Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
#1
Old 07-07-2015, 08:03 PM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,852
Should private businesses be allowed to discriminate

I have always felt that if a business owner wanted to discriminate, that should be their right. I think that people should be able to choose who they want to do business with, and if I have a particular talent that I sell, I should be able to choose who I perform that talent for or who I make something for. (Private practice) lawyers get to choose their clients, don't they?

Obviously the government cannot discriminate, but I feel that private businesses should be able to choose who they serve. If Phelps Bakers refuses to make a gay cake, then people can go to their prefered social media site and say "Phelps Bakers discriminates against gays! If you support equal rights, please go to Rainbow Bakers instead!!!!" .... and vice-versa. I feel that this is something that the free market can and should handle.

I was planning on first asking if private businesses COULD, before debating the SHOULD, but the story seems to indicate that businesses are getting in trouble for refusing to make a same-sex marriage cake. I don't understand why this couple didn't just find a more gay-friendly baker, and then tell everybody what jerks the homophobic bakers were being. http://nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...r-cake-n388191

This was inspired by a FB debate by some Christians who claimed that the SCOTUS ruling on same-sex marriage was going to force them to go against their religion. I pointed out that they would not be forced into a gay marriage, and they brought up the cake thing. I said that I agreed with them that a baker shouldn't be forced to make a cake that they didn't want to, but that equal right was far more important than a baker having to make a cake with 2 grooms on the top. [I guess I'm really trying to just head off the people who assume I'm a homophobe based on this. I support and celebrated this ruling. I just have always thought that private business should be able to chose who they serve, and that it should be OK to be an asshole business owner.]
#2
Old 07-07-2015, 08:11 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,284
Haven't we discussed the add infinitum here already?

There are people here who support it but most of SDMB seems to be against it. The problem that I see is in small towns, what happens if it becomes very popular to turn away a certain customer? What if all the restaurants, or most of them, don't want to serve "people who look like illegal immigrants"??? In a larger town there may only be one such shop if it is a narrow or specialized service. If there is only one shop in town that provides service [X] and they do not want to serve [Y] category of people, people in category [Y] now have to drive to another town to receive service [X].

Last edited by Robert163; 07-07-2015 at 08:12 PM.
#3
Old 07-07-2015, 08:15 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 379
The free market will take care of it. There are now doubt plenty of bakeries that will be more than happy to serve those gay couples who desire to marry. The current lawsuits filed against Christian bakeries are just the latest way that individual gay couples can obtain social status and signal their righteousness to the rest of progressive America.

The entire debate over gay wedding cakes is just a way for gay people and their fellow travelers to get revenge on conservative Christians. There's no meaningful debate because wedding cakes are nearly a commodity and are easily replaceable.

Moreover, there's almost no possibility than any major or publicly traded company could successfully discriminate on any category. Discrimination is bad for business because it pointlessly drives away potentially profitable transactions and any corporate management that tried to do so would surely find themselves swiftly excommunicated by shareholders from the company they once run.

Last edited by Construct; 07-07-2015 at 08:18 PM.
#4
Old 07-07-2015, 08:16 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 37,388
It depends on how private. Does your business need the public streets and sidewalks for it's customers to get there? Is it a corporation? Is it a licensed, certified, or otherwise regulated business? Are you using that internet that I pay for in my phone bill?

So if you can be so private that you are not consuming any extra public resources at all, then sure, discriminate to your heart's content.
#5
Old 07-07-2015, 08:29 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Construct View Post
The free market will take care of it. There are now doubt plenty of bakeries that will be more than happy to serve those gay couples who desire to marry.
Except in small towns. There are two bakeries in this town I live in, 20,000 people in the city, 30,000 in the county as a whole. The issues of cakes has never come up as far as I know but it's not a town where it is "accepted" to walk around an be flamboyantly gay. I think your idea that they can allways just go to another shop is not accurate.

Quote:
The current lawsuits filed against Christian bakeries are just the latest way that individual gay couples can obtain social status and signal their righteousness to the rest of progressive America.
What is wrong with that? It wouldn't even be an issue if their status was not already in question by conservatives.

Quote:
The entire debate over gay wedding cakes is just a way for gay people and their fellow travelers to get revenge on conservative Christians.
Yes, it is payback. For decades of mistreatment. I'd say your concern here is for the wrong people.
#6
Old 07-07-2015, 08:34 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 12,912
You willing to own it?

Like post a sign that says We Choose not to serve, gays, blacks, Jews, or whatever?

Because if you are, I'm pretty sure the free market will indeed solve the problem swiftly indeed.

Of course most people might choose to discriminate against businesses that are being hateful to others. You okay with that discrimination? Or are you just looking to dish it out?
#7
Old 07-07-2015, 08:37 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by elbows View Post
You willing to own it?

Like post a sign that says We Choose not to serve, gays, blacks, Jews, or whatever?

Because if you are, I'm pretty sure the free market will indeed solve the problem swiftly indeed.

Of course most people might choose to discriminate against businesses that are being hateful to others. You okay with that discrimination? Or are you just looking to dish it out?
Not in all locations. In certain small towns it might become very popular to "not do business with illegals".
#8
Old 07-07-2015, 08:42 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 32,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Construct View Post

The entire debate over gay wedding cakes is just a way for gay people and their fellow travelers to get revenge on conservative Christians.
Payback's a bitch, isn't it?
Of course, you don't seem concerned about the persecution that lead up to it.
#9
Old 07-07-2015, 08:57 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert163 View Post
Yes, it is payback. For decades of mistreatment. I'd say your concern here is for the wrong people.
I wouldn't worry about that. Gay people already cost straight people about 100K (per gay person) in lifetime HIV costs. And thanks to Obamacare, those costs are born by the population at largeŚthat is, straight people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
It depends on how private. Does your business need the public streets and sidewalks for it's customers to get there? Is it a corporation? Is it a licensed, certified, or otherwise regulated business? Are you using that internet that I pay for in my phone bill?

So if you can be so private that you are not consuming any extra public resources at all, then sure, discriminate to your heart's content.
You create an impossible dichotomy where any use of public resources, no matter how meager or inconsequential, gives progressives a right to enforce equal treatment of different groups. Most of those things you mention are either public goods provided by government wherein corporations pay their fair share (i.e. sidewalks paid for by property taxes and public streets paid for by gas taxes) or services paid for solely by the business itself (i.e. internet access is a private agreement between an ISP and a corporation, certification is paid for by the business in question). What's more, this demon is one of progressive's own creation; liberals support endless public spending projects and regulation of private enterprise, then turn heel and insist that this government involvement gives them the prerogative to further involve themselves in someone else's affairs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elbows View Post
You willing to own it?

Like post a sign that says We Choose not to serve, gays, blacks, Jews, or whatever?

Because if you are, I'm pretty sure the free market will indeed solve the problem swiftly indeed.

Of course most people might choose to discriminate against businesses that are being hateful to others. You okay with that discrimination? Or are you just looking to dish it out?
Just as it is possible to support gay marriage without being gay, and possible to support the right to abortion without desiring abortions yourself, it is possible to support the right to discriminate without wanting to do so. It's absolutely fine if the public chooses not to patronize businesses that discriminate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
Payback's a bitch, isn't it?
Of course, you don't seem concerned about the persecution that lead up to it.
Sure it is. But the fight isn't over. In fact, it's hardly even begun.
#10
Old 07-07-2015, 08:57 PM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 81,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucksinator View Post
IThis was inspired by a FB debate by some Christians who claimed that the SCOTUS ruling on same-sex marriage was going to force them to go against their religion. I pointed out that they would not be forced into a gay marriage, and they brought up the cake thing. I said that I agreed with them that a baker shouldn't be forced to make a cake that they didn't want to, but that equal right was far more important than a baker having to make a cake with 2 grooms on the top. [I guess I'm really trying to just head off the people who assume I'm a homophobe based on this. I support and celebrated this ruling. I just have always thought that private business should be able to chose who they serve, and that it should be OK to be an asshole business owner.]
AFAIK, bakers are still not required to make a cake "with 2 grooms on the top". They might choose to not carry that item. And, Kennedy did NOT elevate gays to a "suspect class", so they don't automatically get heightened scrutiny at the federal level anyway. In some states they are a "suspect class" but in some they are not, so it depends on which state you live in whether or not a baker would required to serve gay customers. But even then, they aren't required to carry all possible cake toppings.
#11
Old 07-07-2015, 09:00 PM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: In my house
Posts: 1,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by elbows View Post
You willing to own it?

Like post a sign that says We Choose not to serve, gays, blacks, Jews, or whatever?

Because if you are, I'm pretty sure the free market will indeed solve the problem swiftly indeed.
Unless you're discriminating against Muslims.

Their ban was 5 months old in January. Can't find any more recent articles than that.
#12
Old 07-07-2015, 09:13 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert163 View Post
Haven't we discussed the add infinitum here already?

There are people here who support it but most of SDMB seems to be against it. The problem that I see is in small towns, what happens if it becomes very popular to turn away a certain customer? What if all the restaurants, or most of them, don't want to serve "people who look like illegal immigrants"??? In a larger town there may only be one such shop if it is a narrow or specialized service. If there is only one shop in town that provides service [X] and they do not want to serve [Y] category of people, people in category [Y] now have to drive to another town to receive service [X].
So? It's not like every town is expected to provide every type of service those there might need or want. There are towns, I'm sure, that have no bakeries, and people have to travel to a neighboring town. Also, there are many towns which people go out of their way to get to because the bakery there has better cakes, ignoring their hometown baker. You seem to be apply a standard that shouldn't be applied.
#13
Old 07-07-2015, 09:18 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by magellan01 View Post
So? It's not like every town is expected to provide every type of service those there might need or want. There are towns, I'm sure, that have no bakeries, and people have to travel to a neighboring town. Also, there are many towns which people go out of their way to get to because the bakery there has better cakes, ignoring their hometown baker. You seem to be apply a standard that shouldn't be applied.
I can not possibly fathom how you can say it is ok if they have to go to the next town for service, but, that is precisely what you are saying, is it not? Going to another town for a service because that shop in that town does a better job is different than going because you were discriminated against. Going to another town for service because there is no such store in your town is different than going because you are discriminated against.

Last edited by Robert163; 07-07-2015 at 09:21 PM.
#14
Old 07-07-2015, 09:24 PM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,852
Quote:
Originally Posted by elbows View Post
You willing to own it?

Like post a sign that says We Choose not to serve, gays, blacks, Jews, or whatever?

Because if you are, I'm pretty sure the free market will indeed solve the problem swiftly indeed.

Of course most people might choose to discriminate against businesses that are being hateful to others. You okay with that discrimination? Or are you just looking to dish it out?
I think that having such a sign would save them the trouble of telling potential customers "no thanks". In the olden days word would get around, but these days, everybody would know because a bakery choosing to not make a birthday cake for a kid with a middle-eastern sounding name would go viral on FB. While I suspect a suspect that a savvy atheistic baker would way "WTF do I care if they want angels on the cake? It's money", I think he should be able to say "I don't do religious stuff" and turn down that money for as long as his business can survive with such a stupid business model.
#15
Old 07-07-2015, 09:29 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucksinator View Post
I think that having such a sign would save them the trouble of telling potential customers "no thanks". In the olden days word would get around, but these days, everybody would know because a bakery choosing to not make a birthday cake for a kid with a middle-eastern sounding name would go viral on FB. While I suspect a suspect that a savvy atheistic baker would way "WTF do I care if they want angels on the cake? It's money", I think he should be able to say "I don't do religious stuff" and turn down that money for as long as his business can survive with such a stupid business model.
I've mentioned several times on this thread but these is going to be a difference between a town with 20,000 people and a town with 100,00 people. Discrimination in a small town that is geographically isolated is not going to produce a "huge uproar" on Facebook.
#16
Old 07-07-2015, 09:29 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 9,992
Well, obviously some private businesses are allowed to discriminate. Ever seen a gym that only serves women? I doubt that the dating services on gay websites offer much to heterosexuals. And my local barbecue place probably doesn't serve much that Orthodox Jews can eat. Plainly the debate is not over whether businesses can discriminate, but over which businesses can.
#17
Old 07-07-2015, 09:32 PM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leominster MA
Posts: 5,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Construct View Post
The free market will take care of it.
Those of us that bother to read our history know for a fact the free market did not work to end discrimination. In many cases it worked to encourage businesses who would not have adopted bigoted policies to adopt them as a means to compete in a marketplace full of bigoted people.

Please stop trying to volunteer minorities to be part of your free market experiments.
#18
Old 07-07-2015, 09:36 PM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,852
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert163 View Post
I can not possibly fathom how you can say it is ok if they have to go to the next town for service, but, that is precisely what you are saying, is it not? Going to another town for a service because that shop in that town does a better job is different than going because you were discriminated against. Going to another town for service because there is no such store in your town is different than going because you are discriminated against.
It seems that the problem with my position is that we would have to draw a line between essential services (obviously an ER doctor can't say "I don't work on xxxxx") and far less essential services (I can't think of any example less essential than cakes)

If a huge business like Wal-Mart can say "we won't make Confederate flag cakes", why can't a family owned bakery say "we won't make gay wedding cakes"?
#19
Old 07-07-2015, 09:36 PM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leominster MA
Posts: 5,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Construct View Post
I wouldn't worry about that. Gay people already cost straight people about 100K (per gay person) in lifetime HIV costs.
You know HIV is not unique to gay people right? You know lesbians have the lowest HIV transmission rate of any sexual partnership?
#20
Old 07-07-2015, 09:37 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 9,992
In any case, I'm with the OP. I'll take freedom over forced cake-baking.

I'm also noting some hyperbole on the issue. A bakery in Oregon supposedly caused "emotional trauma" and "physical injury" to a lesbian couple by refusing to bake a cake, according to the government. What physical injury they caused is not stated. As for emotional trauma, I wish someone would traumatise me so I could get a six-figure sum from them.
#21
Old 07-07-2015, 09:38 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
Well, obviously some private businesses are allowed to discriminate. Ever seen a gym that only serves women? I doubt that the dating services on gay websites offer much to heterosexuals. And my local barbecue place probably doesn't serve much that Orthodox Jews can eat. Plainly the debate is not over whether businesses can discriminate, but over which businesses can.
Women only gyms may be problematic for this topic but not a dating site which. A dating site like "black people meet" (Is that what it's called) may be discriminating to White, Latinos, Asians, etc, people but that is a separate conversation, as is the women only gyms. In other words, whether or not certain types of "reverse" discrimination should be allowed to exist is a separate debate.
#22
Old 07-07-2015, 09:38 PM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leominster MA
Posts: 5,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucksinator View Post
It seems that the problem with my position is that we would have to draw a line between essential services (obviously an ER doctor can't say "I don't work on xxxxx") and far less essential services (I can't think of any example less essential than cakes)

If a huge business like Wal-Mart can say "we won't make Confederate flag cakes", why can't a family owned bakery say "we won't make gay wedding cakes"?
They can say they will not make gay wedding cakes. What they can not do is say we will not sell wedding cakes to gay people.
#23
Old 07-07-2015, 09:43 PM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,852
Quote:
Originally Posted by boytyperanma View Post
Those of us that bother to read our history know for a fact the free market did not work to end discrimination. In many cases it worked to encourage businesses who would not have adopted bigoted policies to adopt them as a means to compete in a marketplace full of bigoted people.

Please stop trying to volunteer minorities to be part of your free market experiments.
OK, OK. I understand that my position would not have worked very well in 1900 or 1950, etc. But in these modern times I think that the free-market would work better than the government going to a bakery or a trophy shop and saying "You agreed to make a cake/trophy for that one customer, so now you have to make any cake/trophy that anyone requests, no matter what."
#24
Old 07-07-2015, 09:47 PM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leominster MA
Posts: 5,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucksinator View Post
OK, OK. I understand that my position would not have worked very well in 1900 or 1950, etc. But in these modern times I think that the free-market would work better than the government going to a bakery or a trophy shop and saying "You agreed to make a cake/trophy for that one customer, so now you have to make any cake/trophy that anyone requests, no matter what."
Requiring public accommodations serve all members of the public equally has worked fine for decades now. Why change it for the benefit of bigots who want to discriminate? Has there been any non-bigoted businesses hurt by this policy?
#25
Old 07-07-2015, 09:48 PM
Sith Mod
Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 42,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
Well, obviously some private businesses are allowed to discriminate. Ever seen a gym that only serves women? I doubt that the dating services on gay websites offer much to heterosexuals. And my local barbecue place probably doesn't serve much that Orthodox Jews can eat. Plainly the debate is not over whether businesses can discriminate, but over which businesses can.
Women's only gyms aside, none of those are examples of discrimination. A straight person is more than welcome to create a profile on a gay dating website, and an Orthodox Jew is unlikely to find anyone objecting to serving him at a barbeque place. Neither is likely to find anything they'd particularly want at those places, but they are not barred from using their services or buying their goods.
#26
Old 07-07-2015, 09:52 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Construct View Post
The free market will take care of it. There are now doubt plenty of bakeries that will be more than happy to serve those gay couples who desire to marry. The current lawsuits filed against Christian bakeries are just the latest way that individual gay couples can obtain social status and signal their righteousness to the rest of progressive America.

The entire debate over gay wedding cakes is just a way for gay people and their fellow travelers to get revenge on conservative Christians. There's no meaningful debate because wedding cakes are nearly a commodity and are easily replaceable.

Moreover, there's almost no possibility than any major or publicly traded company could successfully discriminate on any category. Discrimination is bad for business because it pointlessly drives away potentially profitable transactions and any corporate management that tried to do so would surely find themselves swiftly excommunicated by shareholders from the company they once run.
Uh-huh, just like the free market eliminated segregation and Jim Crow.
#27
Old 07-07-2015, 09:55 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucksinator View Post
If a huge business like Wal-Mart can say "we won't make Confederate flag cakes", why can't a family owned bakery say "we won't make gay wedding cakes"?
I think that you really honestly don't understand this. Saying I will not sell product [X] in my store (to anyone) is not the same as saying I will serve product [X] in my store but only to people in category [A],[B], and [C] but not for people in category [Y]. When you choose not to carry a particular product that is not the same as discrimination, because, it is equally unavailable to all people.
#28
Old 07-07-2015, 09:57 PM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,852
Quote:
Originally Posted by boytyperanma View Post
They can say they will not make gay wedding cakes. What they can not do is say we will not sell wedding cakes to gay people.
Excellent point. Now we are getting somewhere. However, I'm not sure what a "gay wedding cake" is, other than the figurines on top.
#29
Old 07-07-2015, 09:58 PM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: DC
Posts: 19,401
Should private businesses be allowed to discriminate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucksinator View Post
If a huge business like Wal-Mart can say "we won't make Confederate flag cakes", why can't a family owned bakery say "we won't make gay wedding cakes"?

And, for the bajillionth time, any bakery can decide they don't do rainbows or whatever. But they can't decide they don't serve gay customers.

We already did the "discrimination is okay" think. It led to segregated towns and all kinds of embarrassing and inhumane nastiness, as it has in every country that has tried it.

Last edited by even sven; 07-07-2015 at 09:59 PM.
#30
Old 07-07-2015, 09:58 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 388
We have discussed this many times. I am driven to the point that businesses should be allowed to discriminate. as soon as you say they should not be allowed to do so, you start down the hopeless road of defining discrimination and deciding whose views to tolerate and whose not.
#31
Old 07-07-2015, 10:00 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 32,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornopean View Post
We have discussed this many times. I am driven to the point that businesses should be allowed to discriminate. as soon as you say they should not be allowed to do so, you start down the hopeless road of defining discrimination and deciding whose views to tolerate and whose not.
How about everyone's as long as it's not illegal?
#32
Old 07-07-2015, 10:01 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert163 View Post
Except in small towns. There are two bakeries in this town I live in, 20,000 people in the city, 30,000 in the county as a whole. The issues of cakes has never come up as far as I know but it's not a town where it is "accepted" to walk around an be flamboyantly gay. I think your idea that they can allways just go to another shop is not accurate.
you can buy a cake online nowadays.

Quote:
What is wrong with that? It wouldn't even be an issue if their status was not already in question by conservatives.
what's wrong with it is that you are forcing people to do something that violates their conscience. that is wrong....right?
#33
Old 07-07-2015, 10:02 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
How about everyone's as long as it's not illegal?
Yes...ok. I would prefer to say that as long as the exercise of your freedom doesn't compromise someone else's exercise of their freedom, you should be allowed to do it.
#34
Old 07-07-2015, 10:03 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 9,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert163 View Post
Women only gyms may be problematic for this topic but not a dating site which. A dating site like "black people meet" (Is that what it's called) may be discriminating to White, Latinos, Asians, etc, people but that is a separate conversation, as is the women only gyms. In other words, whether or not certain types of "reverse" discrimination should be allowed to exist is a separate debate.
Why should there be any legal difference between "reverse" discrimination and garden-variety discrimination? And in any case, who decides whether discrimination is reverse or not? I can't see any constitutional basis for outlawing discrimination but not outlawing reverse discrimination.
#35
Old 07-07-2015, 10:03 PM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: DC
Posts: 19,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
In any case, I'm with the OP. I'll take freedom over forced cake baking.

If you want to never bake cakes, do not become a baker.

If you want to bake cakes, but only for certain people, give away your cakes or work informally.

If you want to make money off baking cakes by opening a business that serves the public, it's going to be tough to sell me on the idea that you are now being forced to bake cakes.
#36
Old 07-07-2015, 10:04 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by even sven View Post
And, for the bajillionth time, any bakery can decide they don't do rainbows or whatever. But they can't decide they don't serve gay customers.

We already did the "discrimination is okay" think. It led to segregated towns and all kinds of embarrassing and inhumane nastiness, as it has in every country that has tried it.
actually, the free market worked against segregation in the south. even racist train operators still wanted their cars to be full with paying customers. the love of profit trumped their racism. The govt had to force these guys to follow the rules about who could sit where.
#37
Old 07-07-2015, 10:04 PM
Sith Mod
Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 42,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucksinator View Post
OK, OK. I understand that my position would not have worked very well in 1900 or 1950, etc. But in these modern times I think that the free-market would work better than the government going to a bakery or a trophy shop and saying "You agreed to make a cake/trophy for that one customer, so now you have to make any cake/trophy that anyone requests, no matter what."
What is it about these modern times that you think makes us impervious to the kind of systemic discrimination practiced in this country within living memory? Things are better now than they were in the 1950s. We could get rid of all of these anti-discrimination laws tomorrow, and life would probably not be significantly worse for most minorities. But what if they don't stay better? What if those old attitudes start to gain a toe-hold again? Do we have to let things deteriorate to the point they were at fifty years ago before we remedy it again? Would it not be smarter and more humane to keep laws in place to ensure - to the extent of our ability - that that sort of society is never allowed to come back?
#38
Old 07-07-2015, 10:05 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 32,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornopean View Post
Yes...ok. I would prefer to say that as long as the exercise of your freedom doesn't compromise someone else's exercise of their freedom, you should be allowed to do it.
And by that you mean you should be able to force your religion down another person's throat?
#39
Old 07-07-2015, 10:05 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucksinator View Post
OK, OK. I understand that my position would not have worked very well in 1900 or 1950, etc. But in these modern times I think that the free-market would work better than the government going to a bakery or a trophy shop and saying "You agreed to make a cake/trophy for that one customer, so now you have to make any cake/trophy that anyone requests, no matter what."
It sounds almost like what you are saying is that a little bit of discrimination is ok, as long as, you know, it's "not as bad as it was in 1950".
#40
Old 07-07-2015, 10:05 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by even sven View Post
If you want to never bake cakes, do not become a baker.

If you want to bake cakes, but only for certain people, give away your cakes or work informally.

If you want to make money off baking cakes by opening a business that serves the public, it's going to be tough to sell me on the idea that you are now being forced to bake cakes.
This sounds great. In my heart, I follow this. but when I use my head and think rationally, I think...how much longer before society decides to make me do something that I don't want to do? If you think it's just bakers, hang on. It will be you tomorrow.
#41
Old 07-07-2015, 10:06 PM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,852
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert163 View Post
I think that you really honestly don't understand this. Saying I will not sell product [X] in my store (to anyone) is not the same as saying I will serve product [X] in my store but only to people in category [A],[B], and [C] but not for people in category [Y]. When you choose not to carry a particular product that is not the same as discrimination, because, it is equally unavailable to all people.
Are the defendants in these cases saying that they refused to sell any cake to a gay couple? Or that they refused to make a certain type of cake that basically said "F the Christians, we're getting married!" [exaggerating, of course]


Here's another example: So let's say, hypothetically, that I go to Malik Shabazz's Trophy Hut and ask them to make a trophy for my hockey league. They tell me that they pretty much cater to black people, and don't make hockey trophies at all. Can I sue them for discrimination? Will I have to prove that they have made a hockey trophy in the past to win my case? Or will that matter at all?
#42
Old 07-07-2015, 10:07 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
And by that you mean you should be able to force your religion down another person's throat?
mercy. and here I thot I was advocating the opposite. I am saying people should never be forced to do something against their conscience. did I say something to the contrary?
#43
Old 07-07-2015, 10:11 PM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: DC
Posts: 19,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornopean View Post
This sounds great. In my heart, I follow this. but when I use my head and think rationally, I think...how much longer before society decides to make me do something that I don't want to do? If you think it's just bakers, hang on. It will be you tomorrow.

Society makes you do stuff you don't want to do all the time. That's basically the definition of "society."
#44
Old 07-07-2015, 10:20 PM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,852
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornopean View Post
.....what's wrong with it is that you are forcing people to do something that violates their conscience. that is wrong....right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by even sven View Post
..... If you want to make money off baking cakes by opening a business that serves the public, it's going to be tough to sell me on the idea that you are now being forced to bake cakes.
I don't give a F about conscience or religion. I think that you should be able to choose who you do business with. Selling a cake to my neighbor's kid shouldn't obligate me to make a cake for every person that wants one. I get to choose who I buy stuff from. Shouldn't I get to choose who I sell stuff to?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert163 View Post
It sounds almost like what you are saying is that a little bit of discrimination is ok, as long as, you know, it's "not as bad as it was in 1950".
What I'm saying is that private business owners should be allowed to discriminate. The government cannot.
#45
Old 07-07-2015, 10:22 PM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: DC
Posts: 19,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucksinator View Post
Here's another example: So let's say, hypothetically, that I go to Malik Shabazz's Trophy Hut and ask them to make a trophy for my hockey league. They tell me that they pretty much cater to black people, and don't make hockey trophies at all. Can I sue them for discrimination? Will I have to prove that they have made a hockey trophy in the past to win my case? Or will that matter at all?

The key question here is "If you were a black guy and asked for a hockey trophy, would they have made you one?"

That's not always an easy one to prove. But if they sold 35 hockey trophies this month and have a portfolio of black guys posing with hockey trophies, you've probably got a case. Likewise, if they advertise something like "Custom trophies-- we make anything!" and regularly make oddball trophies, you've got a case. Or if they say something like "I'm sorry, but I'm not comfortable encouraging your white-guy lifestyle," that's a giveaway.

But if they work from a handful of molds and just don't have hockey, that's fine. Or if the place they order the statues from only has hockey on back order, that fine. The only thing that's not fine is "We'd totally make you a hockey trophy, except that we don't serve whites."
#46
Old 07-07-2015, 10:26 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: THE Eastern IA Metropolis
Posts: 1,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornopean View Post
what's wrong with it is that you are forcing people to do something that violates their conscience. that is wrong....right?
How is baking a cake violating someone's conscience? Or taking photographs? Or providing floral arrangements?

You're not solemnizing the proceedings, or in any way being a party to the marriage vows themselves. You're merely providing a product or service for this event. You don't have to agree with the parties involved. Your cake or your photos or your flowers aren't going to make God wrathful and send you to hell. You're running a business and providing something people want to pay you for.

"Christian businesses" hiding behind "religious liberty" to avoid working with gay people is just ridiculous. Baking a cake for a gay couple is not a sin. Nor does it show you approve of their activities. How many of these "Christian" bakers refuse to provide cakes for marriages of divorced people? Isn't that just as sinful, heck, even more so if you go by what Jesus actually said? Doesn't that show approval of sinful behavior just as much?

Don't worry. We know what you mean by "my religious liberty is being restricted!" You think gays are icky. Tough. Deal with it, or find another vocation.
#47
Old 07-07-2015, 10:27 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucksinator View Post
Are the defendants in these cases saying that they refused to sell any cake to a gay couple? Or that they refused to make a certain type of cake that basically said "F the Christians, we're getting married!" [exaggerating, of course]


Here's another example: So let's say, hypothetically, that I go to Malik Shabazz's Trophy Hut and ask them to make a trophy for my hockey league. They tell me that they pretty much cater to black people, and don't make hockey trophies at all. Can I sue them for discrimination? Will I have to prove that they have made a hockey trophy in the past to win my case? Or will that matter at all?
IDK if you could sue them due to a hockey cake, probably not, I think a better example would be a "hippie" bookstore that was strongly anti religious not selling books to someone wearing a cross.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cornopean View Post
mercy. and here I thot I was advocating the opposite. I am saying people should never be forced to do something against their conscience. did I say something to the contrary?
I don't want to and it is against my conscience are really beside the point. People may be bothered if they have to make a wedding cake for a gay person, but since there is nothing morally wrong with being gay, their negative feelings on the matter are irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cornopean View Post
you can buy a cake online nowadays.
So? It's still unfair to discriminate. Plus, for an item like a wedding cake most people want personal service.


Quote:
Originally Posted by cornopean View Post
We have discussed this many times. I am driven to the point that businesses should be allowed to discriminate. as soon as you say they should not be allowed to do so, you start down the hopeless road of defining discrimination and deciding whose views to tolerate and whose not.
Please give an example of this happening
#48
Old 07-07-2015, 10:33 PM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucksinator View Post
OK, OK. I understand that my position would not have worked very well in 1900 or 1950, etc. But in these modern times I think that the free-market would work better than the government going to a bakery or a trophy shop and saying "You agreed to make a cake/trophy for that one customer, so now you have to make any cake/trophy that anyone requests, no matter what."
....No, the baker doesn't have to "make any cake that anyone requests". The baker can choose to only make strawberry cakes with buttercream icing decorated with roses if that's all he wants to sell. It would be a lousy business decision, for sure, but the baker is allowed to choose what products he carries in his shop.

But if a gay couple wants to buy a strawberry cake with buttercream icing decorated with roses to serve at their wedding - the exact same cake he bakes for straight people with nary a thought as to where and how it will be consumed- he should have to sell it to them.
#49
Old 07-07-2015, 10:34 PM
Sith Mod
Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 42,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucksinator View Post
Are the defendants in these cases saying that they refused to sell any cake to a gay couple? Or that they refused to make a certain type of cake that basically said "F the Christians, we're getting married!" [exaggerating, of course]
They refused to sell wedding cakes to gay couples, but would sell them to straight couples. They would, apparently, sell gay people other kinds of cake. This is still discrimination - in the history of the American Civil Rights movement, it's very nearly the archetypical form of discrimination. While there were plenty of "whites only" businesses in the Jim Crow south, the big battles were over businesses that offered unequal services. Blacks were allowed in Woolworths - just not at the lunch counter. Rosa Parks wasn't refused service on the bus entirely, just the right to sit where she wanted on it. Brown versus the Board of Education wasn't about the state offering no education to black students, but over offering a shitty education to black students.

The bakery in question will make a custom cake for a straight couple. They won't make one for a gay couple. Regardless of how many other confections they're willing to sell to gays, that's still discrimination.
#50
Old 07-07-2015, 10:34 PM
BANNED
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucksinator View Post
I don't give a F about conscience or religion. I think that you should be able to choose who you do business with. Selling a cake to my neighbor's kid shouldn't obligate me to make a cake for every person that wants one.
If you sell a cake in your home only to friends, that is not a public business. You need to come up with a better hypothetical delima.

Quote:
I get to choose who I buy stuff from. Shouldn't I get to choose who I sell stuff to?
But choosing to buy your widget from Steve's widget shop instead of Bob's widget shop is not discrimination. If you choose not to shop at Bob's widget shop because Bob was gay, that would be a from of discrimination, but, you are not affecting the public at large. Having a widget shop and not doing business with people in category [X] does affect the public at large.
Reply

┬ź Previous Thread | Next Thread ┬╗
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:48 AM.

Copyright © 2017
Best Topics: stick shift motorcycle brisket other names honda pax system coke baggies most painful shots boombox antenna paper mites wikipedia quietus tinitis microsoft office flowcharts eel texture can bones melt b29 vs b52 turn brake fax handshake no cavities ever zoe chace voice mlb rainouts prefectures meaning manufacturer buyback cat named kalamazoo tobacco smell firehouse sub sizes cool yoga names is tiny.cc safe kosher capitalized yoda jumping mlk statue flushing cat poop wet brakes borax cockroach hashish assassin dense cheesecake no extradition stray cat won't leave irish spring body spray put the lime in the coconut commercial is kangaroo meat legal in the us list major credit cards on apartment application will call ticket greyhound helicopter ride from los angeles to san francisco how much does it cost for 1800 got junk 12 second quarter mile how do you spell exercise high pitched noise from computer speakers do ravens make good pets in front of a phone number where do djs get their acapellas how to get used to wearing glasses old uhaul trailer for sale your money's no good here cost of putting a cat to sleep what does punta in spanish mean 5l mini keg brands of beer jet look what you've done meaning what do blue reflectors in the road indicate what does 5by5 mean how to type a squiggly line how many wings come in little caesars order deer weight to meat ratio wound tighter than a how to cut a deer's throat buying a car from a tow company what is a hoopty money pinned to shirt white chocolate for dogs