29 ms·

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

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.

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.