5 ms·

Do you not feel like it’s a complicated issue? We have laws to prevent people from refusing work/service to certain protected classes. I can’t refuse to let you

Do you not feel like it’s a complicated issue? We have laws to prevent people from refusing work/service to certain protected classes. I can’t refuse to let you buy a beer at my bar because you’re Black. So there’s definitely some nuance on what counts as a protected class vs. what counts as speech/service.

olliej 3y ago
Happily now you can - as long as you have a sincerely held belief that black people are bad.
valianteffort 3y ago
I don't think it's fair to compel people to do things they don't want to do. If someone does run their business like your example, let society decide whether to continue supporting them. The government should not be able to force people to work.
- threeseed 3y ago
  > it's fair to compel people to do things they don't want to do But that is what underpins the concept of business. A set of restrictions on what activities a business can do and how they interact with society. To get shocked when society wants to prevent discrimination seems odd.
- bob-09 3y ago
  > I don't think it's fair to compel people to do things they don't want to do. That reads to me as "I don't think laws are fair and people should be able to do whatever they want to do." I don't want to pay taxes, I don't want to pay my bills, and I don't want to have to wait to be sober to drive, but I do it all anyways because the law compels me.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I think it comes down to what you think the purpose of the law should be. Some people believe the purpose of the law should be to prevent people from physically hurting or stealing from one another. It should only be able to stop you from doing those things, and not force you to do other things.
    - bob-09 3y ago
      I think we ended up with the law we have today because over time people agreed there are more than two types of crimes. I appreciate that physically hurting is not appropriate in your law, but it should be your right to hurt others in any non-physical manner if you feel like it, no limits.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        I agree that that's largely what has happened. The scope of law has been extended Beyond violence and personal property. I do feel that once you cross that boundary there's no consistent philosophical underpinnings to the law. Is purely subjective imposition of majority rule. Dropping concrete limitations to the scope of law opens it up too anything. What is non-physical harm? What if turning down someone's sexual advances hurts their self-esteem? What if refusing to work for me hurts my ability to make a living. The point is that once you abandon a concrete definition of harm, your punished into a world of capricious law what's the times to regulate every individual Behavior on a Case by case basis.
- w0de0 3y ago
  It’s not being forced to work - the option to quit remains. Consider a case in which a majority of society excludes a minority from most commerce. Are ghettos, ‘separate but equal,’ and whites-only fountains not worth preventing?
- KingMob 3y ago
  The widespread framing around "compelling" people to work is wrong. The government is not telling you to sell cakes on your day off; it's saying that as long as you're already selling cakes for the public, you can't be a bigot and discriminate.
  - falcolas 3y ago
    Well, it did say "don't be a bigot." We are past that phase now, it seems.
injb 3y ago
I think that's a more complicated issue because a bar is less independent. In the US I don't know if there's anywhere that you can sell alcohol without a license, and in any case there's a host of other rules that apply to brick and mortar businesses. Imagine a town square with spaces for market stalls. There are limited spaces. Thus if you take one, you are preventing someone else from taking one. They are public property and thus the public has a right to set terms for the business you conduct there. Now that analogy holds for other kinds of business too. Even if you "own" the building that your bar is in, you never really fully own real estate in most countries. There are limits on what you can use it for because it's connected (physically) to the rest of the world which belongs to other people. In contrast, my expectation is that I do fully own my brain and my thoughts and my attention and my intellectual output, and it's extremely disturbing to me that anyone thinks they should be able to compel me to devote those things to their purposes.
francisofascii 3y ago
I think the nuance is in the type of service and to the degree it is open to the public at large.
jpc0 3y ago
I think your argument would make more sense if the bar had to stock "black beer" that only black people want to drink and "normal beer" that everyone drinks. The bar is welcome to serve whatever beer they want, if you come in and ask for a specific brand they can refuse service because they don't stock it. I would argue it would be akin to walking into a bar and saying I am racist because I only sell brand X and you demand I buy brand Y just for you.
- red_trumpet 3y ago
  I don't get your point. How does a same-sex marriage website differ from a different-sex one?
  - jpc0 3y ago
    The point was that it isn't that simple. Let me try to make the point in a another way. Let's say a gay person asks her to create a website for their friends "normal" marriage, she is fine with it and takes their money. She didn't discriminate against their sexuality, she rendered the service to a gay person just fine, the difference is the product. Now let's flip it, a straight person askes her to create a website for their gay friends wedding. She now has refused service based on the product sold. The question the court needs to answer where is the line drawn, they have chosen it. Religion is also protected, racism has no religious base, what is deemed marriage is. The argument to be made is that she does not believe that marriage between gay people is right and she refused service on those grounds, whether asked by either sexuality. This is all hypothetical but the point is the argument isn't trivial, how you frame it makes a big difference.
    - drewbug01 3y ago
      > Religion is also protected, racism has no religious base, what is deemed marriage is. And yet, religion was touted for many years in this country as a justification for horrific racial discrimination. The big issue here is that the court has declared that some classes are more protected than others, which will allow discrimination to flourish. They haven’t struck the right balance with this ruling.
remarkEon 3y ago
Did you read the Opinion? Because the difference between your example and the compelled speech required by the Colorado law is directly addressed.
patrick451 3y ago
I don't feel like it's complicated at all. We have drawn these "protected class" lines arbitrarily (race is a social construct, isn't it). Just as JP Morgan can sever ties with Kanye, web designers should be able to refuse clients for things they find untoward.
- beepbooptheory 3y ago
  Race is a social construct, yes, but we are in fact living in the society of this construct. So I guess I am not quite sure what your point is?
  - patrick451 3y ago
    A social construct is arbitrary, which means the boundaries we have drawn protected classes are also arbitrary.
- orwin 3y ago
  If you think race isn't a social construct, you're either American or you don't follow US sports. Some US athletes that are considered 'black' or 'African American' would be considered Caucasian here (Patrick Mahomes is a great example). I know a white supremacist, overtly fascist (that is otherwise a fine friend) who has a black great grandfather. He'd be considered black in the US.

olliej 3y ago

Happily now you can - as long as you have a sincerely held belief that black people are bad.

valianteffort 3y ago

I don't think it's fair to compel people to do things they don't want to do. If someone does run their business like your example, let society decide whether to continue supporting them. The government should not be able to force people to work.

threeseed 3y ago
> it's fair to compel people to do things they don't want to do But that is what underpins the concept of business. A set of restrictions on what activities a business can do and how they interact with society. To get shocked when society wants to prevent discrimination seems odd.
bob-09 3y ago
> I don't think it's fair to compel people to do things they don't want to do. That reads to me as "I don't think laws are fair and people should be able to do whatever they want to do." I don't want to pay taxes, I don't want to pay my bills, and I don't want to have to wait to be sober to drive, but I do it all anyways because the law compels me.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I think it comes down to what you think the purpose of the law should be. Some people believe the purpose of the law should be to prevent people from physically hurting or stealing from one another. It should only be able to stop you from doing those things, and not force you to do other things.
  - bob-09 3y ago
    I think we ended up with the law we have today because over time people agreed there are more than two types of crimes. I appreciate that physically hurting is not appropriate in your law, but it should be your right to hurt others in any non-physical manner if you feel like it, no limits.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      I agree that that's largely what has happened. The scope of law has been extended Beyond violence and personal property. I do feel that once you cross that boundary there's no consistent philosophical underpinnings to the law. Is purely subjective imposition of majority rule. Dropping concrete limitations to the scope of law opens it up too anything. What is non-physical harm? What if turning down someone's sexual advances hurts their self-esteem? What if refusing to work for me hurts my ability to make a living. The point is that once you abandon a concrete definition of harm, your punished into a world of capricious law what's the times to regulate every individual Behavior on a Case by case basis.
w0de0 3y ago
It’s not being forced to work - the option to quit remains. Consider a case in which a majority of society excludes a minority from most commerce. Are ghettos, ‘separate but equal,’ and whites-only fountains not worth preventing?
KingMob 3y ago
The widespread framing around "compelling" people to work is wrong. The government is not telling you to sell cakes on your day off; it's saying that as long as you're already selling cakes for the public, you can't be a bigot and discriminate.
- falcolas 3y ago
  Well, it did say "don't be a bigot." We are past that phase now, it seems.

injb 3y ago

I think that's a more complicated issue because a bar is less independent. In the US I don't know if there's anywhere that you can sell alcohol without a license, and in any case there's a host of other rules that apply to brick and mortar businesses. Imagine a town square with spaces for market stalls. There are limited spaces. Thus if you take one, you are preventing someone else from taking one. They are public property and thus the public has a right to set terms for the business you conduct there. Now that analogy holds for other kinds of business too. Even if you "own" the building that your bar is in, you never really fully own real estate in most countries. There are limits on what you can use it for because it's connected (physically) to the rest of the world which belongs to other people. In contrast, my expectation is that I do fully own my brain and my thoughts and my attention and my intellectual output, and it's extremely disturbing to me that anyone thinks they should be able to compel me to devote those things to their purposes.

francisofascii 3y ago

I think the nuance is in the type of service and to the degree it is open to the public at large.

jpc0 3y ago

I think your argument would make more sense if the bar had to stock "black beer" that only black people want to drink and "normal beer" that everyone drinks. The bar is welcome to serve whatever beer they want, if you come in and ask for a specific brand they can refuse service because they don't stock it. I would argue it would be akin to walking into a bar and saying I am racist because I only sell brand X and you demand I buy brand Y just for you.

red_trumpet 3y ago
I don't get your point. How does a same-sex marriage website differ from a different-sex one?
- jpc0 3y ago
  The point was that it isn't that simple. Let me try to make the point in a another way. Let's say a gay person asks her to create a website for their friends "normal" marriage, she is fine with it and takes their money. She didn't discriminate against their sexuality, she rendered the service to a gay person just fine, the difference is the product. Now let's flip it, a straight person askes her to create a website for their gay friends wedding. She now has refused service based on the product sold. The question the court needs to answer where is the line drawn, they have chosen it. Religion is also protected, racism has no religious base, what is deemed marriage is. The argument to be made is that she does not believe that marriage between gay people is right and she refused service on those grounds, whether asked by either sexuality. This is all hypothetical but the point is the argument isn't trivial, how you frame it makes a big difference.
  - drewbug01 3y ago
    > Religion is also protected, racism has no religious base, what is deemed marriage is. And yet, religion was touted for many years in this country as a justification for horrific racial discrimination. The big issue here is that the court has declared that some classes are more protected than others, which will allow discrimination to flourish. They haven’t struck the right balance with this ruling.

remarkEon 3y ago

Did you read the Opinion? Because the difference between your example and the compelled speech required by the Colorado law is directly addressed.

patrick451 3y ago

I don't feel like it's complicated at all. We have drawn these "protected class" lines arbitrarily (race is a social construct, isn't it). Just as JP Morgan can sever ties with Kanye, web designers should be able to refuse clients for things they find untoward.

beepbooptheory 3y ago
Race is a social construct, yes, but we are in fact living in the society of this construct. So I guess I am not quite sure what your point is?
- patrick451 3y ago
  A social construct is arbitrary, which means the boundaries we have drawn protected classes are also arbitrary.
orwin 3y ago
If you think race isn't a social construct, you're either American or you don't follow US sports. Some US athletes that are considered 'black' or 'African American' would be considered Caucasian here (Patrick Mahomes is a great example). I know a white supremacist, overtly fascist (that is otherwise a fine friend) who has a black great grandfather. He'd be considered black in the US.