{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Liberty Hub
7/6/2016 11:30:39 AM
43
[i]The issue is similar to the now-cliche situation where a Christian baker is asked to bake a gay wedding cake. The Christian ought to be able to refuse service to whomever he pleases - that's his right.[/i]
Except that that's not what happened. They were not sued because they refused to bake a cake but because they published the details of the lesbian couple online, a deliberately aggressive move that was intended to intimidate the couple. In fact the couple then received numerous death threats and general abuse. It probably didn't help that the baker started quoting leviticus at the couple either.
They could have just said "sorry, we're too busy", and that would have been the end of it, but they didn't.
English
-
I disagree. When that happened, my school and friends erupted with anger towards the bakers. I heard several people say, "These terrible people won't serve gays." Or "I hate these people because they won't serve gays." Or "These people should be locked in jail for not serving gays." Honestly, I talked about this issue with many of my friends, and we even had a long discussion in History class. And I can honestly say that this is the first I've ever heard of them posting information about the couple online. People would be outraged regardless if they had done that or not.
-
If you said they should go to prison for not serving someone a cake then more fool you.
-
Lolwut? That's what I heard other people say. I never said that myself.
-
Then more fool them.
-
[quote] It probably didn't help that the baker started quoting leviticus at the couple either.[/quote] lol
-
Let's imagine that none of that happened. The gay couple asks the Christian business owner to bake the cake. Are we going to force him to bake it? It's already a tired cliche of a situation, but it has a purpose.
-
Edited by Racebum: 7/7/2016 6:43:56 AMwhen i was a kid the local barber was very racist, in fact if a black came in at first he would ignore them and if they said something he would say " i don't cut your kind" and they left or said some shit then left. he's not in business any longer and this was just the 90s i'm talking about his business... society sorts this stuff out. today if you're a bigot people will run you off a few months ago a tow truck driver left some woman on the side of the road, he pulls up, he sees her bernie sanders sticker. says she should call the government for help and drives off. that guy was featured on the 5 oclock news, care to guess how many thousands of dollars he's lost? should we force them to bake the cake? probably not but it sure as hell is in their best business interest to shut up, bake it and then go on with their lives
-
But in the case were discussing, the bakers were actually given vast amounts of money because of their actions, which shows that sometimes you can profit from refusing service. It kind of nullified the whole argument that capitalism will sort it out for us.
-
Edited by Racebum: 7/7/2016 6:09:08 AMI really have no idea what to say about that. I mean it's obvious why they were given the money you have a lot of people who see it as a belief issue. It's not sustainable though. If this was going on across the country I really doubt every Baker would be receiving this much attention. I honestly don't see where Christians get discrimination as being ok. I look at the Bible and I see Jesus washing the feet of a prostitute. I guess they skipped that part. Personally I think a lot of people use religion to push a belief they already have. There's really nothing christ-like about bigotry
-
The underlying question here is how we deal with people that want the benefits of being in a society with millions of others, sharing in the rewards of that cooperation, but who are then unwilling to cooperate with some members of that society based on some sort of prejudice. Our society relies on us all at least trying to get along. A society that allows or encourages division is a society that will eventually split up into smaller and more likely weaker societies. So, for the benefit of society as a whole, we need people to play nice.
-
what i would give for everyone to understand this very simple concept
-
[quote]Our society relies on us all at least trying to get along. A society that allows or encourages division is a society that will eventually split up into smaller and more likely weaker societies. So, for the benefit of society as a whole, we need people to play nice.[/quote] You're willing to facilitate that transaction with the threat of violence, then? Because to do otherwise wouldn't be ethical? Okay. That seems somewhat contradictory, but fine.
-
I made no mention of violence whatsoever.
-
How exactly do you think laws are enforced? Simple. Violence and the threat of violence. If the owners aren't free to decline business on their own terms, then they're being forced to provide a service against their will. It's like taxation - we can all fill out our forms and ship money in, but it isn't optional. If you don't pay, at some point a man with a gun is going to come talk to you about it. Every law is backed with the state's premium brand of violence.
-
Force, you mean. Violence is one aspect of that, but not the only one. And yes, since we are physical beings, force underpins everything. That's just the universe we live in I'm afraid. There are ways of avoiding said force. For example, if you don't want to have to interact with other people in your society, you can find a new one.
-
[quote]There are ways of avoiding said force. For example, if you don't want to have to interact with other people in your society, you can find a new one.[/quote] Which, again, boils down to force. If you don't want to comply with the rules, you'll be violently thrown into a cage, or you'll be forcefully hauled out of the country. Back to the scenario, we have a business owner that doesn't want to engage in a certain transaction. I believe that the owner has a right to use their labor at their discretion - that nobody can rightfully force them to work against their will. You're willing to use force (violence, the threat of violence, it's all the same) to coerce the owner into providing the service. How is that justified? Does he not own his labor?
-
It was basically deemed that his right to choose who he sells to does not outweigh a person's right to purchase a product that is on general sale. Basically, if you don't want to sell to all demographics, don't make your services available to the general public. Don't have a physical shop that the 'wrong' sort of person can enter. The two ideas - the right to not be discriminated against versus the right to discriminate cannot coexist,but only one causes serious societal problems. I'd expect this to be a no brainer if you look at it in terms of societal health rather than individual freedom. Public nudity is a good example of this too - no one wants to see ugly naked people but some people want to be the ugly naked person. We have to say no, and use force to back it up.
-
Holy shit, why does everything you say boil down to authoritarianism and anti human rights? You're quoting Leninism at this point
-
Why do you never actually present a cogent argument?
-
[quote]a person's right to purchase a product that is on general sale.[/quote] That right doesn't exist. I went over this with CaptainWu. I'll use the same scenario. A man is selling trinkets on the street. A lady offers him $3 for a particular trinket. I speak up and offer $10 for the same trinket. My offer is objectively superior. However, the man sells the trinket to the lady. I've been discriminated against, but my rights were not violated. I do not have a right to force the vendor into a transaction against his will. It's his property - he can do what he wants to do with it.
-
Edited by Stickman Al: 7/7/2016 4:33:48 AM[i]However, the man sells the trinket to the lady. [b]I've been discriminated[/b] against, but my rights were not violated.[/i] No, not in the sense we were discussing. You haven't been discriminated against (in a way that is relevant to anti discrimination laws) simply because the vendor chose to sell to the lowest bidder. I'm not sure how that would happen though. If he refused sale because you're white (for example) it would be discrimination. You are getting mixed up between the word 'discriminate' and the discrimination laws. You must understand the difference between the two.
-
[quote]No, not in the sense we were discussing. You haven't been discriminated against (in a way that is relevant to anti discrimination laws) simply because the vendor chose to sell to the lowest bidder.[/quote] Make him a sexist, then. The vendor sold the trinket to the lady because he doesn't like men. The outcome doesn't change. My rights weren't violated.
-
According to law, yes they were.
-
Those laws are unjust. That's why I argue against them.
-
But the problem is that you're just asserting that they are unjust, not actually making an argument. We have two opposing ideas; the right to discriminate based on sex, religion, orientation or colour, and the right not to be treated unfairly because of your unchosen characteristics. Why should we suspend the latter in favour of the former?
