Should a business owner have the right to refuse service to customers?

[NM11046]

16 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

The issue isn't that it's awful, but that reasonable people believe that that discrimination and hatred will still exist even if the government makes it illegal to discriminate.

Do you not think it will be curbed somewhat?   If we have the chance to lessen instances and set a tone for inclusion and how to treat all people respectfully why wouldn't we do it?  

 

Making things legal or illegal doesn't totally stop behavior, but certainly it makes it less acceptable and likely less the norm.

[Landlord]

1 minute ago, NM11046 said:

Do you not think it will be curbed somewhat?   If we have the chance to lessen instances and set a tone for inclusion and how to treat all people respectfully why wouldn't we do it?  

 

Making things legal or illegal doesn't totally stop behavior, but certainly it makes it less acceptable and likely less the norm.

 

 

Or it just makes "it" (the true sentiment/prejudice/action/whatever) underground and hidden from public discourse. Which is a similar argument I hear about abortion from pro-choice advocates. 

 

Laws don't change peoples' hearts. If anything, laws and even social norms that compel people to act in opposition to their beliefs usually harbor resentment and anger (hello, Trump's America). But, politics is downhill from culture and laws generally follow cultural shifts. Legalization of gay marriage, for example, didn't suddenly make all of America not have a problem with gay people. It was the opposite, where enough people had no qualms with the idea, and the law followed. 

 

I don't have all this stuff figured out, I just (at this stage in life) hold to the belief that laws restricting freedoms of a different group are not the way to liberate or make another group more free. 

[teachercd]

2 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

Do you not think it will be curbed somewhat?   If we have the chance to lessen instances and set a tone for inclusion and how to treat all people respectfully why wouldn't we do it?  

 

Making things legal or illegal doesn't totally stop behavior, but certainly it makes it less acceptable and likely less the norm.

You would hope but a lot of times an asshole is an asshole, you know?

[NM11046]

5 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

Or it just makes "it" (the true sentiment/prejudice/action/whatever) underground and hidden from public discourse. Which is a similar argument I hear about abortion from pro-choice advocates. 

 

Laws don't change peoples' hearts. If anything, laws and even social norms that compel people to act in opposition to their beliefs usually harbor resentment and anger (hello, Trump's America). But, politics is downhill from culture and laws generally follow cultural shifts. Legalization of gay marriage, for example, didn't suddenly make all of America not have a problem with gay people. It was the opposite, where enough people had no qualms with the idea, and the law followed. 

 

I don't have all this stuff figured out, I just (at this stage in life) hold to the belief that laws restricting freedoms of a different group are not the way to liberate or make another group more free. 

I hear ya - I was actually trying to parallel the choice discussion when I typed this but Im tired and couldn't form a rational analogy.

 

I just think that generationally (generally) we are improving with acceptance of all people.  My age is better than my parents etc.  Sure there are a$$holes at every age, and some parents will continue to raise their children to not tolerate differences.  But what as a whole we're better than that and we're getting better.  And the rest of us should be good examples.  If there are laws in place and a terrible parent says at home "gays are bad" but then has to clarify "but you have to treat them like everyone else in public or you go to jail" (elementary ex I know) then at least part of the message gets sent.  A kid at a minimum understands that socially they need to act a certain way toward others.

 

I can't control what is in someone's heart, but I can support ramifications for actions that are harmful to other humans.  And if we as a country can not agree to a baseline of human decency being expected out of people wtf man?

 

I'm still going to advocate for laying it out up front who you as a business do and don't support and let the public decide who to support.  My bet is that bakers like this would not be in business long.  Honestly I wonder how he's doing financially, or if that's part of the reason for the new case.  

[Landlord]

27 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

I hear ya - I was actually trying to parallel the choice discussion when I typed this but Im tired and couldn't form a rational analogy.

 

I just think that generationally (generally) we are improving with acceptance of all people.  My age is better than my parents etc.  Sure there are a$$holes at every age, and some parents will continue to raise their children to not tolerate differences.  But what as a whole we're better than that and we're getting better.  And the rest of us should be good examples.  If there are laws in place and a terrible parent says at home "gays are bad" but then has to clarify "but you have to treat them like everyone else in public or you go to jail" (elementary ex I know) then at least part of the message gets sent.  A kid at a minimum understands that socially they need to act a certain way toward others.

 

I can't control what is in someone's heart, but I can support ramifications for actions that are harmful to other humans.  And if we as a country can not agree to a baseline of human decency being expected out of people wtf man?

 

I'm still going to advocate for laying it out up front who you as a business do and don't support and let the public decide who to support.  My bet is that bakers like this would not be in business long.  Honestly I wonder how he's doing financially, or if that's part of the reason for the new case.  

 

 

To the bolded parts:

 

#1 - I 100% agree, and I 75% think it has nothing to do with laws, but with societal progression which laws follow. 

 

#2 - This is some scary Orwellian s#!t that I don't endorse whatsoever. I know it's a silly hypothetical I suppose, but that will be technologically possible at some point not that far from now and having laws that police what you are or are not allowed to say is to invite tyranny.

 

#3 - Me too, but there are a lot of times where harm is caused to one human by another that was no fault of anyone's, or at least wasn't derived from ill intent. So all the messy stuff comes when we decide which kinds of harm inflicted are kinds that deserve punishment. Killing someone in self defense is harming another human, but doesn't come with punishment. Driving drunk and hitting another vehicle is harming another human, and DOES come with punishment. What do we do about the majority of situations in between? That's what we're discussing, I suppose.

 

As far as the Colorado baker, the way he ran his business was no secret to anybody. There's also zero evidence that he acted in any way that was disrespectful, disparaging, or hateful, and there's some evidence that he was intentionally targeted because of his religious beliefs (esp with this new thing with the troll, apparently). I guess a law mandating physical signs outside of businesses is a thing we could do, but letting the public decide is already an established thing in our culture. How often do you go somewhere new to eat without checking google or yelp?

[Ric Flair]

1 hour ago, Landlord said:

 

 

Or it just makes "it" (the true sentiment/prejudice/action/whatever) underground and hidden from public discourse. Which is a similar argument I hear about abortion from pro-choice advocates. 

 

Laws don't change peoples' hearts. If anything, laws and even social norms that compel people to act in opposition to their beliefs usually harbor resentment and anger (hello, Trump's America). But, politics is downhill from culture and laws generally follow cultural shifts. Legalization of gay marriage, for example, didn't suddenly make all of America not have a problem with gay people. It was the opposite, where enough people had no qualms with the idea, and the law followed. 

 

I don't have all this stuff figured out, I just (at this stage in life) hold to the belief that laws restricting freedoms of a different group are not the way to liberate or make another group more free. 

 

This is a really solid post. I’m a big believer that law is nothing but legislated morality. One of the worst thing the Supreme Court can do is to to short-circuit a political debate and impose a national solution. Regardless of hiw anyone feels about abortion, that’s what they did with Roe. So we have decades of pitched battles over the Supreme Court as a proxy fight over who gets to decide whether abortion is legal. I don’t think Obergefell will be as big of a problem in that respect, but it could be in another. I’m a supporter of gay marriage, but part of me wishes the Court had let the democratic process play out on it. That’s just healthier for society.

[Nebfanatic]

I am under no obligation to take anyones money and the consequences of that will be sentenced in the court of public opinion

[Ric Flair]

2 hours ago, Making Chimichangas said:

 

I understand that.  My point is, these "religious liberty" laws make that discrimination legal and provides people like me with absolutely no way to address those grievances.  

 

The religious liberty laws are necessary because of nonsense like the story quoted below. Religious people should be able to practice their faith without being harassed. The government shouldn’t be in the business of making their violate their religious beliefs or compelling them to make  disagree with. But gay people should be able to go into businesses to purchase goods or services without being discriminated against. 

 

So we’re struggling to balance the two in a way that makes sense.and this kind of BS doesn’t help. 

 

Quote

Here’s what happened. According to a verified complaint filed today by my old colleagues at the Alliance Defending Freedom, on June 26, 2017 — the very day the Supreme Court granted Jack’s request to review his wedding-cake case — a lawyer named Autumn Scardina called Masterpiece Cakeshop and “asked Masterpiece Cakeshop to create a custom cake with ‘a blue exterior and a pink interior’ — a cake ‘design’ that, according to the lawyer,” reflected “the fact that [the lawyer] transitioned from male-to-female and that [the lawyer] had come out as transgender.”

 

Lest anyone wonder whether this request was made in good faith, consider that this same person apparently made a number of requests to Masterpiece Cakeshop. In September 2017, a caller asked Phillips to design a birthday cake for Satan that would feature an image of Satan smoking marijuana. The name “Scardina” appeared on the caller identification. A few days earlier, a person had emailed Jack asking for a cake with a similar theme — except featuring “an upside-down cross, under the head of Lucifer.” This same emailer reminded Phillips that “religion is a protected class.”

On the very day that Phillips won his case at the Supreme Court, a person emailed with yet another deliberately offensive design request:

I’m thinking a three-tiered white cake. Cheesecake frosting. And the topper should be a large figure of Satan, licking a 9″ black Dildo. I would like the dildo to be an actual working model, that can be turned on before we unveil the cake. I can provide it for you if you don’t have the means to procure one yourself.

And finally, two days later, a person identifying as “Autumn Marie” visited Phillips’s shop and requested a cake featuring a pentagram. According to ADF, “Phillips believes that person was Autumn Scardina.”

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/colorado-civil-rights-commission-jack-phillips-case/

[NM11046]

16 hours ago, Landlord said:

 

 

To the bolded parts:

 

#1 - I 100% agree, and I 75% think it has nothing to do with laws, but with societal progression which laws follow. 

 

#2 - This is some scary Orwellian s#!t that I don't endorse whatsoever. I know it's a silly hypothetical I suppose, but that will be technologically possible at some point not that far from now and having laws that police what you are or are not allowed to say is to invite tyranny.

 

#3 - Me too, but there are a lot of times where harm is caused to one human by another that was no fault of anyone's, or at least wasn't derived from ill intent. So all the messy stuff comes when we decide which kinds of harm inflicted are kinds that deserve punishment. Killing someone in self defense is harming another human, but doesn't come with punishment. Driving drunk and hitting another vehicle is harming another human, and DOES come with punishment. What do we do about the majority of situations in between? That's what we're discussing, I suppose.

 

As far as the Colorado baker, the way he ran his business was no secret to anybody. There's also zero evidence that he acted in any way that was disrespectful, disparaging, or hateful, and there's some evidence that he was intentionally targeted because of his religious beliefs (esp with this new thing with the troll, apparently). I guess a law mandating physical signs outside of businesses is a thing we could do, but letting the public decide is already an established thing in our culture. How often do you go somewhere new to eat without checking google or yelp?

I should have been more clear - with #2 I was trying to communicate that kids learn by a lot of influencers.  So a parent can be one way at home, but what they see in the world and how other people around them treat others makes a valuable impression. Sometimes a more impactful one.  

[knapplc]

This is getting ridiculous.  I can *maybe* understand if you didn't know this dude and you just wanted to get a cake and the whole thing was surprising to you, but people now know exactly who this guy is and where he stands.

 

So why go into his shop and force the issue when you know what the response is going to be?  And why would you, the atheist or the LGBTQ, want to give that guy your business?  And wouldn't it just be easier to find another baker? 

 

There's competing rights. And there's being a jerk. This sounds like the latter.