Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Da Geezer]

When the guys who run that bakery in Colorado decided to not make cakes for gay weddings, they were making a knowing, conscious decision that undoubtedly hurt their business and profits for a stand on principle. I believe every conservative here defended or supported their decision.

So if a majority of YouTube's shareholders are fine with sacrificing a small bit of profit to take a principled stand against...whatever...why's that a betrayal of the capitalist ethos when turning away customers because you don't support their gay lifestyle is not?

https://variety.com/2021/digital/news/youtube-revenue-q1-2021-alphabet-beats-1234961669/

Nonsense.

1. The bakery was (as Talent pointed out) the subject of government-sponsored legal jeopardy. This was a test case to see if the government could force persons to say what the government wanted them to say. The "gay couple" involved had no actual damages. The bakery had massive damages, and continues to suffer damages as the government targets them.

2. The government heavily subsidizes YouTube and other "platforms" by protecting them from civil litigation (Section 230). In a relevant sense, YouTube is a common carrier akin to an electric company or to the Ambassador Bridge company. Imagine if you couldn't cross the bridge if you had a Trump sticker on your car. That is what is actually going on. This "principled stand" is not about anything related to capitalism. YouTube has made the determination that censoring conservative content to support Democrat candidates is simply more profitable long-term than risking a DOJ-led breakup due the clear violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Government subsidy is why Parlor cannot sue YouTube or Apple for taking away their platform.

[Da Geezer]

Regarding corporate governance, try asking any corporation in which you may have stock to give you a stockholders list. Five years ago, I owned 5% of a small local bank with 200 or so shareholders. I was unhappy with the amount being paid the officers and with the officers rebuffing a takeover bid by a bigger bank without a vote. I told the Board that I wanted to run for an open seat, and I wanted to contact stockholders using the corporate list of shareholders. I wanted to tell my co-owners what had gone on in the bank, and what I was proposing to do to change it.

In Michigan, stockholders have no right to see a shareholder list. The law says they do, but as a practical matter, they do not. I had the support of the largest shareholder (12%), but the bank wrote me a letter saying that some Great Depression-era, law said that I could be liable if I said anything negative about the bank. Again, this is a small, local, and rural bank. Eventually, the Board voted to buy my stock at a price above the market.

Upper management and Boards of Directors are much more concerned with their own positions and compensation than they are in maximizing shareholder value. Try getting a shareholders list from a company you own part of. And try to describe to me how you would go about a proxy fight if you were not allowed to contact other co-owners. All any of us say about maximizing shareholder value pales in comparison to the power that existing Boards and existing management teams have to chart the course of a company.

[lineygoblue]

The bakery was (as Talent pointed out) the subject of government-sponsored legal jeopardy. This was a test case to see if the government could force persons to say what the government wanted them to say. The "gay couple" involved had no actual damages. The bakery had massive damages, and continues to suffer damages as the government targets them.

Excellent point. In fact, this could have ended up being a financial boon to a gay person who wanted to open a competing bakery, and make it well known that they bake for all occasions. The government never had to get involved in this at all. The market would have taken care of it just fine. And, in fact, it wouldn't have had to be a gay person to open a competing bakery. An existing competitor could have cashed in on this opportunity to show how "fair" they are, and openly solicit gay people/couples to come there for their baked goods needs. Again, the government never needed to be involved.

But, this was during the Obama administration, which, in spite of his claims to the otherwise, was not a friend to Christian people. His justice department led the charge on this, as did the liberal legislature in Colorado.

[Dr. Strangelove]

The bakery undoubtedly could have been more profitable and grown their business more if they had just gone along with making the cake as demanded. Instead they took a stand on principle. In my mind, that's no different than any corporation choosing (so long as a majority of shareholders agreeable to it) to take its own stand on "principle". No conservative here complains that the owners were being bad businessmen by turning customers away on principle. No conservative here has declared the owners of Hobby Lobby to be bad businessmen because they won't open Sunday and pay low-skilled employees $15/hour.

Geezer- You say that I should imagine if a bridge wouldn't let me cross if I had a Trump bumper and that's "actually" what's going on with YouTube, Facebook, etc. That's completely ridiculous. There is tons of pro-Trump content available for you to watch on either platform. Have certain deadbeat Alt Right "celebrities" gotten tossed? Yes, they sure have, and there are rules violations YouTube can point to for every one of them, from having bots inflate their view numbers (meaning more $$$ money they didn't actually earn) to directing abuse towards fellow users. Section 230 also does not preclude platforms from moderating content.

Why would Parler sue YouTube? Yeah, the Apple Store could be determined to an unfair restraint on trade. A post I made just a short while involved the Democrats passing an outline for Apple, Google, and others to be broken up. Every Republican voted against it. I'm far more interested in breaking these companies up because of their actual monopoly power and not the whiney bitchfest of "my favorite Alt Right celeb, who owns the libs so good, had to move back in with his mom after he couldn't monetize angry rants on YouTube anymore".

[lineygoblue]

The bakery undoubtedly could have been more profitable and grown their business more if they had just gone along with making the cake as demanded.

And Jesus Christ could have likely avoided crucifixion had he just cooperated with the Pharisees, yes? Why do you continue your refusal to see the larger issue that is involved with a Christian person? That person didn't try to force anyone to become Christians. He just said that he couldn't bake a cake for that occasion, because in doing so, he felt he was giving his approval to the occasion, which, in good conscience he could not do.

I believe that the freedom of religion part of the bill of rights is about the free exercise of religious beliefs without government or private intrusion. You may not like Christianity. I don't like witchcraft. But both have the right to exist without impinging on the other. And the government needs to butt out of both.

[Dr. Strangelove]

And Jesus Christ could have likely avoided crucifixion had he just cooperated with the Pharisees, yes? Why do you continue your refusal to see the larger issue that is involved with a Christian person? That person didn't try to force anyone to become Christians. He just said that he couldn't bake a cake for that occasion, because in doing so, he felt he was giving his approval to the occasion, which, in good conscience he could not do.

I believe that the freedom of religion part of the bill of rights is about the free exercise of religious beliefs without government or private intrusion. You may not like Christianity. I don't like witchcraft. But both have the right to exist without impinging on the other. And the government needs to butt out of both.

We have several people here that suggested wokeism in corporations is automatically "bad business" because you're sacrificing profits for a principle. I was simply comparing that to the baker who probably sacrificed a lot of business to take a stand on his faith. I'm not attacking his decision and if you would read my prior posts you would see that I defended him and said his rights supercede that of the customer who was trying to force him into making a cake with a message he didn't want to do. What happened to him wasn't right when the full details came out.

I am simply saying that no conservative poster here would ever say its wrong to put Christian faith ahead of profits as a businessman. But that's about the only thing you're allowed to put before cash, apparently. Sacrificing a small or miniscule amount of profit for "racial justice" or whatever makes you a "bad businessman". People should just say what they're really thinking and attack the principle, not use this"it's bad business sense" argument. In many cases it could be excellent business sense. Putting up a bunch of FUCK TRUMP signs in your Manhattan deli could be great for business. Doing it in Mobile could be bad.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Off topic, but long-form Trump is just fucking awful. Put him back on Twitter, PLEASE! Try reading this in one breathe or without going cross-eyed.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/desk/desk-w2snhrwejb/

(Sorry, I try not to give Future Inmate No. 00045 too much attention any more. I swear!)

[AlabamAlum]

I used to be pro the gay couple in the cake thing.

After considering for years, I changed my opinion some time back.

The baker never refused to sell the gay couple a cake. They refused, instead, to design or special make a gay-themed cake. The gay couple could have still bought a cake and put the same sex topper figurines they wanted atop it and wrote “Congrats Talent and Wiz” with icing provided by the bakery to do such.

I think, to me, it would be similar to going to a Muslim or Jewish deli and special ordering catering with pork products added. The Jewish (or Muslim) deli agrees to cater, but refuses to add the ingredients which go against Kosher (or Halal) requirements. Neither requests have any kind of special protections afforded to the ordering customers.

And don’t get me wrong, I think all religion is silly superstitious hooey and I’m pro-gay rights, but this action by the gay couple and local government seemed like contrived SJW stuff. Besides being able to generically order from the actual bakery in question, there were plenty of other bakers willing to take the gay couple’s specialized order and I think it’s dangerous to force people to customize their products in opposition to their adopted mythological dogma.

[iam416]

All of that is true, AA, but it wasn't just a "lost sale" as the damage -- it was the power of the State coming down on him like a ton of bricks in an effort to enforce a viewpoint or, alternatively, put him out of business. It was a really bullshit thing. Fortunately for the Baker, Colorado wasn't particularly discreet in its motives and the Supreme Court really latched on to the State's obvious bias. The facts, IMO, pretty clearly make him the sympathetic character (to most people).

[iam416]

We have several people here that suggested wokeism in corporations is automatically "bad business" because you're sacrificing profits for a principle. I was simply comparing that to the baker who probably sacrificed a lot of business to take a stand on his faith. I'm not attacking his decision and if you would read my prior posts you would see that I defended him and said his rights supercede that of the customer who was trying to force him into making a cake with a message he didn't want to do. What happened to him wasn't right when the full details came out.

I am simply saying that no conservative poster here would ever say its wrong to put Christian faith ahead of profits as a businessman. But that's about the only thing you're allowed to put before cash, apparently. Sacrificing a small or miniscule amount of profit for "racial justice" or whatever makes you a "bad businessman". People should just say what they're really thinking and attack the principle, not use this"it's bad business sense" argument. In many cases it could be excellent business sense. Putting up a bunch of FUCK TRUMP signs in your Manhattan deli could be great for business. Doing it in Mobile could be bad.

So, I think there's a modest difference between having an issue foisted upon you and you foisting yourself upon an issue. The Baker would have, if I had to guess, gladly renamed anonymous for the rest of his life and not said a word about gay marriage cakes. I don't believe he advertised "gay marriage cakes? fuck that noise." The issue was foisted on him.

Woke Corporatism is rather the opposite. It's affirmative virtue-signaling (or caving the terrorizing minority that some people say doesn't exist). Coke or Delta or MLB doesn't have to inject itself into the preposterous "Jim Crow on Steroids" -- again, your boy said that -- direct quote. Fucking historically illiterate. Anyway, they didn't have to say word one. You know how I know -- Coke ain't responsible for voting in Georgia. You know how I also know -- the thousands of other companies that ain't responsible for voting in Georgia that simply said nothing and went about, you know, their business.

To that end, the analogy is probably a company affirmatively injecting itself into, say, Pro-Life or, as you note, putting up MAGA signs in your business or some other issue that has nothing to do with their business. The baker, IMO, is a bad analogy -- or, at least, imperfect.

[Hannibal]

The bakery undoubtedly could have been more profitable and grown their business more if they had just gone along with making the cake as demanded. Instead they took a stand on principle. In my mind, that's no different than any corporation choosing (so long as a majority of shareholders agreeable to it) to take its own stand on "principle". No conservative here complains that the owners were being bad businessmen by turning customers away on principle. No conservative here has declared the owners of Hobby Lobby to be bad businessmen because they won't open Sunday and pay low-skilled employees $15/hour..

Those business owners are sacrificing their own money, and only that. Blackrock isn't just sacrificing their own money when they browbeat a company's management into accepting Critical Race Theory training for their employees or adopting carbon neutrality. These policies do not come up for stockholder votes and non-institutional investors have no power to force out their Board of Directors if the largest shareholder still wants them. The bakery who won't bake a gay wedding cake also has no monopoly leverage and therefore can't be accused of ramming their beliefs down anyone's throats but their own. When it comes to youtube, Google uses monopoly profits to subsidize a political agenda. What they sacrifice profit-wise isn't large enough to put them in the red, but that doesn't mean that those sacrifices aren't significant or that stockholders make them willingly. The day that Donald Trump was banned from Twitter, big tech stocks lost billions of dollars of shareholder value, so there is clearly more at stake than just a token amount of money, and the best metric that we have says that shareholders do not approve of woke shenanigans when given the choice.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I'm guessing that at the time I probably was under the wrong impression he had flat out refused to sell them a cake. Now around the same time that was going on, I think a couple states (Mississippi most notoriously in my mind) started passing "religious freedom" laws that allowed basically anyone near the wedding industry to refuse service to gays. So wedding photographers, DJ's, caterers, hotels, tuxedo shops, etc. all were explicitly allowed by the law to cite faith as a reason to deny service to gay couples.

Talent can correct me if I'm wrong but I think last year's Supreme Court decision only prevents employers from discriminating against you if you're gay. It left laws such as these untouched.

[Tom W]

On a more light-hearted topic, in what I'm sure is another cancel culture war salvo, Maryland has repealed "Maryland, My Maryland!" as the official state song.

I don't I've ever actually read the lyrics before, lol...it's basically a Confederate war song that urges Marylanders to resist Lincoln (a "despot", a "tyrant", and a "vandal") and defeat the "northern scum". They never quite make it to the "northern scum" verse when they sing it at the Preakness, haha

https://www.washingtonian.com/2021/05/18/marylands-racist-pro-confederate-state-song-has-been-repealed/

https://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanua.../lyricsco.html

I lived in that god forsaken state for 10 years. The crabs are good and I like the Orioles and the Ravens. The rest of it could just all fall into the Chesapeake and the world would be better for it.

Now back to the gay wedding cake and cockholster discussions..

[Hannibal]

I visited my sister in Maryland a couple of times in the past few years and I can't recall ever having visited a more charmless and identity-less area in my lifetime.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Fuck the Ravens. Fuck Art Modell