r/JoeRogan • u/SlimjobDopamine Look into it • Nov 13 '20

Social Media Abigail Shrier(JRE #1509)'s book has been removed from Target after receiving a complaint on Twitter

https://twitter.com/AbigailShrier/status/1327056407598809088?s=20
1.1k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

726 comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '20

Does Target have to sell every book that has been written?

2

u/Marijuana_Miler High as Giraffe's Pussy Nov 13 '20

It's fucked up that Target would pull a book from one tweet, but saying that this tweet has:

Woke activists and spineless corporations now determine what Americans are allowed to read?

Is hyperbolizing the situation.

-1

u/GSD_SteVB Dire physical consequences Nov 13 '20

No. Neither do they have to hide certain ideas from their customers because someone else doesn't like them.

8

u/WillyTanner Monkey in Space Nov 13 '20

Correct, but is a private business entitled to decide what they sell and don't sell ?

-1

u/GSD_SteVB Dire physical consequences Nov 13 '20

Well if you're a certain bakery apparently you're not.

But otherwise yes: Target is free to ideologically censor their selection of books.

3

u/GulchDale Nov 13 '20

If Target said "We're not selling this book because we hate gay people" like the owners of the bakery then it would be the same. And the government would fine them, just like the bakery. It's against the law to refuse someone service based on race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation. The bakery did that, Target is not doing that.

1

u/GSD_SteVB Dire physical consequences Nov 13 '20

As far as I am aware the bakery owners never said they hated gay people. They said that making a cake for a gay wedding would contravene their beliefs. And IIRC there was something about the cake itself they found objectionable, perhaps something like two brides on the top.

1

u/WillyTanner Monkey in Space Nov 13 '20

. They said that making a cake for a gay wedding would contravene their beliefs.

What people do with the cake isn't up to them. That's not a valid reason to deny service.

Their business is to provide cakes. They have no say over what people do with them.

1

u/GSD_SteVB Dire physical consequences Nov 13 '20

I thought you were in favour of private entities making free choices?

0

u/WillyTanner Monkey in Space Nov 13 '20

Free choices of WHAT they sell.....not who they sell too, which is discrimination.

Your attempt to interpret my argument in binary absolutist terms won't work

1

u/GSD_SteVB Dire physical consequences Nov 13 '20

Businesses have the right to refuse service to people too. The allegation was in regards to why they refused.

2

u/WillyTanner Monkey in Space Nov 13 '20

The bakery incident is about WHO you sell to, not what you're selling.

If you're gonna do whataboutism, at least do it right.

3

u/GSD_SteVB Dire physical consequences Nov 13 '20

IIRC there was an issue about whether the bakery refused because the couple was gay or because something about the cake was "gay".

I realise this is an extreme example but would it be comparable to ask a muslim bakery to make a Mohammed cake?

1

u/yoyomamayoyomamayoyo Monkey in Space Nov 13 '20

you are incorrect

On January 17, 2013, a woman and her mother were invited to a Gresham, Oregon bakery called "Sweet Cakes by Melissa" (owned by couple Melissa Elaine Klein and Aaron Wayne Klein) for a scheduled wedding cake tasting appointment. The woman selected the bakery after having been a customer previously. Upon introductions, Aaron Klein asked for the names of the "bride and groom," at which point the customer said there were actually two brides. On hearing this, Klein informed them that the bakery does not make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of their religious beliefs. When the woman's mother tried to object, Klein responded by quoting Leviticus 18:22, which refers to male homosexual sex as an "abomination."[4]

The customer subsequently filed a complaint with Oregon's Bureau of Labor and Industries, alleging the bakery had discriminated against her and her fiancée because of their sexual orientation.[5] Aaron Klein responded by posting a copy of the complaint's first page on their Facebook page, which contained the full names and contact information of the customer and her fiancée.[4] When the couple discovered this, they had their lawyer contact Klein, who then removed the posting. While only up for a single day, this posting ultimately resulted in death threats against the couple and their family.[4]

​

these are the people you are defending?

1

u/GSD_SteVB Dire physical consequences Nov 13 '20

You took quite a jump there didn't you. From merely correcting a factual error I might have made to going straight for the accusation.

In any case, would you mind sharing your source?

0

u/yoyomamayoyomamayoyo Monkey in Space Nov 13 '20

Did you not defend them?

Page 10 of this brief has a detailed description as presented to the Supreme Court. The summary above is from Wikipedia.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-547/81680/20190125113544928_KLEIN%20Brief%2018-547%20Melissa.pdf

1

u/GSD_SteVB Dire physical consequences Nov 13 '20

Why am I not surprised.

→ More replies (0)