# Judge orders Colorado baker to serve gay couples **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 8, 2013, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792 "2013-12-08T01:57:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/141 "2013-12-10T04:44:11Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Oh, you ARE a live one, aren’t you? Did they just release you from the John Birch Memorial Ayn Rand School for Pseudo-Governmental Bullshit? Back it down. This is really doing nothing to promote a serious discussion. In fact, nearly everyone needs to tone it down. Personal remarks are not constructive. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/142 "2013-12-10T04:45:31Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Why not? Because you’re forcing them into an involuntary transaction. They’re not actively harming anybody that they need to be forced into stopping. Should they face societal pressure and shame for their bigotry? Absolutely. Should they be forced by law into serving people they don’t want to? I think the use of force where it is not necessary is a poor way of going about things. > [@](#): > > Absolutely, it has. The debate over gay rights legislation is one of the primary factors in keeping the gay rights issue in the public consciousness. It’s provided an invaluable platform for pointing out the issues with discrimination against gays, by arguing for the necessity of legislation protecting us. Perhaps most importantly, in states that have protections for gay people, it’s made it immensely easier for gay people to come out with out fear of losing their livliehoods. As a gay man, I would under no circumstances ever live in a state that denied me these protections, and if I’d been unfortunate enough to have been born in one, I almost certainly would not have come out until I could move somewhere where I could do so in (relative) safety. You yourself state that it’s the debate over gay rights legislation keeping the issue in public consciousness. I agree that keeping the issue in public consciousness is what is important. As gay rights also encompass rights that are denied to them by legislation, rather than just services by private individuals, we are not at odds here. As for gay rights protection having made it easier for gays to come out, I argue that the gay rights protection only came about because society was already becoming increasingly accepting of gay people. The protection in law is a follower, not a leader of public mores. > [@](#): > > This is, in fact, completely untrue. Firstly, the worst discrimination faced by gay people _in California_ is that they can’t get married. The reason that is the worst discrimination we face here (and a few other states, of course) is because we have strong laws protecting us. In other states, such as, say, Alabama, the worst discrimination faced by gay people is is that they can be fired, they can be evicted, or they can even lose custody of their children. Just for being gay. I’m searching, but unable to find dates for the protections that states have instituted for gay people. Could you lead me to a convenient source? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/143 "2013-12-10T04:55:30Z")
> [@Karrius](#): > > Really? The _worst_ ? Not the violence, the homelessness, the poverty, the being fired from your job, the being arrested for defending yourself? > > _That_ is what you think is the worst? Well, the government’s doing it, so clearly it must be… But _of course_ it is the worst form of discrimination because the government is doing it. How can that even be in doubt? There is no recourse there, no option. (note that being arrested is also the government doing it). All the other situations have a recourse - Any violence you face you can approach the law, if you get fired, you can look for another job, any shops refuse to serve you, you can find others. Any discrimination that is enshrined in law cannot be worked around. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/144 "2013-12-10T04:57:03Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > And this is not a good thing. But forcing someone by rule of law to provide their services when they don’t want to is also not a good thing. Nor do I think it particularly useful. It’s both a good thing _and_ useful. The fact is that people need products and services to function in society, and they shouldn’t have to walk a minefield where they are refused or worse if they guess wrong about the bigotry of a particular person or company. Nor should people be forced out of entire towns because no one there will provide products or services to them. > [@bldysabba](#): > > Social acceptance of gay and transgender people is already extremely high compared to a few decades ago. Has _any_ of that decrease in bigotry been driven by there being laws against it, or government? Of course not. Of course it _has_ been. The increased willingness of the government to prosecute people for using violence against homosexuals has helped a great deal. > [@bldysabba](#): > > In fact, the worst form of discrimination against gay people right now is government mandated - they do not have the right to marry and this absolutely needs to be, and can only be changed by legislation. Nonsense, the worst form of discrimination against homosexuals is violence and murder, and stopping those is most certainly the job of the government. > [@bldysabba](#): > > . As for the rest, why switch from the approach that _has_ been effective in improving us as a society? It’s not a switch. The most effective tool against bigotry has always been coercion by the government. It was the govenrment that ended decades of Jim Crow, not the free market. It was military force that ended slavery, not the free market. It’s the threat of police action that has reduced the amount of violent suppression against homosexuals, not the free market. The free market is \*at best \*neutral when it comes to civil rights, not a solution. ---
**Author:** ![Karrius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/71c47a/32.png) [@Karrius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Karrius)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/145 "2013-12-10T04:58:22Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > But _of course_ it is the worst form of discrimination because the government is doing it. How can that even be in doubt? There is no recourse there, no option. (note that being arrested is also the government doing it). > All the other situations have a recourse - Any violence you face you can approach the law, if you get fired, you can look for another job, any shops refuse to serve you, you can find others. Any discrimination that is enshrined in law cannot be worked around. “You can look for another job” is not a serious recourse any caring people would give, especially as we’ve seen that plenty of people are perfectly willing to let LGBT people suffer. Not being allowed to be legally married is bad, but shrugging off not being able to _eat_ or being _dead_ is a fuck of a lot worse. The things my close friends who are LGBT worry about sure as fuck isn’t getting married - it’s the constant homophobic jokes and bigotry that have to suffer through at their job, and the constant fear of getting fired and becoming homeless if they get discovered. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/146 "2013-12-10T05:15:39Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > Because you’re forcing them into an involuntary transaction. They’re not actively harming anybody that they need to be forced into stopping. Should they face societal pressure and shame for their bigotry? Absolutely. Should they be forced by law into serving people they don’t want to? I think the use of force where it is not necessary is a poor way of going about things. Again, you make many unfounded assumptions. You assume they _will_ “face societal pressure and shame” for their actions, instead of acclaim and profits. Again, there is the example of Chick-a-fil, which in return for openly supporting bigotry was treated to a massive show of support from those who supported its bigotry against homosexuals, as well as showered it with money. And of course they are harming people. Keeping people from buying what they need and forcing them to avoid or leave towns is most certainly harming them. And that’s assuming they don’t go the extra step of sabotaging or otherwise screwing over the people they hate, which they are going to be more willing and able to do when society gives them its stamp of approval for their bigotry by protecting their “right” to harass people. > [@bldysabba](#): > > The protection in law is a follower, not a leader of public mores. Nonsense; consistently, increased tolerance _follows_ increased legal protection. When people can speak their mind, openly be what they are and go where they please then tolerance for them increases; when they are forced to hide then it’s easy to demonize them. Again, there is the example of Jim Crow, which went on and on for decades without the increase of tolerance you are speaking of. Only when the government used force to break Jim Crow did racial tolerance begin to increase. > [@bldysabba](#): > > But _of course_ it is the worst form of discrimination because the government is doing it. How can that even be in doubt? Because it isn’t true. Being killed by bigoted thugs is a _lot_ worse than the government not letting you get married. > [@bldysabba](#): > > There is no recourse there, no option. Of course there is. You can vote, you can protest, you can run for office. Companies on the hand are undemocratic, authoritarian organizations; they can and will ignore public protests, and clamp down on their workers. You have a much, much larger chance of getting the government to change its polices than you do of changing those of your employer. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/147 "2013-12-10T05:36:24Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > It’s both a good thing _and_ useful. The fact is that people need products and services to function in society, and they shouldn’t have to walk a minefield where they are refused or worse if they guess wrong about the bigotry of a particular person or company. Nor should people be forced out of entire towns because no one there will provide products or services to them. No it is not. The fact is that people provide goods and services because they get value from doing so. When they do not participate in a voluntary transaction, it means that they are not getting value from that voluntary transaction. When we force them into a transaction with someone, we are _at best_ being neutral. We have left one person better off, and one person worse off. (If they were both going to be better off, we would not need to force the trade, it would happen anway). I argue that the use of force to achieve that result makes us worse off as a society. > [@](#): > > …violence and murder, and stopping those is most certainly the job of the government. We have no disagreement that stopping violence and murder is the job of government. This is why government discrimination is worse than discrimination by private citizens. Because violence and murder can be stopped by government. Discrimination by government cannot be. > [@](#): > > It’s not a switch. The most effective tool against bigotry has always been coercion by the government. It was the govenrment that ended decades of Jim Crow, not the free market. It was military force that ended slavery, not the free market. It’s the threat of police action that has reduced the amount of violent suppression against homosexuals, not the free market. This is strange. Jim Crow laws WERE government legislation. The only method to fight discrimination enshrined in legislation is legislation. You have no argument from me there. I’m arguing that discrimination in voluntary transactions practised by private individuals is better fought through debate, education and outreach. Use of force in these situations makes us worse as a society. > [@](#): > > The free market is \*at best \*neutral when it comes to civil rights, not a solution. I have not argued that the ‘free market’ is necessarily a solution. I argue that interfering with what should be voluntary transactions between two parties by trying to force a certain outcome on one of them is not a good route for us as society to take. Convincing people that ours is the better way will make us better as a society. Even so, the market is better than neutral. It imposes a monetary cost on the baker. He has lost business through his bigotry. I accept that this may not be enough to end bigotry and that we need to supplement it. I reject the notion that we need to use the force of law to do it. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/148 "2013-12-10T05:39:34Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > Because you’re forcing them into an involuntary transaction. They’re not actively harming anybody that they need to be forced into stopping. Should they face societal pressure and shame for their bigotry? Absolutely. Should they be forced by law into serving people they don’t want to? I think the use of force where it is not necessary is a poor way of going about things. Why is societal shame and pressure a preferable method over legal pressure? Particularly considering that legal pressure is actually effective? > [@](#): > > You yourself state that it’s the debate over gay rights legislation keeping the issue in public consciousness. I agree that keeping the issue in public consciousness is what is important. As gay rights also encompass rights that are denied to them by legislation, rather than just services by private individuals, we are not at odds here. > > As for gay rights protection having made it easier for gays to come out, I argue that the gay rights protection only came about because society was already becoming increasingly accepting of gay people. The protection in law is a follower, not a leader of public mores. I agree, gay rights protections could not have come about without increased acceptance of gay rights in society. That’s obvious enough to be a tautology. However, that does not change the fact that, even in places with a high acceptance of gay rights, without legal protections against discrimination, a lot of people absolutely would not come out. Even out here in California, there are _plenty_ of people who have no compunction about discriminating against gays - Prop. 8 is proof enough of that. I can tell you for a fact that I, personally, would not be out at work, or in any circumstance that could connect me to my work, if I did not have solid legal protections against discrimination. And I am \*far \*from unique in that regard. > [@](#): > > I’m searching, but unable to find dates for the protections that states have instituted for gay people. Could you lead me to a convenient source? Thanks. Try Wikipedia. Also, I’d like to state, for the record, that the idea that the worst possible discrimination faced by gay people in America is DOMA is so ridiculous, I damn near shit myself from laughing so hard. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/149 "2013-12-10T05:41:29Z")
> [@JKellyMap](#): > > Point taken, but you overstate the case. Certain government initiatives (e.g., the “gays in the military” thang) have indeed promoted the accelerated creation of a social space in which homosexuality is yet more accepted by society overall. It’s only part of the process, but don’t pretend it’s irrelevant. The gays in military thing is again an example of government practising discrimination, and I am entirely against discrimination by the government. It is also another example of government response being an extreme laggard, not a leader. It happened what, two years ago? ---
**Author:** ![Karrius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/71c47a/32.png) [@Karrius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Karrius)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/150 "2013-12-10T05:43:17Z")
bldysabba, what all do you think should be allowed to be refused to people that are found “distasteful”. You’ve mentioned you’re OK with them being denied work. Housing? Food, from a grocery store? Emergency medical care from a hospital? Medication from a pharmacist? What if those are the only ones in town, or the only ones available to the person in question? Should they just find a way to do without? At what point does denying these services deny the ability the person to live come into your consideration? ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/151 "2013-12-10T05:55:18Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Why is societal shame and pressure a preferable method over legal pressure? Particularly considering that legal pressure is actually effective? Because it doesn’t involve force, and it leaves out an instrument that is blunt, slow to change and distortionary. And Legal pressure is actually effective and social pressure is not? How did you bring the legal pressure into place at all? My contention, which you agree with, is that increased acceptance of gay people will have to come first anyway. The actual problem - acceptance of gay people - is being solved without legislation, or the legislation wouldn’t happen, and you say legal pressure is the one that is actually effective? We cannot be good and moral and non bigoted people without laws to force us into it? I differ. > [@](#): > > Try Wikipedia. I did. Information is scarce on the LGBT rights legislation page. It talks mostly about DOMA and on protection it mentions that 140 cities or counties have protections but does not speak about dates. > [@](#): > > Also, I’d like to state, for the record, that the idea that the worst possible discrimination faced by gay people in America is DOMA is so ridiculous, I damn near shit myself from laughing so hard. It’s the worst because it is discrimination being practised by the government. There may be worse discrimination in degree, but discrimination practised by the government leaves you with no recourse. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/152 "2013-12-10T06:05:18Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > Because you’re forcing them into an involuntary transaction. Okay, agreed. This is not a “good thing” in itself. Compelling anyone to obey any law is not an “end good,” an ideal as an intrinsic thing. Speed limit laws are not good; copyright laws are not good; laws against dumping mercury into the nearest river are not good. They are, however, absolutely necessary! > [@](#): > > They’re not actively harming anybody that they need to be forced into stopping. . . . Yes, they are. They’re harming the people they disenfranchise, and they also harm our entire society as a whole, by dividing it into parts with different levels of acceptance and access. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/153 "2013-12-10T06:11:38Z")
> [@Karrius](#): > > bldysabba, what all do you think should be allowed to be refused to people that are found “distasteful”. You’ve mentioned you’re OK with them being denied work. Housing? Food, from a grocery store? Emergency medical care from a hospital? Medication from a pharmacist? What if those are the only ones in town, or the only ones available to the person in question? Should they just find a way to do without? At what point does denying these services deny the ability the person to live come into your consideration? I posit you’re taking an absurd position to try and force me into a false dilemma of sorts. If everybody finds a category of people ‘distasteful’, you will not be able to find support to protect them legally in the first place. If there is enough critical mass of people to support legal protection for this ‘distasteful’ category of people, then they will have enough people to provide the services that the bigots deny to them. The point therefore, is that it is necessary to build a critical mass of people who do not view the ‘distasteful’ people through the lenses of bigotry, who see ‘them’ as ‘us’. This must necessarily, and has always, involved extra-legal means of building acceptance. I say that we cannot and should not achieve this by forcing people to merely _treat_ ‘them’ as ‘us’. Far better that we keep trying to remove the bigotry itself as we have been doing and succeeding. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/154 "2013-12-10T06:17:51Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > No it is not. The fact is that people provide goods and services because they get value from doing so. When they do not participate in a voluntary transaction, it means that they are not getting value from that voluntary transaction. A ridiculous argument, they are getting money. And money is valuable. > [@bldysabba](#): > > When we force them into a transaction with someone, we are _at best_ being neutral. We have left one person better off, and one person worse off. (If they were both going to be better off, we would not need to force the trade, it would happen anway). Nonsense. Forcing a bigot to _not inflict his bigotry on others_ doesn’t harm him; and even if it did so what? It makes society work more smoothly, and makes someone unhappy who deserves to be unhappy. > [@bldysabba](#): > > We have no disagreement that stopping violence and murder is the job of government. This is why government discrimination is worse than discrimination by private citizens. Because violence and murder can be stopped by government. Discrimination by government cannot be. Of course it can be, and is. Both by elections and by appealing to a higher portion of the government. > [@bldysabba](#): > > I’m arguing that discrimination in voluntary transactions practised by private individuals is better fought through debate, education and outreach. Use of force in these situations makes us worse as a society. No, it makes us better by reducing the effects of bigotry upon society. And you don’t reduce bigotry by “education and outreach”, you do so by forcing the bigots to act civilized while you wait for them to die off. “Funeral by funeral society advances”, to paraphrase a line about science. > [@bldysabba](#): > > Even so, the market is better than neutral. It imposes a monetary cost on the baker. He has lost business through his bigotry. You keep assuming that, when it’s not necessarily so; he may well gain business. You also assume that he cares. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/155 "2013-12-10T06:21:23Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Okay, agreed. This is not a “good thing” in itself. Compelling anyone to obey any law is not an “end good,” an ideal as an intrinsic thing. Speed limit laws are not good; copyright laws are not good; laws against dumping mercury into the nearest river are not good. > > They are, however, absolutely necessary! This is why I kept specifying ‘voluntary’ transactions. I am not making an argument for anarchism, or not force being employed at all by government. Force is required where someone’s unilateral actions impinge upon someone else. Why are speed limit laws ok? Because going over the speed limit is a voluntary action on your part, but it is not for whoever you end up injuring in an accident. Mercury dumping? Voluntary on your part, but not on the part of the people that you actively cause damage to as a result. Buying a cake? Getting photographs for your wedding? Not in the same category. You approach someone for a transaction that only affects the two of you. They decide they will not be better off by participating in that transaction. If you get someone to force them for you, they are worse off, you are better off, how is society as a whole better off? ---
**Author:** ![Karrius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/71c47a/32.png) [@Karrius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Karrius)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/156 "2013-12-10T06:25:01Z")
There is no false dilemma. I just want you to confront the actual results of your own positions. You immediately jump into “everybody” - are you aware that when I go to purchase food, I do not have _every source of food everywhere_ available to me, like your words are claiming? “Everybody” doesn’t have to deny someone something based on bigotry for there to be strong effects. Not everyone can get to many grocery stores (or any “grocery stores” at all for some people). Not everyone can instantly find a new place to work - in fact, pretty much nobody can. If a hospital or a doctor turns someone down, they may not have time, or access to find another provider. In addition, you have an amazingly skewed view of what actual demographics in some areas are like. Even if a majority of people are against bigotry, most of the time that majority tends to be heavily concentrated in smaller areas, creating what can basically feel like seas of hate. Here in Pennsylvania, for instance, there’s enough support for protections in Philadelphia (12.1% of the PA population, and 3x the next largest city)… but that doesn’t help anyone outside of that one major city, and it isn’t easy to move. These aren’t legal means of “building acceptance” so much as they’re legal means of protecting people from bigotry and hate. Am I correct in assuming that you support the right to refuse to rent a place to live to non-whites, a practice that’s still (illegally) widely in practice? If not, what do you view as the difference? ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/157 "2013-12-10T06:34:19Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > Because it doesn’t involve force, and it leaves out an instrument that is blunt, slow to change and distortionary. And Legal pressure is actually effective and social pressure is not? How did you bring the legal pressure into place at all? My contention, which you agree with, is that increased acceptance of gay people will have to come first anyway. The actual problem - acceptance of gay people - is being solved without legislation, or the legislation wouldn’t happen, and you say legal pressure is the one that is actually effective? We cannot be good and moral and non bigoted people without laws to force us into it? I differ. The result of not having anti-discriminatory laws did result in force repeatedly during the civil rights movement. Due to appropriate acts of civil disobedience our government was put in the position of using force for the benefit of the bigots time and time again. When African Americans waited in line at restaurants that refused to serve them the police were forced to disperse or arrest them. Should we have left the laws the same and continued to arrest people for wanting to buy a sandwich at the shop closest to where they live? Can we apply your same beliefs on gas stations? ‘Oh sorry we don’t sell gas to gay people, sure sucks the next station is 20 miles away, you’ll have to walk your faggoty ass down there and hope they’re willing to fill your gas can’ I’ll rest easy knowing someday the free market will correct the problem or maybe it won’t, we’ll just wait and see right? In the meantime, I better plan my trips better, because as you know it’s more reasonable to force the minority that is being discriminated against to suffer further than it is to force a bigoted majority to treat people equally. I really hope the local shoe store will sell shoes to gay people because I’m seeing a lot of walking in my future. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/158 "2013-12-10T06:42:55Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > A ridiculous argument, they are getting money. And money is valuable. If the money were more important to them than the bigotry, they wouldn’t need to be forced into the transaction, they would do it themselves. It is a basic axiom that is essential for defining voluntary transactions. If they’re refusing a transaction absent any external compulsion, they must necessarily be getting negative value from it. > [@](#): > > Nonsense. Forcing a bigot to _not inflict his bigotry on others_ doesn’t harm him; and even if it did so what? It makes society work more smoothly, and makes someone unhappy who deserves to be unhappy. If the bigot was going around inflicting his bigotry on others, say showing up at the wedding and chanting slogans, or otherwise inflicting his bigotry upon others, I would agree with you entirely. He is running his shop, he is approached for a transaction, and he has refused it. Deserves to burn in eternal hell? 🙂 I am again struck by how closely you and your arguments parallel religious fundamentalists. It’s striking. You are that which you profess to hate. > [@](#): > > Of course it can be, and is. Both by elections and by appealing to a higher portion of the government. Elections are an exceedingly imperfect tool, to say the least. At any point in time, myriad issues face the electorate and people running for elections. Discrimination that is enshrined in law has to become extremely unacceptable to a very large portion of society before it can be successfully rooted out. Support for gay marriage is at greater than 50% among the American populace and it still hasn’t come to pass. > [@](#): > > No, it makes us better by reducing the effects of bigotry upon society. And you don’t reduce bigotry by “education and outreach”, you do so by forcing the bigots to act civilized while you wait for them to die off. “Funeral by funeral society advances”, to paraphrase a line about science. Really? How are you getting the young to not be bigots? How are you getting support for the laws to reduce the effect of bigots on society? > [@](#): > > You keep assuming that, when it’s not necessarily so; he may well gain business. You also assume that he cares. I don’t assume that he cares about the monetary loss. In fact, in my model, he is willing to take the hit, but he has to pay money to be a bigot. It just imposes a cost on him that he has to bear for that bigotry. The market is not neutral. We have to work to reduce bigotry itself, forcing bigots to ‘act civilised’ does not improve us as a society. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/159 "2013-12-10T06:53:38Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > forcing bigots to ‘act civilised’ does not improve us as a society. It certainly makes it better for those faced with discrimination. > [@](#): > > It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2013, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792/160 "2013-12-10T07:21:39Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > If the money were more important to them than the bigotry, they wouldn’t need to be forced into the transaction, they would do it themselves. It is a basic axiom that is essential for defining voluntary transactions. If they’re refusing a transaction absent any external compulsion, they must necessarily be getting negative value from it. No, because money is valuable while bigotry isn’t. And again; why should I care? A bigot is unhappy that he’s not allowed to persecute someone? That’s a win/win scenario as far as I’m concerned. It is fascinating how often these days the Right complains that _they_ are being persecuted when they are prevented from persecuting _someone else_. > [@bldysabba](#): > > If the bigot was going around inflicting his bigotry on others, say showing up at the wedding and chanting slogans, or otherwise inflicting his bigotry upon others, I would agree with you entirely. And he is inflicting his bigotry on others. > [@bldysabba](#): > > Elections are an exceedingly imperfect tool, to say the least. They are certainly better than the “free market”. > [@bldysabba](#): > > How are you getting the young to not be bigots? By clamping down on the bigots and preventing them from terrorizing the targets of their bigotry into hiding themselves. > [@bldysabba](#): > > I don’t assume that he cares about the monetary loss. In fact, in my model, he is willing to take the hit, but he has to pay money to be a bigot. It just imposes a cost on him that he has to bear for that bigotry. So what? I’m far more concerned that he not harm others. > [@bldysabba](#): > > The market is not neutral. True; as a rule it’s _negative._ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples/675792.md?page=9)