https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/03/24/disney-marvel-threaten-to-pull-business-from-georgia-over-religious-liberty-bill/
>its a large corporations interfere with democracy episode
You know maybe the world needs a place where people can act out their discriminatory beliefs. This PC world is just going suffocate peoples beliefs be they right or wrong morally and it's all going to erupt eventually and it's not going to be pretty.
>Shitfaced rambler signing out
What does Disney do in Georgia lmao
Empty threat
Govonor Deal already said he was going to veto it.
>>67412408
probably why they made the empty threat
>>67411660
>its a large corporations interfere with democracy episode
Oh? And where is Disney enforcing law here?
Seems to me it's making a business decision to refuse service based on personal morals. So what's the problem?
>It's a retarded /pol/ shitposter uses words like "interferes" to refer to uses of freedom that trigger them
>Too stupid to understand the embarrassing hypocrisy of it
>>67411660
And how many films has Disney made in the great state of Georgia?
>>67412388
Film a lot of their movies I believe. Georgia has become quite the hotspot for filming.
>>67412388
>>67412496
Guardians 2.
>>67412388
I live in atlanta
Avengers was filmed here and so is civil war
GOTG 2 is supposed to happen here as well
Atlanta is finally getting a lot of hollywood over here, the losses would be colossal
>>67411660
>interfering with democracy
The mom and pop bakery turning away a faggot is freedom but a corporation refusing to do buisiness where they'll have consumer backlash is oppression?
Nobody's forcing them to draft the bill, Nathan Deal was never gonna sign it anyway, grow up
>>67411660
Man I hate Disney. Walt Disney is rolling in his grave.
>>67412388
All the recent Marvel movies have been filmed there.
Deal has already made it pretty clear that he won't sign it
also nothing is unethical about what Disney is doing. it's no different from someone saying they'll move if state passes X law.
>>67411660
materialism is the way of life of the middle class, without the class nor efficiency of the goods available for the aristocracy.The middle class is a bastard of the bourgeoisie and the poor: the middle class has every desire of the bourgeoisie, bourgeoisie which works far less and having far more means, with just a bit more means of the poor in order to satisfy their desires.
Without thinking, the liberals have created billions of people who end up in the middle class which is good at nothing but work then dwell in the industry of leisure.
The beautiful feat is that this industry becomes now the moral agent as provider of goods, not (no longer) as the recruiter of moral agents.
They did not think of what to do with them, to the point where, in Occident, the middle class is the most crucial problem of the liberal democracies today. When the hippies were trendy, galvanized by the euphoria of the victory over the nazism, off the implicit authoritative system that is the liberalism, the middle class boomed and the question remains of their utility in the democracy. Indeed, thus far, an especially now in order to support the baby boomers for at least another twenty years, the middle class is only good at working to earn money to live day after day.
long before, in the times of the greeks, until the classical liberals decided that an individual is a willing being (willing more or less secretly according the Reason which is posited to be more or less shared), there was not really an personal identity.
Walt pls back ;_;
>Disney being obsessed with some fly-through state
Georgia is like 50% white, who cares about those niggers?
>>67411660
Disney is a private business. /pol/ would love them if they had an anti-gay stance, as is there right to have, but I guess they're just libercucks because they are on the other side of the debate :^)
Hello to my fellow ATLiens.
>>67412574
Excuse me, waiter, the menu says this is supposed to come with meatballs. Where are my meatballs?
then the personal identity was taken seriously by the classical liberal, once they god rid of God as an hypothesis, as somebody ''enlightened'' who consent autonomously through his free choices. The classical liberal secularized the notion of Will which was utterly link to the deity. This results in the absence of understanding what Will is, even a few centuries later. This lack of comprehension of the posited Will supposedly found in every individual shows very well in the violation of the will. The liberals cannot give us a protocol to verify whether somebody is willing to do something, besides the person explicitly consenting regularly to another party [think of rape whereon feminism lives which materializes as the ''rape alarm''].....
then
>identity of one person relates to the company as an employee
[it means that ''to work for such company'' is how the peasant expresses himself]
then
>identity = the good that we purchase (the company disappears from the foreground picture)
[it means that ''to have such good'' was a statement]
now
>identity = the good that we purchase ***as a regular Client of/recipient of the service from*** our favourite company. the good is no longer material, but rather the brand and what principles the company has decided that the brand must convey
[it means that ''to have the goods from such company'' is the new expression of an individual]
dude contrarianism lmao
>>67412610
the great fallacy is that the clients believe that the company is a moral agent, when it is not. The company makes the client believe that the company is a moral agent.
[in passing, Google recently changes his slogan ''do not be evil'' into ''do the right thing'', showing thus the beginning of the authoritative google]
[Mozilla fired a CEO because Mozilla chose to refuse his personal opinion on some gay marriage]
[Amazon put a little drawing of the effel tower, for a few hours, after the events in Paris]
The individual (the populace consituting the middle class (working mannually or not)) in our society is
-a citizen, but everybody now understands that politics in democracy is sterile
-an employee, but everybody now understands that they are only clogs.
-a consumer, where we can act morally (anything beyond the human rightS) with the companies trying to be our friends and trying to give us something else than pure leisure
->today, I can be moral in giving a few monies, to some charity in the american sense, after I buy my disposable goods at the supermarket.
Of course, the entertainment industry feeds on this in exposing this too, see south park s19.
=>The morality is equally done by the companies who manage to pass themselves as moral agents towards their clients= We consume and it is GOOD to consume as long as we purchse our goods from a company who explicitly advocates for the human RightS.
The law just says that businesses don't have to serve gay people. That may be a shitty thing for a business to do, but the whole point of capitalism is that they can do whatever the fuck they want, and if you don't like it then you can not give them your business.
>>67412642
Where does this come from ?
What are the practices of today, in a the various political systems, typically some republics or parlementary systems, institutionalizing the Human rights ?
there is the productions of concepts, theories, models by the intellectuals and there is the leisure. the liberalization of thoughts, the free thinkers leads to the loss of objectivity which leads the objectivists to revise his work and create the sterile inter-subjectivity created by the rationalist-liberal to save himself from his sterility of his faith in objectivity, rationality, reality, human rights.
This is the indirect result of the detrimental divide between what is now philosophy [which splits into analytic supposedly close to science and continental/phenomenology which is posited to be far form science] and what is now physics [which splits into theoretical physics and experimental physics]
This is why the rationalism-realism is the default stance wherein the students leaving the university have faith. These students hardly question this faith until late in their careers, and, for the few who question their stances, generally, when they reconsider, it goes either into scepticism, or into pathetic chatting on fields such as philosophy and theology that they do not master at all, especially when they go in the entertainment industry in doing conferences, selling books and documentaries...
the same applies to biology thanks to the trendy mechanism [not theory] of the evolution. Many do not reflect on what they say and happily claim that, for instance, we are on earth to spread our genes.
atlien here, quentin tarantino was spotted cruising around earlier. its so white here now we the new LA
>>67411660
yet their paid shill have no problem in calling someone who dislikes tfa a faggot
>>67412683
We no longer ask what are ''things'', but how these things are expressed in society (or rather, how we talk about these things, in knowing that these things are manufactured by us). For instance we no longer ask what is intelligence, but what passes as intelligent. We no longer ask what is moral, but how morality is expressed in our language.
Science, math, logic is from now about efficiency of predictions, without the rationalist knowing why he wants to talk about predictions beforehand. this relegates science too criterion of ranking theories, models, concepts which are sooner or later taken by the industrial technique (there is a scientific technique) for mass production.
Reminder that not a single scientist can prove that science gives truth, objectivity and access to reality. At best rationality gives you efficiency, in getting what you want. but then, the question is what do you want, and why do you want what do you want ?
the scientist does not even know what he is doing. without this questioning, without philosophy, the scientist is like a hammer salesman telling you that you hammers are great, and that you need one, that you buy a few hammers without even knowing why you buy them, and why you listen the salesman in the first place.
>>67412597
Atlanta is bordering on being majority black.
>>67412722
this sterility leads the rationalist-liberal to fetishize, the day before yesterday the books, yesterday the screen of the calculators, today the screen of the entertainment industry, for the greatest fantasy of this kind of rationalist is to merge what he calls the knowledge (for the sake of knowledge itselfsince the rationalist-liberal is classical rationalist)) and its free access, praised by the pure rationalist, into what he calls the leisure, praised by the pure liberal-libertarian (or even the liberal-libertarian (typically from the middle class) who love to think as himself as a rationalist).
Of course, the screen individualizes further the society. There is a unification of the content, that everybody watches the identical content nearly at the same moment for the biggest events (think of the world cup) (in order to live the present moment with others, as it hyped by the creators of the events), on different screens. The screen makes concrete the history. there is now the privacy of emails that the historians can no longer access, as opposed to the written letters accessible after the death of the recipients but paradoxically people still expose their lives on their screens, but the content is precisely the one delivered by the leisure industry. The history is now done by the companies, with their archives being the new inheritance of the humanity. There are even museum of companies, precisely for the lack of rituals in a liberal society.
The failure of science as cement of the society is the best illustrated with the climate change where
-scientists disagree amongst themselves
-the populace have no idea, nor time, nor the will, of how to learn the various models for the climate
-the populace sees two sides on the subject and has no idea on who to follow, since, after all, science is always about faith in the scientist. [the rationalist hates this because the poulace does trust always somebody who appears as a sophist to the scientist]
>liberals always talk about hating corporations and them being allowed to influence politics with money
>completely ok with it when its a stance they like
>>67412759
Let's go older still, where we see that the legal structure was created to precisely render impotent the population. The rationlist believed that the **right** structure was the resolution on how to manage a population. [Deleuze is famous for his disappointment in the human rights]
In the following, we do not really distinguish between the libertarians and the liberals, they are enough alike on anything but the fiscality to belong to the same doctrine.
The change of the world for the better à la Human rights remains inside the occidental humanism from the enlightenment which takes the political form of the classical liberalism. The moral behaviour is now atomised up to the individual, but it remains in the logic of the liberalism since the sole duty, the sole moral behaviour today is a minimum: that each person must agree on the human rights, the constitution of the United Nations. Beyond this, there is nothing mandatory from each individual, and since those rights state that nobody should impose their views on others, well at least views that are beyond the minimum of the rights, each individual can only affirm himself through himself. Each person remains impotent towards others; once more, impotent only when the moral principles are not those of the human rights: I can oblige people not to steal, but I cannot oblige them not to lie say [to lie is not a illegal outside of a court], or even less be courageous. Even then, the power of each person has been depleted for my minimum duty is to respect the human rights, but whenever I see somebody which does violate them, the republic says that I must not intervene directly if I wish to be covered by its rules; the republic dilutes, by law,
leave my shitty state alone, disney!!
>>67412792
Each citizen must respect the individual rights; each person can adopt whatever other moral principles; nonetheless, these other moral principles must be compatible, not against the initial mandatory human rights. What principles remain?
It is a clever system: the rights tell we that we can do anything in accord with the rights, even go beyond them. However, when we look beyond them, we remain with nothing. The set of principles compatibles with the human rights as well as the principles going beyond them is empty; or rather, it is not empty for each individual, but empty once we incorporate the social dimension of morality — let us view the morality as essentially social, just like the liberals today want other people who are not liberal to be converted to liberalism.
For illustration, let us take the charity, the christian charity, the buddhist karuna, and other charity in other religions, instead of the american charity consisting of giving a few millions over a decade: the charity is not in any constitution presently, the charity is compatible with the human rights, we can be charitable ourself as much as we want, we can erect the charity as the foremost principle of our moral, but cannot impose this onto others. What is the point of one charitable person in one nation? What is a charitable person, if nobody wish to receive the charity? Of course, the liberal bet on the “common sense” the “universally shared reason” to lit the human behaviours, once postulated that every human is a willing being before all; and the liberal to show people the right manner to live. A liberal who would be charitable would bet that once other people see him being charitable, those other people would become charitable themselves.
>>67412830
That's what they're doing.
>>67412788
well yeah because corporations influincing politics are usually
>lol dont let people make their own choices because magic sky daddy says no
>>67412664
>The law just says that businesses don't have to serve black people. That may be a shitty thing for a business to do, but the whole point of capitalism is that they can do whatever the fuck they want, and if you don't like it then you can not give them your business.
Also the wording of the bill is too abstract to ever be taken seriously. Anyone who's ever taken a course in constitutional law knows how fucking easy it would be to abuse "sincerely held religious belief". That crosses any sort of christian or gay issue and goes to lunacy. Sharia law is a "sincerely" held belief by a number of people.
>>67412832
The liberalismS numb any morality beyond the liberal morality, because it destroys the social component of the morality. When a person comes up with a morality, she believes that she is right, on the right track, she wants other to abide by it; just like when beauty strikes us, we want to communicate it, until we understand that many people do not care or even find ugly what we consider beautiful. The question becomes what is morality when everybody can have his little morality, but nobody can act it out, since acting it out involves at least two persons, a social link, social link which is itself regulated by the human rights, human rights which say that we must not do anything incompatible with them, so even less for a lambda citizen to tell other people what to do.
The classical liberalism and all other liberal doctrines which are more implicitly authoritative castrate each person in the nations where it is implemented. This is logical from such system, where the main motive is really to deprive each person of as many powers as possible, in order to have a stable political system: no rulers, no “tyrants”, no coup d’état from any subject. In democracy which is liberal, the commoner must not have power, at least explicitly, at least not a real power, that is to say, the power to change the system into something else than liberalism. There must not be a concentration of power, even less in one person.
>>67411660
How it Disney preventing democracy by exercising their right to boycott?
>>67412565
hopefully georgia sues disney for refusing to do business in their state because clearly disney is run by backwards bigots
ITS 2016 PEOPLE
>>67412595
>some fly-through state
google busiest airport in the world
>>67412865
At best, the persons sharing the charity as moral principle can gather themselves, when they have the means, to create an outcry or only shout out in the streets their little slogans to attract the attention of others and hope that they will convert many people, and do their charity, but nothing much more than acquiring the means to propose a law that the representatives of the people will adopt or reject. The persons who will not appreciate charity will fight the draft of the law and it will be either accepted or rejected. To talk more or less becomingly in form or content is the most powerful social act that an individual or a group of individual sharing some interest can perform in a liberal democracy.
What we call ammorality today is in fact still moral: that people should do whatever they materially can in the limits of the human rights. We talk about being there for other people, but the liberalism takes care of it since the beginning: the crucial commitment in a liberal democracy is the one of paying taxes. Even the libertarian agrees formally on this. This quantized social link is the commitment, the agreement of the citizen to the republic [or the phony monarchies that we have today]; once we have paid their taxes willy nilly, we are basically done. This is the power of the classical liberalism, the one of a minimal commitment where we basically do nothing but pay taxes and call the police as soon as we see an infraction to the legal code. And nobody can reprimand us for doing this, nobody can reprimand us for not doing more.
>>67412862
A business that didn't serve black people would go out of business so fucking quickly.
>>67412882
Hartfield jackson's traffic is a motherfucker
>>67412908
Job centers seem to be doing well.
>>67412908
the US government is doing pretty well
>>67412900
The atomization up to the individual could be seen as developed to its fullest, but the internet changes a bit the situation. It is true that the middle class remains all about leisure, especially if they are poor and the companies manage to satisfy their desires (with cheap goods and services), but the internet permits to a few to develop their local democracies in their little towns.
The internet is also a trap, because contrary to what many said, each globalization goes form the rich to the poor. When it was about the rail network, people thought that the little villages could at last communicate and sell their goods to the big cities; it is the converse which happened in majority: the big cities developed its supply to the little villages. As soon as a communication is established between something with resources and with something poorer, the hippies believe that the poorer will at last benefit from this. No, it is not like this. The flux goes from the resourceful to the weak. People say that internet permits the little village in africa to sell their goods to the rich europeans. It is true, but the demand for these products will be very low. These artisans are producing unique goods such as engravings, wood carvings... mostly art that is very low priority for most people. The majority of the exchanges remains from the rich to the poor. Internet permits the africans to buy often the cheap goods sold by occidental companies. In europe, the africans of the internet becomes the little developers who program an application for the mobile devices.
>>67412469
This bill is preserving freedom of religion you fucking retard.
>>67412933
The liberalism is the most effective doctrine thanks to it marketization of every human activity (beyond the Human rights 9but hten it dpeends what we put inside them). If we take the hippies, they adhered, for the least bourgeois, immediately after their few years of amusements, to the incentive of wealth and became the baby boomers having all the fruits of a democracy. The recent movement Occupy WS remained infertile, even less fertile than the hippies; we even find the mask of the anonymous as a merchandise. Same thing today with the eco-tourism: the tourism for the middle class wishing to help the destitute abroad, so that we have now all the exoticism of a trip with the morality assured. Same in everyday life: When we pay on ebay some chinese good, sold for double by some western company, we can give 1 euro to some unknown charity. To join the clergy is now a strong statement, probably misunderstood or ridiculed, after the liberal achievement to turn the liberal democracy into a secular one, a feat in their view, something whereof they remain proud dozens of decades later.
>>67412971
>freedom of religion = freedom to discriminate
>>67412847
you got me there
>>67412929
YES
>>67412974
The persons no longer believe in a nation with hundreds of people just like them in it. The nations are now too big in demography, with too much plurality of views, tastes, characters, affinities, but not politically since the republics do their job well in formatting the children into good little republicans, but rather on the simpler questions, which are the hardest and so crucial that a slight modification of the phrasing can change the solutions of the problems exposed; that is to say, the meaning of why we are here, of what to do outside of work, besides enjoying ourselves. People no longer believe in developing themselves through their career exclusively. The blue collars no longer become white collars: in order to become a white collar, we must go to the university, purchase a degree and more importantly, purchase a network. With the race about diplomas, people are more and more “educated”, or rather instructed, but they still compete between each other. In passing, the bet of the classical liberals was really to instruct and educate every child to form a good intellectual republican citizen, enlightened about the issues of his time, in order to contribute well to society, especially via the taxes and the votes. Off the record, the goal of the public instruction is to put employees on the job market.
Remains the leisure, where at least, people find pleasures and, in good hedonist, can identify with those. To consume is quite great: it gives us a sense of power, a sense of control of the situation; for once, explicitly, we decide what to do with our money; we are in charge and it feels good; even better, it becomes moral thanks to the hippies monetizing their moral activities.
>>67412908
The pool store is doing well
>interferes with democracy
What?
Private companies can do whatever they want. They can choose to not do business in a state if they think it affects their overall image.
>>67413009
The lack of praxis is the sole effect of the faith in a rationalism supporting a doctrine (religious or not), sometimes more or less blend in some bastardization of empiricism, in order to acquire knowledge, whereas the traditional quest of the rationalist, especially the one who qualifies himself as secular, since this is all that he has, to link the productions of the mind, which are the abstractions, to the « states of the world » remains sterile, thus far. And the desire for western academic to find a political philosophy in the asian doctrines (appealing because seen as exotic) --- that is to say to construct and then having faith in such political structure in sanctifying it, à la Human Rights --- shows how deeply misguided he is through another tragedy of the occidental rationalism claiming to be a occidental humanist and seeking some salvation through some concrete objectivity via a universalism, since, let's face it, he more or less understands that his Human rights are nothing but universal in a performative manner...
The problem of the occidental humanism is the explicit lack of praxis of the human rights, either a personal praxis or even a social one, since there are very few rituals in any liberal doctrine; and the faith in its imposition on the children in formatting them through the national education demonstrates solely his despair. This education could a good strategy, but given that they still need the justice and the police today, it fails de facto.
>its a large corporations interfere with democracy episode
It's more like the free market deciding what it wants to do.
This is a corporation deciding where it wants to put its money.
Free market, bitches.
>>67413029
its pretty distasteful on disney's part regardless on where you stand on the issue of private companies being allowed to serve whom they choose but its not interfering seeing as the governor wasn't going to sign it anyway
(unless disney is "donating" money to him, in which case it would be interfering but I can't imagine disney cares that much about the issue)
>>67412908
It could not legally exist, anon.
That being said, gays have no such constitutional right to service and if you lived in the deep south you'd know that a vendor that refused to serve fags would florish
which leaves it up to civil statutes
if GA legislation passes the bill antigay buisinesses will exist, if they don't pass it, they will not. Your fantasy of a world where people ignore buisiness that discriminate and go about their day is ideal but unsubstantiated by modern history
>>67413029
They're refusing service to a state for their beliefs in allowing businesses to refuse service for their beliefs.
>>67412549
Films are NOT the lucrative situation for locations they're sold as. These giant corporations get tax breaks denied to other businesses - some of them quite large - while a kidding having to work with unions, and most locations get zip. But hey, the governor and other assorted gangsters get to hang out with mooovie stars on the public dime, so all is well! Fuck Disney and fuck every faggot everywhere. (Please! the faggots reply)
>>67412882
>but it's a delta hub!
Yeah that just means it's fly-through territory. Literally the layover capital of the world. Nobody actually stays in Georgia.
>>67413076
in a free market this wouldn't need to be a law at all in the first place.
>>67412388
Georgia offers tax exemptions for people to film there. They have all their capeshit movies plus the walking dead
Walt Disney must roll in his grave every day to see what his little animation studio turned into
>>67413142
Well yeah film subsidies are controversial and there's a question of why georgia would even WANT them
but that's for another thread, anon asserted that disney didnt fuck with GA at all
>>67413155
>t's fly-through territory.
>through - continuing or valid to the final destination
Technically they still have to stop and go so Im still sorta kinda maybe probably right
>its a bunch of globalists try to undermine a nation's sovereignty episode
>>67412574
Nice meme
>jewsney will take arab money
>they'll do business in countries known for human rights violations
>they won't film their movies in a state that proposes fags shouldn't be married in churches
>>67411660
>Disney leaving states because those areas have a right to decline service to gays
>While continuing to distribute their products in countries, such as United Arab Emirates and Indonesia, that not only denies the existence of homosexuals, but actively arrests or executes those they find who are.
Either Disney goes all the way with this, or they're hypocrites, using this only as a marketing move to further their greedy interests.
>>67412496
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_shot_in_Georgia_(U.S._state)
>>67411660
BASED GEORGIA
>>67412729
Explains why they were so quick to drop the napalm in the walking dead.
>>67413467
>but Hollywood definitely isn't trying to silence all Christians!
>>67413124
>its pretty distasteful on disney's part
what? how? How is it distasteful? it's just business. Disney does not want to do business with a state that goes against their stance on discrimination.
Why would Disney want to make themselves look shitty.
>>67413272
Not really, He was an irredeemable power hungry asshole
>>67413928
But he hated jews
>>67413800
>how?
Because it's trying to strong arm the democratic process and force representatives to vote the way it wants.
If it just fucked off after the fact when the law passed it would be different but this is threatening and posturing to have lawmakers go a certain way which is dickish behavior.
>>67413963
So did plenty of irredeemable assholes.
>>67413800
>stance on discrimination.
Sorry, but firing all your white/american IT guys, then force them to train their HB-1 visa Indian replacements is also discrimination.
Suck a fat one. Disney has sucked for 20 years now in management.
>>67413000
Please explain how this is being "discriminatory".
Oh wait, it isn't, it's just a Liberal buzzword.
>>67413467
Based anon
>>67413995
>>If it just fucked off after the fact when the law passed it
so give no warning? and just let the state lose millions from working with them? I think it's only fair for the state be aware they'd be losing out on a lot of business.
It's not interfering with the democratic process, apparently they already said they were going to veto it before Disney said anything.
Disney doesn't give a shit if Georgia decides to pass their ridiculous laws, they're only concerned about the business side of things. If they pass the law then Disney will move somewhere else, they're not going to stay and fight it.
Daily reminder that the Beverly Hilton where the Golden Globes is hosted is owned by the Sultan of Brunei who criminalized all homosexual acts.
>Atlanta: The Lost Empire
>niggers were kings and shit, built advanced civilization and stuff
>everybody is starving
>they can't read the language they created
>A Walt Disney Movie
>>67413467
I wish someone famous or popular would point this out.
>chick fil a not support gay
>chick fil a is goat, they can do whatever the fuck they want they are a private business
>disney support gay
>boo disney, large corporations interfere with democracy
/pol/ in a nut shell
The only reason Disney films in Georgia is because it's cheaper to film there than it is anywhere else, it's an empty threat as long as Georgia is still cheap they wouldn't move it's all PR crap
>>67411660
But GA has awesome tax incentives for filming. Doesn't Disney need them more than they need Disney?
Not even an SJW but I don't believe how people could deny gay rights in this day and age
>>67414316
Could it be any more obvious that youre a shitskin?
>>67411660
GOOD KEEP JEWS OUT OF MY GEORGIA
>>67414371
and the """logic""" behind it is just as insane.
People want the freedom to stop other people's freedom based on some asinine belief system.
Oh boy, it looks like it's "A Tough Choice for /pol/: the Thread"
Is it wrong for the government to interfere with businesses, and should businesses have the right to stand up for their personal beliefs in a free market?
Or should the government step in and force companies to not uphold their personal beliefs, in a non-free, government-controlled market?
I love how hypocritical the neo-right is. They firmly believe Chik-Fil-A is right for standing up against them damn gays, and no one should be able to tell 'em different--wait, shit what's Disney doing, supporting the gays?! Make them stop! PLEASE, SOMEONE, FORCE THEM TO STOP!!!
>The law isn't giving me massive preferential treatment. Help! I'm being discriminated against!
>>67412358
That's not how fascism works.
>>67414457
>creating this false-dilemma
Nobody ITT is saying Disney should be forced to continue working in Georgia.
Calm down.
>>67414481
>preferential
what
>you walk into a store
>want to buy thing
>"hey you!get out of my store!"
>"what?...why"
>"I don't like them queers in here"
>"how did you come to the conclusion I'm gay"
>"you look gay"
>"prove that i'm gay"
>"I DON'T NEED PROOF REEEE"
literally retarded as fuck m8 how does that even work.
>>67414200
>so give no warning? and just let the state lose millions from working with them?
Yes, that's exactly what they're supposed to do, shut up and let democracy happen.
>It's not interfering with the democratic process
It's literally what's happening.
> they already said they were going to veto it before Disney said anything.
Doesn't matter.
> their ridiculous laws
Can you cite the ways in which it is "ridiculous"?
>>67414316
As far as I know Chick-fil-a wasn't trying to change anyone's vote, the owners were just Christian and didn't support homosexuality.
>>67414552
Can you please show me where people are being kicked-out of convenience-stores on suspicion of being gay?
I'm starting to think a lot of these problems could be easily resolved by teaching children that just because you are born somewhere doesn't mean that place belongs to you. Not in a be more accepting kind of way mind, more of an "if you don't like it and you are in a minority group that feels oppressed just go somewhere else" kind of way.
>Bill would prevent homosexuals from suing Christian business for choosing not to perform services, as is their right
>this is somehow discriminatory
>>67414514
Go on /pol/ right now, look at the threads up on the subject, and tell me that again with a straight face.
Do it, my man, I need the laugh! :^)
>>67414552
Any store should be free to cater to whatever clientèle it wants for whatever reason it wants. Will it piss me off if a store owner says "gtfo nigger!"? Sure, but I still think they should have the right to be racist pieces of shit though.
>>67414371
>gay rights
Literally nothing being discussed is a "right".
>>67414646
explain to me how this law would work. explain please.
Do store owners just accuse people of being gay and throw them out.
how do they prove they're gay.
>>67412862
Sharia Law is the government following Islamic guidelines. That's a little different from a Christian bakery not making a cake for a lesbian wedding.
>>67412850
Nigger, are you serious? Corporations are the ones enabling faggots.
>>67414734
>explain to me how this law would work.
A business (say, maybe, a cake-shop) can't be financially crucified because they decline to make cakes for political-causes they don't agree with.
That's how the law would work.
>>67411660
How is Disney in a position to threaten an entire country?
>>67414798
And you know damn well that if the law doesn't pass all that's going to happen is businesses will just say "it's because we don't like you and think you look stupid" as opposed to saying "you're a fagit".
>>67414798
>) can't be financially crucified because they decline to make cakes for political-causes
so they would decline to work for a gay wedding (that's the example you're using), the owners would be made aware of the client's sexual orientation in that scenario. but in cases where the client's sexual orientation isn't apparent or discussed (every day situation) it wouldn't work.
how would that work anon, it would be a clusterfuck. imagine trying the conversation. so you're saying all you have to do is say "i'm not gay" and then they would let you buy an item?
Anon this is all kinds of retarded.
>>67414916
>gays
>ever being quiet about it
How long until the government boycotts Disney?
>>67415013
not an answer.
So all you have to do essentially is lie about being gay. You can't ask someone to prove it.
this law is flawed and unnecessary.
>>67414916
not that anon but no anon your'e the retard.
The point isn't if they can or cannot play 20 questions with every client, it's that if for whatever reason a business owner finds out a client is gay and does not want to provide or continue to provide said client with a service, they cannot be sued for doing so. They will still face whatever negative blowback comes from their actions, but they will not face legal consequences. There's literally nothing at all wrong with this and your'e still getting pissed off.
Like a retarded faggot.
>Corporations are a disgusting cancer on the nation! How dare they make money! Profit is inherently theft! Why aren't they paying 80% margins in taxes! Occupy Wall Street!
>Wait, one of the biggest, greediest corporations in the world agrees with my Liberal agenda? I WILL LITERALLY GIVE THAT CORPORATION A BLOWJOB. I GOTTA' POST ABOUT HOW BASED DISNEY IS ON MY FACEBOOK.
Liberals.
>>67415074
There was that lesbian couple that sued a Christain bakery out of business because they refused to bake them a wedding cake. this is what this law is trying to prevent, people losing their business because of a bunch of uppity dykes targeting them.
>>67415097
Seriously
A business can ALREADY decline you service for any other reason like simply because they don't like you. You have no problem with that but but if their reason for not liking you is based on their religious beliefs THEN it's a fucking problem.
They think it's a sinful act, you might as well prosecute a Muslim masseuse for not wanting to have a butcher as a client on the off chance they might touch pig blood residue.
>>67415097
>for whatever reason a business owner finds out a client is gay and does not want to provide or continue to provide said client with a service
what proof???
if want to buy a fucking cookie at a store and the owner doesn't like gay people. does he only refuse service to the people he knows are gay? How would they even find out, they literally meet them for 5 minutes. So any gay person can simply lie about being gay and get away with doing business.
Or are you telling me that these owners will only refuse when they know 100% that their customer is gay. you are saying that people won't abuse the shit out of this and just call anyone they don't like "faggot" and throw them out.
businesses should be allowed to include/exclude whatever demographics they want and customers should be able to vote with their wallet.
>>67415243
>what proof
They don't need proof is the whole point
A BUSINESS CAN TELL YOU TO FUCK OFF FOR WHATEVER REASON
IT'S A PRIVATE ENTERPRISE
IT'S THEIR WORK AND MONEY THAT GOES INTO PURCHASING THE PRODUCTS AND ESTABLISHMENT, THEY SHOULDN'T NEED A REASON TO TELL YOU TO FUCK OFF YOU UPPITY FAGGOT.
>>67415224
> is based on their religious beliefs THEN it's a fucking problem.
Why? Why can't they run their own business how they see fit? Why do fags have to have everyone cater to them?
>>67412460
>a business decision to refuse service based on personal morals
lol
the hypocrisy of it all.
fucking Disney and anyone against the bill are all hypocrites.
>>67415243
> How would they even find out, they literally meet them for 5 minutes.
Doesn't matter.
> So any gay person can simply lie about being gay and get away with doing business.
Probably
>Or are you telling me that these owners will only refuse when they know 100% that their customer is gay.
Maybe maybe not I suppose that's on a business by business level
>you are saying that people won't abuse the shit out of this and just call anyone they don't like "faggot"
Yes, in fact I can guarantee you they won't for two reasons, they can ALREADY DO THIS as long as they aren't discriminating based on age, sex or gender, They can literally just say they don't like your shirt and they'd be fine.
Second it would be bad for business.
>>67415203
So they want the law to protect them from negative repercussions of those actions.
almost as if they want "extra rights", this is too ironic.
>>67415407
They don't want extra anything. They want to be guaranteed the right to practice their business without the threat of frivolous lawsuits from opportunistic queers and liberals.
>>67412908
No
Businesses that don't serve blacks are better off in every way
Blacks are theives, blacks ruin shit, always hard to get blacks to pay, blacks keep other customers away, etc
Thats why they had to force it
And of course, no liberal bats an eye at the astonishing cost in human lives, dollars, extra work, etc
As long as it doesn't effect them, liberals are content to destroy.
>>67414668
See: The civil rights, when the jews determined that no, private property & freedom do not exist
>>67415243
the bill is to protect their religous right not to participate in any gay activity. thats all.
they were trying to force them to break their religious code.
but even then any business doesn't have to serve you for any reason. even now.
>>67415501
Yeah it would especially in the South where Blacks are a sizeable part of the population and the majority in a lot of places. Someone would open a business across the road that did allow blacks and they'd torpedo the business that didn't. Especially true now that local politics are largely irrelevant to the business world in this age of globalization.
>>67415587
Whites do not go to places infested with niggers
The hundreds of vacant malls all across America is a testament to that
You are talking some sort of fucking idiocy
There is a reason that affirmative action remains law, there is a reason that disparate impact remains, and there is a reason why "anti-discrimination" shit exists.
Noone likes blacks.
>>67415465
>They don't want extra anything.
They literally want religious people to have the exclusive right to be protected from this.
no other person can claim this right if this law passes. How is this not an extra right?
> the threat of frivolous lawsuits
this law in itself is frivolous. "Christian businesses" will operate regardless if it goes through or not.
check your PC-acceptable-beliefs privileges shitlords
>>67415650
>hurr everyone is as racist as I am and nothing you say will convince me
All right anon, black people are evil. Good for you for standing up to the evil blacks, you sure showed them.
>>67415654
>to have the exclusive right
It wouldn't be exclusive.
>no other person can claim this right if this law passes
Yes they would after the next lawsuit established a precedent.
>this law in itself is frivolous
No it isn't you're just an uppity faggot.
>>67415654
>religious people
That's a pretty broad category. It isn't instilling a special privilege on some minority group. It's strengthening already existing legal protections.
>>67415735
>Literally tens of millions of whites have fled cities/neighborhoods because blacks moved in
Kill yourself retard.
Businesses that wish to succeed will always try to exclude blacks, both from their workforce & from their clients.
>>67415654
>They literally want religious people to have the exclusive right to be protected from this.
Tell me where it's exclusive. Last I checked it wasn't.
>this law in itself is frivolous. "Christian businesses" will operate regardless if it goes through or not.
Apparently fucking not. The last time a Christian business stuck to their guns, the government tried to make an example out of them by destroying their assets to punish their thought-crime.
>The bill protects religious leaders from being forced to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies and individuals from being forced to attend such events.
You mean it would be illegal to force churches to perform gay weddings?! IN THE CURRENT YEAR?!
>>67415821
Sure anon, your'e completely right about everyone hating all them big bad black people. You sure are sticking it to those gangstas.
>I want special treatment because I choose to suck cock
>>67415857
That is a blatant infringement on the separation of church and state.
It's clear that the leftists just want to kill off Christianity because their fedoras need tipping.
>>67415863
Thats how the world works
Like I said, theres a reason all this pro-nigger shit remains law, and despite decades of forced integration schools/neighborhoods are more segregated than ever.
>>67415909
Yes anon, it's all them blacks and minorities being evil. you're stopping them though, you're a good man.
oy vey wouldn't want to have to make a movie where 1/2 of the cast isn't gay
So if I find a bakery run by blacks or faggots, I can sue them for not making a cake for my Klansman rally?
Think really fucking carefully before you answer with a "no", Liberals.
>>67415935
You sound like a nigger yourself.
>>67415974
It's always the blacks anon, they're everywhere. You should shoot someone.
>>67415909
> theres a reason all this pro-nigger shit remains law
d-democracy?
>>67415966
Racists do not deserve rights.
>>67415857
>it would be illegal to force churches to perform gay weddings
good.
Newton co. here, there's been filming going on in this county since before I was born, as far back as Dukes and In The Heat of the Night. I never thought twice about it.
Then TWD and Vampire Diaries happened. Then the tourist pandering and gentrification set in, first Porterdale and now Covington.
It seemed harmless at first but now I'm starting to get sick of it.
There's a shop on the square that sells olive oil. Organic, home made olive oil. That's it. Just olive oil. Who the duck opens up a whole store, in one of the most high value property in the city, just to sell olive oil?
On the other hand, it occasionally has its perks. Someone saw Will Ferrell at a local barbecue place a couple of weeks ago. That's kind of neat, I guess.
>>67415974
>>67415991
Shoot your walls just to make sure...
>>67415995
to be fair, that's their argument in regards to niggers as well.
Democracy doesn't go away just because you don't like how people use it.It only goes away when it stands in the way of corporate profit
>>67415993
I don't recall ever voting for it, do you?
If an accurate picture of the costs or lac of benefits were made common knowledge, it would be overturned almost immediately.
>>67415991
Theres a reason every place they live is called a ghetto
The problem is them
JOGABPP
>>67416043
>Who the duck opens up a whole store, in one of the most high value property in the city, just to sell olive oil?
Money Launderers
>>67416059
>if I didn't vote for it then it isn't democractic
Ah, so you only believe in democracy when it does what you like.
>>67416059
>Theres a reason every place they live is called a ghetto
>The problem is them
Yes anon, it's all the black people doing their voodoo and friez chikkins, you should shoot them anon, do it.
>>67416059
>Theres a reason every place they live is called a ghetto
Because the federal government left low cost housing placement up to the states, and the states decided to put it all in one place?
>>67415995
>These people are voting in elections now.
>>67416096
The point of democracy is self-government
Nothing to do with the "civil rights act" or other negro empowerment is self-government.
>>67416132
? Low cost housing aka, free homes paid for by whitey
Just another trillion dollar price tag for the white tax dollar, no biggie.
Money grows on trees after all.
>>67416153
Nah, too much video games.
If there were election ads in their video games, they might vote.
>>67412497
>>67412549
>>67412556
Why though? What's so special about Georgia?
>>67415995
Liberals are anti American
>>67416164
Likely somewhat cheaper & no unions
Maybe less beaners too
>>67416164
Everyone likes Coca-Cola
It's Cocarrific
>>67416156
>The point of democracy is self-government
No, that's anarchy and, by extension, tyranny, both which democracy was specifically invented to combat.
>>67416132
Neither of you seem to know what a ghetto is.
>>67412971
And what, boycotting things you disagree with is illegal? That's why you're a hypocrite here, you're literally arguing that someone using the same right the Bill aims to protect is "interfering with Democracy".
That street goes both ways. Just as Georgia is free to sign a bill into law as they are attempting, businesses and private entities are allowed to boycott or take legal action as they see fit.
The system is working here. It swinging in a way you don't agree with doesn't change that.
>>67415650
>>67415909
Don't be so harsh on the blacks, anon. they don't like the gays anymore than you do.
>>67411660
So? Let them. exactly what the fuck does walt disney need Georgia for anyway
the state should call Disney's bluff and all those studios as well.
they're not going to leave if the tax incentives are good. they'll be too scared to fuck up their billion dollar franchises.
>>67416200
A densely populated socioeconomic region lacking any sort of socioeconomic value.
>>67416214
It IS interfering with democracy, it is not however illegal and we're not asking for anyone to be prosecuted we just think it's a dick move.
That's it, end of story.
>>67416216
Blacks are the group with the most gays
>>67416275
we keep that on the down low though
>>67416275
Doesn't mean they approve of them.
There are plenty of upstanding, red-pilled black people who are fully aware of the problems in their community.
>>67416214
>A bill ensuring Freedom of Speech is proposed.
>A fucking corporation throws money around in order to influence the legislation in a way to get it cancelled.
>"That's sleazy corporate bullshit and subverts democracy."
>"OMG THEY ARE JUST USING THEIR FREEDOM OF SPEECH, YOU FUCKING HYPOCRITE"
>>67416259
You do realize its only interfering with democracy if one person signed it into law against the wishes of the majority, right?
People responding to the idea of such a bill in the manner Disney is, literally is the democratic process.
>>67415966
Political disagreement=/existential disagreement.
You don't choose to be born a nigger or a faggot, you do choose to be a klansman.
>>67416301
>A fucking corporation throws money around in order to influence the legislation in a way to get it cancelled.
Isn't that just lobbying and thus legal?
t. non American
>>67416350
I was born white & I choose to be proud of it
America is the rightful inheritance of all white americans, shitskins have no claim on it.
>>67416375
Yea, pretty much.
But you're talking to american teenagers. Anything they don't like it wrong. Be it niggers or corporations involved in politics.
Though separation of trade and state would be nice.
>>67416375
Why *would* this be legal though? It completely bypasses the entire democratic process and is the literal definition of fascism.
>>67416337
>You do realize its only interfering with democracy if
It's swaying the vote, it's interfering with the democratic process.
>People responding to the idea of such a bill in the manner Disney is, literally is the democratic process.
No it isn't, it's disney using it's power and wealth to influence the representatives and to do so in a threatening manner. Which we think is a dick move.
Just like Lobbyists.
>>67416301
>bill ensuring freedom of speech is proposed
>corporation says they'll make use of that freedom to arbitrarily deny service to georgians
>b-but we didn't intend that! only the gays are supposed to lose!
>>67416396
The english settlers said the same thing about the german, polish, irish, scotish, slavic, etc, etc, etc, etc. And you are mostly the latter, rather than the former.
You also kinda destroyed your own attempt at a counter-argument by using the word "choice."
>>67416403
>Why *would* this be legal though
Because politicians really like money.
Like
A lot.
>>67416418
>It's swaying the vote
By that logic campaigning is interfering with the democratic process.
>>67416396
Coolio, ever read the 14th amendment though?
>>67416375
>lobbying and thus legal?
unfortunately.
>>67416433
>False equivalence
nice argument
>>67416403
Because it was deemee necessary that corporations or any group can plead its case and concerns in front of politicians as long as they disclose it. It's supposed to crackdown on corruption.
>>67416473
I AIN'T READIN NO NIGGERLOVER COMMANDMENT
>>67416468
No because your'e not threatening the representatives with economic repercussions if they don't vote how you think they should you're just calling them names and being unpleasant.
>>67416492
The concept of a "white race" is literally a false equivilance. There is no country of Whitia. There is no "White" culture.
Good job ignoring the second part too.
>>67416507
How can a corporation plead its case? Why is it being anthropomorphized?
>>67416513
>you're just calling them names and being unpleasant.
AND Reminding everyone that they took our shit. VERY IMPORTANT
>>67416543
>Exposing yourself as a delusional marxist
>Likely supports bernie sanders
>Isn't even aware of how much blacks hate you
>>67416513
Half of every campaign is threats about what'll happen if the opponent wins.
>>67411660
>large jewish corporations
>>67416513
>your'e not threatening the representatives with economic repercussions if they don't vote how you think they should
Have you been asleep this election season? Politicians are CONSTANTLY claiming that if they're not elected, the world economy will collapse.
>>67416577
Wow, three literal boogeymen in one post.
I guess that's you bowing out graciously?
>>67416553
A corporation is recognized as a legal entity (a person) by law. If you want to know why, read up on the history of corporations, pretty interesting stuff.
>>67412460
So personal morals of a business matter when it's a liberal leaning mega-corporation, but not when a bakery doesn't want to make wedding cakes for faggots?
>>67415567
>the bill is to protect their religous right not to participate in any gay activity.
This logic makes me think that if it weren't for the Bible, the religious right would just start gay-fucking one another non-stop.
>>67416662
I'm willing to bet the gist of that development was
>holy shit look at how much money we were given to pass legislation to consider corporations legal entities (people).
>>67416662
Oh I know why. I just want to hear what the fuck people think why because it seems that so many even here just gulp all that bullshit right up.
>>67416680
so you would be ok if religion forced you to do things against your will?
>>67416612
Can't argue if you flagrantly deny reality
>>67416680
Well, yea. Look at arabs/muslims.
It's pretty fucking hard to stop men from sticking their dicks in any warm wet hole they can find.
>>67416712
>>67416728
I hope you realize that if it weren't for corporate personhood, the entire case of freedom of religious expression brought up by the Georgia bill would be completely nullified and there would be no grounds for businesses to have religious obligations.
>>67416611
>>67416579
That's not the same though because it's speculatory pandering and self promotion, what Disney is doing is a direct threat of what they will do if the representatives don't vote the way they think they should.
Which is why we all think it's dickish.
>>67416797
Isn't that his line?
>>67416679
Personal morals matter in both cases. People can choose to exercise their personal morals when they wish and others are free to call them out on it. As long as the law and the constitution isn't violated, it all just boils down to personal preferences and what you think is right whether others agree with you or not.
>>67416821
So political parties and partisan politics are also swaying the vote.
>>67416886
Not through direct threats to governing bodies.
>>67416915
So that's a yes, then.
Also lobbying.
The point being the shit you're complaining about is the foundation of the US democracy.
>>67416915
Chris Christie says hello.
>>67416940
I already explained the difference, one is politics this is a direct threat to representatives.
>>67416953
He's a dick too.
>>67416680
dumbest shit I've heard all night.
>>67416976
And so is lobbying.
The conclusion I'm kinda sorta trying to steer you towards is it is a bit fucking late to complain about interfering with democracy when the government is literally owned by corporate interests.
>>67416840
?
>>67416868
The constitution doesn't apply to businesses
The constitution applies to government.
>>67417015
>And so is lobbying
Which is also dickish behavior I don't like.
>it is a bit fucking late to complain
Nobody has to like that though and your'e acting like we're gay bashing bigots because we don't. Fuck you.
>>67416976
Donald Trump is literally campaigning on a direct threat to representatives.
>>67417094
And?
>>67417081
I'm acting like you (and everyone complaining about this) are a deluded child for only just now complaining bout democratic interference.
>>67417028
>As long as the law and the constitution isn't violated
So as long as individuals and businesses operate within the law, and politicians and political bodies uphold the constitution, everything boils down to personal preferences. If you disagree you can take it up in court.
>>67417121
So you're making a political statement. Well that's neat, good job anon you're really showing how you're one of the few smart people left.
>>67417119
And this is literally just politics as usual.
>>67417175
No it isn't, this is more overt.
Good. Religious nuts don't deserve anything.
>>67417247
neither do faggots.
>>67417274
especially nigger faggots
>>67417191
You're a dumb nigger if you think american politicians haven't been campaigning on "holding washington accountable" since forever.
>>67417173
And you're doing what?
>The bill protects religious leaders from being forced to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies and individuals from being forced to attend such events.
so why is this a bad thing? just go to someone who will marry gays...
>>67417306
I'm speaking the truth, unfettered by politics.
>its only interfering with democracy if it triggers me
good job guys.
>>67417274
Faggots are better than religious nuts.
>>67417325
Because it also allows people to fire anyone they don't like.
>>67417325
That's not how the law works. Churches aren't businesses. The bill's example is basically a huge strawman.
>>67417325
because gays and sjws are special snowflakes that everyone must obey or else.
>>67417305
>holding washington accountable
They're not doing that they're threatening to boycott the state if they don't vote their way. You're a stupid faggot if you disagree that this is shitty behavior.
>>67417365
only in faith based institutions, like a church or a catholic school, seems reasonable to me.
>>67417365
>Faggots are better...
...in the closet, yes.
>it also allows people to fire anyone they don't like
no it doesn't.
>>67417306
Congratulating you on how your'e a super smart special snowflake. I'm providing moral support.
>>67417367
>Churches aren't businesses
Then why do they always have accountants?
