6 ms·

Yes. This has been happening to conservatives for years. Why would you want the government to compel you to work with / serve someone?

morkalork 3y ago
[flagged]
- TheCaptain4815 3y ago
  Again, why would people want the government to compel people to serve everyone?
  - richbell 3y ago
    It wasn't that long ago that people wouldn't serve black patrons, until the government compelled them to.
    - WC3w6pXxgGd 3y ago
      [dead]
  - msla 3y ago
    To attack discrimination.
  - the_gastropod 3y ago
    Because it works. Having “white only” restaurants, schools, pools, etc. was (hopefully) obviously horrific. Requiring service to black Americans clearly was effective. We’re sliding backwards with this ruling.
    - koolba 3y ago
      Not at all. Between this and the court throwing out affirmative action in higher education, we’re finally getting past this crap. Next step is going to be eliminating affirmative action in private sector hiring practices. In all these situations it’s helpful to imagine flipping around the characters to see the sheer nonsense of the complaints. Would it be morally acceptable to only hire whites? Would a design firm run by a gay man be required to design an anti gay marriage billboard?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - shadowgovt 3y ago
        I mean, yes. Traditionally, prior to the recent rulings, a gay man running a design firm would in fact be compelled to to do the best work he felt he could for, say, a Catholic church, because religion is a protected class. So what? He's not obligated to own a business and the fact he has hung a shingle bears some obligation to serve his fellow Americans. > Would it be morally acceptable to only hire whites? I think you're tilting at a windmill here. The more accurate question would be "Would it be morally acceptable for an all black institution to categorically disregard white candidates because they don't have that 'urban vibe' the institution is going for." Well would it?
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    Because it was basically necessary to break the back of Jim Crow. Jim Crow laws weren't just a set of laws put in place in southern states. They were an entire culture that said if you had the wrong color skin, you didn't deserve service. You didn't have to be treated as a fellow citizen. Your money wasn't as green as the next person's. And, indeed, via the Civil Rights Act we had to tie the right to operate as a legally-protected business entity to the obligation to serve all members of the community regardless of having qualities we recognized as unchangeable and ultimately harmless to society. We did it because it was the only way we could start to drive a wedge into American racism and separate the present from the past's grip on it. And it has been working, we have watched each generation get progressively less racist. But racism will not go without a fight, and we are watching an atrocious but effective stand in trying to leverage the law of the land to support the prejudices of old. We want the government to compel people to serve other Americans because they are other Americans. They deserve to be treated as fellow citizens.
  - revscat 3y ago
    Because bigotry is incompatible with democracy, and you can’t have freedom without democracy.
    - tacitusarc 3y ago
      > Because bigotry is incompatible with democracy, and you can’t have freedom without democracy Neither of those claims seem obviously true to me. While I may dislike bigotry, I don’t know why you couldn’t have bigoted democracy. Similarly, while I may enjoy both freedom and democracy, I don’t see any reason democracy is required for freedom.
  - hackerlight 3y ago
    Because people's freedoms don't exist in a vacuum with no consequences on other people. I believe in the idea that people should be maximally free to do whatever they want without government interference. But there needs to be limits in certain situations whenever the negative impact of certain freedoms onto other people exceeds an acceptable threshold.
eschaton 3y ago
No it hasn’t. What’s been happening is that if someone operates a place of public accommodation, they don’t get to discriminate against members of protected classes. Bigots attempt to reframe this as “conservative speech is being suppressed” and “conservative freedom of association is being threatened” but neither are true. Don’t want to have to serve everyone? Don’t run a business that serves the public.
michaelmrose 3y ago
Let's consider the case of a disabled person. As a class disabled people are a small minority that doesn't on average possess great wealth. A business and indeed in some areas all or most of business in a category may profitably choose to focus on other customers and make it impossible for such customers to avail themselves of that category of good or services. Then consider black diners during segregation. Minorities like disabled folks are a minority of the population with a proportionally even smaller portion of the wealth. Like disabled people they could be unprofitable to serve as bigots may not want to sit down to break bread near minorities. In both cased we decided as a society not to give merchants a choice for the overall good of society and those folks. Furthermore ensuring businesses are conspicuously made to do normal things like serving all customers sends a not so subtle signal that those people are normal and acceptable and those attempting to isolate them are transgressive. If we can leave off speaking in generalities there actually IS a wrong and a right side to this affair. It actually IS OK for people to be gay and the converse position is a mental disorder. Not all "preferences" are equally morally grounded and it does nobody any good to prop up mental disorders like religious conservatism as if they were normal acceptable positions.
CalChris 3y ago
It isn't you. It's an LLC engaging in trade. You get a bundle of rights with that LLC along with which come some regulated duties.
- sarchertech 3y ago
  LLCs or corporations have nothing to do with this particular issue. You can operate a business as a sole proprietorship where there is no distinction between the business and yourself and public accommodation laws still apply.
  - CalChris 3y ago
    303 CREATIVE LLC ET AL. v. ELENIS ET AL
    - sarchertech 3y ago
      And if she was operating as a sole proprietorship it would make no difference to the case at hand.

morkalork 3y ago

[flagged]

TheCaptain4815 3y ago
Again, why would people want the government to compel people to serve everyone?
- richbell 3y ago
  It wasn't that long ago that people wouldn't serve black patrons, until the government compelled them to.
  - WC3w6pXxgGd 3y ago
    [dead]
- msla 3y ago
  To attack discrimination.
- the_gastropod 3y ago
  Because it works. Having “white only” restaurants, schools, pools, etc. was (hopefully) obviously horrific. Requiring service to black Americans clearly was effective. We’re sliding backwards with this ruling.
  - koolba 3y ago
    Not at all. Between this and the court throwing out affirmative action in higher education, we’re finally getting past this crap. Next step is going to be eliminating affirmative action in private sector hiring practices. In all these situations it’s helpful to imagine flipping around the characters to see the sheer nonsense of the complaints. Would it be morally acceptable to only hire whites? Would a design firm run by a gay man be required to design an anti gay marriage billboard?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - shadowgovt 3y ago
      I mean, yes. Traditionally, prior to the recent rulings, a gay man running a design firm would in fact be compelled to to do the best work he felt he could for, say, a Catholic church, because religion is a protected class. So what? He's not obligated to own a business and the fact he has hung a shingle bears some obligation to serve his fellow Americans. > Would it be morally acceptable to only hire whites? I think you're tilting at a windmill here. The more accurate question would be "Would it be morally acceptable for an all black institution to categorically disregard white candidates because they don't have that 'urban vibe' the institution is going for." Well would it?
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  Because it was basically necessary to break the back of Jim Crow. Jim Crow laws weren't just a set of laws put in place in southern states. They were an entire culture that said if you had the wrong color skin, you didn't deserve service. You didn't have to be treated as a fellow citizen. Your money wasn't as green as the next person's. And, indeed, via the Civil Rights Act we had to tie the right to operate as a legally-protected business entity to the obligation to serve all members of the community regardless of having qualities we recognized as unchangeable and ultimately harmless to society. We did it because it was the only way we could start to drive a wedge into American racism and separate the present from the past's grip on it. And it has been working, we have watched each generation get progressively less racist. But racism will not go without a fight, and we are watching an atrocious but effective stand in trying to leverage the law of the land to support the prejudices of old. We want the government to compel people to serve other Americans because they are other Americans. They deserve to be treated as fellow citizens.
- revscat 3y ago
  Because bigotry is incompatible with democracy, and you can’t have freedom without democracy.
  - tacitusarc 3y ago
    > Because bigotry is incompatible with democracy, and you can’t have freedom without democracy Neither of those claims seem obviously true to me. While I may dislike bigotry, I don’t know why you couldn’t have bigoted democracy. Similarly, while I may enjoy both freedom and democracy, I don’t see any reason democracy is required for freedom.
- hackerlight 3y ago
  Because people's freedoms don't exist in a vacuum with no consequences on other people. I believe in the idea that people should be maximally free to do whatever they want without government interference. But there needs to be limits in certain situations whenever the negative impact of certain freedoms onto other people exceeds an acceptable threshold.

eschaton 3y ago

No it hasn’t. What’s been happening is that if someone operates a place of public accommodation, they don’t get to discriminate against members of protected classes. Bigots attempt to reframe this as “conservative speech is being suppressed” and “conservative freedom of association is being threatened” but neither are true. Don’t want to have to serve everyone? Don’t run a business that serves the public.

michaelmrose 3y ago

Let's consider the case of a disabled person. As a class disabled people are a small minority that doesn't on average possess great wealth. A business and indeed in some areas all or most of business in a category may profitably choose to focus on other customers and make it impossible for such customers to avail themselves of that category of good or services. Then consider black diners during segregation. Minorities like disabled folks are a minority of the population with a proportionally even smaller portion of the wealth. Like disabled people they could be unprofitable to serve as bigots may not want to sit down to break bread near minorities. In both cased we decided as a society not to give merchants a choice for the overall good of society and those folks. Furthermore ensuring businesses are conspicuously made to do normal things like serving all customers sends a not so subtle signal that those people are normal and acceptable and those attempting to isolate them are transgressive. If we can leave off speaking in generalities there actually IS a wrong and a right side to this affair. It actually IS OK for people to be gay and the converse position is a mental disorder. Not all "preferences" are equally morally grounded and it does nobody any good to prop up mental disorders like religious conservatism as if they were normal acceptable positions.

CalChris 3y ago

It isn't you. It's an LLC engaging in trade. You get a bundle of rights with that LLC along with which come some regulated duties.

sarchertech 3y ago
LLCs or corporations have nothing to do with this particular issue. You can operate a business as a sole proprietorship where there is no distinction between the business and yourself and public accommodation laws still apply.
- CalChris 3y ago
  303 CREATIVE LLC ET AL. v. ELENIS ET AL
  - sarchertech 3y ago
    And if she was operating as a sole proprietorship it would make no difference to the case at hand.