6 ms·

On the other hand... it's illegal. They shouldn't be business owners if our social contract hurts their feelings. Commerce is a regulated activity.

Shivetya 10y ago
I am of the opinion that since these services are not limited in number that society can be more corrective by simply not patronizing providers who don't uphold its values.
- danielsju6 10y ago
  In many places they are limited in number. Further in those places, the populations that non-discrimination laws protect need protecting. If it weren't for the law their livelyhoods and lives would be in greater danger. I'm from the middle of nowhere and so are my gay brothers, one of whom recently got married. I've experienced this. I've fought this. Don't try to feed me this invisble hand solving discrimination and hate crimes horseshit. Libertarians...
dnautics 10y ago
You could make the exact same statement about Eric Garner: Eric Garner shouldn't be in the business of selling loose cigarettes, because our social contract prohibits that sort of activity. Commerce is a regulated activity, and Garner's death is an unfortunate but justifiable collateral damage of the police's clear duty to enforce the social contract.
- wutbrodo 10y ago
  As much as I disagree with the GP commenter, this doesn't make any sense at all. It's possible to think that Garner was breaking the law and that police use of excessive force (including a banned technique) was _unjustifiable_. How on earth do you jump from "he was doing something illegal so the police had the right to enforce the law" to "the amount of force used was appropriate and unfortunately led to his death". You may have lost the thread of the conversation, but no one was talking about bakers being killed by inappropriate use of police force in the course of compelling them to serve gay weddings.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  I don't think that getting hit with a lawsuit and dying are equivalent disincentives.
- orbitur 10y ago
  > Garner's death is an unfortunate but justifiable collateral damage of the police's clear duty to enforce the social contract No.
LordKano 10y ago
Should a Jewish baker be forced to bake a Swastika cake? Should a black florist be forced to make arrangements for a KKK wedding? Should a Muslim butcher be forced to prepare pork for his customers? I don't know about you but I wouldn't want to eat something that someone didn't really want to make for me. Can you trust food that was only made under threat of government action? I can't.
- danielsju6 10y ago
  1) No, that's silly 2) No, the florist would not be in violation of anti-discrimination 3) No, if he didn't already sell pork he wouldn't be forced to The last point, fair. No one said the cake had to be good :P It's just their professional reputation on the line. The protected populations are rather limited "race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation", there may be additional protections in your jurisdiction + it has to be a product/service you already provide. If you bake cakes, you can't refuse a cake to a gay couple; you could refuse on any number of other grounds though. If you don't sell pork, you can't be forced to. But breaking our laws because you like a book (legally speaking) is not allowed. * FYI I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, if you're refusing service to anyone for anything other than business reasons you should double check with your counsel. You could be violating feduciary duty, etc.
  - LordKano 10y ago
    I find it silly that a devout Christian can be sued into bankruptcy because he or she doesn't want make a wedding cake with two grooms on it. I find it silly that a devout Christian can be sued into bankruptcy because he or she doesn't want to photograph a wedding ceremony with two brides. The law has no regard for silly. Moreover, you're missing the point. I picked people for my example because we all understand how repugnant those people would find it to be forced to take part in certain actions. I get it, religious people are a convenient target of scorn and ridicule but the government shouldn't be in the business of coercing people to provide non-essential services to others. So, a black ER doctor should have to provide assistance to the KKK member who was just shot and a Jewish pharmacist should have to fill the prescription for the neo-nazi's cancer medication. Those are life and death issues, so they're not the same as someone getting their feelings hurt because someone else didn't want to associate with them.

Shivetya 10y ago

I am of the opinion that since these services are not limited in number that society can be more corrective by simply not patronizing providers who don't uphold its values.

danielsju6 10y ago
In many places they are limited in number. Further in those places, the populations that non-discrimination laws protect need protecting. If it weren't for the law their livelyhoods and lives would be in greater danger. I'm from the middle of nowhere and so are my gay brothers, one of whom recently got married. I've experienced this. I've fought this. Don't try to feed me this invisble hand solving discrimination and hate crimes horseshit. Libertarians...

dnautics 10y ago

You could make the exact same statement about Eric Garner: Eric Garner shouldn't be in the business of selling loose cigarettes, because our social contract prohibits that sort of activity. Commerce is a regulated activity, and Garner's death is an unfortunate but justifiable collateral damage of the police's clear duty to enforce the social contract.

wutbrodo 10y ago
As much as I disagree with the GP commenter, this doesn't make any sense at all. It's possible to think that Garner was breaking the law and that police use of excessive force (including a banned technique) was _unjustifiable_. How on earth do you jump from "he was doing something illegal so the police had the right to enforce the law" to "the amount of force used was appropriate and unfortunately led to his death". You may have lost the thread of the conversation, but no one was talking about bakers being killed by inappropriate use of police force in the course of compelling them to serve gay weddings.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
I don't think that getting hit with a lawsuit and dying are equivalent disincentives.
orbitur 10y ago
> Garner's death is an unfortunate but justifiable collateral damage of the police's clear duty to enforce the social contract No.

LordKano 10y ago

Should a Jewish baker be forced to bake a Swastika cake? Should a black florist be forced to make arrangements for a KKK wedding? Should a Muslim butcher be forced to prepare pork for his customers? I don't know about you but I wouldn't want to eat something that someone didn't really want to make for me. Can you trust food that was only made under threat of government action? I can't.

danielsju6 10y ago
1) No, that's silly 2) No, the florist would not be in violation of anti-discrimination 3) No, if he didn't already sell pork he wouldn't be forced to The last point, fair. No one said the cake had to be good :P It's just their professional reputation on the line. The protected populations are rather limited "race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation", there may be additional protections in your jurisdiction + it has to be a product/service you already provide. If you bake cakes, you can't refuse a cake to a gay couple; you could refuse on any number of other grounds though. If you don't sell pork, you can't be forced to. But breaking our laws because you like a book (legally speaking) is not allowed. * FYI I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, if you're refusing service to anyone for anything other than business reasons you should double check with your counsel. You could be violating feduciary duty, etc.
- LordKano 10y ago
  I find it silly that a devout Christian can be sued into bankruptcy because he or she doesn't want make a wedding cake with two grooms on it. I find it silly that a devout Christian can be sued into bankruptcy because he or she doesn't want to photograph a wedding ceremony with two brides. The law has no regard for silly. Moreover, you're missing the point. I picked people for my example because we all understand how repugnant those people would find it to be forced to take part in certain actions. I get it, religious people are a convenient target of scorn and ridicule but the government shouldn't be in the business of coercing people to provide non-essential services to others. So, a black ER doctor should have to provide assistance to the KKK member who was just shot and a Jewish pharmacist should have to fill the prescription for the neo-nazi's cancer medication. Those are life and death issues, so they're not the same as someone getting their feelings hurt because someone else didn't want to associate with them.