7 ms·
The line between free speech and discrimination was drawn long ago. Would you also have people deny service to Black Americans like we did before the Civil Righ
by Miner49er 10y ago
The line between free speech and discrimination was drawn long ago. Would you also have people deny service to Black Americans like we did before the Civil Rights movement?
- lol214365 10y agoThey are not denying service. Any gay customer can go into an aforementioned bakery and order any of the goods any other customer might order. They just cannot order a cake for a gay wedding -- nor can any straight customer. That is completely different than categorically denying service to black customers.
- Miner49er 10y agoOkay, so would you then be okay with a bakery not providing service to a wedding between two people of a certain race, because of their race?
- TheOsiris 10y agoWhat, exactly, is the problem with that? Everyone should have the right to refuse service to whomever they please. Should I be forced to cater to a nazi wedding? I think I should be allowed to deny service to whomever I please. And if people don't like it (as in the case of denying service to certain races) then they should stop going to that business.
- Miner49er 10y agoNo you shouldn't be forced to cater to a Nazi wedding in my opinion. A person chooses to be a Nazi, but a person doesn't choose their race. It's unfair and dangerous to treat people differently for something about themselves that they can't control.
- kansface 10y ago| It's unfair and dangerous to treat people differently for something about themselves that they can't control. It is not fair one way or the other. You have also put yourself in the unenviable position of determining what can and can not be controlled by an individual - this will not end well.
- Miner49er 10y agoWe kind of already do that with the Civil Rights act of 1964, and it has seemed to work okay.
- kansface 10y agoIndeed, The Civil Rights Act kinda does - | ...equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. IE, a specific group of people in specific set of places. That does not include discrimination against "things people can't control" in any and all establishments.
- hackuser 10y ago> What, exactly, is the problem with that? Everyone should have the right to refuse service to whomever they please. I encourage you to look up the history of segregation in the U.S. That approach works out very badly.
- empath75 10y agoI suspect this person would not agree with that.
- TheOsiris 10y agoI'm a racial and religious minority who's in an interracial relationship. so, as you've already guessed, I long for the Jim Crow days of yore.
- TheOsiris 10y agoI guess the reason I think we no longer be that is the fact that this is a very different country from back then. after all, we have twitter! /s. but I see your point and concede that it can be a dangerous slippery slope.
- hackuser 10y ago> this is a very different country from back then Very different, but still a long way to go. I remember reading that in ~1959 (this is from memory, so all details are a bit hazy) 95% of Americans opposed legalizing interracial marriage; now of course a similar number support its legality - it's a non-issue. Look at the boom in the black middle class (it's amazing what people do when you give them a chance). Look at LGBTQ rights and the incredible advance of women in society. On the other hand, look at who won the November election, offering the most brazen racially and religiously prejudiced, hateful messages of any major party candidate, possibly ever, and openly partnering with the most powerful agent of white supremacy in the U.S. (Bannon). Look at how minorities are treated by law enforcement in many places. Look at the overwhelming prevalence of white-skinned people (and men) in movies, IT (name the top 10 industry leaders in the last 25 years), national and state government, Fortune 500 CEOs, etc etc.
- ceejayoz 10y ago> They just cannot order a cake for a gay wedding -- nor can any straight customer. That's like saying you didn't steal my money, you've just enforced a rule that I can only spend my money on you.
- chc 10y agoThis is cognate to the "Black people can get married, just not to members of a different race" argument, which has long been recognized as specious.
- lol214365 10y agoInterracial marriage has been around for time immemorial and in no way affects the nature of a marriage. Gay marriage was invented in the past coupled decades by left-wing ideologues. Even in ancient societies where homosexuality was the norm, they didn't have gay marriage. Gay marriage also entirely deviates from the original purpose of marriage: to settle down to monogamy to birth and raise children. The idea that the two are comparable is pretty ridiculous.
- jhomedall 10y agoFor anyone more interested in this, the most relevant cases are "Pace v. Alabama" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pace_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pace_v._Alabama), and "Loving v. Virginia" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia).
- 19guid 10y agoIn the context of expressive services like wedding photography, yes. The government should not be allowed to compel protected speech, even when such compulsion would be in the public interest. That's the price we pay for liberty. I don't see how this is any more problematic than allowing the Klu Klux Klan to march against black rights.
- Miner49er 10y agoOkay, I can understand that viewpoint, it is logical. However, I'd argue that while liberty would be gained, it would come at the expense of there being more hate in the world. I personally don't think I would want to live in a society where people are denied service because of something about themselves that they cannot control.
- beaconstudios 10y agoforcing interaction doesn't remove that pre-existing hate though (I'd prefer the term prejudice because I know many christians don't hate gays). Forcing a christian bakery or a muslim pizzeria to cater to a gay wedding would just foster resentment at being compelled by the government to perform an action against their will. Freedom of association means that groups that don't want to interact, don't have to. For someone with an egalitarian mindset that might seem abhorrent but some beliefs or characteristics can't necessarily be reconciled.
- Miner49er 10y agoDepending on how the interaction plays out, there is a chance that prejudice would be reduced due to contact hypothesis, but it seems unlikely that the criteria would be met for most services. For some services like wedding photography, however, it seems likely that the criteria would be met and prejudice might be reduced.
- beaconstudios 10y agoI wouldn't think the contact hypothesis would play out quite so nicely under duress from the government. People naturally hate being forced into situations they're uncomfortable in, and I could very easily see that frustration being projected onto the individual/s that the person is prejudiced against.
- TheOsiris 10y agoShould a Jewish restaurant be compelled to serve neo-nazis wearing Nazi uniforms?
- Miner49er 10y agoProbably not. That's a very different situation. Neo-nazis make a choice to be neo-nazis.
- jbmorgado 10y agoSo, according to your argument, it should be ok to denny someone service based on their religion as well.
- humanrebar 10y agoPeople don't pick whether God exists.
- pshposh 10y agoSure they do; it's all in their head.
- mwfunk 10y agoOf course they do. It's impossible to know whether or not God exists based on physical evidence; that's why religion is based on faith and not scientific research. People choose their religious beliefs, or (much more commonly) have them chosen for them. That's faith.