4 ms·

What is your point? That being awful is ok? This is a religious thing in this case so a government should not be in the business of protecting one religion or

by coco1989 11y ago

What is your point? That being awful is ok? This is a religious thing in this case so a government should not be in the business of protecting one religion or any religious belief - or we should discuss how far to go with it - this ... is too far

zeveb 11y ago
> What is your point? That being awful is ok? No, that being awful (by some folks' lights) should be legal — i.e., that violent force (which is the ultimate backstop of any law) should not be employed to force people to be nice to one another. > This is a religious thing in this case so a government should not be in the business of protecting one religion or any religious belief Government shouldn't be involved, period. If someone wishes to do business with someone else, good (or bad) for him; if not, good (or bad) for him all the same. No-one should be forced to do business with someone he dislikes: not PayPal, and no-one else either.
- gstn 11y ago
  So, let me understand: do you think that a person running a lunch counter should be able to refuse to do business with someone because of, let's say, their skin color?
  - zeveb 11y ago
    > do you think that a person running a lunch counter should be able to refuse to do business with someone because of, let's say, their skin color? I think such a person would be wrong, but that neither you nor I have the right to beat him for refusing to serve; indeed, if we use violence to compel him to work, then we have reduced him to a state of involuntary servitude — i.e., slavery. So, let me understand: do you think people should be beaten and killed because they refuse to do business with someone?
- kstrauser 11y ago
  > Government shouldn't be involved, period. If someone wishes to do business with someone else, good (or bad) for him; if not, good (or bad) for him all the same. First, that case law was settled over 50 years ago when we ruled segregation illegal. Contrary to your wishes, that ship has sailed. Second, businesses are permitted to serve the public and subject to lots of laws. You can't say "I don't want to comply with the health code, and it's unfair that the government is using violent force to make me wash my oven!" Similarly, all three branches of government have definitively ruled that you can't refuse to do business with someone based on their attributes (race, gender, religion, etc.). There's no meaningful line you can draw between "I don't sell cake to gay people" and "I don't sell cake to black people". Both are explicitly illegal in most places and morally reprehensible in all.
  - zeveb 11y ago
    > There's no meaningful line you can draw between "I don't sell cake to gay people" and "I don't sell cake to black people". Both are explicitly illegal in most places and morally reprehensible in all. I agree that both are morally reprehensible. Can you see the difference between refusing to bake a cake for a gay customer and refusing to bake a cake with the message, 'congratulations to Tim & Steve on their wedding'? The first is about people; the second is about speech. I can live with protecting people; I cannot tolerate compelling speech.

zeveb 11y ago

> What is your point? That being awful is ok? No, that being awful (by some folks' lights) should be legal — i.e., that violent force (which is the ultimate backstop of any law) should not be employed to force people to be nice to one another. > This is a religious thing in this case so a government should not be in the business of protecting one religion or any religious belief Government shouldn't be involved, period. If someone wishes to do business with someone else, good (or bad) for him; if not, good (or bad) for him all the same. No-one should be forced to do business with someone he dislikes: not PayPal, and no-one else either.

gstn 11y ago
So, let me understand: do you think that a person running a lunch counter should be able to refuse to do business with someone because of, let's say, their skin color?
- zeveb 11y ago
  > do you think that a person running a lunch counter should be able to refuse to do business with someone because of, let's say, their skin color? I think such a person would be wrong, but that neither you nor I have the right to beat him for refusing to serve; indeed, if we use violence to compel him to work, then we have reduced him to a state of involuntary servitude — i.e., slavery. So, let me understand: do you think people should be beaten and killed because they refuse to do business with someone?
kstrauser 11y ago
> Government shouldn't be involved, period. If someone wishes to do business with someone else, good (or bad) for him; if not, good (or bad) for him all the same. First, that case law was settled over 50 years ago when we ruled segregation illegal. Contrary to your wishes, that ship has sailed. Second, businesses are permitted to serve the public and subject to lots of laws. You can't say "I don't want to comply with the health code, and it's unfair that the government is using violent force to make me wash my oven!" Similarly, all three branches of government have definitively ruled that you can't refuse to do business with someone based on their attributes (race, gender, religion, etc.). There's no meaningful line you can draw between "I don't sell cake to gay people" and "I don't sell cake to black people". Both are explicitly illegal in most places and morally reprehensible in all.
- zeveb 11y ago
  > There's no meaningful line you can draw between "I don't sell cake to gay people" and "I don't sell cake to black people". Both are explicitly illegal in most places and morally reprehensible in all. I agree that both are morally reprehensible. Can you see the difference between refusing to bake a cake for a gay customer and refusing to bake a cake with the message, 'congratulations to Tim & Steve on their wedding'? The first is about people; the second is about speech. I can live with protecting people; I cannot tolerate compelling speech.