Pit1209
Posts: 157 +281
Are you comparing being gay to selling guns?... just leave it like that.
Salesforce says companies that sell semi-automatic weapons can't use its software
- Thread starter midian182
- Start date
Are you comparing being gay to selling guns?... just leave it like that.
Pit1209
Posts: 157 +281
Bipartisanship at its best, you're claiming that the left doesn't agree with liberty at the same time that you're against a private company to modify their own terms of service because it is against your beliefs.
Stiqy
Posts: 119 +146
You brought up the evangelical hyperbole, I was using an actual case. to point out the flaw.
Bluescreendeath
Posts: 418 +658
It will be interesting to see if this company gets sued by any of their customers.
The SCOTUS ruling had nothing to do with the bakery's argument that they should be able to deny service because their customer's mores were against their religious beliefs.
Personally, I think it is amazing that so many out there seem to think that SCOTUS ruled for the bakery based on the arguments of the bakery in the case, I.e., that they should not be forced to provide a service if their religious tenets are offended by the customer.
What's more is that there was an almost identical case in another state, and the bakery in that instance did not win.
Look it up. Its out there. As a matter of fact, it is reported exactly as I stated even on the web site of Fox News.
Matter of fact, you could go into a bakery run by a devout christian and order a baphomet cake, and if the bakery refused to make it, there would be grounds for the customer bringing a legal case.
The thing is in that wedding cake case, SCOTUS ruled for the bakery since SCOTUS found the bakery's home state applied its ruling to the bakery's case in an unconstitutional fashion.
The SCOTUS ruling had nothing to do with the bakery's argument that they should be able to deny service because their customer's mores were against their religious beliefs.
Personally, I think it is amazing that so many out there seem to think that SCOTUS ruled for the bakery based on the arguments of the bakery in the case, I.e., that they should not be forced to provide a service if their religious tenets are offended by the customer.
What's more is that there was an almost identical case in another state, and the bakery in that instance did not win.
Look it up. Its out there. As a matter of fact, it is reported exactly as I stated even on the web site of Fox News.
Matter of fact, you could go into a bakery run by a devout christian and order a baphomet cake, and if the bakery refused to make it, there would be grounds for the customer bringing a legal case.
Bluescreendeath
Posts: 418 +658
It sounds like he was comparing how much the government can compel a private business to take certain actions, and wasn't directly comparing gays to guns.
Spence1115
Posts: 60 +50
I mean gun nuts act like they wanna have sex with and marry their guns...
m4a4
Posts: 4,014 +5,839
Incorrect. They provide a service (just like an artist would). They can refuse service if they don't want to, just like an artist doesn't have to take a commission (and associate their name to it).
No product made in the bakery was off limits to the couple, only the custom services. They said they also don't make Halloween cakes, wanna sue them for that?
As for the arbitrary rules made by this company based mainly on emotional reasoning, I hope someone does step in to provide a better product.
Not sure if they can be sued for such terms, but people have went to court for less...
psycros
Posts: 4,913 +7,644
Salesforce is garbage. Everyone I know who has to deal with that overpriced, anti-user POS hates it and keeps asking their companies to dump it. Unfortunately Salesforce makes exporting data extremely difficult. In the past they even tried to slip a part into contracts actually FORBIDDING their clients from using different solutions for the life of the contract but most people have gotten wise to that fraud. I think they got sued over it, actually. As for their anti-gun stance, LOL, good luck boys. You've just lost Wal-Mart and several other US retailers with that move (local stores ALL still have semi-auto guns..no idea why the press keeps misreporting this). This is what happens when ***** CEOs listen to PR goons who think you can get more business from virtue signaling. It never works.
Silvernine
Posts: 56 +47
The answer to that is no. The Civil Rights Act is used to protect the following classes:
Race
Religion
Natonal origin
Age
Sex
Pregnancy
Familial status
Disability
Veteran
Genetic information
Nothing to do with their stand on the 2nd Amendment. Seriously though, the National Shooting Sports Foundation guy does not know what he's talking about. These people always jump out saying "OMG OMG YOU VIOLATING MY RIGHTS" without even understanding it, lol. And funny thing is, some of them also have opinions that would violate other people of their 1st Amendment rights.
That being said, I don't agree with Salesforce here. There's nothing wrong with selling firearms as it's just like selling other things in country that are legal, like tobacco and alcohol. Instead of banning companies that sell semi-automatic weapons from using its software, how about using their money to lobby (since it's legal to bribe here in the U.S.) to push for more social programs to help the mentally ill people so that there are lower chances of them acquiring guns and using it on the masses? That's probably more effective.
J
jaryn211
Except it is relevant, if they're doing this for moral and philosophical reasons then why not also do the same to alcohol. Guns weren't designed specifically to kill kids, it wasnt the intention, neither was alcohol. All salesforce is doing punishing law abiding citizens who legally buy and own guns because a very small minority of people abuse it. They dont propose solutions beyond "ban it" which seems to be the solution every time a gun is used to kill someone.
QuantumPhysics
Posts: 6,307 +7,263
Well thank God I bought both my AR-15's before the liberals started messing with them.
Now I gotta make sure I buy spare parts just in case they mess with those.
Now I gotta make sure I buy spare parts just in case they mess with those.
I concur, lets see the statistics on the annual alcohol and tobacco related fatalities and ask what is this really about? Personally I think its the age old dilemma of who has power and control. If you could defend your self with alcohol and tobacco then people would probably take a stronger stance against them because it would give anyone with access, power. So then I ask, should we the people have any measure of power? That was the spirit of the 2nd amendment, the ability to stand alone against oppression if necessary. These examples of mass shootings are a person using power to commit evil. That doesn't mean we should abolish power or a persons access to it, no we take responsibility for it (proper appropriation of power), and each other. - Life and Liberty
For your edification:
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc...n-bakers-who-refused-make-gay-wedding-n833321
And here's the Fox News article for your edification:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/supreme-court-decides-colorado-gay-wedding-cake-case-a-timeline-of-events
From the article:
The analogy that you make to an artist is incorrect. Why? Because an artist, or anyone for that matter, may refuse a commission as long as it is not because of protected rights - such as gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, age, and all those rights deemed protected.
Like I said, it is uprising to me how many do not understand this.
m4a4
Posts: 4,014 +5,839
Congrats. That didn't say anything to support you. Here, let me
For your edification:
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc...n-bakers-who-refused-make-gay-wedding-n833321
And here's the Fox News article for your edification:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/supreme-court-decides-colorado-gay-wedding-cake-case-a-timeline-of-events
From the article:
The analogy that you make to an artist is incorrect. Why? Because an artist, or anyone for that matter, may refuse a commission as long as it is not because of protected rights - such as gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, age, and all those rights deemed protected.
Like I said, it is uprising to me how many do not understand this.
for you The point made by me is that they can refuse custom service/commissions here, and you have yet to prove otherwise. They didn't refuse because of the couple's orientation, they refused because they don't cater to such an event.
If anything, all those articles are saying is that the baker was being targeted because they cited their religion in defense of not catering to an event. And that was certainly determined by the Supreme Court.
Edit: Actually, this is no longer on topic and I no longer care to "debate" against how you feel about the situation. Just like this company based this decision on feelings.
I am not debating you. I am simply stating facts.Congrats. That didn't say anything to support you. Here, let me
For your edification:
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc...n-bakers-who-refused-make-gay-wedding-n833321
And here's the Fox News article for your edification:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/supreme-court-decides-colorado-gay-wedding-cake-case-a-timeline-of-events
From the article:
The analogy that you make to an artist is incorrect. Why? Because an artist, or anyone for that matter, may refuse a commission as long as it is not because of protected rights - such as gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, age, and all those rights deemed protected.
Like I said, it is uprising to me how many do not understand this.because you need to try again.
The point made by me is that they can refuse custom service/commissions here, and you have yet to prove otherwise. They didn't refuse because of the couple's orientation, they refused because they don't cater to such an event.
If anything, all those articles are saying is that the baker was being targeted because they cited their religion in defense of not catering to an event. And that was certainly determined by the Supreme Court.
Edit: Actually, this is no longer on topic and I no longer care to "debate" against how you feel about the situation. Just like this company based this decision on feelings.
The court did not decide based on the merits of the bakery's argument. Period. It's plainly stated that in the article, and, I would also imagine that it is simple to discern that from the SCOTUS opinion which is a matter of public record.
And the SCOTUS decision absolutely WAS NOT because the gay couple infringed on the bakery owner's religion. It was the CO commission that heard their case that did not adequately consider the religion of the bakery owner.
And unfortunately, there are people out there that want to twist that decision to their views even though they are completely wrong.
The case in Oregon never reached SCOTUS. Their case was based on the same argument that the bakery in CO put forth - that it offends them and their religion. The bakery, in that case lost, and with a fine of $125K levied against the bakery, you would think that they would have appealed to SCOTUS. It did not happen.
You can refuse, yes, but you might end up in court because of the reasons of your refusal especially if it goes against precedent. The Civil Rights Act from the mid 1960's and subsequent decisions afterwards, including the right to gay marriage, are that established precedent.
People who bring this up in support of articles like this simply hear what they want to hear - even though their understanding is well outside of the scope of the SCOTUS decision.
I would not be surprised if this case does go to court if the business wins - because they are not infringing on the right to bear arms.
Last edited:
m3tavision
Posts: 1,733 +1,510
Sorry, but Wallmart can not discriminate who they sell to, neither can Salesforce.
Next is, businesses getting to choose who they want to sell to..? lulz..
Sure they can. Ever seen the following at a business?:
"We reserve the right to refuse service for any reason."
Equal rights legislation walks that right back a bit so you can't refuse service to a *person* based on race, gender, religion and a few other things (see Silvernine's post above), but those are individual rights. A business has the right not to sell to another business.
But of course the courts may decide this issue if anyone has the balls to drum up a case. I doubt that'll happen though as the actual intent of this PR move has been served: free publicity.
OptimumSlinky
Posts: 276 +510
Every business has the right to choose who they serve. I've fired clients at my business, and refused to take on certain parties as clients as well.
And, as pointed out above, being a gun owner is not a protected class, so it's not discrimination, snowflake.
OptimumSlinky
Posts: 276 +510
Guns were designed specifically to kill humans. Children, while smaller, are still humans. Therefore, claiming the AR-15 was only designed to kill adults is a rather ridiculous distinction.
OptimumSlinky
Posts: 276 +510
Your right to "liberty" ends when it infringes on my right to live peacefully and not get randomly shot at school or work.
Also, I find it hilarious that the same crowd that crows on and on about gun how laws won't stop shootings is the same crowd actively trying to enact the harshest anti-abortion laws possible. It's almost as if laws do something...
Pit1209
Posts: 157 +281
Yes, they say "Freedom" but to do what they prefer and look the other way when it's against their ideals.
Bluescreendeath
Posts: 418 +658
Incorrect. Guns have many different uses, and most guns in the world have never been used to kill people.
Examples include sport shooting, recreational shooting, hunting, self defense, etc. Even for self defense, you don't actually need to kill someone with a gun to use it for self defense purposes.
Killing someone is one use of a gun. Just like giving yourself cancer and organ damage is one use of using alcohol.
Bluescreendeath
Posts: 418 +658
There tends to be hypocrites on both sides, and both sides tend to support some types of freedoms and oppose other types of freedoms.
The only people who are universally for all types of freedoms are maybe libertarians and certain types of anarchists.
Similar threads
