With various threads inspired by the Indiana religious freedom bill I’ve seen this concept introduced multiple times. The idea that gays should just walk away and take their business elsewhere if they experience bigotry. People seem to believe that if bigotry is permitted the free market will administer justice by means of socially formed economic sanctions, simple boycotts will stop gays from experiencing bigotry. Each time someone introduces this idea it’s pointed out that there is a history to show the free market doesn’t always result in justice, in some cases it the free market encouraged injustice.
I think advocating that minorities should just go elsewhere represents a real ignorance of history and ignorance as to the reality in which minorities are already forced to exist in. It isn’t about being turned away once. Minorities experience day to day discrimination throughout their lives and it is exhausting. Using the law to prevent businesses from discriminating won’t end discrimination but it at least offers some relief to minorities trying to function as members of society.
I considered putting a thread in great debates but we as a country have already had this debate. The free market lost it’s right to be the solution to social injustice. The Civil Rights Act was passed into law. We should not have to keep going back to debate it’s merits. Those who argue it is unnecessary may not be bigots themselves but they are advocating on behalf of bigotry wither they believe it or not.
Peoples rights to be bigots should not trump a minorities right to exist or do business in a place of their choosing.
Allowing bigots to turn away minorities doesn’t just force a minority to go elsewhere. It creates a minefield minorities have to walk through in order to go about their daily lives. It forces minorities to be advocates in situations they may not want to be.
People should be able to go into any business in the US and expect to be serviced. If bigotry is to be allowed there is no guarantee it would be fair about presenting itself. The general public could be ignorant to a business’s bigotry and only a minority of people would even know about it.
Lets move on from this concept and call it out as the ignorance it is. We as a society need to keep moving forward and not re-fighting these battles.
I like the elegant rebuttal / amendment given here.
Okay, if the new rule is, you can turn gay people away, first you have to post notices which state your intention to discriminate against them.
That way, you have properly advertised your bigoted intentions, and I, as a sane potential customer, can properly shun your business from day one of your new policy, and never, ever, ever spend another dime in your establishment.
And, I can then stand on the street corner outside with a big sign that says a bunch of hateful ignorant fucks operate a business here.
The way I see it, it’s free advertisement. They can get all the hateful customers, and none of the fair-minded people wishing to find a proper business to patronize will accidentally patronize their business.
And then their competitors will have quite an advantage. My goodness, imagine if Burger King was the only burger joint in town who didn’t discriminate against gays, I might even choke down their food and suffer through their horrible customer service, just to make sure I never spend a dime in their competitor’s shops.
Free market solutions right there.
I still say the superior solution is to prevent discrimination from being legal in the first place, but you open that can of worms, and I’ve got a box of sharp hooks as a response.
What’s the alternative? Government mandating that private institutions and facilities conform to their ideal of righteousness? What if they mandated that you must accept a gay couple’s request to be invited to a Super Bowl party in your home because you’ve invited other people? What of private citizens rights? I can’t be racist/sexist/homophobe if I want to? You’re essentially dictating how people think. I think that’s a bit more frightening than what you’re suggesting in your OP.
A private citizen and a business open to the public are two different things.
To be a business, you must surrender to the regulations and laws of the land.
If the laws say you can’t refuse to serve black people, then you still have your right as a private citizen to have nothing to do with black people.
The instant you intend to operate a business that serves the public, you stop being a private citizen and accept the idea of being regulated.
You can, on your own free time, in your own private space, in your own home.
When you set up shop to do business with the public, you’re not fighting for the right to think what you want. You’re fighting for the right to do business with the public, and the public and the government which represents the public have agreed on certain rules which must be obeyed.
Fail to follow those rules, and you can go back to being a private citizen with his own thoughts about blacks, gays, jews, whatever.
No one needs to care what you think, then. But if you’re purportedly doing business with the public, the public has a right to know you intend to discriminate against them, and if it’s in an illegal form, you surrender your right to be a business.
The Civil Rights Act is an alternative. If you are going to run a business you must serve everyone equally.
You can be a bigot all you want in your own home. If you want to turn your home into a business and charge admission to the general public you’ll need to follow the law of the land. I don’t care what you think, I care what you do.
Contrast that with those shops who do not become news stories when and if there are enough stupid idiots that this becomes widespread.
Struggling pizza shop decides to no longer serve to the gay community, and those who support said community refuse to do business there, and boycott each shop one by one.
And by the way, their shop closed down. They get the one time bigots get out of jail free card due to being a media story and successfully getting funds from bigots.
This won’t be the typical result.
The typical result is, pizza shop closes down, doesn’t make the news, no one gives a shit about ignorant fuckheads anymore once its not the top news story of the day in ignorant fuckville.
I’m aware of the situation. The law of the land in most of the land is not about to change, and this experiment in deregulating the bigotry industry will be successful or not, and history will make that determination.
Just because something is a law, or becomes the law, that does not mean it will always be the law, nor does it mean it is right.
The people of Indiana will decide whether they appreciate the direction their state is headed in.
The people who live in Indiana, do business with Indiana, or are considering doing business in Indiana, will also decide whether they appreciate it, and we’ll see what happens with that in due time.
We’ll also see how many businesses actually follow through with the memories pizza model, and see how many survive their first fiscal year afterward.
Well fuckhead I wrote the thread and it isn’t about the Indiana bill so there is that.
The reaction to the Indiana bill is proving a majority of people and businesses aren’t looking to see things changes. They are rewriting to bill to avoid this.
Please accept my 1000 pardons. Perhaps, though, you can understand my confusion, this thread started within days of the Indiana legislation, and “Indiana” being the 7th word in the OP.
Yes, yes, I’ll give you time to go back and count.
Pat Robertson has been able to support himself by making bigoted statements for years. It remains to be seen, the maximum number of people that can be supported in the bigoted statement market.
And this is my thrust. There is legislation outlawing inherent injustice, like rape and murder; but legislation outlawing how people should think or feel should be outlawed itself.
“Hey Sal, how come you ain’t got no brothers on the wall here?”
Sorry I didn’t include enough swears in my OP so I need to get some more in. You ignorant fuck, you’ll notice the thread title that led you to my OP didn’t mention Indiana at all, so unless you randomly click on threads without reading the title you might have noticed this thread is about:
No, it didn’t. Even with the bill, you can’t discriminate against any federally protected classes. And, if Bricker is correct, it won’t let them discriminate against gay people either, even though that’s what they wanted to happen. Civil rights are a legitimate government interest.
They can try to change the law, but we as a country aren’t going to allow it. The governor already gave in and is trying to get a “clarification” of the law to make sure it can’t enable any additional discrimination against gay people.
It was contained in both the title and the OP. Apparently Indiana is the only word your dumb ass can read. There are a half dozen threads specifically about Indiana if that’s the only thing you want to discuss. I’d be happy to explain your ignorance in those as well.
I think Bricker is correct. That particular law won’t allow discrimination against gay people. In the state of Indiana it is already permissible to discriminate against gay people so there is nothing to be changed.
If the governor wanted to prevent discrimination against gay people he should be looking to sign a law adding sexual orientation as a protect class, not amending a largely irrelevant bill.