3 ms·

In my opinion, the lesser of two evils in this case is not compelling business owners to perform services they object to. The US has a capitalist economy - if t

by umvi 5y ago

In my opinion, the lesser of two evils in this case is not compelling business owners to perform services they object to. The US has a capitalist economy - if there is money to be made building gay wedding websites, then someone will almost certainly fill that niche and out-compete those who don't. Going the compulsory route is going to lead to decreased religious freedoms and increased social discord between the secular and religious demographics of the country, IMO.

jakelazaroff 5y ago
We've been down that road before. The Jim Crow south is a perfect example of what happens if you don't compel business owners to not discriminate. It doesn't prevent social discord, it just hides it — in the words of MLK, "a negative peace which is the absence of tension" rather than "a positive peace which is the presence of justice". Anyway, in my original reply to you I mentioned a solution that prevents discrimination without compelling speech. If you feel you must discriminate in providing a service, then you can't provide that service.
- umvi 5y ago
  I disagree this is the same road as Jim Crow. Jim Crow was refusing service based on color of skin. This is refusing service based on type of service. > Anyway, in my original reply to you I mentioned a solution that prevents discrimination without compelling speech. If you feel you must discriminate in providing a service, then you can't provide that service. In my opinion, that solution is a slippery slope that will quickly infringe on religious freedom. Soon: "Pastors/priests/bishops/etc. are no longer allowed to perform weddings unless they also perform gay weddings (against their beliefs). After all, if you feel you must discriminate in providing a service, then you can't provide that service." So then you'd have lots of pastors refusing to perform any marriages to avoid doing something against their beliefs, which, in turn, would vindicate all the people opposed to gay marriage who were worried gay marriage would "infringe on the religious sanctity of marriage". Religious freedom down, social discord up.
  - jakelazaroff 5y ago
    No, this is absolutely refusing service based on a protected characteristic. The service is "designing a wedding website", and the policy is "we won't do that for gay couples". There's an alternate scenario, of course. Soon: "web designers across the nation refuse to make wedding websites for same-sex couples". Religious freedom up, social discord also up. I'm not sure why you think it's only a one-way street; allowing religion to be used as a pretext to discriminate against marginalized groups is also surefire way to divide people. It seems like we're rapidly approaching a point at which further debate is fruitless, so let me clearly state my position here: where religious freedom and equal protection clash, I am staunchly in favor of subordinating the former to the latter.
    - umvi 5y ago
      Your position is quite clear, I'm just saying I (and others) disagree with that position. For me, where religious freedom and equal protection clash, I tend to err on the side of religious freedom. If some jewish web designer is only interested in making websites for jewish weddings, I think they should have that right, even if it means turning away christian couples, gay couples, and other couples of protected status who want a non-jewish wedding website created. If some gay web designer is only interested in making gay wedding websites, they should similarly have that right without being compelled to create religious wedding websites.

by umvi 5y ago

jakelazaroff 5y ago

We've been down that road before. The Jim Crow south is a perfect example of what happens if you don't compel business owners to not discriminate. It doesn't prevent social discord, it just hides it — in the words of MLK, "a negative peace which is the absence of tension" rather than "a positive peace which is the presence of justice". Anyway, in my original reply to you I mentioned a solution that prevents discrimination without compelling speech. If you feel you must discriminate in providing a service, then you can't provide that service.

umvi 5y ago
I disagree this is the same road as Jim Crow. Jim Crow was refusing service based on color of skin. This is refusing service based on type of service. > Anyway, in my original reply to you I mentioned a solution that prevents discrimination without compelling speech. If you feel you must discriminate in providing a service, then you can't provide that service. In my opinion, that solution is a slippery slope that will quickly infringe on religious freedom. Soon: "Pastors/priests/bishops/etc. are no longer allowed to perform weddings unless they also perform gay weddings (against their beliefs). After all, if you feel you must discriminate in providing a service, then you can't provide that service." So then you'd have lots of pastors refusing to perform any marriages to avoid doing something against their beliefs, which, in turn, would vindicate all the people opposed to gay marriage who were worried gay marriage would "infringe on the religious sanctity of marriage". Religious freedom down, social discord up.
- jakelazaroff 5y ago
  No, this is absolutely refusing service based on a protected characteristic. The service is "designing a wedding website", and the policy is "we won't do that for gay couples". There's an alternate scenario, of course. Soon: "web designers across the nation refuse to make wedding websites for same-sex couples". Religious freedom up, social discord also up. I'm not sure why you think it's only a one-way street; allowing religion to be used as a pretext to discriminate against marginalized groups is also surefire way to divide people. It seems like we're rapidly approaching a point at which further debate is fruitless, so let me clearly state my position here: where religious freedom and equal protection clash, I am staunchly in favor of subordinating the former to the latter.
  - umvi 5y ago
    Your position is quite clear, I'm just saying I (and others) disagree with that position. For me, where religious freedom and equal protection clash, I tend to err on the side of religious freedom. If some jewish web designer is only interested in making websites for jewish weddings, I think they should have that right, even if it means turning away christian couples, gay couples, and other couples of protected status who want a non-jewish wedding website created. If some gay web designer is only interested in making gay wedding websites, they should similarly have that right without being compelled to create religious wedding websites.