I mean if they oppose the choice.
Say I run a bakery and, as we’re learning ought to be the case, my only moral motivation is the power of the almight dollar. Gay dollars as good as straight dollars. But I’ve hired a baker who objects to making cakes for same-sex weddings. Ordinarily, I think I have to make some reasonable accomodation for his religion. But I’m thinking I should be able to tell him to make the cake or hit the road.
Relevant article from the ADL (pdf):
If the bakery can get another employee to make the cake without incurring additional costs, it seems likely that they’d need to accommodate any old bigot employee who claims that God wants them to be a bigot. But if that would impose an undue hardship on the business, they can make the bigot make the cake.
At least that’s my reading.
Holy shit, that is one really, really shitty website.
You do know that Goldwater’s wife was one of the founding members of the Arizona chapter of Planned Parenthood? (In fact, I believe they named an award after her) Also, one of his grandsons was gay.
All about bronies. To put it simply, it’s a male fan of “My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic”.
I understand what a brony is. What I don’t get is the relevance to cake toppers.
I guess if someone wanted to put two MLPs on the top of their cake instead of the traditional wedding figures? (A friend of mine had two Ewok figures on her cake)
It seems to be based on a pretty ironic in the context of this thread sterotype being held by some here, that guys who like My Little Pony must be gay. Or that gays are more likely to like My Little Pony. Now I am neither gay nor a brony so I can offer little on this but my impression is that bronies are not particularly more likely or less likely to be gay than the general population of males. But it is the current (IMHO stupid) male hairdresser or maybe even male nurse meme.
Notice how the Left never argues the point with logic. They just name-call and and denigrate their opposition. Its straight out of their playbook “Rules for Radicals” by Saul Alinsky.
Which is why you signaled that one out, but not the person who started their post with “sir or vagina”, right?
Notice how the Right never argues the point honestly. They just lie and obsufucate the facts of the issue. Its straight out of their playbook “How to oppress minorities”.
Maybe you’d like to comment on how it was shown that “trust the free market” to protect civil liberties flat-out doesn’t work? What’s your suggestion - give up civil liberties?
Um… This might have been more convincing if you’d argued the point with logic, instead of just name-calling and denigating the opposition.
About artists’ rights – yes, there is the issue in art with what’s called “Moral Rights” which involves having the creator retain some sort of right of refusal for how is the art going to be used, and transfer of economic rights (ownership of the material object or the publishing rights) does not mean you do anything and everything you may want with it unless the creator has so assigned.
However,** can you copyright a cake?** We now would ask whether the nature of this application of skill really triggers that set of creators’ rights. (And I just got earwormed with McArthur Park, thanks a heap).
Wait, did the male flight attendants get knocked off the list? It’s because of that guy who grabbed two beers and jumped out the escape chute, wasn’t it?
I don’t know that copyright is really relevant here, but I’m fairly certain that a cake cannot be copyrighted. A recipe definitely cannot be copyrighted, and I’ve never heard of a food item being copyrighted. I don’t have a cite for this, but I have read that, since clothing designs can’t be copyrighted either, it’s perfectly legal to create designer knock-offs as long as they don’t violate the original designer’s trademark by using their name or logo. I would guess that knock-off cakes are also legal, provided there aren’t any copyrighted or trademarked images, brand names, or logos involved.
That flight attendant, Steven Slater, is actually gay.
No, a law that says all women do not have the right to vote, or that all black people must live segregated from all white ones is worse than some private individuals who make bigoted decisions. We are of course better off as a society if people with bigoted beliefs do not exist. But if they exist and we try and force them into involuntary transactions, that makes us worse as a society, not better. I don’t like bigots or bigotry either, but I don’t think that fact makes it ok for us to force them into providing their services to people I do like.
Education, outreach, and awareness is a better answer. It’s slower, more difficult and doesn’t have the simple satisfaction of ‘Order them to do it!’, but it is better for us as a society, and also more effective. It’s like criminalising drugs or alcohol. It’s the simple thing that seems to make sense at first blush (just like forcing bigots to sell cake) but you drive the bad behaviour underground and create more harm than you reduce, whereas the truly effective approach would be different.
This is, by itself, a very illuminating post. On the first page of this thread, we have posts from Der Trihs, where he argues that free market solutions don’t necessarily work to combat discrimination; from Budget Cadet Player, who analogizes the way legislation limiting anti-gay discrimination works to the way legislation limiting anti-racial discrimination works; drewtwo reiterating Der Trihs argument; Fear Itself offering a cite to relevant legislation; panache45, who doesn’t really make an argument, but takes a position against these sorts of laws; Una Persson offering first hand accounts of discrimination faced by her and her friends that was not remedied by the free market; and The Second Stone arguing the legitimacy of these laws from the perspective of intestate commerce. On page two, Gyrate relates issues with racial discrimination in housing, which could only be addressed by legislation; Left Hand of Dorkness points out that laws that can be circumvented in some circumstances, can still be useful over all; Northern Piper points out a significant flaw in another poster’s analogy for opposing this law; Senegoid, while not supporting them, defends the motivations of Barry Goldwater in opposing the Civil Rights Act; andros makes an interesting point about the difference between service and art. And on page three, there are thoughtful contributions from IvoryTowerDenizen, Really Not All that Bright, Karrius, and my own humble self. All posters who, if I’ve remembered correctly, identify as liberal, or at least left-of-center,* and who, in this thread, have at least tried to address both the problems with and necessity of these laws, using both argument and objective reference.
But you’ve managed to ignore three pages of such responses, to focus on a one-line dismissal of a poster so nakedly misogynistic that he’s literally calling all women vaginas, and you take that as iconic of liberals in general?
Here’s my question for you, Mangosteen. Where the fuck is your contribution to this thread?
*Apologies to any non-liberals I’ve incorrectly identified as liberals, and any liberals in this thread I’ve accidentally overlooked.
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. 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. 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. As for the rest, why switch from the approach that has been effective in improving us as a society?
In all fairness, shouldn’t the post Mangosteen was responding to have been moderated? I mean jayjay’s post. I always thought validity was not a defence for insults.
Great post.
And, uh, jayjay’s comment was in response to David Lango, not the “sir and vagina” guy. Both posters are Dec 2013.
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.
Why not?
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.
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.
Secondly, the fight for legal protections for homosexuality has been part of the gay rights movement literally from its inception. This is not a “switch from an approach that has been working,” this is the approach that has been working.
Whoops! My bad, but the overall point still stands.
Not my forum. Take it up in ATMB, if you have a problem with it.
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…