Imagine what would happen if I owned a cake shop and refused to sell to individuals with handicaps, or to minorities. The answer would be outrage and lawsuits. What's the difference in refusing to sell to gay couples?? In my opinion, the difference is these idiots have religion to support their bias and bigotry and homophobia.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Ah, But remember the wingnuts thinks allowing Gays to live violates there freedom of religion.
They should be allowed to discriminate against anyone for any reason. Case closed.
You think that anyone should be permitted to discriminate and for any reason? Really??
So using this logic, a lunch counter would be permitted Not to serve black Americans? This issue was settled in the 1960s during the civil rights movement in America.
Discrimination is wrong. You're wrong.
Absolutely. If a restaurant only offers service to white male Americans and refuses service to everyone else, they should perfectly allowed to do so.
SeaofMadness: I have a follow up question: Would you be okay if cops only responded to calls from white male Americans and refused 911 service to everyone else including women and any male that happens not to be white??
@MCD: "Would you be okay if cops only responded to calls from white male Americans..."
That's a different issue. The police are an arm of government and should be constitutionally required to treat everyone equally. The same goes for public schools, the military, the judiciary, etc. They belong to all the people. Unlike a cake shop, we can't boycott the government or take our business to a competing law enforcement agency.
Nope because they're not a private company. They're funded by the tax dollars of every American citizen of every race and background.
Discrimination is required, it is a scientific term; to differentiate.
Discrimination prejudice based on skin color or look is wrong.
@Sea of Madness: "They should be allowed to discriminate against anyone for any reason."
I agree. The cake shop is a private business in a competitive market. The owners have a constitutional right to be idiots. They shouldn't be compelled to do anything beyond complying with laws and regulations and fulfilling contracts. And if I was buying a cake for a celebration, I certainly wouldn't want it made by someone who bore me ill-will.
Algeba, I think you are suggesting that the cake shop has a constitutional right to discriminate. Is that your position? Do airlines have the same right? If I were gay, could any airline refuse to sell me a ticket? And would you be okay with that?
Would you be okay with a hotel that refused to accept reservations from unwed mothers, or divorced women, or protestants, or muslims?
Are you sure you have thought this through??
@MCD: "Are you sure you have thought this through??"
Indeed I have. I was extremely angry with a landlord who refused to rent me an apartment because of my race. But I never considered suing him. It was his apartment. So I told him what I thought of him and walked away.
When governments and politicians get involved in these issues, they always collide with the law of unintended consequences. This is an area for education and dialogue, not compulsion. By all means picket the cake shop or the airline and write newspaper articles and blogs about them. Go in and sit at the lunch counter and force them to reject you. Make them think about what they're doing.
But compulsion always takes away somebody's rights.
They the shop are being compelled by law, they can not discriminate based on sexual orientation. That is the problem, common law interfering with Natural Law.
Although I disagree with it entirely, they have the right to refuse service. This in most cases is used when a customer is being bothersome and otherwise unpleasant so the business doesn't have to put up with such idiocy. But in this instance, I think it's absolutely ridiculous to not make a cake strictly because you don't agree with what it's celebrating. Business is business right? I guess not to homophobic bigots.
Heepin, does every service provider have the right to discriminate? For example, do doctors have a right not to accept minorities or unwed mothers as patients? In my opinion, the answer is and should be that discrimination is wrong and is unlawful. This is discrimination based on religious dogma.
In your opinion, what rights do gay Americans have? Was Kim Davis correct?
No. Federal and Medical positions don't have that choice. You're right, it is wrong and absolutely unlawful, but in cases involving small, and especially locally owned businesses, they normally reserve the right to do so. Like I said before, I disagree entirely. I'm not trying to justify it. They have the right to everything else every other citizen has. But that doesn't change the fact that some people will still disagree and consequentially clash on things that should otherwise not matter. It's a matter of regressive people and eventually they, along with their regressive views, will fade away in place for a more humanitarian normality.
Heepin Bell. I don't know why and I don't understand why "medical" positions don't have a choice.. but Okay.
Do you agree that airlines are service providers? Do airlines have the right to discriminate? In your opinion, should an airline be permitted to discriminate against unwed mothers, the elderly, or minorities? Are you okay if an airline decides it has a "right" not to sell tickets to gays, bi-sexuals, lesbians, black males, hispanics of any gender, or asians, or muslims, or non-muslims?
Where is your line in the sand as it relates to these rights that service providers have? Why do you think that "small businesses" have the right to refuse service but by implication large businesses do not have the same right? Why are you making this distinction?
This is actually an interesting debate for me, because I am not exactly sure where I stand, I feel I am kind of all over the map, and I feel a lot of other people are too.
I obviously feel discrimination in any form is wrong. But I also feel a small shop owner should be allowed to refuse business to anyone, for pretty much any reason. As long as what they sell is not an essential good, and there is alternatives nearby, which is a very blurry line, who decides what is an essential good? How do you decide that there is reasonable alternative choices for the same product nearby?
As an atheist, I can shop at stores owned by people that down right despise atheist, but it is no problem because they never know. And I am clever enough to keep my atheist preference secret from people I do not know, just like my social security number, my income, etc. I feel the same can be mostly true for gay people, if they show no outward signs of it, and are not flamboyant about it, nobody could possibly know that I am atheist in some shop I walk into? I am sure there are plenty of small town communities where everyone knows everyone, and something like being an atheist or gay becomes very obvious to everyone in that town. (Like the atheist never shows up at the one church in the area.)
To flip it around, I feel in some senses we have the right to walk around naked in any public area that our tax dollars support. A person could walk into a court room naked for their trial if they so pleased. While I would not exercise this right, when you examine this idea, why not? As long as they are not doing anything that will harm others or impinge on others rights, that sounds fair to me. Should it really be a right for everyone else to not see certain parts of another persons body that we are all very aware exist?
I feel everyone should have the right to do what they wish, as long as it does not impede on other peoples right to do the same. But in the case of the wedding cake vendor, it sounds like both the shop owner rights and the gay couples right were impinged, how do you decide who's rights supersedes the other?
That is why I like the path of least resistance here, the gay couple keeps it to themselves their sexual preference to most strangers of the world.
Many people would scream, what about the children?!?! I find most children could care less unless they are thought by their parents that public nudity is something that is not socially accepted.
Continuing along the lines of what MCD said:
What about doctors, hospitals, paramedics, pharmacists, grocery stores, or real estates agents? Should they be allowed to refuse service to Black or LGBTQ people?
That is the question. Like I said, essential goods and services, especially when there is not a viable alternative available, should not be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason, but how do you draw that line? Who decides what is essential and the viability of alternative avenues? I think it is pretty easy to include every service on your list as essential, but it can get a bit harder if its say, a airline company, that is the only one to offer a certain route on most days/time slots.
If I was a cake shop owner I would want the right to refuse services to someone, while for me it would never be on the basis of skin color or sexual identity, I would get pretty ticked if I was barred refusing service to someone, that say, always has their check bounce, or is always a difficult loud customer that alarms and distress other customers in the store etc.
Almost no matter what, some sort of line has to be drawn on when a shop can or cannot refuse customers, sure it can be easy to say never on race, ethnicity gender and sexual orientation. But we all have seen the signs that say we have the right to refuse service/sales to anyone. It is just like employment, they can just choose to not hire someone and not say why, and they are legally protected. Proving cases of bias is very difficult most of the time. The whole thing is a problem, the problem that there are bigoted assholes out there, and much of the rights system helps protect their right to be bigoted assholes.
I have a suggestion: if you have a business licence from the government, you can't discriminate when using that license (or you void their license if they get caught discriminating).
A good start, I always felt, any public entity or entity supported or regulated by the government should have strong no bias rules. If you want to work with a public entity in anyway you get to leave your bias crap at home. If one does not like those rules, they do not have to play.
Logic for TW: If I understand correctly, you are okay as long as discrimination involves only non essential services. Is that correct? If so, you're okay with discrimination of any type involving any and all of these service providers:
Airlines
Bars
Cafes
Donut shops
Electronics stores
Fast food restaurants
Grass mowing services
Hairstylists
Inspection services
Janitorial services
Killer bee removal services
Laundry services
Motor car repair services
etc...
is that correct?
In the middle of my reply to this I realized something. Thanks guys for the responses, it challenged me to think it through.
I think the solution is: everyone has the right to shop and get services from anywhere no exceptions, their can be no bias in race, sexual preference/identity color of skin or any other biases. Any signs that say: we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" should be made illegal and have no legal/authoritative backing. It is up to a strong and fair justice system to prevent abuses when people exercise this right. People stealing, people being disruptive, people not paying properly and so on. It is on the owner to document these abuses but they can then refuse service, they will just be aware they are opening them selves to legal action if they remove someone, which is no problem if they did it in a fair manner and documented it. If the person feels they were removed for a bias, they can take it to court.
If a member of the flying spaghetti monster religious group wants to attend a super formal dinner restaurant with a strict dress code, if they can show legally recognized proof that this person is part of that group, they can attend dinner wearing a colander as it is their religious right. Just like someone can wear a Hijab. If someone wants to arrive naked, the restaurant owner can point to public indecency laws, as well as disruption laws, and let them know if they do not like it they are welcome to work to repeal that law.
It is fair however that business owners demand prompt and effective solutions in abuses in these rights in exchange for giving up their right to refuse service no matter what. This can be very taxing to the justice system creating quite a bit more of a burden on the courts, but I do believe eliminating all forms of discrimination is worth it. It certainly is a big government solution, but I feel removing this form of discrimination could be well worth it.
Additional thoughts:
For some situations, age bias is currently accepted, by just about everyone. I seen no one over the age of 12 at McDonalds play houses. (Their might not even be any sort of law in place that enforces that however.) Adult only resorts. The law in some states no one under the age of 21 is allowed in a bar at certain times (or all the time.)
@LogicForTW
How about treating everyone with respect ... not just the ones I happen to know agree with my personal beliefs. This doesn't require me to agree with their beliefs and/or choices; it just means that I conduct myself honorably and treat others with civility and respect simply because they are another member of mankind.
The ideology of divide and conquer (I must be right and you must be wrong) brought us to where we are today and has proven to be a mass failure for all of mankind.
@mbrownec: "How about treating everyone with respect ... not just the ones I happen to know agree with my personal beliefs."
I'm sure everyone here agrees with that sentiment. But what's the best way to achieve it?
@ Algebe
By example ... starting with me. I may not have national or global influence but I have influence with those I have day-to-day contact with. Multiply that effort a thousand times and we, together, can have an impact. Sure, it would be a massive cultural change but we have a choice: continued never-ending conflict OR new-found cooperation for the benefit of every individual in society.
It's not a matter between individualism and community as both are needed (required) for a well-functioning dynamic society.
Utopian? Probably ... but the alternative(s) led mankind to where we are today.
@mbrowec: "By example ... starting with me."
I think example is great. I also approve of protesting, picketing, editorializing, boycotting, satire, education, dialog...(but never violence)
However, I worry about compulsion and legislation. There are always unintended consequences because legislators are generally not the best and brightest in any society.
Is it ok to impose equality and fraternity at the expense of liberty?
@ Algebe
Can a person be really free without equality and fraternity?
To answer your question; it is NOT okay to impose equality and fraternity via laws, or other means as that simply amounts to coercive control and oppression. Coercive laws CANNOT determine inherent attitudes. A change of attitude and beliefs must come from within a person.
@mbrownec: "Can a person be really free without equality and fraternity?"
Fraternity is incompatible with freedom. There will always be people I don't like and want nothing to do with. Being forced to fraternize with someone would make me dislike them even more. Tolerance is the best I can offer.
We are manifestly not equal. People are born with all kinds of talents and handicaps. The best we can hope for is a level playing field on which we can play our best game alone or in teams. Enforced equality leads to the dystopian worlds portrayed by Vonnegut in "Harrison Bergeron" and Orwell in "1984" and "Animal Farm."
A better motto would be "Liberty, tolerance, level playing field." But that would never catch on.
One thing I know is that religion is the biggest enemy of liberty, equality, and fraternity.
Pages