4 ms·

Gay people can't choose not to be gay. People can, however, choose whether they're going to be part of a political movement dedicated to the oppression and even

Gay people can't choose not to be gay. People can, however, choose whether they're going to be part of a political movement dedicated to the oppression and eventual "cleansing" of large groups of people primarily based on things those people can't choose. I really don't get why you can't see a difference.

gasof 9y ago
So I guess we should forbid Zionism then? They actually succeeded in their ethnic cleansing of Israel. Can a baker refuse to bake a cake for pro-Israel Jews? What about pro-choicers, can I refuse to serve them because of their concrete genocidal acts?
- vertex-four 9y ago
  I'd suggest that you could very well refuse to serve someone over their support of whichever side in the current Palestine occupation, as an example of something that might reasonably happen. And I don't think there's anything that would actually prevent you from refusing to serve pro-choicers, except that you'd probably go out of business quite quickly. I'd suggest that your customers would have a right to boycott you, protest you, and attempt to socially shame you if you did either of those things.
  - EdSharkey 9y ago
    Please don't try to change the subject. The answer is: no, the baker cannot discriminate against pro-choice customers or else they'll be shutdown by the mob and cease being a baker. I think GP's point was that there's a nasty double standard as to whose conscience can be exercised and whose cannot. I think the gracious thing for you to do now would be to acknowledge that that double-standard exists AND confirm that you're fine with that double standard in some cases.
    - vertex-four 9y ago
      The baker can discriminate against pro-choice customers perfectly legally, as far as I'm aware. The same thing - the boycott and protests - will happen to the baker who discriminates against anti-choice customers in a rural town, except their customers might actually have legal backing since being anti-choice is usually a religious belief. What the society that baker operates in chooses to do about it is entirely separate from what the Government should be allowed to do about it. Yes, a "double-standard" exists in that people think that some forms of discrimination are reprehensible and others aren't. I think it's entirely reasonable that people use their freedom of speech and freedom not to interact with people they don't like in any way they see fit - to think otherwise is to deny people some of their core human rights. At the root of it all, the state is in the position of ensuring a person's livelihood, not me as an individual, not any individual business.
      - Chris2048 9y ago
        > some forms of discrimination are reprehensible Nazis vs Gay couples are easy, softball examples of "clearly reprehensible" versus otherwise. But if you allow the double standard, you'll find a fairly large grey area. Are meat eaters reprehensible too? The religious? The anti-religious? non-religious pro-lifers (like myself)?
    - EdSharkey 9y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_Cakes_by_Melissa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_Cakes_by_Melissa As I said, the answer is simply NO. The mob will try to destroy you if you're on the mob's bad side. Oh you are a dear for air-quote acknowledging that there is a double standard that you approve of. A CEO can break his company policies and refuse to serve an ugly customer who is engaging in protected speech but that they find morally reprehensible. A baker cannot refuse to serve a protected class that they find morally reprehensible or else suffer government penalties, media firestorms, and a ruined business and reputation. Four legs good, two legs bad, am I right?
    - Aqueous 9y ago
      There's a single standard. You are free to engage in business with whomever you choose. This applies to everyone. But this freedom doesn't liberate you from the social consequences of your actions. Cloudflare will probably endure social consequences for its actions - mostly inflicted upon them by social libertarians who believe they made this decision arbitrarily. Some of the social repercussions may be justified. But that doesn't mean their decision was unlawful, just frowned upon by certain quarters. It always comes down to a war of values. This discussion is just a proxy for the larger discussion, which concerns which values are right and which are wrong. And there is, most of us would say, a real, universal answer there. We might not know what it is, but we believe there is one. Or else all of this hand-wringing is just arbitrary, and it comes down to who has more power.
  - leereeves 9y ago
    > I'd suggest that you could very well refuse to serve someone over their support of whichever side in the current Palestine occupation I don't know about that, but it is illegal to boycott Israel. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/25/obama-signs-israel-anti-boycott-provisions-into-law-settlements-and-all/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      Nothing in that bill makes private boycotts illegal. It stops the US courts from enforcing foreign-court decisions based on foreign boycott laws.
      - nojvek 9y ago
        Should Cloudflare allow sites that deal with child porn? No. Should they allow sites that sell drugs that could ruin someone's lives. No. We'll the Nazis killed millions of people and storm trooper not only celebrates that but also endorsed Killing innocent civilians in a rally. If you hosting someone's site is going to result in a message of so much hate that it results in innocent deaths then yes, THE LINE IS CROSSED.
philh 9y ago
If gay people could choose not to be gay, would you have a different opinion about the cake shop?
- vertex-four 9y ago
  I'd still think it's awful because I don't see being gay as a bad or immoral thing - there's pretty much no imaginable situation in which allowing gay people to exist unhindered causes damage to anyone. I'd suggest that if being gay were a conscious choice, the shop should have a right to refuse service to gay people, but again, I'd have a right to stand outside their shop with placards, shout about it in the news, etc etc. On the other hand, allowing neo-nazis to go unhindered may quite reasonably result in people's deaths, so.
- webXL 9y ago
  Why are you even going down this road? Human beings are tribal. Tribes based on "choice" and tribes based on our DNA. We form numerous institutions based on this fact. Stop pretending otherwise. If I don't initiate force against you, you have no right to initiate force against me. If I don't want to trade with you, you have no right to demand me to trade with you. Why are we overlooking something that should be taught in Kindergarten???

gasof 9y ago

So I guess we should forbid Zionism then? They actually succeeded in their ethnic cleansing of Israel. Can a baker refuse to bake a cake for pro-Israel Jews? What about pro-choicers, can I refuse to serve them because of their concrete genocidal acts?

vertex-four 9y ago
I'd suggest that you could very well refuse to serve someone over their support of whichever side in the current Palestine occupation, as an example of something that might reasonably happen. And I don't think there's anything that would actually prevent you from refusing to serve pro-choicers, except that you'd probably go out of business quite quickly. I'd suggest that your customers would have a right to boycott you, protest you, and attempt to socially shame you if you did either of those things.
- EdSharkey 9y ago
  Please don't try to change the subject. The answer is: no, the baker cannot discriminate against pro-choice customers or else they'll be shutdown by the mob and cease being a baker. I think GP's point was that there's a nasty double standard as to whose conscience can be exercised and whose cannot. I think the gracious thing for you to do now would be to acknowledge that that double-standard exists AND confirm that you're fine with that double standard in some cases.
  - vertex-four 9y ago
    The baker can discriminate against pro-choice customers perfectly legally, as far as I'm aware. The same thing - the boycott and protests - will happen to the baker who discriminates against anti-choice customers in a rural town, except their customers might actually have legal backing since being anti-choice is usually a religious belief. What the society that baker operates in chooses to do about it is entirely separate from what the Government should be allowed to do about it. Yes, a "double-standard" exists in that people think that some forms of discrimination are reprehensible and others aren't. I think it's entirely reasonable that people use their freedom of speech and freedom not to interact with people they don't like in any way they see fit - to think otherwise is to deny people some of their core human rights. At the root of it all, the state is in the position of ensuring a person's livelihood, not me as an individual, not any individual business.
    - Chris2048 9y ago
      > some forms of discrimination are reprehensible Nazis vs Gay couples are easy, softball examples of "clearly reprehensible" versus otherwise. But if you allow the double standard, you'll find a fairly large grey area. Are meat eaters reprehensible too? The religious? The anti-religious? non-religious pro-lifers (like myself)?
  - EdSharkey 9y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_Cakes_by_Melissa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_Cakes_by_Melissa As I said, the answer is simply NO. The mob will try to destroy you if you're on the mob's bad side. Oh you are a dear for air-quote acknowledging that there is a double standard that you approve of. A CEO can break his company policies and refuse to serve an ugly customer who is engaging in protected speech but that they find morally reprehensible. A baker cannot refuse to serve a protected class that they find morally reprehensible or else suffer government penalties, media firestorms, and a ruined business and reputation. Four legs good, two legs bad, am I right?
  - Aqueous 9y ago
    There's a single standard. You are free to engage in business with whomever you choose. This applies to everyone. But this freedom doesn't liberate you from the social consequences of your actions. Cloudflare will probably endure social consequences for its actions - mostly inflicted upon them by social libertarians who believe they made this decision arbitrarily. Some of the social repercussions may be justified. But that doesn't mean their decision was unlawful, just frowned upon by certain quarters. It always comes down to a war of values. This discussion is just a proxy for the larger discussion, which concerns which values are right and which are wrong. And there is, most of us would say, a real, universal answer there. We might not know what it is, but we believe there is one. Or else all of this hand-wringing is just arbitrary, and it comes down to who has more power.
- leereeves 9y ago
  > I'd suggest that you could very well refuse to serve someone over their support of whichever side in the current Palestine occupation I don't know about that, but it is illegal to boycott Israel. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/25/obama-signs-israel-anti-boycott-provisions-into-law-settlements-and-all/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Nothing in that bill makes private boycotts illegal. It stops the US courts from enforcing foreign-court decisions based on foreign boycott laws.
    - nojvek 9y ago
      Should Cloudflare allow sites that deal with child porn? No. Should they allow sites that sell drugs that could ruin someone's lives. No. We'll the Nazis killed millions of people and storm trooper not only celebrates that but also endorsed Killing innocent civilians in a rally. If you hosting someone's site is going to result in a message of so much hate that it results in innocent deaths then yes, THE LINE IS CROSSED.

philh 9y ago

If gay people could choose not to be gay, would you have a different opinion about the cake shop?

vertex-four 9y ago
I'd still think it's awful because I don't see being gay as a bad or immoral thing - there's pretty much no imaginable situation in which allowing gay people to exist unhindered causes damage to anyone. I'd suggest that if being gay were a conscious choice, the shop should have a right to refuse service to gay people, but again, I'd have a right to stand outside their shop with placards, shout about it in the news, etc etc. On the other hand, allowing neo-nazis to go unhindered may quite reasonably result in people's deaths, so.
webXL 9y ago
Why are you even going down this road? Human beings are tribal. Tribes based on "choice" and tribes based on our DNA. We form numerous institutions based on this fact. Stop pretending otherwise. If I don't initiate force against you, you have no right to initiate force against me. If I don't want to trade with you, you have no right to demand me to trade with you. Why are we overlooking something that should be taught in Kindergarten???