Serious LGBT Discussion -

[MrCKMongler had cybersex with ADF lol]

Admittedly, it's a very different concept, but the situation reminds me of bona fide occupational qualifications. Basically, it answers the question of how much is discrimination essential to your business model and to what extent we must tolerate it. With the halal butcher shop and the Indian restaurant the answer is: yes, it is essential. (Well, not discrimination, but their product is very specific.) There are well established definitions of what constitutes "halal" and there's a pretty solid understanding of what Indian food is. But BFOQs aren't infinite in scope, they're actually pretty limited. Hooters is still fighting over whether or not it's legal for them to discriminate against male waiters.

Like I said, I have little knowledge of the specifics of the cake issue. But I don't see the big difference between that and the Kim Davis thing. Like yeah, marriage itself is more important than cakes. But still, the solution to getting a marriage license in her county is as simple as going one county over. Many other counties were issuing marriage licenses. A half hour drive would've solved their problem. But the bigger issue is that people are flouting the law to make a personal statement. That shouldn't be tolerated any more than if I cut off the fire escapes on my building and claimed first amendment protection for it.

The difference is that Kim Davis was an elected public official, whose only job is to uphold the law to the letter. The baker was a private citizen. Because we cannot fire Kim Davis, her failing to do her job is abdication of her duties, and actually illegal in and of itself.

A private citizen running a private business such as a Christian bakery (which is exactly how he advertised himself) is way different. He has not been elected.

 

[Marvin]

The difference is that Kim Davis was an elected public official, whose only job is to uphold the law to the letter. The baker was a private citizen. Because we cannot fire Kim Davis, her failing to do her job is abdication of her duties, and actually illegal in and of itself.

A private citizen running a private business such as a Christian bakery (which is exactly how he advertised himself) is way different. He has not been elected.

Violating anti-discrimination laws is also illegal.

 

[MrCKMongler had cybersex with ADF lol]

Violating anti-discrimination laws is also illegal.

The couple in that case also discriminated. They sought out the baker, knowing he would more likely than not refuse to make a wedding cake due to his beliefs. They could've went to any other baker, but no, they had to go to just that one, so they could destroy him and make a quick buck.

In terms of Kim Davis, she's an elected official doing a clearly defined role. She doesn't get the benefit of just getting fired and moving on. Dereliction of her duty is a much more dangerous precedent to set.

Also, I think you completely missed what I said. It isn't a question of whether a law was broken, but rather a question of if the action is beneficial to the cause of LGBT rights. I say no, simply for the fact it just validates the fears of the bigots.

Mama and Papa Generichillbilly sure don't likes them queers tryin' to force their queer down peoples throats with a court! Whereas before, they probably didn't care, and rights were being advanced at a very rapid pace.

EDIT: Also, he didn't refuse service because they were gay, he just refused to sell them one type of cake due to his religious convictions. Personally if someone tried to do that, I would've just frosted a mound of cow shit and stuck a candle in it, but then again, mine isn't a business where religion, if I had one, would really matter.

 

[AnOminous]

The difference is that Kim Davis was an elected public official, whose only job is to uphold the law to the letter. The baker was a private citizen. Because we cannot fire Kim Davis, her failing to do her job is abdication of her duties, and actually illegal in and of itself.

Where I would tend to distinguish these is creating a cake, taking a photograph, or other creative works are a form of expression. I just wonder where personal autonomy kicks in here. If someone writes poetry on commission, could they be compelled to write a poem celebrating something they find abhorrent? To paint a painting celebrating religious beliefs they despise?

I just wonder where it ends, and I think compelled approval of a particular viewpoint is, shall we say, problematic.

Arguably, making a cake has only a minimal expressive component, but we're talking about a wedding cake here. Those are major projects and involve a significant degree of creativity.

So far as I know, none of the defendants in these cases have raised any of these First Amendment issues in a credible way, but I haven't exactly read all the filings in these cases.

 

[bearycool]

Where I would tend to distinguish these is creating a cake, taking a photograph, or other creative works are a form of expression. I just wonder where personal autonomy kicks in here. If someone writes poetry on commission, could they be compelled to write a poem celebrating something they find abhorrent? To paint a painting celebrating religious beliefs they despise?

I just wonder where it ends, and I think compelled approval of a particular viewpoint is, shall we say, problematic.

Arguably, making a cake has only a minimal expressive component, but we're talking about a wedding cake here. Those are major projects and involve a significant degree of creativity.

So far as I know, none of the defendants in these cases have raised any of these First Amendment issues in a credible way, but I haven't exactly read all the filings in these cases.

The couple in that case also discriminated. They sought out the baker, knowing he would more likely than not refuse to make a wedding cake due to his beliefs. They could've went to any other baker, but no, they had to go to just that one, so they could destroy him and make a quick buck.

In terms of Kim Davis, she's an elected official doing a clearly defined role. She doesn't get the benefit of just getting fired and moving on. Dereliction of her duty is a much more dangerous precedent to set.

Also, I think you completely missed what I said. It isn't a question of whether a law was broken, but rather a question of if the action is beneficial to the cause of LGBT rights. I say no, simply for the fact it just validates the fears of the bigots.

Mama and Papa Generichillbilly sure don't likes them queers tryin' to force their queer down peoples throats with a court! Whereas before, they probably didn't care, and rights were being advanced at a very rapid pace.

EDIT: Also, he didn't refuse service because they were gay, he just refused to sell them one type of cake due to his religious convictions. Personally if someone tried to do that, I would've just frosted a mound of cow shit and stuck a candle in it, but then again, mine isn't a business where religion, if I had one, would really matter.

Violating anti-discrimination laws is also illegal.

The answer to all of this is "communication" and moderation. Of course, these are ideals and generally people fail to do these constantly, including myself.

No one should be forced to do anything, on either side: gays shouldn't be forced not to get married, and Christians shouldn't be forced to sell goods that violates what they believe in.

However, I do NOT support stubbornness in beliefs on both sides: It is essential to talk shit out and find what is truly "good" and what is truly "Bad". Just saying it is because someone is oppressing you or that God says so in the bible is completely idiotic and lacks critical thinking. Again, critical thinking in all humans is an ideal, but it is something we should strive for.

Faggots need to stop targeting people who are in clear opposition, and likewise Christians need to stop trying to scream that this is a christian nation. All you do is set yourself up on a binary of extremes; and if we learned anything from history, extremes and extremists in general are not good news, a la "Nationalism" in WW1, or radicals in the French Revolution. In impedes your movement, and in most cases quickly ends it and sets up the old regime with sometimes much stricter rules.

This is where I am a libertarian: it's not right for others to tell you what to do unless there is a rational, well thought out reason. I shouldn't have to do anything without a reason, or an answer to the "why" of the situation. The LGBT community and Christians both need to learn not to butt in on each other's business, and actually ask "why" the fuck do they not like each other.

 

[Ja'mie]

Sure thing.

Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, a majority of states already had marriage equality on the books. Sure, there were a few holdouts still, but compare that situation to even 20 years ago. 1-2 states had it on the books, sure, but the fact is a majority of states had put it on the books only by outreach and education. I think this route should've been followed a bit longer than it was. Changing minds changes laws.

As far as race is concerned, the 1960's civil rights movements were primarily based on outreach. To churches, politicians, schools, etc. Sure, you had a handful of cases like Brown v. BoE that happened, but honestly, the LGBT community isn't dealing with anything like Jim Crow. The reason litigation needed to happen with racial issues is the fact we had laws on the books, on a federal level, that basically made all other approaches impossible. The LGBT movement was winning long before they started dragging a few holdouts into court to ruin them financially, publically shame them, and in some cases, put them in a cell. All over a fucking cake. We aren't talking segregated schools and facilities. We aren't talking burning crosses in a front yard. Just one well meaning but ignorant person saying "sorry, I can't do that. It violates my beliefs." Can I walk into a halal butcher shop and demand a pork chop? Or an Indian restaurant and demand a cheese burger? The guy even offered to make them any other kind of cake. He refused service not because they were gay, but because he thought marriage was primarily a religious institution.

The Muslim and the Indian restaurant are examples of "We don't have that." The baker is an example of "We don't have that...for your kind." That's the problem.

 

[Pikimon]

Those bakeries were probably shite anyways

 

[MrCKMongler had cybersex with ADF lol]

The Muslim and the Indian restaurant are examples of "We don't have that." The baker is an example of "We don't have that...for your kind." That's the problem.

Ok. So let's say I own a sign shop in a small town. Let's say I'm a bigot. I refuse to make decorations for a gay wedding, that I would absolutely make for a straight one, based in the fact I don't approve of gay marriage, and I'm not printing up any signs in support of it.

What about then? Should I still be charged?


How about all of what I said above, but in addition to owning a sign shop, let's say I'm also running for mayor and my platform is largely based on anti gay marriage rhetoric.

What about then? Can you force someone to squealch their own right to free speech?

I think, and most courts agree, the bill of rights trumps just about any amendment put in after it. The reason why it is there is to prevent a mob like majority from imposing their beliefs on a minority, as well as prevent a vocal minority from doing the same. The fact is, the baker was just refusing service based on something he could not, with all good conscience, support. Wedding cakes require certain decorations and accoutrements that would require the baker to express his approval of the issue, and nothing more.

It isn't the gay couple who wanted a quick buck who got oppressed, it was the baker who was deprived of his liberty, happiness, and money because they wouldn't just go to another of the (several) bakers in town, and needed to form a judicial lynch mob for this poor man. The baker was just minding his own business before those two facists walked in the door and ruined his life for what amounts to, literally no reason other than they could.

EDIT: He was being contracted to provide a service, just like a sign maker. Not sell a pre-existing good, that was available for purchase, like a wal-mart.

SECOND EDIT TO AVOID DOUBLE POST: For those of you who don't know, I own a small business, specifically, I am a blacksmith. If a Klansman walks into my shop and asks me to make, let's say some nails and wants to buy two pieces of scrap lumber, and has a can of gas in his hand, I can't refuse service because I know the nails will be used in something I do not agree with? Doesn't the Klansman have a right to free speech?

What if I owned a farm and tractor supply company. What if a Muslim whom I have never seen before walks into my store and wants to buy a pallet of anhydrous nitrogen fertilizer? If I refuse, am I racist? (AN fertilizer is used to make bombs.)

How are homosexuals rights more important than either of these two people I am (legally, mind you) refusing service to? They have more rights because they are gay? What about the baker's rights?

 

[Ja'mie]

Ok. So let's say I own a sign shop in a small town. Let's say I'm a bigot. I refuse to make decorations for a gay wedding, that I would absolutely make for a straight one, based in the fact I don't approve of gay marriage, and I'm not printing up any signs in support of it.

What about then? Should I still be charged?

If there are anti-discrimination laws in the city where you have your bakery, yes.

How about all of what I said above, but in addition to owning a sign shop, let's say I'm also running for mayor and my platform is largely based on anti gay marriage rhetoric.

What about then? Can you force someone to squealch their own right to free speech?

You wouldn't, nor would anybody else, be charged for saying stupid shit. But your odds of being elected will grow slimmer. Why is this even a question?

I think, and most courts agree, the bill of rights trumps just about any amendment put in after it. The reason why it is there is to prevent a mob like majority from imposing their beliefs on a minority, as well as prevent a vocal minority from doing the same. The fact is, the baker was just refusing service based on something he could not, with all good conscience, support. Wedding cakes require certain decorations and accoutrements that would require the baker to express his approval of the issue, and nothing more.

Writing something in icing requires icing, not approval. If I was hired to write "happy birthday" on a cake for someone I didn't like, my distaste for that person isn't (or shouldn't be) an obstacle to writing "happy birthday" on that cake.

It isn't the gay couple who wanted a quick buck who got oppressed, it was the baker who was deprived of his liberty, happiness, and money because they wouldn't just go to another of the (several) bakers in town, and needed to form a judicial lynch mob for this poor man. The baker was just minding his own business before those two facists walked in the door and ruined his life for what amounts to, literally no reason other than they could.

You do know this "poor man" doxxed the couple in question, right? But that must not count when they're "fascists" (read: lesbians who tried to get goods and services that they'd pay perfectly spendable money for--what Mussolini did was potatoes compared to these bitches!).

SECOND EDIT TO AVOID DOUBLE POST: For those of you who don't know, I own a small business, specifically, I am a blacksmith. If a Klansman walks into my shop and asks me to make, let's say some nails and wants to buy two pieces of scrap lumber, and has a can of gas in his hand, I can't refuse service because I know the nails will be used in something I do not agree with? Doesn't the Klansman have a right to free speech?

(A) You just answered your own question in a roundabout way.
(B) Selling an accessory doesn't make you a participant. If I sold a bottle of liquor to someone who was of legal age and sober at the time of purchase, that doesn't make me responsible for what they do with it after the transaction.

What if I owned a farm and tractor supply company. What if a Muslim whom I have never seen before walks into my store and wants to buy a pallet of anhydrous nitrogen fertilizer? If I refuse, am I racist? (AN fertilizer is used to make bombs.)

No. Since "Muslim" isn't a race, you'd be a bigot. God/Allah forbid he'd want to use it for something weird like growing plants.

How are homosexuals rights more important than either of these two people I am (legally, mind you) refusing service to? They have more rights because they are gay? What about the baker's rights?

Last time I checked, no one was ever barred from military service, faced obstacles in getting/keeping housing and employment, denied parental rights or the chance to get married because of being a baker. So please forgive me if I don't fret about someone's lost right to act on their prejudices.

 

[MrCKMongler had cybersex with ADF lol]

If there are anti-discrimination laws in the city where you have your bakery, yes.



You wouldn't, nor would anybody else, be charged for saying stupid shit. But your odds of being elected will grow slimmer. Why is this even a question?

Writing something in icing requires icing, not approval. If I was hired to write "happy birthday" on a cake for someone I didn't like, my distaste for that person isn't (or shouldn't be) an obstacle to writing "happy birthday" on that cake.


You do know this "poor man" doxxed the couple in question, right? But that must not count when they're "fascists" (read: lesbians who tried to get goods and services that they'd pay perfectly spendable money for--what Mussolini did was potatoes compared to these bitches!).

(A) You just answered your own question in a roundabout way.
(B) Selling an accessory doesn't make you a participant. If I sold a bottle of liquor to someone who was of legal age and sober at the time of purchase, that doesn't make me responsible for what they do with it after the transaction.


No. Since "Muslim" isn't a race, you'd be a bigot. God/Allah forbid he'd want to use it for something weird like growing plants.

Last time I checked, no one was ever barred from military service, faced obstacles in getting/keeping housing and employment, denied parental rights or the chance to get married because of being a baker. So please forgive me if I don't fret about someone's lost right to act on their prejudices.

1. Actually, no. You could not charge a sign shop for refusing to print anything. That is forced speech, which is expressly prohibited by the constitution

2. Because politicians are basically freedom of speech embodied in the sense that they represent us, or are attempting to.

3. Writing something on a project that takes weeks to complete on occasion. That is a major investment of time and labor, not something off the shelf.

4. You are referencing a different case all together. They targeted a business, when there were alternatives in the same town, in an effort to destroy something they did not agree with. The baker did nothing but say no. The couple is the aggressor in this instance. The baker politely refused service, and offered to make them any cake, but a wedding cake.

5. A&B, actually, if I were to refuse service for goods I believe are about to be used in a crime, there is no charge for that.

6. Meant to put Arab, but you are splitting hairs. Yes, I could refuse sale of the fertilizer legally, and report the attempted purchase to DHS.

7. Actually, no one can be discriminated against in any of those ways anymore. If you want to keep pointing at past shitty behavior against one group to justify shitty behavior by that group towards others, we can never advance as a society. EVERY group, yes even WASPs, have been barred from things due to their beliefs at some point in history. Just because we don't agree with the baker does that mean we should deny his right to not be compelled to say something he doesn't agree with?

You are taking rhetorical arguments way too personally. I think gay people have every right to get married. What I am arguing for is really more a libertarian stance. The baker should have simply trespassed him from his shop or made a big laxative cake for them, but honestly, he is a much better man than I, even if I don't agree with his beliefs.

EDIT: We all have a natural right to free speech. My argument boils down to the idea of "protected classes" actually being more harmful than good, in the sense it tramples on others rights. Even if you do not agree with someone, that does not make their rights greater or lesser than yours.

 

[Ja'mie]

1) But you could still face charges if you live in an area with these anti-discrimination laws. Some towns/municipalities/cities list LGBT as a protected class. You know how segregation was dismantled in the sixties? These laws are the same for queers. Whatever your opinion is of those laws is totally up to you, but you still have to roll with it if you have a blacksmith business in those areas.

2) Politicians have the right to say whatever they want without being punished by the government. Doesn't mean they have the right to be elected, the right not to lose business in the private sector, or the right for everyone to have to stay friends with them. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences.

3) That depends on what is being written and how. If it takes weeks to write a message on a cake, gay fascists trying to force you into customer service is the least of your business concerns.

4) Okay, I was thinking of another case than this one. In this one, I still stand by the opinion that the baker was being a bellend with super weak beliefs if writing "yay gay fascist wedding" wishes is such a threat. The baker's actions are douchey, but assuming the AD laws say that he was okay, it is what it is.

5) Except burning a cross isn't necessarily a crime. If I lost my mind and somehow felt the need to burn a cross on my own property and didn't spread the fire to anyone else, the first amendment says I can.

Swarthy people buying fertilizer isn't necessarily a crime either.

6) If that's what you meant, you should have edited your post to reflect that. You can be Arab without being a Muslim and you can be a Muslim without being Arab. Also, immediately assuming that somebody who is one or both right away is up to no good is like expecting a white Christian to be ready to bomb an abortion clinic just based on those characteristics. I am splitting hairs because you gave me one that needs a trim.

7) (A) Thinking that nobody faces that discrimination anymore ever is even more naive.
(B) He has the right to say whatever he wants. He doesn't have the right to avoid social and business consequences for saying whatever he wants.

I'm not taking any of this any more personally than you. Your libertarian jimmies are pretty damn rustled, friend.

"Protected classes" are just groups that faced significant obstacles to basic amenities who need to have that access defended by law. Because integration didn't just come out of the goodness of everybody else's hearts.

 

[KingGeedorah]

Just sell the fucking cake and kill yourself after and talk to Lord God himself. Easy as pie...I mean cake.

 

[MrCKMongler had cybersex with ADF lol]

1) But you could still face charges if you live in an area with these anti-discrimination laws. Some towns/municipalities/cities list LGBT as a protected class. You know how segregation was dismantled in the sixties? These laws are the same for queers. Whatever your opinion is of those laws is totally up to you, but you still have to roll with it if you have a blacksmith business in those areas.

2) Politicians have the right to say whatever they want without being punished by the government. Doesn't mean they have the right to be elected, the right not to lose business in the private sector, or the right for everyone to have to stay friends with them. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences.

3) That depends on what is being written and how. If it takes weeks to write a message on a cake, gay fascists trying to force you into customer service is the least of your business concerns.

4) Okay, I was thinking of another case than this one. In this one, I still stand by the opinion that the baker was being a bellend with super weak beliefs if writing "yay gay fascist wedding" wishes is such a threat. The baker's actions are douchey, but assuming the AD laws say that he was okay, it is what it is.

5) Except burning a cross isn't necessarily a crime. If I lost my mind and somehow felt the need to burn a cross on my own property and didn't spread the fire to anyone else, the first amendment says I can.

Swarthy people buying fertilizer isn't necessarily a crime either.

6) If that's what you meant, you should have edited your post to reflect that. You can be Arab without being a Muslim and you can be a Muslim without being Arab. Also, immediately assuming that somebody who is one or both right away is up to no good is like expecting a white Christian to be ready to bomb an abortion clinic just based on those characteristics. I am splitting hairs because you gave me one that needs a trim.

7) (A) Thinking that nobody faces that discrimination anymore ever is even more naive.
(B) He has the right to say whatever he wants. He doesn't have the right to avoid social and business consequences for saying whatever he wants.

I'm not taking any of this any more personally than you. Your libertarian jimmies are pretty damn rustled, friend.

"Protected classes" are just groups that faced significant obstacles to basic amenities who need to have that access defended by law. Because integration didn't just come out of the goodness of everybody else's hearts.

1. Yes, we have those laws. No, I'm not prejudiced against queers insofar as they are queer. Any group that tries to force its will on other with lobbyists and bullshit litigation (think ACLU) isn't going to find an ally with me though. I'd just trespass them from my shop for reason listed, because I'm not required to give one.

2. Fair enough. I think we messed up the separation if powers at the federal level though.

3. Dated a baker once. Ever see a real intricate wedding cake made? It's mind blowingly complex at times. So yes, it might not take weeks to write on the cake, but it can take a week or two to make it. The rest of this argument was just an ad hominem at the baker.

4. It isn't a matter if he's being forced to tie his own shoes. It's the fact he is being forced. His beliefs may be idiotic, but they are legitimate.

5. Actually, both of these have already happened. Neither one is illegal in and of itself but both have the possibility to harm large group of people. I don't have to sell you anything. Ever. Unless it's a wedding cake for a gay marriage, apparently. Also, when you consider an overwhelming number of Arabs are Muslim, its a pretty safe assumption to make.

7. Oh sure. Discrimination does exist, and the only way it will ever go away is integration. The problem with integration is that groups or classes of any sort segregate by nature. So saying you are for protected classes tells me you are for judicial segregation.

I'm a white male, predominantly Irish and German ancestry. My ancestors were persecuted in their respective countries or were starved out by an oppressive occupying regime. Want to know why I'm not typically discriminated against? On the Irish side, we arrived when everyone had No Irish Need Apply (NINA) signs, and we were relegated to nothing but shitty parts of the cities. We busted our asses, adopted the culture, and didn't throw a hissyfit when someone called us micks, or didn't want to work with us. We kept our heads down, busted our asses, proved our worth. The German side is actually Pennsylvania Dutch. We were thrown out for having perfectly harmless beliefs, not ones that I share anymore BTW. Same story. We worked. We kept our heads down.

My point is you can't FORCE acceptance. You GAIN acceptance. You gain it through work, education, and outreach. Not bullshit lawsuits. Protected classes ensure that everyone in them will never be fully accepted. Well done.

 

[The Knife's Husbando]

The whole cake argument is bullshit. What I'm afraid of is wrecking my truck and the EMTs seeing the pride pin on my jacket & using "Religious freedom" as a justification for packing up and leaving me to bleed out.

 

[MrCKMongler had cybersex with ADF lol]

The whole cake argument is bullshit. What I'm afraid of is wrecking my truck and the EMTs seeing the pride pin on my jacket & using "Religious freedom" as a justification for packing up and leaving me to bleed out.

That's pretty reductio ad absurdum, and not a very good one. It has not and will not ever happen. The cake argument isn't bullshit simply because its a slippery slope, and one we shouldn't travel down. What else can we force private citizens to do? How do we enforce it? Are you advocating for more or less a state sponsored gay rights stasi, silently, but publically destroying all who go against the will of the homo-motherland? (THAT is how you do reductio ad absurdum)

 

[The Knife's Husbando]

(THAT is how you do reductio ad absurdum)

No, apparently you just talk out your ass, as you are doing.

The anti-LBGT arguments are over. The anti-LGBT crowd lost.

I'll admit, it'd be totally nice if everyone could just be chill, But with the healthy homophobic demographic still alive and well in America, it isn't going to happen. These laws have been made to protect people from bigotry.

 

[MrCKMongler had cybersex with ADF lol]

No, apparently you just talk out your ass, as you are doing.

The anti-LBGT arguments are over. The anti-LGBT crowd lost.

I'll admit, it'd be totally nice if everyone could just be chill, But with the healthy homophobic demographic still alive and well in America, it isn't going to happen. These laws have been made to protect people from bigotry.

Nice debate tactic. Can you call me a poopyhead now?

Anyway, I'm not saying the anti-lgbt crowd is right, I'm saying some litigious people on the LGBT are wrong in their methods, not their message.

 

[Danger]

My point is you can't FORCE acceptance. You GAIN acceptance. You gain it through work, education, and outreach. Not bullshit lawsuits. Protected classes ensure that everyone in them will never be fully accepted. Well done.

Pretty sure lawsuits had a lot to do with the end of segregation and discriminatory laws against the black community. No one should loose their job because of race, sexuality, or gender. America has been trending to be more accepting of the LGBT community for awhile now, not all of that is the because of lawsuits. In general more people are open about their sexuality, more people know someone who's part of the LGBT community at least compared to lets say the 70s or 80s. A good deal of companies have been establishing their own anti-discrimination policies without prompting from state or federal governments. A survey of Fortune 500 companies in April of 2013 found 91% of Fortune 500 companies had policies protecting against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Your right that the people in the LGBT community are going to have more to do with the changing perceptions than lawsuits and legislation, but there are some things we do need lawsuits and legislation for.

 

[JU 199]

What else can we force private citizens to do?

All sorts of shit actually, like paying taxes, building codes, healthcare. etc

Why does it always come down to cake shops and gay people? It feels selective.

6. Meant to put Arab, but you are splitting hairs. Yes, I could refuse sale of the fertilizer legally, and report the attempted
purchase to DHS.

Erm, even with the recent attacks the possibility of an Islamic domestic terrorist killing people is very low. An Arab man buying fertilizer in your establishment is probably just someone buying fertilizer. No need to read into it.

 

[AnOminous]

Erm, even with the recent attacks the possibility of an Islamic domestic terrorist killing people is very low. An Arab man buying fertilizer in your establishment is probably just someone buying fertilizer. No need to read into it.

There are very stringent regulations on the sale, storage and use of ammonium nitrate fertilizer for precisely this reason, although the main notorious use of it in an ANFO device was the entirely homegrown, white Timothy McVeigh.

(Though I suppose "stringent" might be overstating it as they are apparently fairly easily circumvented. The fact that it's also used in meth manufacture means people who have a lot of it tend to be very protective of it in rural areas where a lot of that goes on.)