3 ms·

Did you apply this logic to the bakery who refused to bake the cake for a gay wedding last year? The issue of freedom of speech when it relates to businesses i

Did you apply this logic to the bakery who refused to bake the cake for a gay wedding last year? The issue of freedom of speech when it relates to businesses is a pretty good hypocrisy litmus test. Last year the Left was outraged when a business refused service based on moral grounds, while the Right sided with the business, and we have the opposite in this case.

cleansy 9y ago
IANAL - but that's a different deal. You are (afaik) not allowed to discriminate against gender, sexual orientation etc. as a business or private person. Whereas Freedom of speech is just about what the gov' can and can't do to you. Edit: so it's not quite comparable in this way.
- ZoeZoeBee 9y ago
  Not really. The Federal Civil Rights Act only prevents discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Sexual Orientation was never included in the legislation, though some states do have legislation with respect to sexual orientation and political affiliation. California being one of the states which does not allow discrimination on sexual orientation or political affiliation. As detestable as they are one could easily argue that the Neo-Nazis are a political group and should be afforded equal protection. As a side note, the Bakery case is being looked at by the Supreme Court, in terms of whether or not you can force an artist to make something they don't want to.
  - Chaebixi 9y ago
    > California being one of the states which does not allow discrimination on...political affiliation. Cite please, I genuinely curious.
bjl 9y ago
Sexual orientation is a protected class. Being a Nazi is not. This difference isn't hard to understand.
- ZoeZoeBee 9y ago
  Sexual Orientation, like Political Affiliation, is only protected in certain states. The Federal Anti-Discrimination Law does not protect against discrimination by sexual orientation, you might want to read up before claiming to understand something
averagewall 9y ago
Yes. People who defer to the legal definition of protected classes and insist that members of them must be protected and everyone else be damned are the showing clear hypocrisy. It would be funny if in another 1000 years we'll all agree that the current US popular leftist morals turned out to be the right ones: It's wrong to discriminate against someone because of their race, religion, sex, or sexual preferences (as long as it's one of a few predefined types) but it's right to discriminate against someone because of their political views, alternative sexuality (outside the list of predefined types), ugliness, height, location of birth, or anything else you don't like. These classifications are so arbitrary and transient, why does anyone stand by them so vehemently? When they're old they might become the new racist uncle - hating the wrong people that the next couple of generations decide shouldn't be hated anymore.
- Chaebixi 9y ago
  > When they're old they might become the new racist uncle Honestly, that's what's got me concerned. Political mores are changing so fast and so constantly, and people are being so black-and-white about them, that it seems like the only "acceptable" position to some people is getting pretty close to a full-throated condemnation of everything and everyone that happened before they were born. If it wasn't so easy to fail the purity tests, maybe fewer people would become Nazis (either out of ostracization or to troll purity the testers).
kbturner 9y ago
There is a fundamental difference between large businesses and small businesses that operate on a personal scale. Hilton discriminating on race: wrong. Google discriminating on politics: wrong. Doctor refusing circumcision: OK. Bakery refusing gay wedding cake: OK. Musician refusing to play in $religious_building: OK. Especially if a large business is a monopoly.

cleansy 9y ago

IANAL - but that's a different deal. You are (afaik) not allowed to discriminate against gender, sexual orientation etc. as a business or private person. Whereas Freedom of speech is just about what the gov' can and can't do to you. Edit: so it's not quite comparable in this way.

ZoeZoeBee 9y ago
Not really. The Federal Civil Rights Act only prevents discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Sexual Orientation was never included in the legislation, though some states do have legislation with respect to sexual orientation and political affiliation. California being one of the states which does not allow discrimination on sexual orientation or political affiliation. As detestable as they are one could easily argue that the Neo-Nazis are a political group and should be afforded equal protection. As a side note, the Bakery case is being looked at by the Supreme Court, in terms of whether or not you can force an artist to make something they don't want to.
- Chaebixi 9y ago
  > California being one of the states which does not allow discrimination on...political affiliation. Cite please, I genuinely curious.

bjl 9y ago

Sexual orientation is a protected class. Being a Nazi is not. This difference isn't hard to understand.

ZoeZoeBee 9y ago
Sexual Orientation, like Political Affiliation, is only protected in certain states. The Federal Anti-Discrimination Law does not protect against discrimination by sexual orientation, you might want to read up before claiming to understand something

averagewall 9y ago

Yes. People who defer to the legal definition of protected classes and insist that members of them must be protected and everyone else be damned are the showing clear hypocrisy. It would be funny if in another 1000 years we'll all agree that the current US popular leftist morals turned out to be the right ones: It's wrong to discriminate against someone because of their race, religion, sex, or sexual preferences (as long as it's one of a few predefined types) but it's right to discriminate against someone because of their political views, alternative sexuality (outside the list of predefined types), ugliness, height, location of birth, or anything else you don't like. These classifications are so arbitrary and transient, why does anyone stand by them so vehemently? When they're old they might become the new racist uncle - hating the wrong people that the next couple of generations decide shouldn't be hated anymore.

Chaebixi 9y ago
> When they're old they might become the new racist uncle Honestly, that's what's got me concerned. Political mores are changing so fast and so constantly, and people are being so black-and-white about them, that it seems like the only "acceptable" position to some people is getting pretty close to a full-throated condemnation of everything and everyone that happened before they were born. If it wasn't so easy to fail the purity tests, maybe fewer people would become Nazis (either out of ostracization or to troll purity the testers).

kbturner 9y ago

There is a fundamental difference between large businesses and small businesses that operate on a personal scale. Hilton discriminating on race: wrong. Google discriminating on politics: wrong. Doctor refusing circumcision: OK. Bakery refusing gay wedding cake: OK. Musician refusing to play in $religious_building: OK. Especially if a large business is a monopoly.