Arizona steps into it again

[Greenday]

Article seemed to indicate she was out of town for a conference. That would make it hard to sign things in an official capacity.

She could have just made a statement saying, "I'll be vetoing this bill as soon as I get back."

[ebonyknight]

That's the problem. People say 'it's no big deal, why would you want to shop where you aren't wanted?' Well, in some cases, that is the only shopping option. In other cases, what happens when you aren't wanted in the majority of places? Why should I, as a taxpaying member of the public, have to travel potentially a hundred miles out of my way and spend a lot more in order to obtain a public service? And what happens if that store that serves me a hundred miles away gets a new owner, one that decides he's not going to? Where does that leave me and millions like me?

Very valid point.

It goes beyond the surface. Store owners, who have a public license, use public services, and who make a voluntary agreement to serve the public in cooperation with state and federal law, do not get to pick and choose which laws they will follow. They don't get special consideration to be above and beyond what the rest of the public are required to do. If even one is allowed to turn away gay people based on aniums of those people alone, that sends the message that doing so is ok and valid, and it isn't...on any level.

Well, that's the thing. In this instance, it doesn't violate state or federal law. And the very fact that the public demanded (at large) that this not be signed into law, worked and sent the message that it wasn't OK, despite some owners doing it anyway (and in some notable examples, the Market hurt their businesses badly).

I ask the question, where was the backlash BEFORE the state legislature passed the bill?

[ebonyknight]

"
The Market is what gives us toxic paint, medicine that causes birth defects, and food that makes us sick. By the time Consumers can react, the damage has already been done.

It also gives us good quality, long lasting paint, medicine that cures/treat diseases and healthy food alternatives. Why do we have those choices as well? The market demands them. If someone doesn't realize that eating "unhealthy" food is bad for them, that's not the market's fault, it's the fault of the consumer. If they choose to eat Sysco food, vs. going to the grocery and making their own meals, that's their choice.

Your view of the Market removes any responsibility on the part of the consumer, and places it all on the provider. Deja-vu. "Nanny-state" regulation, isn't the answer, there has to be at least some personal responsibility.

Plus, everything LL said. You can't allow any group to be treated as a second class citizens for this type of reason. It can be incredibly difficult to find where the line is between "right to refuse service" and "right to be treated equally" lies, but this is not one of those cases.

I can agree with that.

[TheHuckster]

It also gives us good quality, long lasting paint, medicine that cures/treat diseases and healthy food alternatives. Why do we have those choices as well? The market demands them. If someone doesn't realize that eating "unhealthy" food is bad for them, that's not the market's fault, it's the fault of the consumer. If they choose to eat Sysco food, vs. going to the grocery and making their own meals, that's their choice.

I don't think Andara is talking about merely unhealthy food, but toxic food. E.g. food that has pathogens that make one sick afterwards because it was prepared improperly. Health codes are important to mitigate that risk, although even now things still slip by that gets patrons sick and lead to recalls.

Even beyond that, there are corporations that seem to make a business out of getting people sick, such as cigarette companies. Ironically they are still legal, although many steps have been made to regulate them and discourage taking up the habit.

It certainly is partially the duty of the consumer to research and avoid eating too much unhealthy food. I am against banning soda and candy just because some people eat too much of it and become unhealthy, and many people are able to consume it sparingly enough that it doesn't become a problem in their lives. However, I am still supportive of governments granting research to further allow us to understand how diabetes really develops, who is at most risk, and whether there are alternatives that can reduce the risk of these complications.

We can't trust the corporations to do this research, or even if they do, to give consumers the whole story as to their effects on health, so that's why non-profit research is necessary to provide consumers with the knowledge they need to make their decisions.

[wolfie]

It's also amusing to me how we keep hearing marriage equality opponents scream about SCOTUS overturning state bans, because the states should be allowed to vote and "let the people decide."

The flaw in their argument is that State X is part of the United States of America, and that state governments are subject to the Constitution. If State X passes a ban that goes against the Constitution, SCOTUS can and should overturn it. If their "logic" held, then SCOTUS would have "let the people decide" and allowed segregation in the South to stand.

[ebonyknight]

I don't think Andara is talking about merely unhealthy food, but toxic food. E.g. food that has pathogens that make one sick afterwards because it was prepared improperly. Health codes are important to mitigate that risk, although even now things still slip by that gets patrons sick and lead to recalls.

That's the exception, not the rule and people don't have to choose to have others prepare their food. Are you saying that corporations, as a rule, choose not to follow the health codes, and other legal stipulations to how they do business?

Even beyond that, there are corporations that seem to make a business out of getting people sick, such as cigarette companies. Ironically they are still legal, although many steps have been made to regulate them and discourage taking up the habit.
...... However, I am still supportive of governments granting research to further allow us to understand how diabetes really develops, who is at most risk, and whether there are alternatives that can reduce the risk of these complications.

Still sounds like personal responsibility is a big part of that.

We know what foods are generally bad for us. We know what's healthy. We know that diabetes runs in the family as well as other diseases. You could eat an all organic, non-processed diet and still develop health problems associated with obesity. The gov't can't make you push the plate away or make you eat correctly.

We can (and should) continue to fund research and educate. What do you suggest we do, while we wait for the results????

My doctor told me I was pre-diabetic and had high cholesterol six years ago. I took that moment to change my diet and exercise (we know what we should and shouldn't eat). Both have remained normal.

I am obviously missing your point, in some way, because I don't see the disagreement.

[Andara Bledin]

It also gives us good quality, long lasting paint, medicine that cures/treat diseases and healthy food alternatives. Why do we have those choices as well? The market demands them. If someone doesn't realize that eating "unhealthy" food is bad for them, that's not the market's fault, it's the fault of the consumer. If they choose to eat Sysco food, vs. going to the grocery and making their own meals, that's their choice.

Your view of the Market removes any responsibility on the part of the consumer, and places it all on the provider. Deja-vu. "Nanny-state" regulation, isn't the answer, there has to be at least some personal responsibility.

The Consumer is at an inherent disadvantage in The Free Market. If it weren't for government controls, we wouldn't even know what was in what we eat. Because people wouldn't demand it. They wouldn't even know there's a reason they should. And, as I stated, by the time it's known to be a problem, you've already got corpses; at least with regulation, these issues can be caught sometimes.

Tell me which part of the recent compounding pharmacy problem with people dying from receiving tainted steroid shots was the Consumer responsible for?

What part of people dying from salmonella tainted eggs is the Consumer supposed to be able to guard against?

What part of people coming down with meningitis from eating tainted vegetables is the Consumer responsible for?

What part of people living downriver from a leaking chemical tank is the Consumer responsible for?

This is not an issue that The Market, free or otherwise, will regulate. History proves, time and time again, that if the Market is left to it's own devices, they will allow the Consumers, the Workers, and random members of the General Public to to be sickened and killed all in the name of greater profit.

Are you saying that corporations, as a rule, choose not to follow the health codes, and other legal stipulations to how they do business?

Yes. Because if there are no health codes, companies will freely choose to do things that harm their customer base. And without a health department testing the foods, and the CDC tracking outbreaks, we'd all be completely ignorant of why some of us are sick and dead and why the rest of us (who passed on the salad/eggs/chicken that day) are just fine.

[Duelist925]

That's the exception, not the rule and people don't have to choose to have others prepare their food. Are you saying that corporations, as a rule, choose not to follow the health codes, and other legal stipulations to how they do business?

No. Corporations, as a rule, will do whatever it takes for the bottom line. That is all they care about. If they think slashing worker hours, giving the CEO a mega bonus, or, yes, ignoring health codes because selling tainted meat, or toxicly painted toys are cheaper, they WILL unless they are reigned in.

If the legal stipulations did not exist, they were flood the market with the most vile crap, simply because its cheaper to make. The only reason it's the "exception" now is because of government regulations.

As is, it happens far too often.

*snip*
I am obviously missing your point, in some way, because I don't see the disagreement.

There isn't much of a disagreement--you're assuming that Andara and such are placing the entire burden on companies. They're not. What they are doing is pointing out that a large portion of the burden SHOULD lie on companies to provide safe food/goods/whatever, and they should not be allowed to give out subpar, or outright toxic goods or services, simply due to monetary reasons.

[TheHuckster]

That's the exception, not the rule and people don't have to choose to have others prepare their food. Are you saying that corporations, as a rule, choose not to follow the health codes, and other legal stipulations to how they do business?

No, I'm saying if there are no health codes to follow at all, there will be far more cases of food poisoning, either because the business doesn't have a rule book to follow, or it simply thinks the risk of food poisoning in favor of a better profit margin is worth it.

The flaw in the "Free Market" theory is it assumes that consumers have full knowledge, and that there is open competition. This is not the case in the US market, where chain restaurants have a PR juggernaut, coverups, and other devices that they can afford to hide anything wrong which makes this argument moot.

The free market theory works better among small businesses and mom-and-pop restaurants, where a.) They are often owned and managed by people who are more apt to be less money-driven and more consumer-driven, plus they often choose to start a business on the grounds that they are passionate about the product they are selling and take pride in that aspect, b.) They rely more on word-of-mouth to attract customers, and any rumors of food poisoning would be far more damaging. and c.) there are far more channels of competition that would make such rumors especially damning.

In my economics courses, this small-business market is the scenario they often use to promote free market concepts, and when it's localized free-market, it does work to a certain extent. In a corporate economy where businesses are large enough to recover from bad stories about food poisoning, which oftentimes happen at only one or a handful of their many locations, there isn't as much of a financial consequence for events like this. Hence, health codes are necessary to provide that financial consequence.

Case in point: In the late 1990s, Jack-In-The-Box came under scrutiny over food poisoning cases. Even despite the regulations and bad press, they survived. Imagine if those regulations hadn't been in place. I would wager if it had happened to a mom-and-pop restaurant on Main Street, the bad press alone would have forced them into bankruptcy.

[ebonyknight]

No, I'm saying if there are no health codes to follow at all, there will be far more cases of food poisoning, either because the business doesn't have a rule book to follow, or it simply thinks the risk of food poisoning in favor of a better profit margin is worth it.

Of course. Some regulation is necessary for the protection of society.

Case in point: In the late 1990s, Jack-In-The-Box came under scrutiny over food poisoning cases. Even despite the regulations and bad press, they survived. Imagine if those regulations hadn't been in place. I would wager if it had happened to a mom-and-pop restaurant on Main Street, the bad press alone would have forced them into bankruptcy.

Good example, your probably right. But I made no mention of a "free or open market", just that the market would probably dictate what happens to the business that choose to follow their religious options in regards to servicing customers, if the law passed. Quite similar to your example.

Guess it's moot, until next time.

[TheHuckster]

Good example, your probably right. But I made no mention of a "free or open market", just that the market would probably dictate what happens to the business that choose to follow their religious options in regards to servicing customers, if the law passed. Quite similar to your example.

Unfortunately, I don't think it would have as much effect as you think. Hell, Chick-Fil-A, to cite another example, fared alright during its backlash last year.

[HYHYBT]

I ask the question, where was the backlash BEFORE the state legislature passed the bill?

What are you even asking here? How can there be backlash *before* a thing happens?

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Unfortunately, I don't think it would have as much effect as you think. Hell, Chick-Fil-A, to cite another example, fared alright during its backlash last year.

That's a company somewhat stacked to weather that storm though. First off, it's located primarily in Republican leaning areas and is a vocal proponent of "conservative" values. For every irate liberal that won't go there, there are more conservatives that will. Two, it makes a damn good product that doesn't have a great replacement for many people. The thing about boycotts working is generally people giving things up. It's a lot easier to do that when you're "meh" on the product.

It's one of the reasons I get really annoyed when people constantly bring up boycotts when you know they don't participate in/consume or otherwise bear any cost in suggesting it.

[crashhelmet]

What are you even asking here? How can there be backlash *before* a thing happens?

The public is usually made aware of it while it's in the process of it being passed. That's when the uproar and the backlash starts. We see it all the time with movements like the Republicans trying to remove the 17th amendment, proposed laws that make masturbation a manslaughter charge

[Gravekeeper]

The best part is watching these morally repugnant fuck skunks crawl back under the porch whining about how they didn't really mean it and only voted for it because they didn't think it would pass. Now that the full scope of the economic damage is starting to sink in.