4 ms·

I think the legal system ought to prioritize principles over practicality. We could replace the first amendment with "just don't say anything controversial". W

I think the legal system ought to prioritize principles over practicality. We could replace the first amendment with "just don't say anything controversial". We could replace the right to privacy with "just don't have anything you want to hide". It's important to define our rights and freedoms. The question of whether we want customers to be able to compell speech is an important one.

jakelazaroff 5y ago
Another important question is whether we want businesses to be able to discriminate against people. Again, my suggestion — wherein she can’t make wedding websites for anyone — doesn’t compel speech. But if I had to abandon practicality, I would say she should be forced to make the website.
- nathanaldensr 5y ago
  Let's say I make a Christian dating website. In its sign-up terms it asks one to certify that one is indeed a Christian before joining. According to you, I should not even be allowed to create this website because it discriminates Christians from non-Christians. If I don't discriminate, then the website has no reason to exist as its entire purpose was to bring Christian singles together. Congratulations, you have successfully disenfranchised an entire group of religious people that simply want to meet others like them. Now change things around and pretend the dating website was for LGBTQ+ people. Do you see how you cannot possibly implement your proposal in a non-discriminatory way? Freedom of association is a thing because humans want to associate with like humans. This has been the case for all of human history. That doesn't automatically ascribe evil intent to anyone--whether a Christian on my hypothetical Christian dating website or an LGBTQ+ person on an LGBTQ+ dating website. Each group simply wants to associate with one another. The beautiful thing about the United States is that people have fifty states from which to choose. If you favor one type of association move to states that generally believe those things. If you favor another, move to those states. Having the federal government dictate that all states will favor associations only between certain approved groups is a recipe for discord.
  - jakelazaroff 5y ago
    There are dating sites like you describe — eHarmony, BlackPeopleMeet, JDate, Grindr, etc — and even though they don’t require you to belong to that group, it turns out that most people voluntarily associate that way anyway! Even though there’s nothing mandating it, people just don’t seem to want to sign up for dating sites made for other groups. We’ve also tried allowing these sorts of de jure discriminatory policies. The end result was businesses with signs that said things like “No Negroes” and “Jews Not Allowed”. The solution isn’t to tell people to move to a place where businesses can’t discriminate like that; it’s to make that discrimination illegal everywhere.

jakelazaroff 5y ago

Another important question is whether we want businesses to be able to discriminate against people. Again, my suggestion — wherein she can’t make wedding websites for anyone — doesn’t compel speech. But if I had to abandon practicality, I would say she should be forced to make the website.

nathanaldensr 5y ago
Let's say I make a Christian dating website. In its sign-up terms it asks one to certify that one is indeed a Christian before joining. According to you, I should not even be allowed to create this website because it discriminates Christians from non-Christians. If I don't discriminate, then the website has no reason to exist as its entire purpose was to bring Christian singles together. Congratulations, you have successfully disenfranchised an entire group of religious people that simply want to meet others like them. Now change things around and pretend the dating website was for LGBTQ+ people. Do you see how you cannot possibly implement your proposal in a non-discriminatory way? Freedom of association is a thing because humans want to associate with like humans. This has been the case for all of human history. That doesn't automatically ascribe evil intent to anyone--whether a Christian on my hypothetical Christian dating website or an LGBTQ+ person on an LGBTQ+ dating website. Each group simply wants to associate with one another. The beautiful thing about the United States is that people have fifty states from which to choose. If you favor one type of association move to states that generally believe those things. If you favor another, move to those states. Having the federal government dictate that all states will favor associations only between certain approved groups is a recipe for discord.
- jakelazaroff 5y ago
  There are dating sites like you describe — eHarmony, BlackPeopleMeet, JDate, Grindr, etc — and even though they don’t require you to belong to that group, it turns out that most people voluntarily associate that way anyway! Even though there’s nothing mandating it, people just don’t seem to want to sign up for dating sites made for other groups. We’ve also tried allowing these sorts of de jure discriminatory policies. The end result was businesses with signs that said things like “No Negroes” and “Jews Not Allowed”. The solution isn’t to tell people to move to a place where businesses can’t discriminate like that; it’s to make that discrimination illegal everywhere.