Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Sumerian

Bake the cake or get fined/sued?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

Because the government has military and police power

So do private companies and with smaller government they would have even bigger ones.  There are private security forces and contractors and they have already destroyed civilian lives when challenged.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, notme said:

Thomas Paine influenced. 

https://books.google.com/books/about/Common_Sense.html?id=haE-XRpRzPEC

Besides thinking of government as a necessary evil, ...

Thanks uhty. Despite all the stuff l had in college and read since, l didn't know this started with Paine.

Edited by hasanhh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, King said:

So do private companies and with smaller government they would have even bigger ones.  There are private security forces and contractors and they have already destroyed civilian lives when challenged.  

That's illegal and shouldn't be allowed. But that's not a valid point against smaller government, because no one proposes the right to extort people. The government should exist, to protect people from such a thing, but not to protect people from being refused to be served. All you and I are arguing about is what power a business should have and what authority a government should have, not whether they should exist or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

All the government is, is a company with more strength than other companies.

That isn't true at all.  Private companies (mostly corporations) are accountable to their shareholders, which happen to be an extremely small number of people. They are not accountable to the general public and they serve a completely different purpose.  They are also extremely authoritarian in that they are run top down.  Governments in principle, especially democratically elected ones are accountable to the public.  Sure most governments are not all that democratic but they have the potential to be, private power by definition does not.

Edited by King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, King said:

That isn't true at all.  Private companies (mostly corporations) are accountable to their shareholders, which happen to be an extremely small number of people. They are not accountable to the general public and they serve a completely different purpose.  They are also extremely authoritarian in that they are run top down.  Governments in principle, especially democratically elected ones are accountable to the public.  Sure most governments are not all that democratic but they have the potential to be, private power by definition does not.

Companies are absolutely held accountable by the public because without public money they would collapse. You can use an example on any company, say Google, if everyone stopped buying Google products and property then Google would die. It's simple market logic.

Shareholders only influence how the company is run with the intention of maximising their profits, which again, are tied to the mood of the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sumerian said:

Companies are absolutely held accountable by the public because without public money they would collapse. You can use an example on any company, say Google, if everyone stopped buying Google products and property then Google would die. It's simple market logic.

Shareholders only influence how the company is run with the intention of maximising their profits, which again, are tied to the mood of the public.

You are talking about a mythical world with perfect markets and competition, this is impossible and founders of Capitalism knew this limitation.  Unrestricted markets lead to concentration of power and monopolies.  What I was trying to get at is that you shouldn't just be suspicious of government authority, you should be suspicious of both private and state authority.  

As far as businesses being allowed to do as they please, this should not be the case as they are a part of a social system with rights and responsibilities.  What if you are the only Iraqi family in town and every business/school refuses to serve you? What if they refused to hire you? Are you supposed to live on food stamps your whole life? Certain types of discrimination simply cannot be allowed, especially in businesses that are publicly registered which most are required to be.  If you don't want to serve people based on race/gender then go run a business in the middle of nowhere where you aren't taking advantage of everything society/government provides.  See how far your individual liberty gets you there.

Edited by King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, King said:

You are talking about a mythical world with perfect markets and competition, this is impossible and founders of Capitalism knew this limitation.  Unrestricted markets lead to concentration of power and monopolies.  What I was trying to get at is that you shouldn't just be suspicious of government authority, you should be suspicious of both private and state authority.  

As far as businesses being allowed to do as they please, this should not be the case as they are a part of a social system with rights and responsibilities.  What if you are the only Iraqi family in town and every business/school refuses to serve you? What if they refused to hire you? Are you supposed to live on food stamps your whole life? Certain types of discrimination simply cannot be allowed, especially in businesses that are publicly registered which most are required to be.  If you don't want to serve people based on race/gender then go run a business in the middle of nowhere where you aren't taking advantage of everything society/government provides.  See how far your individual liberty gets you there.

It's not a mythical world bro, it's present world. Can you name me one public company that exists and is doing well even though the public mood is against it?

Actually I believe in anti-discrimination laws with regards to hiring in the case that a state cannot provide enough jobs for everyone, and that employment is suffering due to racism, because this is something which affects one's livelihood and therefore a necessary regulation. Similar to safety and environmental regulations, child labour laws and high level minimum wage, because these are all necessary laws and regulations as they protect people's lives. 

But being "served" is not important and there should be no rule for it, because it's a privilege and not a "right". Wow, you weren't baked a cake, big deal. Toughen up. It doesn't affect your ability to live a sound life or your property. There is no need for this law bro. 

I am not a free market fundamentalist, but I am against unnecessary state power. In this case, the state is over reaching into beyond reasonable territory. This law is useless and just an example of evil authoritarianism.

Edited by Sumerian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sumerian said:

But being "served" is not important and there should be no rule for it, because it's a privilege and not a "right".

Who defines what is a privilege and what is a right? Law. And by law, it is a right to be served without suffering any type of discrimination based on race, gender, ideology and sexuality.

Laws are defined for the well being of a given society, or that is usually their positive goal. Your moral system is against serving homosexuals, so of course you wouldnt be in favour of such a law from a purely individualistic or fiqh'i perspective. But the people who have to rule a society, people in governments, face other type of thinking proccess that goes beyond religion to delve into the field of sociology.

Moreover, if you look at history, you will realize the type of problems and injustices homophobia has drawn into politics and societies. Not only it is morally wrong to discriminate people by their sexuality, it has tangible negative consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sumerian said:

But being "served" is not important and there should be no rule for it, because it's a privilege and not a "right".

Ok, let's slide down this slippery slope.

Let's assume it is a privilege to be served. So it's ok if every restaurant in town refuses service to every [insert group] person? How about car repair shops? Grocery stores? Doctor offices? Private hospital emergency rooms? Which of these services is a privilege and which is a right? And if every [insert business type] refuses service to every [insert group] person, what do you propose they do? Not everyone is wealthy enough to just decide to relocate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Sumerian said:

Not wajib. It's only mustahab to not discriminate between people in transactions acc to Sistani.

Okay, I read the source. So you are saying because it is only mustahab  to not discriminate, you will discriminate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Okay, I read the source. So you are saying because it is only mustahab  to not discriminate, you will discriminate?

This is what happens when you pigeon hole fiqh and don’t look at the big picture. That’s where wisdom lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bismehe Ta3ala,

Assalam Alikum.

When I want to go to a beauty salon and I enter and I hear music, I ask them to turn it off.  Most of the time they do, Alhamd'Allah.  There was one salon, that in the beginning the woman did turn it off, later while she was working on my face she wanted to listen to the TV and put the volume back up.  I asked please I don't listen to music.  She lowered it again.

Then there are the vans that take you from one location to another.  When the van driver asks me where to I tell them my destination.  If they have music on I ask them please turn it off/lower it as long as I don't hear it I don't care.  There are drivers that refuse, I get out.  That simple, I can find another van that will take me to the location.

There are many places that also put music, restaurants, cafes, private picnic areas lining the riverbank, you can approach the manager and ask to turn the music down.  If the want you as a customer they will do as you say, and if they refuse you leave and go someplace else.  

M3 Salamah, FE AMIN Allah

AM

 

 

Edited by Laayla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, notme said:

Ok, let's slide down this slippery slope.

Let's assume it is a privilege to be served. So it's ok if every restaurant in town refuses service to every [insert group] person? How about car repair shops? Grocery stores? Doctor offices? Private hospital emergency rooms? Which of these services is a privilege and which is a right? And if every [insert business type] refuses service to every [insert group] person, what do you propose they do? Not everyone is wealthy enough to just decide to relocate. 

With the exception of businesses which affect one's life or livelihood directly. Not every job is the same, some require more regulation than others. Not being served a cake or anything like that won't affect your life.

5 hours ago, Bakir said:

Who defines what is a privilege and what is a right? Law. And by law, it is a right to be served without suffering any type of discrimination based on race, gender, ideology and sexuality.

Laws are defined for the well being of a given society, or that is usually their positive goal. Your moral system is against serving homosexuals, so of course you wouldnt be in favour of such a law from a purely individualistic or fiqh'i perspective. But the people who have to rule a society, people in governments, face other type of thinking proccess that goes beyond religion to delve into the field of sociology.

Moreover, if you look at history, you will realize the type of problems and injustices homophobia has drawn into politics and societies. Not only it is morally wrong to discriminate people by their sexuality, it has tangible negative consequences.

I don't care about homophobia or whatever it's called. All my examples are related to race atm.

3 hours ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Okay, I read the source. So you are saying because it is only mustahab  to not discriminate, you will discriminate?

Not me personally, but I could care less if someone else does.

1 hour ago, Reza said:

This is what happens when you pigeon hole fiqh and don’t look at the big picture. That’s where wisdom lies.

L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

With the exception of businesses which affect one's life or livelihood directly

I can think of scenarios which every one of those businesses I named might affect one's life or livelihood. While I acknowledge that a cake is never a necessity, I assert that there is no way to absolutely know where to draw the line. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

Not me personally, but I could care less if someone else does

So if a shia baker reads this and hangs a sign, "Dogs, Pigs and Ho;':/-@ Not Allowed" - you would be okay with it?

1 hour ago, Reza said:

This is what happens when you pigeon hole fiqh and don’t look at the big picture. That’s where wisdom lies.

Agreed. Our marajae have to look have hundreds if not thousands of references before issuing any fatwa and we ruin it with our qiyas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, notme said:

I can think of scenarios which every one of those businesses I named might affect one's life or livelihood. While I acknowledge that a cake is never a necessity, I assert that there is no way to absolutely know where to draw the line. 

I believe the line is as clear as daylight. The only reason where a restaraunt would be required to serve is if someone is about to die from hunger or thirst lol

4 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

So if a shia baker reads this and hangs a sign, "Dogs, Pigs and Ho;':/-@ Not Allowed" - you would be okay with it?

I'm against profanity but I could care less, again. Every example you will bring my bro the answer would be I don't care about it. But I would never serve a homo personally. 100%. But the state of course wants to force people to through the use of force. 

Edited by Sumerian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sumerian said:
15 minutes ago, notme said:

 

I believe the line is as clear as daylight. The only reason where a restaraunt would be required to serve is if someone is about to die from hunger or thirst lol

Traveling and did not know the unfamiliar area would not include accessible food and water. Diabetic and having low blood sugar. Suffering from heat exhaustion. Homeless. Electricity out at home so can't cook at home. No nearby grocery store will serve this person so has no other access to food..... 

 

10 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

But the state of course wants to force people to through the use of force

No, not force. Money. So they are no more forcing you than before. It's just money, not life or death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, notme said:

Traveling and did not know the unfamiliar area would not include accessible food and water. Diabetic and having low blood sugar. Suffering from heat exhaustion. Homeless. Electricity out at home so can't cook at home. No nearby grocery store will serve this person so has no other access to food..... 

 

No, not force. Money. So they are no more forcing you than before. It's just money, not life or death.

Every area in a modern state has access to basic facilities. All the medical examples are emergencies which require exceptions to the rule. Everyone has a duty of care.

When it comes to homes, there should be no discrimination in sale or rent of property as this is something which affects life and livelihood.

My standard is this: if it directly affects life and livelihood, regulate it. If it doesn't, leave it alone.

This money they are taking is theft.

Edited by Sumerian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sumerian said:

This money they are taking is theft.

That's ok. You can just move somewhere that doesn't fine people for refusing service on irrelevant grounds. If you don't move away, you are consenting to pay, which makes it no longer theft. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, notme said:

That's ok. You can just move somewhere that doesn't fine people for refusing service on irrelevant grounds. If you don't move away, you are consenting to pay, which makes it no longer theft. 

How is this an argument sister? Rn we are arguing if that is right or wrong, not whether it is happening or not, which it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sumerian said:

How is this an argument sister? 

You said if [specified group] wishes to be served and no business of the required type will serve them, they can just go elsewhere. I just turned it around: if you run a private business and do not wish to serve [specified group] you can just locate your business in a place where you have the freedom to exclude customers from [specified group].

If you choose not to relocate knowing there will be a fine if you refuse service, you are knowingly consenting to the fine, which makes it not theft. 

I still haven't seen an answer to how a gay cake is different from a straight cake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, I have to admit I'm with Sumerian when it comes to his views on authority, to certain extent. Being idealistic, the State shouldn't regulate homophobia or racism, but people's tolerance and humam values. The need for a State to regulate something like this only shows our lack of human values.

In the other hand, I don't agree with this anarcho-capitalistic approach, as if capitalism brought any good (one can look at the UAE and the consequences of a free capitalism).

If any, anarcho-syndicalism proposes a healthy decentralized economic system with no wage-slavery. However, keep in mind that anarchism altogether finds difficulty in Islam as its basis are in existentialism and humanism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, notme said:

You said if [specified group] wishes to be served and no business of the required type will serve them, they can just go elsewhere. I just turned it around: if you run a private business and do not wish to serve [specified group] you can just locate your business in a place where you have the freedom to exclude customers from [specified group].

If you choose not to relocate knowing there will be a fine if you refuse service, you are knowingly consenting to the fine, which makes it not theft. 

I still haven't seen an answer to how a gay cake is different from a straight cake.

I'm saying in principle it's theft, because there is no way around as it is law.

There is no gay cake, but there is a cake which is designed for the sake of celebration and promotion of haram eventsm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sumerian said:

I'm against profanity but I could care less, again. Every example you will bring my bro the answer would be I don't care about it. But I would never serve a homo personally. 100%. But the state of course wants to force people to through the use of force. 

You literally just quoted Sistani that all patrons should be treated fairly...to each his own I suppose but I will say that ignorant Muslims are Islam's biggest enemy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

You literally just quoted Sistani that all patrons should be treated fairly...to each his own I suppose but I will say that ignorant Muslims are Islam's biggest enemy. 

Mustahab =/= wajib.

You can't and in fact no allowed to force someone to do mustahab act or to avoid a makruh thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sumerian said:

Mustahab =/= wajib.

You can't and in fact no allowed to force someone to do mustahab act or to avoid a makruh thing. 

Salam is mustahab, answering Salam is wajib. Which one carries more thawab?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Salam is mustahab, answering Salam is wajib. Which one carries more thawab?

Mustahab is athwab, but not enforced by power. This discussion is just about enforcement my dear brother, not what is better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Sumerian said:

Mustahab is athwab, but not enforced by power. This discussion is just about enforcement my dear brother, not what is better. 

This is definitely not about enforcement or wajibat.

Is it wajib to discriminate against homosexuals?

I will chalk it down to the inexperience of youth that you are focused on the rules of Islam instead of the essence of Islam. You can and will attract more people to Islam by your taqwa and iklaaq than doing/following your wajabiat.

My experience tells me that the LGBT community wants media attention more than anything. Denying them "cake" gives them the very platform they crave so you play right into their hands. It's exactly like the idiots protesting some company in Netherlands drawing a cartoon of the Prophet (saw). May be a few hundred would have seen it. With Muslims protesting across the world, they are giving this news more attention - objective achieved!!!

Like I said, we are our own biggest enemy. We look at a rule with blinders on and then complain the world is against us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

This is definitely not about enforcement or wajibat.

Is it wajib to discriminate against homosexuals?

I will chalk it down to the inexperience of youth that you are focused on the rules of Islam instead of the essence of Islam. You can and will attract more people to Islam by your taqwa and iklaaq than doing/following your wajabiat.

My experience tells me that the LGBT community wants media attention more than anything. Denying them "cake" gives them the very platform they crave so you play right into their hands. It's exactly like the idiots protesting some company in Netherlands drawing a cartoon of the Prophet (saw). May be a few hundred would have seen it. With Muslims protesting across the world, they are giving this news more attention - objective achieved!!!

Like I said, we are our own biggest enemy. We look at a rule with blinders on and then complain the world is against us. 

I feel if it becomes normalised that this will be seen as a promotion of their ways, because cakes are a symbolic part of a wedding. No?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

I feel if it becomes normalised that this will be seen as a promotion of their ways, because cakes are a symbolic part of a wedding. No?

Their wedding is the problem, not the cake. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sumerian said:

I feel if it becomes normalised that this will be seen as a promotion of their ways, because cakes are a symbolic part of a wedding. No?

Maybe in your culture, but in the US, a cake is just a cake. People have them for all kinds of occasions or for no occasion at all. 

I'm curious. What do you think it symbolizes?

Edited by notme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...