreed. A lot of social evils could be alleviated if parental licensing were a thing.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dexterminate)
    Lol a woman's job is not to wait patiently for her husband in order to please him, it would be surely an advantage for the man if she did, but if she doesn't want to, she doesn't have to. I'd say this is a rather messed up opinion you have, its 2016 bro, nonetheless, its an opinion


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No I understand if people don't want to they shouldn't have to, but as a women that's what I want to do
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    I like salad.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mrs.Grey)
    Uhm, did someone tell you to bake a cake that you didn't want to but then they sued you for it?
    No. I just think it's unnesscary to sue bakers for refusing to bake a cake they don't want. The Baker should have fun doing and do willingly. Bakers seem like nice people. No one should be forced to bake a cake out of fear that their Bakery will be tear apart and shut down for a customer is who too lazy and feels too entitled to find another Bakery.

    Mainly because it's common to see bakers shut down and sued in the usa for minor things.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SmileyVibe)
    No. I just think it's unnesscary to sue bakers for refusing to bake a cake they don't want. The Baker should have fun doing and do willingly. Bakers seem like nice people. No one should be forced to bake a cake out of fear that their Bakery will be tear apart and shut down for a customer is who too lazy and feels too entitled to find another Bakery.

    Mainly because it's common to see bakers shut down and sued in the usa for minor things.
    Are you talking about that one baker that refused to bake a cake for a homosexual couple? IIRC They ended up shutting down because they got sued and because of the bad press nobody bought cakes off them after the incident. I wouldn't say it's a common occurrence though, could you point out more examples?
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by TheRealLifeBane)
    I think DC can beat Jones in the rematch :boxing:
    If course! DC has Batman:smug:

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
    AtCTs

    Ask the Community Team

    Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

    Welcome Lounge

    Welcome Lounge

    We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.